![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
When I restored the new edits, my impression was that the lead is not
WP:LEAD compliant (is very long and includes too much material, some not necessarily a summary of the article's material) and that making it shorter would be a good idea. I thought that the new edits were an improvement in that direction. I then assessed the article contents and noticed that these edits alone would not have been enough however, as at least some of the important material moved out of the lead should then be replaced by a summary in the lead, of course. Also, Anmolbhat's edit summary was missing; one was provided at the second revert but still suboptimal: Restore long-standing WP:LEAD, removed without discussion; it's understood
only means that you prefer the existing lead, without any detail. Per
WP:BRD, I invite
Zetret to discuss here and attempt to form consensus before restoring their edits. Thanks, —
Paleo
Neonate –
02:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Paleo Neonate, user Zetret here, The edits done by "AnmolBhat" should not be accepted and here is why; 1) The line "Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances used in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments" is added by someone to mislead the public, that conclusion can NOT be drawn from the citation - please review. That is why I removed it. 2) The paragraphs 2 and 4 in the LEAD are bizarre and provide no coherent information for someone trying to get an understanding of what Ayurveda is. I strongly suggest moving those to the "History" section. They are too long. 3) The last line of the first paragraph "In countries beyond India, Ayurveda therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use." is completely incorrect. The citation suggests a GERMAN book and contains nothing to verify what's been written. 4) Paragraph 3 talks about modern day implications, BUT is nestled between paragraphs 2 and 4 which are historical information about some ancient texts and speculation of how this practice MAY have come about. I suspect this is to intentionally trick people into not reading the paragraph where we clearly identify this as a "pseudo-science".
A lot of people are losing their LIVES by going to these fake clinics of Ayurveda, so the least we could do is to have a coherent LEAD for this topic, and to mention how there is no EVIDENCE for the efficacy of these practices.
Based on these four incorrect instances in the LEAD alone, I, I with considerable knowledge on this subject, can guarantee that you have been subject to a form of vandalism. My edits were to simply make this a better read. Thanks, Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
With this POV pushing you have reduced the remaining chances of getting your edits acceptedthat "POV" is mainstream science/medicine POV, so it would technically be NPOV... — Paleo Neonate – 17:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Capitals00, Zefr and Paleo Neonate - I PLEAD you to please read my four points again. I am a doctor by profession and these harmful practices are not a joking matter. I don't see any changes in the current version of the article. Paragraphs 2 and 4 have no necessity being in the lead. And there are false claims in paragraphs 1 and 3. I have very clearly mentioned the reasons above. At LEAST, consider moving paragraph 3 to paragraph 2 so it is not nestled between some incoherent statements about history of Ayurveda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret ( talk • contribs)
Capitals00, three of us have already stated this isn't POV pushing or WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, but basic medical (objective) facts. Can you tell me why the third paragraph in the lead can't be the second paragraph? I am not asking about removing content for now. Paragraphs 2 and 4 talk about historical Ayurveda, but paragraph 3 is about how it is pseudoscience. It is incoherent. What rule are we violating by re-ordering the paragraphs (for now). I genuinely want to understand your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Zetret ( talk) 05:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Capitals00 What do you mean? You haven't answered the question, "Can you tell me why the third paragraph in the lead can't be the second paragraph?". I never asked you advise about why I should write a blog and I am very much aware of WP:NOT. Although I can't prove it, you sound like one of those psuedoscience believing nut jobs which is probably why three of us already disagree with how you've been bullying people for no reason. Zetret ( talk) 08:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This whole intro section is absurd and putting Ayurveda under "pseudo-science" just shows peoples ignorance in anything about it. Most researchers - yes there are legitimate researchers in this area - qualify that Ayurveda follows a different paradigm than western medical research and as such new models are necessitated to validate its procedures and methods. I know this scares most western scientists who think they have a monopoly on "truth", but seriously look a little deeper - there is a vast and comprehensible logic in this system if you bother to study it for more than a few hours, though that would require you to step out of your western based colonialist educational mindsets and attitudes, which I know is hard to do. Perhaps you can start by reading an entry on this topic at a REAL encyclopedia https://www.britannica.com/science/Ayurveda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.116.100 ( talk) 17:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I felt that I had to bring this up here because the change that I made by removing a dubious and non-factual claim has been reversed twice. There is a statement in the History of Ayurveda section which claims that the "origins of Ayuveda has been traced to 5000 BCE". This claim is false because even the Vedas in India, which are considered the earliest Sanskrit literature are dated to only 1800 BCE at the earliest. Even the Indus Valley Civilization did not exist in 5000 BCE. How can it be justified to include this obviously false and misleading statement in the History section? None of the sources cited have the actual references (with statement and page no.) and even if the sources do state this, they likely refer to some popular tradition within Ayurveda which dates it to 5000 BCE. Passing off such folk traditions and popular beliefs as history is in violation of Wikipedia policy of excluding fringe theories WP:FRINGE and that exceptional claims require exception sources.
Please exclude this sentence or rephrase it to say that traditions within Ayurveda hold its origin to be in 5000 BCE but it is not a viable belief for the reasons stated above. ( Chetan vit ( talk) 16:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC))
"Ayurveda dates back to the period of the Indus Valley civilization (about 3000 B.C.) and has been passed on through generations of oral tradition."Anyway, I've tried rewriting the history introduction. --21:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
"With such attention to sanitation, they almost surely possessed a system of medicine, though no firm evidence yet exists to support this conjecture except for the discovery in Harappan remains of substances such as deer antler and bitumen, which are used in classical Ayurveda"and
From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge."And that's the references currently being used for the statement "Some scholars assert that Ayurveda originated in prehistoric times."-- tronvillain ( talk) 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
"The origin of Ayurveda is lost in antiquity."Where are historians supporting this 5000 BCE position? -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
"Dentistry In 2001, archaeologists studying the remains of two men from Mehrgarh, Pakistan, made the discovery that the people of Indus Valley Civilization, even from the early Harappan periods, had knowledge of medicine and dentistry.This is clearly an unreliable source, which also says
"The modern medical science would still envy the mention of the successful division of one foetus into 100 parts and artificial development into 100 full grown childern by Rishi Vyas to fulfill his words of the birth of 100 sons to Gandhari."
"rooted in an oral tradition extending back to 5000 b.c.e."What would a statement that vague even mean?
"However, Sanskrit has within its borders a vast array of ancient literature, including the foremost religious and philosophical works in India, the Vedas, of which Ayurveda, the science of life, is a small part. Among the early father of Ayurveda are the original practitioners of that science and art, Charaka, Shushruta and Vagbhatta."
"The practice is based on more than 7000 years of traditional use history."It's completely out of their area of expertise.
"Ayurveda (the science of living), is the literate scholarly system of medicine that originated over 2,000 years ago in South Asia."The existence of tooth drilling during the Indus Valley Civilization is not evidence of anything accurately described as Ayurveda.
"The earliest foundations of ayuverda were built on a synthesis of selected ancient herbal practices dating back to the early second millennium BC (47)."It does indeed also say
"There is evidence of teeth having been drilled, dating 9000 years back (51)", but again, evidence of knowledge of medical dentistry is not the same as anything accurately described as Ayurveda. That it is appears to be your own synthesis, because it absolutely does not appear in the text.
"Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable", and as pointed out above, the first two citations for the 5000 BCE number are Handbook of Chemicals and Safety and Safe Use of Chemicals: A Practical Guide - those may be reliable sources for chemical safety, but it's laughable to suggest that they're reliable sources for ancient history. The sources that you have been scraping into a pile to support the statement aren't reliable for that kind of information, and the sources that would be reliable for that kind of information don't support the statement, as I point out above. It appears to be entirely your own synthesis that the archeological evidence establishes that
"Ayurveda traces it's history over 7,000 - 9,000 years ago.. From sources you posted:
"The earliest foundations of ayuverda were built on a synthesis of selected ancient herbal practices dating back to the early second millennium BC (47)."
"Ayurveda (the science of living), is the literate scholarly system of medicine that originated over 2,000 years ago in South Asia."
"However, Sanskrit has within its borders a vast array of ancient literature, including the foremost religious and philosophical works in India, the Vedas, of which Ayurveda, the science of life, is a small part. Among the early father of Ayurveda are the original practitioners of that science and art, Charaka, Shushruta and Vagbhatta."
From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge."
We need reliable sources, not personal opinion of a Wikipedia editorAnd that's exactly what I'm concerned about here, that personal opinions are driving this rather than policy. Context matters.
"Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable". Also,
"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."--14:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
placed by scholars at around 6000 BCEAny idea who those scholars may be? I do not. In reviewing the potential refs above, attributing a time period to "scholars" seems to be as far as any of them go. The actual "scholars" are apparently unidentified. The lack of agreement on the time period across refs is a huge problem and indicator that we aren't working with reliable sources.-- Ronz ( talk) 17:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Ayurveda is said to be pre-Vedic, 5,000-6,000 years old or even older, (which would only be 3000-4000 BCE anyway) which certainly seems accurate: it is often said to be, as you have established at length. What you haven't established is any reliable sources supporting asserting it as fact in Wikipedia's voice against the many sources that clearly say Ayurveda originates with the Vedas (even the "A compilation of..." paper says
"The Ayurvedic concept appeared and developed between 2500 and 500 BC in India."Again, where are these supposed scholars that make this statement, without you engaging in synthesis and original research from ancient dental practices? We could try taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you like. -- tronvillain ( talk) 17:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC); 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
"Clearly we have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CIR", I'm clearly incompetent, so no wonder we aren't making progress.-- tronvillain ( talk) 23:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Numerous historians, academics have been already provided here. No one without expertise in medical field would ever write anything descriptive about these medical subjects since they are not qualified for it, nor they are recommended to do it. While all of these reliable sources, that I provided, they clearly pass the criteria since they are expert in the field and we can easily state a very general fact that has been reported by all these dozens of high quality reliable sources. You have been also provided the sources citing Indologists, which meets your made up criteria, still you are engaging in same problematic behavior. And the "many source" you talk about, after citing a single weak source yourself, shows no disagreement with the details of origins provided by many reliable sources. You can take this to anywhere you want, but you will only disappoint yourself with this approach and most likely end up getting sanctioned, since no one is going to say that Oxford University Press, CRC Press, Springer, WHO, etc. are not reliable except you. How about you consider removing all negative information about Ayurveda from this article since they contradict "many sources", would you do that? If you can't do that, then stop finding irrelevant sources, that you don't even understand. Repetitive questions like "where are these supposed scholars that make this statement", are not funny, you are clearly ignoring at least 8 reliable sources I proved here at 14:20, 3 April 2018, but given that you have been deliberately misrepresenting everything since your first edit, [41] I would say that we are having a conduct issue, and encourage you to stop this repetitive WP:GAMING right now. And @ Ronz: like I said we have a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CIR, don't make useless reverts based on your empty understanding of the subject and relying on misrepresentation of an editor who can't even represent sources properly. You are aware of page sanctions and been blocked and even if this page had no such sanction, such disruption is just not welcome. Capitals00 ( talk) 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Numerous...We seem to be having trouble identifying one.
"The origin of Ayurveda is attributed to Atharva Veda where mention is made several diseases with their treatments. Later, from the 6th Century BC to 7th Century AD there was systematic development of the science and it is called Samhita period, when a number of classical works were produced by several authors and during this period there is evidence of organized medical care."
Here are a few more reliable sources that says the same thing:
Ayurveda "can be traced back about 8000 years"
{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 1 (
help)Ayurveda originated as a traditional medical system in India nearly 8,000 years ago
Ayurveda (pronounced aa-yoor-vay-da), which originated in India around 5,000 B.C., is one of the world's oldest and most complete systems of medicine.
Ayurveda (translation: knowledge of life) is one of the oldest systems of medicine, originating in the Indian subcontinent around 5000 BCE (Meulenbeld & Wujastyk, 1987 Meulenbeld GJ, Wujastyk D)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)I have to comment on the above assertions by Lorstaking: I agree that we are having a issue with glaring incompetence here. Tronvillain in his edits[33] replaces reliable sources supporting the dating with "Ministry of Health and Family Welfare", an outdated and non-reliable source, "An Introduction to Hinduism", that makes no description of Ayurveda[34], and "Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts", that never made any mention of "Ayurveda".[35] I am also sure that this problematic content is being restored without checking the source, itself a violation of WP:ORIGINALSYN. You can't use sources that are irrelevant and lacks any mention of Ayurveda.
First, none of the sources replaced were reliable for the statement, as will be obvious to any neutral observer. Second, it's interesting to make accusations of incompetence when those were clearly citations for the date ranges of the Vedas (see the articles on the
Rigveda and
Atharvaveda). Third, it's again interesting to make accusations of incompetence when the Ministry of Health page was not used to support dating, but as secondary support for the sentence already in the article, "Ayurveda is a discipline of the
upaveda or "auxiliary knowledge" in Vedic tradition"
. Perhaps we could stop with the personal attacks based on misinterpretations of edits?--
tronvillain (
talk)
13:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tronvillain Even as I'm still assuming good faith, I have to remark that two discretionary notices have been posted on my talk page since I first edited this article a month ago, although that I haven't made a single edit here since my initial edits from a month ago were reverted. Apparently, disagreeing with the prevailing version of an article on the talk page is equivalent to disruptive editing. ( Chetan vit ( talk) 14:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC))
I'd rather avoid using ArbEnf as a way to settle this dispute, but the continued focus on editors may leave us no choice. Please follow WP:FOC and propose ways to resolve this that follow WP:DR.
I've tagged the section and initial statement as appearing exceptional, noting the sources are all in-world. This appears to be part of the cultural mythos, and questioning it may come across as a cultural attack. Regardless, independent, scholarly histories seem to be the obvious and necessary sources to resolve this. Otherwise we need to take it out of Wikipedia's voice, if we're going to leave it at all. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
"Ayurveda has antecedants in the medicine found in much earlier periods in India, and in texts as far back as the Atharv-Veda of around 1000 BCE (Zysk 1996; Bahulkar 1994). However systematic medical theory began to be formulated only around the time of the Buddha (ca. 400 BCE)."There's also this:Svoboda, Robert (1992). Ayurveda: Life, Health and Longevity. Penguin Books India. pp. 9–10. ISBN 978-0-14-019322-0.. It's already in the article, and says in its history section
"With such attention to sanitation, they almost surely possessed a system of medicine, though no firm evidence yet exists to support this conjecture except for the discovery in Harappan remains of substances such as deer antler and bitumen, which are used in classical Ayurveda."and
"From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge."The assertion "The origins of Ayurveda have been traced to around 5,000 BCE" could be clarified (that is, not implying that Ayurveda itself has been around since 5000 BCE) and expanded, even mentioning early medical practices such as tooth drilling and trepanation.-- tronvillain ( talk) 15:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
...that it is a direct descendant of the medicine of the Atharva-Veda, that it was always allied with Tantra, and that the increasingly popular diagnosis by pulse (nadivijnana), which is not mentioned in any classical text, is an ancient ayurvedic practice."-- tronvillain ( talk) 16:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The remains of Mohenjo-Daro in the lower Indus valley and of Harappa, further north, attest to the existence of a civilization of such a high level, from as early as the third millennium BC, that we may safely think that medicine might already have been advanced there, but they do not tell us anything as regards its actual development", and
In the absence of supplementary evidence, it has not been possible to determine the magnitude of the medical legacy from which the Aryan immigrants may have benefited.", as well as
It was only towards the end of the Vedic period that Indian medicine began to become observational and rational and progressively constitute itself into a consistent system to which the name of Ayurveda, the 'Science (veda) concerning longevity (ayur)' was given."-- tronvillain ( talk) 18:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Capitals00:: First one is a book on "integrative" practice, promoting nonsense as an adjunct to real medicine. Second is use-with-caution, a tertiary source and a section again written by proponents of nonsense. Third seems OK on the face of it. Fourth is more woo-mongering. In general, it is best to avoid anything devoted to proselytising alternatives to medicine, per WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Guy ( Help!) 20:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
"The origin of the art of healing in India is steeped in obscurity. 'Ayurveda' means 'knowledge of life'. The Vedas are believed to contain knowledge of divine origin, pertaining to all aspects of human life, which was passed on by the gods to certain sages, who became teachers and passed on the knowledge to their disciples. Ayurveda is attributed to Lord Brahma (considered as creator of the universe in Hindu mythology) and can be traced back about 8000 years.
I've gone ahead and qualified the information so it is not presented in Wikipedia's voice, as we've no independent sources. This has been brought up twice now. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This article is incomplete Wikipedia is used as reference in many studies We should keep this fact in mind while drafting Am interested in editing but never accept by our edit team Sreeretnan ( talk) 18:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This phrase is found only in the lead and this reader doesn't really know what it means. Can we improve it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
So there has been a slow edit war going on over the sentence "Other researchers consider it a protoscience, or trans-science system instead. [1] [2]" in the lead. This is summarizing sourced content in the body which says
Today, ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific on account of its confusion between reality and metaphysical concepts. [3] Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a protoscience, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead. [1] [2] [4]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
We should go back over the sourcing for the current tense "is" proto-science. That was my objection to this. Not a huge deal. Jytdog ( talk) 19:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The classical text Charaka Samhita defines Ayurveda as knowledge of "Aayu" . Aayu is a combination of four factors (1)Sharira(the body), (2) Indriya ( five senses, karmendriya and manas all totalling eleven indriyas) ,(3)Satva ( similar to the chitta of yoga philosophy), (4)Aatma (the soul) . All four in combination comprise of Aayu and the knowledge and study of aayu is the Ayurveda . Nikhilesh1712 ( talk) 13:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The lead has never attempted to define what Ayurveda is supposed to be .This should have been done in the begining of the article This classical definition is found in the charaka samhita. It is a extensional definition that describes the purview of Ayurveda. This puts to rest the solely holistic medicine approach that some people may use for Ayurveda . This definition is included in the charaka in the begining verses of charaka samhita . charaka is considered an authorative text of Ayurvedic literature . Its good that Roxy, and Tronvillian are taking tremendous efforts to make the article more authentic, inspite of not being related to Ayurveda, or not having read the charak samhita . 112.133.244.16 ( talk) 13:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
yes I agree with you Capital00, Girth Summit . A section called etymology can be created to put in the classical definitions of Ayurveda in the above article .The article looks incomplete without these authentic defining concepts.The article on Ayurveda needs to be better than a local newspaper article. It should convey at least some correct meaning to the new reader, or medical practitioner .Or this topic of classical definition can be added on the third topic of principles and terminology after the first line , as it would look like a continuation just to save some space . What do the editors suggest .Let me know 112.133.244.11 ( talk) 14:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Many editors editing this article are biased. We need fresh authors and editors for this article who can provide neutral ideas to this page. Please call on Requests for bureaucratship (RfB). Don't make Wikipedia a place for personal opine.
the article should mention that islam destroyed indian texts and had the intent to manipulate texts and the integrity of the vedas may have been compromised and sections of the vedas edited to mislead the hindu population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.204.87 ( talk) 16:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Roxy the dog and Retimuko, are you guys suggesting that Ayurveda is not historically tied to Hinduism? I can cite sources which say the contrary.
Rioter 1 ( talk) 06:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I have not reinstated the reverted edit, but I have restated a significant fact and relocated it with today's edit. Drobertpowell ( talk) 15:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The claim that there is no scientific evidence to support the use of any Ayurvedic substance is false. At lease one meta-analysis [1] and two review articles [2] [3] from reliable sources find evidence for the effectiveness of one Ayurvedic herb. Additionally, opium is used to treat pain in this tradition. This claim is well verified by science. Some rephrasing is needed. Wikiman2718 ( talk) 21:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
References
In the third paragraph of the initial section, it says "Ayurveda medicine is pseudoscientific.[12]" However, the provided source does not say anything about Ayurveda medicine. The claim should either have a {{cn}} tag or be removed
Over the internet you are searching for sources that call Ayurveda as pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is not a established mechanism. Ayurveda can't be called pseudoscience just because a few sources opine. There are other sources that call Ayurveda as the best medical system as well. Would you keep that in the lead? No, right. I call on Wikipedia bureaucrat to resolve this issue. Your arguments are not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.87.205 ( talk) 18:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I know what Bureaucrats do. I know how some of the people select the sources to prove their bias. There are many editors here who have a presumed bias over Ayurveda. The behavior of some of the editors over here must be checked. 103.10.28.56 ( talk) 07:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ayurveda is completely a old science. But not pseudo science. 2409:4065:11E:8ABD:905A:E2E1:EA82:9CB3 ( talk) 06:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pls change pseudo-scientific to vedic. Drvijayhatankar1969 ( talk) 13:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change Ayurveda is Pseudoscientific to Ayurveda is though an ancient but still extremely effective internal medicine 2405:201:1805:276E:14ED:99D3:753C:27A4 ( talk) 16:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Sir, I am practicing Ayurveda medicine since 25 years and a masters in Ayurvedic medicine. I have many cases which i treated successfully even after other medicine streams could not treat them. I can give many examples. Please tell me the format to submit an example of effectiveness of Ayurveda. Though Ayurveda is Scientific like a maths equation, I am not asking you to call it Scientific, i am just requesting to change Pseudoscientific to Vedic for patients benefit. Calling it a pseudoscientific keeps many patients away from Ayurveda and is an injustice to patients, and not to Ayurveda. Drvijayhatankar1969 ( talk) 01:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change Pseudoscientific to traditional ancient Vedic Medicine Drvijayhatankar1969 ( talk) 02:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Reading Ayurveda as with Pseudoscientific adjective is very painful and disruptive to all Ayurveda practitioners, Indian population and to patients who already have been benefited with Ayurveda science. Its an injustice for all the patients who could be benefited from Ayurveda. Drvijayhatankar1969 ( talk) 03:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The adjective Pseudoscientific to Ayurveda Is misguider for patients who believe Wikipedia content for true knowledge. This adjective has been added from a books reference which itself is a first hand experience and also from a book whose authors are not related with Ayurveda. My humble request to change Pseudoscientific to Ancient Indian Vedic science. 🙏 Drvijayhatankar1969 ( talk) 14:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ayurveda ia a traditional system of medicine , more than 5ooo yeears old,which is still prevalent in many parts of the world, esp INDIA. Ayurveda is derived from 2 sanskrit words ,ayur (life) & veda (science or Knowledge). 117.193.188.69 ( talk) 05:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ayurveda is described in the opening sentence to be "pseudo-scientific", which has a negative connotation for a field of medicine which has cured generations of people since millennia. It is documented information that works such as Rasa-Chikitsa are over a thousand years old.
I am a person of scientific persuation although - an Engineer with a Masters' degree handling scientific data eveeyday as part of my employment......hence well appreciate the limits of what is recognised to be science. I therefore do not insist upon calling it science, for varied nature of processes followed.
A negative connotation however can serve to dissuade one who is not in true understanding of what is "Science" and lead to ill opinion with unfair founding. It serves differently to have a section embedded deeper within the article which speaks of variation from processes recognised to be "scientific" - such as basis, acquisition of statistical data and repeatability.
Despite the above, people in thousands continue to be cured each year, of illnesses in a nature friendly (and body friendly) way.
Calling pseudoscience implies writing off positive experiences of an entire civilization (Indian civilization) since thousands of years. This amounts to soft reinforcing of western supremacism after attempts at erasure and alteration of history by ignorant interpretation for geo-political benefit by colonial powers. Effects of damage done by colonial rule continues by such brandings as pseudoscience in present day. The word not understood by most.....and truly understood only by some.
I therefore would like to request that any reference to pseudo-science be removed at the introductory paragraph. Prdasan ( talk) 05:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
1. I only contested where the term was mentioned in the article.
2. Would please present the sources you refer to as reliable for fairness. Prdasan ( talk) 07:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Girth and Roxy,
I have had a look at both references. They are not reliabe research from a University. Now, if I presented you with University done research publications containing basis, statistics and repeatability - would that be sufficient evidence to convince you that it is an established form of real medicine to cure a spectrum of illnesses - however limited that may be in comparison with modern modern medication!
Further if I may, I am eager to know your individual credentials in a field of science and perhaps examples of notable publications by each of yourselves.
Please note again, that I am not looking to convince you that Ayurveda is a Science since I am not researched that the breadth of it is documented using the scientific approach in years since forced westernisation of the Indian civilization - but that the term "pseudoscience" is inappropriate for a proven form of medication which is actively practiced and pursued today with great success in the Indian subcontinent and world-wide, including by highly educated individuals in the modern sense.
Warmest regards, Pat Prdasan ( talk) 16:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the first sentence it's misleading Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience it's the ancient traditional science based on its basic principles Pousepoulose ( talk) 13:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Also please see the ArbCom notice on this talk page. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk
14:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Karthiking123 ( talk) 19:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)ayurvedha is not pseudoscience..it is life science practicing in indian subcontinent for more than 5000 years
Thanks Karthiking123 ( talk) 19:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Based on " Kaufman, Allison B.; Kaufman, James C. (12 January 2018). Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science. MIT Press. pp. 291–293. ISBN 9780262037426. Ayurveda is a long-standing system of traditions and beliefs, but its claimed effects have not been scientifically proven." The topic Ayurveda has been deemed Pseudoscientific in the introductory passage.
/info/en/?search=Ayurveda#cite_note-2
If this book is the definitive guide to describing and defining various Alternative medicines from the world, then please uniformly apply this book's recommendation to Traditional Chinese Medicine, Unani, and Siddha.
/info/en/?search=Traditional_Chinese_medicine Salilasukumaran ( talk) 04:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC) /info/en/?search=Unani_medicine /info/en/?search=Siddha_medicine
Thank you Salila
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AAyurveda&action=edit§ion=new
This edit indeed has no consensus and it is unlikely to gain given WP:RGW and WP:HISTRS are relevant standards required to be maintained for these articles. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 18:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out that the page has been in Category: Pseudoscience for nearly five years, by way of a relatively large RfC concluding "There is clear support here for adding Category:Pseudoscience to this article as a result of the reliable source coverage of it as a pseudoscience." Tronvillian --08:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.
scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included" is decided by reliable sources meeting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, not what you are using so far, so this is not the case here. Siddsg ( talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
In response to editors participating in the discussion above reverting to their preferred version anyway, a request at WP:RFPP, and the presence of this protection for this article in the past, I have fully-protected this article indefinitely. I will not revert to any revision, do not ask me. This may be lifted in either of the following ways:
I'm on vacation starting tomorrow evening so you best get to it. Note that while discretionary sanctions are available for this topic and "consensus required" is already in place here, this action is not intended to be arbitration enforcement; any administrator can modify my protection without consulting me, but I ask you to see the note below.
Admins: please lower protection immediately if either of these two conditions are reached, or on your own discretion; you'll have my thanks either way. I ask only that you restore Favonian's one-year semiprotection (see the logs), and please leave a note on my talk page.
-- Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Ayurveda (as medicine) is barbaric pseudoscience. Unwatched. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Siddsg: give the page number (in the Springer book) please (as asked above)! Alexbrn ( talk) 13:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I was in the process of removing "or trans-science system instead" from the lede, when the article was protected. I don't see why it belongs. It seems to violate FRINGE by using a neologism to create false-balance and promote an in-world perspective. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 18:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Ayurvedic practitioner Ram P Manohar writes that Ayurveda has been alternatively characterized as pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and unscientific, and proposes himself that it should be termed "trans-scientific".[ref]
The trouble is the current text is not a supportable summary of the source. What do people propose to do about that? Whether it's in the lede, or body, or both, it is going to be necessary to change the text to avoid violating WP:V. This is kind of basic. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove "Although laboratory experiments suggest" as I did [68] and was reverted. This is typical alt-med whitewashing and pseudoscience, suggesting something that may or may not be, and that it's backed by science. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Trim paragraph. This is a standard mythology: information from the gods given to man. Trim the first three sentences, perhaps just summarize them in one sentence. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 15:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
We cite the 3rd edition (2013) but this has been superseded by the 4th edition (2019). It still says the same thing about Ayurveda. I updated [69] our ref to the new edition, but this was reverted by Capitals00. Capitals00, what is you reason for the revert? I propose citing the 4th edition as it is current. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Done.
Alexbrn (
talk)
17:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
When I restored the new edits, my impression was that the lead is not
WP:LEAD compliant (is very long and includes too much material, some not necessarily a summary of the article's material) and that making it shorter would be a good idea. I thought that the new edits were an improvement in that direction. I then assessed the article contents and noticed that these edits alone would not have been enough however, as at least some of the important material moved out of the lead should then be replaced by a summary in the lead, of course. Also, Anmolbhat's edit summary was missing; one was provided at the second revert but still suboptimal: Restore long-standing WP:LEAD, removed without discussion; it's understood
only means that you prefer the existing lead, without any detail. Per
WP:BRD, I invite
Zetret to discuss here and attempt to form consensus before restoring their edits. Thanks, —
Paleo
Neonate –
02:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Paleo Neonate, user Zetret here, The edits done by "AnmolBhat" should not be accepted and here is why; 1) The line "Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances used in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments" is added by someone to mislead the public, that conclusion can NOT be drawn from the citation - please review. That is why I removed it. 2) The paragraphs 2 and 4 in the LEAD are bizarre and provide no coherent information for someone trying to get an understanding of what Ayurveda is. I strongly suggest moving those to the "History" section. They are too long. 3) The last line of the first paragraph "In countries beyond India, Ayurveda therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use." is completely incorrect. The citation suggests a GERMAN book and contains nothing to verify what's been written. 4) Paragraph 3 talks about modern day implications, BUT is nestled between paragraphs 2 and 4 which are historical information about some ancient texts and speculation of how this practice MAY have come about. I suspect this is to intentionally trick people into not reading the paragraph where we clearly identify this as a "pseudo-science".
A lot of people are losing their LIVES by going to these fake clinics of Ayurveda, so the least we could do is to have a coherent LEAD for this topic, and to mention how there is no EVIDENCE for the efficacy of these practices.
Based on these four incorrect instances in the LEAD alone, I, I with considerable knowledge on this subject, can guarantee that you have been subject to a form of vandalism. My edits were to simply make this a better read. Thanks, Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
With this POV pushing you have reduced the remaining chances of getting your edits acceptedthat "POV" is mainstream science/medicine POV, so it would technically be NPOV... — Paleo Neonate – 17:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Capitals00, Zefr and Paleo Neonate - I PLEAD you to please read my four points again. I am a doctor by profession and these harmful practices are not a joking matter. I don't see any changes in the current version of the article. Paragraphs 2 and 4 have no necessity being in the lead. And there are false claims in paragraphs 1 and 3. I have very clearly mentioned the reasons above. At LEAST, consider moving paragraph 3 to paragraph 2 so it is not nestled between some incoherent statements about history of Ayurveda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret ( talk • contribs)
Capitals00, three of us have already stated this isn't POV pushing or WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, but basic medical (objective) facts. Can you tell me why the third paragraph in the lead can't be the second paragraph? I am not asking about removing content for now. Paragraphs 2 and 4 talk about historical Ayurveda, but paragraph 3 is about how it is pseudoscience. It is incoherent. What rule are we violating by re-ordering the paragraphs (for now). I genuinely want to understand your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Zetret ( talk) 05:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Capitals00 What do you mean? You haven't answered the question, "Can you tell me why the third paragraph in the lead can't be the second paragraph?". I never asked you advise about why I should write a blog and I am very much aware of WP:NOT. Although I can't prove it, you sound like one of those psuedoscience believing nut jobs which is probably why three of us already disagree with how you've been bullying people for no reason. Zetret ( talk) 08:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This whole intro section is absurd and putting Ayurveda under "pseudo-science" just shows peoples ignorance in anything about it. Most researchers - yes there are legitimate researchers in this area - qualify that Ayurveda follows a different paradigm than western medical research and as such new models are necessitated to validate its procedures and methods. I know this scares most western scientists who think they have a monopoly on "truth", but seriously look a little deeper - there is a vast and comprehensible logic in this system if you bother to study it for more than a few hours, though that would require you to step out of your western based colonialist educational mindsets and attitudes, which I know is hard to do. Perhaps you can start by reading an entry on this topic at a REAL encyclopedia https://www.britannica.com/science/Ayurveda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.116.100 ( talk) 17:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I felt that I had to bring this up here because the change that I made by removing a dubious and non-factual claim has been reversed twice. There is a statement in the History of Ayurveda section which claims that the "origins of Ayuveda has been traced to 5000 BCE". This claim is false because even the Vedas in India, which are considered the earliest Sanskrit literature are dated to only 1800 BCE at the earliest. Even the Indus Valley Civilization did not exist in 5000 BCE. How can it be justified to include this obviously false and misleading statement in the History section? None of the sources cited have the actual references (with statement and page no.) and even if the sources do state this, they likely refer to some popular tradition within Ayurveda which dates it to 5000 BCE. Passing off such folk traditions and popular beliefs as history is in violation of Wikipedia policy of excluding fringe theories WP:FRINGE and that exceptional claims require exception sources.
Please exclude this sentence or rephrase it to say that traditions within Ayurveda hold its origin to be in 5000 BCE but it is not a viable belief for the reasons stated above. ( Chetan vit ( talk) 16:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC))
"Ayurveda dates back to the period of the Indus Valley civilization (about 3000 B.C.) and has been passed on through generations of oral tradition."Anyway, I've tried rewriting the history introduction. --21:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
"With such attention to sanitation, they almost surely possessed a system of medicine, though no firm evidence yet exists to support this conjecture except for the discovery in Harappan remains of substances such as deer antler and bitumen, which are used in classical Ayurveda"and
From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge."And that's the references currently being used for the statement "Some scholars assert that Ayurveda originated in prehistoric times."-- tronvillain ( talk) 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
"The origin of Ayurveda is lost in antiquity."Where are historians supporting this 5000 BCE position? -- tronvillain ( talk) 16:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
"Dentistry In 2001, archaeologists studying the remains of two men from Mehrgarh, Pakistan, made the discovery that the people of Indus Valley Civilization, even from the early Harappan periods, had knowledge of medicine and dentistry.This is clearly an unreliable source, which also says
"The modern medical science would still envy the mention of the successful division of one foetus into 100 parts and artificial development into 100 full grown childern by Rishi Vyas to fulfill his words of the birth of 100 sons to Gandhari."
"rooted in an oral tradition extending back to 5000 b.c.e."What would a statement that vague even mean?
"However, Sanskrit has within its borders a vast array of ancient literature, including the foremost religious and philosophical works in India, the Vedas, of which Ayurveda, the science of life, is a small part. Among the early father of Ayurveda are the original practitioners of that science and art, Charaka, Shushruta and Vagbhatta."
"The practice is based on more than 7000 years of traditional use history."It's completely out of their area of expertise.
"Ayurveda (the science of living), is the literate scholarly system of medicine that originated over 2,000 years ago in South Asia."The existence of tooth drilling during the Indus Valley Civilization is not evidence of anything accurately described as Ayurveda.
"The earliest foundations of ayuverda were built on a synthesis of selected ancient herbal practices dating back to the early second millennium BC (47)."It does indeed also say
"There is evidence of teeth having been drilled, dating 9000 years back (51)", but again, evidence of knowledge of medical dentistry is not the same as anything accurately described as Ayurveda. That it is appears to be your own synthesis, because it absolutely does not appear in the text.
"Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable", and as pointed out above, the first two citations for the 5000 BCE number are Handbook of Chemicals and Safety and Safe Use of Chemicals: A Practical Guide - those may be reliable sources for chemical safety, but it's laughable to suggest that they're reliable sources for ancient history. The sources that you have been scraping into a pile to support the statement aren't reliable for that kind of information, and the sources that would be reliable for that kind of information don't support the statement, as I point out above. It appears to be entirely your own synthesis that the archeological evidence establishes that
"Ayurveda traces it's history over 7,000 - 9,000 years ago.. From sources you posted:
"The earliest foundations of ayuverda were built on a synthesis of selected ancient herbal practices dating back to the early second millennium BC (47)."
"Ayurveda (the science of living), is the literate scholarly system of medicine that originated over 2,000 years ago in South Asia."
"However, Sanskrit has within its borders a vast array of ancient literature, including the foremost religious and philosophical works in India, the Vedas, of which Ayurveda, the science of life, is a small part. Among the early father of Ayurveda are the original practitioners of that science and art, Charaka, Shushruta and Vagbhatta."
From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge."
We need reliable sources, not personal opinion of a Wikipedia editorAnd that's exactly what I'm concerned about here, that personal opinions are driving this rather than policy. Context matters.
"Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable". Also,
"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."--14:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
placed by scholars at around 6000 BCEAny idea who those scholars may be? I do not. In reviewing the potential refs above, attributing a time period to "scholars" seems to be as far as any of them go. The actual "scholars" are apparently unidentified. The lack of agreement on the time period across refs is a huge problem and indicator that we aren't working with reliable sources.-- Ronz ( talk) 17:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Ayurveda is said to be pre-Vedic, 5,000-6,000 years old or even older, (which would only be 3000-4000 BCE anyway) which certainly seems accurate: it is often said to be, as you have established at length. What you haven't established is any reliable sources supporting asserting it as fact in Wikipedia's voice against the many sources that clearly say Ayurveda originates with the Vedas (even the "A compilation of..." paper says
"The Ayurvedic concept appeared and developed between 2500 and 500 BC in India."Again, where are these supposed scholars that make this statement, without you engaging in synthesis and original research from ancient dental practices? We could try taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you like. -- tronvillain ( talk) 17:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC); 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
"Clearly we have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CIR", I'm clearly incompetent, so no wonder we aren't making progress.-- tronvillain ( talk) 23:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Numerous historians, academics have been already provided here. No one without expertise in medical field would ever write anything descriptive about these medical subjects since they are not qualified for it, nor they are recommended to do it. While all of these reliable sources, that I provided, they clearly pass the criteria since they are expert in the field and we can easily state a very general fact that has been reported by all these dozens of high quality reliable sources. You have been also provided the sources citing Indologists, which meets your made up criteria, still you are engaging in same problematic behavior. And the "many source" you talk about, after citing a single weak source yourself, shows no disagreement with the details of origins provided by many reliable sources. You can take this to anywhere you want, but you will only disappoint yourself with this approach and most likely end up getting sanctioned, since no one is going to say that Oxford University Press, CRC Press, Springer, WHO, etc. are not reliable except you. How about you consider removing all negative information about Ayurveda from this article since they contradict "many sources", would you do that? If you can't do that, then stop finding irrelevant sources, that you don't even understand. Repetitive questions like "where are these supposed scholars that make this statement", are not funny, you are clearly ignoring at least 8 reliable sources I proved here at 14:20, 3 April 2018, but given that you have been deliberately misrepresenting everything since your first edit, [41] I would say that we are having a conduct issue, and encourage you to stop this repetitive WP:GAMING right now. And @ Ronz: like I said we have a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CIR, don't make useless reverts based on your empty understanding of the subject and relying on misrepresentation of an editor who can't even represent sources properly. You are aware of page sanctions and been blocked and even if this page had no such sanction, such disruption is just not welcome. Capitals00 ( talk) 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Numerous...We seem to be having trouble identifying one.
"The origin of Ayurveda is attributed to Atharva Veda where mention is made several diseases with their treatments. Later, from the 6th Century BC to 7th Century AD there was systematic development of the science and it is called Samhita period, when a number of classical works were produced by several authors and during this period there is evidence of organized medical care."
Here are a few more reliable sources that says the same thing:
Ayurveda "can be traced back about 8000 years"
{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 1 (
help)Ayurveda originated as a traditional medical system in India nearly 8,000 years ago
Ayurveda (pronounced aa-yoor-vay-da), which originated in India around 5,000 B.C., is one of the world's oldest and most complete systems of medicine.
Ayurveda (translation: knowledge of life) is one of the oldest systems of medicine, originating in the Indian subcontinent around 5000 BCE (Meulenbeld & Wujastyk, 1987 Meulenbeld GJ, Wujastyk D)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)I have to comment on the above assertions by Lorstaking: I agree that we are having a issue with glaring incompetence here. Tronvillain in his edits[33] replaces reliable sources supporting the dating with "Ministry of Health and Family Welfare", an outdated and non-reliable source, "An Introduction to Hinduism", that makes no description of Ayurveda[34], and "Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts", that never made any mention of "Ayurveda".[35] I am also sure that this problematic content is being restored without checking the source, itself a violation of WP:ORIGINALSYN. You can't use sources that are irrelevant and lacks any mention of Ayurveda.
First, none of the sources replaced were reliable for the statement, as will be obvious to any neutral observer. Second, it's interesting to make accusations of incompetence when those were clearly citations for the date ranges of the Vedas (see the articles on the
Rigveda and
Atharvaveda). Third, it's again interesting to make accusations of incompetence when the Ministry of Health page was not used to support dating, but as secondary support for the sentence already in the article, "Ayurveda is a discipline of the
upaveda or "auxiliary knowledge" in Vedic tradition"
. Perhaps we could stop with the personal attacks based on misinterpretations of edits?--
tronvillain (
talk)
13:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tronvillain Even as I'm still assuming good faith, I have to remark that two discretionary notices have been posted on my talk page since I first edited this article a month ago, although that I haven't made a single edit here since my initial edits from a month ago were reverted. Apparently, disagreeing with the prevailing version of an article on the talk page is equivalent to disruptive editing. ( Chetan vit ( talk) 14:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC))
I'd rather avoid using ArbEnf as a way to settle this dispute, but the continued focus on editors may leave us no choice. Please follow WP:FOC and propose ways to resolve this that follow WP:DR.
I've tagged the section and initial statement as appearing exceptional, noting the sources are all in-world. This appears to be part of the cultural mythos, and questioning it may come across as a cultural attack. Regardless, independent, scholarly histories seem to be the obvious and necessary sources to resolve this. Otherwise we need to take it out of Wikipedia's voice, if we're going to leave it at all. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
"Ayurveda has antecedants in the medicine found in much earlier periods in India, and in texts as far back as the Atharv-Veda of around 1000 BCE (Zysk 1996; Bahulkar 1994). However systematic medical theory began to be formulated only around the time of the Buddha (ca. 400 BCE)."There's also this:Svoboda, Robert (1992). Ayurveda: Life, Health and Longevity. Penguin Books India. pp. 9–10. ISBN 978-0-14-019322-0.. It's already in the article, and says in its history section
"With such attention to sanitation, they almost surely possessed a system of medicine, though no firm evidence yet exists to support this conjecture except for the discovery in Harappan remains of substances such as deer antler and bitumen, which are used in classical Ayurveda."and
"From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge."The assertion "The origins of Ayurveda have been traced to around 5,000 BCE" could be clarified (that is, not implying that Ayurveda itself has been around since 5000 BCE) and expanded, even mentioning early medical practices such as tooth drilling and trepanation.-- tronvillain ( talk) 15:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
...that it is a direct descendant of the medicine of the Atharva-Veda, that it was always allied with Tantra, and that the increasingly popular diagnosis by pulse (nadivijnana), which is not mentioned in any classical text, is an ancient ayurvedic practice."-- tronvillain ( talk) 16:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The remains of Mohenjo-Daro in the lower Indus valley and of Harappa, further north, attest to the existence of a civilization of such a high level, from as early as the third millennium BC, that we may safely think that medicine might already have been advanced there, but they do not tell us anything as regards its actual development", and
In the absence of supplementary evidence, it has not been possible to determine the magnitude of the medical legacy from which the Aryan immigrants may have benefited.", as well as
It was only towards the end of the Vedic period that Indian medicine began to become observational and rational and progressively constitute itself into a consistent system to which the name of Ayurveda, the 'Science (veda) concerning longevity (ayur)' was given."-- tronvillain ( talk) 18:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Capitals00:: First one is a book on "integrative" practice, promoting nonsense as an adjunct to real medicine. Second is use-with-caution, a tertiary source and a section again written by proponents of nonsense. Third seems OK on the face of it. Fourth is more woo-mongering. In general, it is best to avoid anything devoted to proselytising alternatives to medicine, per WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Guy ( Help!) 20:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
"The origin of the art of healing in India is steeped in obscurity. 'Ayurveda' means 'knowledge of life'. The Vedas are believed to contain knowledge of divine origin, pertaining to all aspects of human life, which was passed on by the gods to certain sages, who became teachers and passed on the knowledge to their disciples. Ayurveda is attributed to Lord Brahma (considered as creator of the universe in Hindu mythology) and can be traced back about 8000 years.
I've gone ahead and qualified the information so it is not presented in Wikipedia's voice, as we've no independent sources. This has been brought up twice now. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This article is incomplete Wikipedia is used as reference in many studies We should keep this fact in mind while drafting Am interested in editing but never accept by our edit team Sreeretnan ( talk) 18:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This phrase is found only in the lead and this reader doesn't really know what it means. Can we improve it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
So there has been a slow edit war going on over the sentence "Other researchers consider it a protoscience, or trans-science system instead. [1] [2]" in the lead. This is summarizing sourced content in the body which says
Today, ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific on account of its confusion between reality and metaphysical concepts. [3] Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a protoscience, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead. [1] [2] [4]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
We should go back over the sourcing for the current tense "is" proto-science. That was my objection to this. Not a huge deal. Jytdog ( talk) 19:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The classical text Charaka Samhita defines Ayurveda as knowledge of "Aayu" . Aayu is a combination of four factors (1)Sharira(the body), (2) Indriya ( five senses, karmendriya and manas all totalling eleven indriyas) ,(3)Satva ( similar to the chitta of yoga philosophy), (4)Aatma (the soul) . All four in combination comprise of Aayu and the knowledge and study of aayu is the Ayurveda . Nikhilesh1712 ( talk) 13:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The lead has never attempted to define what Ayurveda is supposed to be .This should have been done in the begining of the article This classical definition is found in the charaka samhita. It is a extensional definition that describes the purview of Ayurveda. This puts to rest the solely holistic medicine approach that some people may use for Ayurveda . This definition is included in the charaka in the begining verses of charaka samhita . charaka is considered an authorative text of Ayurvedic literature . Its good that Roxy, and Tronvillian are taking tremendous efforts to make the article more authentic, inspite of not being related to Ayurveda, or not having read the charak samhita . 112.133.244.16 ( talk) 13:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
yes I agree with you Capital00, Girth Summit . A section called etymology can be created to put in the classical definitions of Ayurveda in the above article .The article looks incomplete without these authentic defining concepts.The article on Ayurveda needs to be better than a local newspaper article. It should convey at least some correct meaning to the new reader, or medical practitioner .Or this topic of classical definition can be added on the third topic of principles and terminology after the first line , as it would look like a continuation just to save some space . What do the editors suggest .Let me know 112.133.244.11 ( talk) 14:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Many editors editing this article are biased. We need fresh authors and editors for this article who can provide neutral ideas to this page. Please call on Requests for bureaucratship (RfB). Don't make Wikipedia a place for personal opine.
the article should mention that islam destroyed indian texts and had the intent to manipulate texts and the integrity of the vedas may have been compromised and sections of the vedas edited to mislead the hindu population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.204.87 ( talk) 16:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Roxy the dog and Retimuko, are you guys suggesting that Ayurveda is not historically tied to Hinduism? I can cite sources which say the contrary.
Rioter 1 ( talk) 06:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I have not reinstated the reverted edit, but I have restated a significant fact and relocated it with today's edit. Drobertpowell ( talk) 15:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The claim that there is no scientific evidence to support the use of any Ayurvedic substance is false. At lease one meta-analysis [1] and two review articles [2] [3] from reliable sources find evidence for the effectiveness of one Ayurvedic herb. Additionally, opium is used to treat pain in this tradition. This claim is well verified by science. Some rephrasing is needed. Wikiman2718 ( talk) 21:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
References
In the third paragraph of the initial section, it says "Ayurveda medicine is pseudoscientific.[12]" However, the provided source does not say anything about Ayurveda medicine. The claim should either have a {{cn}} tag or be removed
Over the internet you are searching for sources that call Ayurveda as pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is not a established mechanism. Ayurveda can't be called pseudoscience just because a few sources opine. There are other sources that call Ayurveda as the best medical system as well. Would you keep that in the lead? No, right. I call on Wikipedia bureaucrat to resolve this issue. Your arguments are not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.87.205 ( talk) 18:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I know what Bureaucrats do. I know how some of the people select the sources to prove their bias. There are many editors here who have a presumed bias over Ayurveda. The behavior of some of the editors over here must be checked. 103.10.28.56 ( talk) 07:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ayurveda is completely a old science. But not pseudo science. 2409:4065:11E:8ABD:905A:E2E1:EA82:9CB3 ( talk) 06:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pls change pseudo-scientific to vedic. Drvijayhatankar1969 ( talk) 13:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change Ayurveda is Pseudoscientific to Ayurveda is though an ancient but still extremely effective internal medicine 2405:201:1805:276E:14ED:99D3:753C:27A4 ( talk) 16:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Sir, I am practicing Ayurveda medicine since 25 years and a masters in Ayurvedic medicine. I have many cases which i treated successfully even after other medicine streams could not treat them. I can give many examples. Please tell me the format to submit an example of effectiveness of Ayurveda. Though Ayurveda is Scientific like a maths equation, I am not asking you to call it Scientific, i am just requesting to change Pseudoscientific to Vedic for patients benefit. Calling it a pseudoscientific keeps many patients away from Ayurveda and is an injustice to patients, and not to Ayurveda. Drvijayhatankar1969 ( talk) 01:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change Pseudoscientific to traditional ancient Vedic Medicine Drvijayhatankar1969 ( talk) 02:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Reading Ayurveda as with Pseudoscientific adjective is very painful and disruptive to all Ayurveda practitioners, Indian population and to patients who already have been benefited with Ayurveda science. Its an injustice for all the patients who could be benefited from Ayurveda. Drvijayhatankar1969 ( talk) 03:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The adjective Pseudoscientific to Ayurveda Is misguider for patients who believe Wikipedia content for true knowledge. This adjective has been added from a books reference which itself is a first hand experience and also from a book whose authors are not related with Ayurveda. My humble request to change Pseudoscientific to Ancient Indian Vedic science. 🙏 Drvijayhatankar1969 ( talk) 14:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ayurveda ia a traditional system of medicine , more than 5ooo yeears old,which is still prevalent in many parts of the world, esp INDIA. Ayurveda is derived from 2 sanskrit words ,ayur (life) & veda (science or Knowledge). 117.193.188.69 ( talk) 05:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ayurveda is described in the opening sentence to be "pseudo-scientific", which has a negative connotation for a field of medicine which has cured generations of people since millennia. It is documented information that works such as Rasa-Chikitsa are over a thousand years old.
I am a person of scientific persuation although - an Engineer with a Masters' degree handling scientific data eveeyday as part of my employment......hence well appreciate the limits of what is recognised to be science. I therefore do not insist upon calling it science, for varied nature of processes followed.
A negative connotation however can serve to dissuade one who is not in true understanding of what is "Science" and lead to ill opinion with unfair founding. It serves differently to have a section embedded deeper within the article which speaks of variation from processes recognised to be "scientific" - such as basis, acquisition of statistical data and repeatability.
Despite the above, people in thousands continue to be cured each year, of illnesses in a nature friendly (and body friendly) way.
Calling pseudoscience implies writing off positive experiences of an entire civilization (Indian civilization) since thousands of years. This amounts to soft reinforcing of western supremacism after attempts at erasure and alteration of history by ignorant interpretation for geo-political benefit by colonial powers. Effects of damage done by colonial rule continues by such brandings as pseudoscience in present day. The word not understood by most.....and truly understood only by some.
I therefore would like to request that any reference to pseudo-science be removed at the introductory paragraph. Prdasan ( talk) 05:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
1. I only contested where the term was mentioned in the article.
2. Would please present the sources you refer to as reliable for fairness. Prdasan ( talk) 07:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Girth and Roxy,
I have had a look at both references. They are not reliabe research from a University. Now, if I presented you with University done research publications containing basis, statistics and repeatability - would that be sufficient evidence to convince you that it is an established form of real medicine to cure a spectrum of illnesses - however limited that may be in comparison with modern modern medication!
Further if I may, I am eager to know your individual credentials in a field of science and perhaps examples of notable publications by each of yourselves.
Please note again, that I am not looking to convince you that Ayurveda is a Science since I am not researched that the breadth of it is documented using the scientific approach in years since forced westernisation of the Indian civilization - but that the term "pseudoscience" is inappropriate for a proven form of medication which is actively practiced and pursued today with great success in the Indian subcontinent and world-wide, including by highly educated individuals in the modern sense.
Warmest regards, Pat Prdasan ( talk) 16:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the first sentence it's misleading Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience it's the ancient traditional science based on its basic principles Pousepoulose ( talk) 13:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Also please see the ArbCom notice on this talk page. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk
14:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Karthiking123 ( talk) 19:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)ayurvedha is not pseudoscience..it is life science practicing in indian subcontinent for more than 5000 years
Thanks Karthiking123 ( talk) 19:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Based on " Kaufman, Allison B.; Kaufman, James C. (12 January 2018). Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science. MIT Press. pp. 291–293. ISBN 9780262037426. Ayurveda is a long-standing system of traditions and beliefs, but its claimed effects have not been scientifically proven." The topic Ayurveda has been deemed Pseudoscientific in the introductory passage.
/info/en/?search=Ayurveda#cite_note-2
If this book is the definitive guide to describing and defining various Alternative medicines from the world, then please uniformly apply this book's recommendation to Traditional Chinese Medicine, Unani, and Siddha.
/info/en/?search=Traditional_Chinese_medicine Salilasukumaran ( talk) 04:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC) /info/en/?search=Unani_medicine /info/en/?search=Siddha_medicine
Thank you Salila
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AAyurveda&action=edit§ion=new
This edit indeed has no consensus and it is unlikely to gain given WP:RGW and WP:HISTRS are relevant standards required to be maintained for these articles. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 18:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
It may be worth pointing out that the page has been in Category: Pseudoscience for nearly five years, by way of a relatively large RfC concluding "There is clear support here for adding Category:Pseudoscience to this article as a result of the reliable source coverage of it as a pseudoscience." Tronvillian --08:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.
scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included" is decided by reliable sources meeting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, not what you are using so far, so this is not the case here. Siddsg ( talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
In response to editors participating in the discussion above reverting to their preferred version anyway, a request at WP:RFPP, and the presence of this protection for this article in the past, I have fully-protected this article indefinitely. I will not revert to any revision, do not ask me. This may be lifted in either of the following ways:
I'm on vacation starting tomorrow evening so you best get to it. Note that while discretionary sanctions are available for this topic and "consensus required" is already in place here, this action is not intended to be arbitration enforcement; any administrator can modify my protection without consulting me, but I ask you to see the note below.
Admins: please lower protection immediately if either of these two conditions are reached, or on your own discretion; you'll have my thanks either way. I ask only that you restore Favonian's one-year semiprotection (see the logs), and please leave a note on my talk page.
-- Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Ayurveda (as medicine) is barbaric pseudoscience. Unwatched. - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Siddsg: give the page number (in the Springer book) please (as asked above)! Alexbrn ( talk) 13:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I was in the process of removing "or trans-science system instead" from the lede, when the article was protected. I don't see why it belongs. It seems to violate FRINGE by using a neologism to create false-balance and promote an in-world perspective. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 18:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Ayurvedic practitioner Ram P Manohar writes that Ayurveda has been alternatively characterized as pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and unscientific, and proposes himself that it should be termed "trans-scientific".[ref]
The trouble is the current text is not a supportable summary of the source. What do people propose to do about that? Whether it's in the lede, or body, or both, it is going to be necessary to change the text to avoid violating WP:V. This is kind of basic. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove "Although laboratory experiments suggest" as I did [68] and was reverted. This is typical alt-med whitewashing and pseudoscience, suggesting something that may or may not be, and that it's backed by science. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Trim paragraph. This is a standard mythology: information from the gods given to man. Trim the first three sentences, perhaps just summarize them in one sentence. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 15:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
We cite the 3rd edition (2013) but this has been superseded by the 4th edition (2019). It still says the same thing about Ayurveda. I updated [69] our ref to the new edition, but this was reverted by Capitals00. Capitals00, what is you reason for the revert? I propose citing the 4th edition as it is current. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Done.
Alexbrn (
talk)
17:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)