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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Veda does not mean science. It means book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.25.69 ( talk) 12:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
II | ( t - c) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The introduction paragraph says that surgery is called "Salya-Chikitsa", but the section on the Eight Branches states that surgery is "Shalya Tantra".
One of these needs to be corrected by someone familiar with the subject.
Oosterwal 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
First off, I'm no expert. I'm just your average jane/joe wikipedian, mosying along the wikipedia trail. This article seems to be in flux, to say the least. At best it looks like a brainstorm of ideas (verified and unverified); at worst, it looks like a wall where people just threw a bunch of stuff at and some of it stuck, and some of it didn't.
If I could throw a couple cents your way, I'd say this article needs a restructuring of sections. Something basic like, 1) History, 2) Medical Practicioning 3) Current practice 4) Criticisms. Unfortunately, I have no idea what any of the details are, so I can't really re-structure it competently. I'll make an effort, though, once I've done a little studying. But if you are better educated in these matters, I believe new, more comprehensive sections would spiffy-up this article very well. Rhetth ( talk) 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Moved from ImperfectlyInformed's talkpage:
All the subjects added in List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Religious_and_spiritual_beliefs predates sceitific methods. Whether it predates scientific method or not is not the factor to label something a pseudoscience. The same is applied to Ayurveda. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 07:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Succinctly link to references on the web here.
II | ( t - c) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Also potentially useful: "Herbal Products Sold Online Contaminated in 20 Percent of Cases" One in five herbal products used in so-called Ayurvedic medicine and sold over the Internet contain harmful levels of toxic metals, a study found. — Scien tizzle 19:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's already in the page, see the safety concerns section. I've revised the history section to reduce redundancy. Apparently one of the better sources on the history, the Bulletin of the Indian Institute of History of Medicine, does not have a website. [1] This is the best website they've got. II | ( t - c) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not Indian but I know it is certainly wrong to judge or measure any of the Ayurvedic therapies by the criteria of science. Precisely, Ayurveda is alternative to modern medical science – if you insist that the claims of Ayurveda be first proven through research, you are intellectually befuddled, because Ayurveda is beyond science. ‘Critics object to the dearth of rigorous scientific studies and clinical trials of many Ayurvedic products.’ Of course they do! Those critics believe only in science. Like Buddhism, Ayurveda has been there long before science itself was born and clinical trials were invented. If you insist on research to prove any Ayurvedic claim, you are in fact saying that research-based therapy and not folk wisdom is the only way to travel on the road to/of wellness. Even the Father of Modern Medicine, Hippocrates, will tell you that you are wrong. Hippocrates believed in the ability of the human body to heal itself, with a little help from Nature. Frank ( talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)frankahilario Frank ( talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please try to stay on topic. This is not the place for our thoughts on what Hippocrates would think about contemporary medicine. :p II | ( t - c) 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
JSR's article [3] completely removes the existing article. I've copied the discussion from my talk page, as it belongs here. Comments are welcome.
I have asked several other editors for their views on how the article needs to be expanded. Their opinions should arrive soon. Kindly let the shorter and completely sourced version stand till then. Regards, JSR ( talk) 07:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The invite was before your edits and now that my edits have been reverted I doubt that anyone has anything to say since the message read: "I have just finished rewriting Ayurveda using only the most reliable scholarship. Kindly take a look and let me know if you approve. It would also help if you could point out what more needs to be added to the article (except images of course, to which I get to soon). This edit was made using a draft I had prepared earlier and may not be perfect so please be sure to look and recommend."
Relax, I'm here to try and make the article better and not have any conflict. You have asked me to keep the reliable sources intact and to keep sourced material in the article and I agree to your suggestion. You dispute my edits so its up to me to work and address your legitimate concerns and I intend to address them.
I have read the article and I think we can work something out. Those images dealt with religion and not Ayurveda. I uploaded this one and it deals with Ayurveda. Will do more later.
JSR ( talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that you mean the below mentioned lines:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I removed 1 because I could not understand what the sentence meant, perhaps it can be reworded (insufficient evidence for what?). I removed 2 because the author tag showed Mamtani R, Mamtani R, which was wrong so I thought I'll remove it and fix it later. I have fixed the tag and replaced line 2.
I know that a lot of tags need fixing and a once-over is due. I'll get to it tomorrow. All the central elements including the three dosas and the eight ways of treatment are given in the article. Both Underwood & Rhodes (2008) and Chopra (2003) have highlighted the major aspects admirably.
JSR ( talk) 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I applaud JSR for his efforts to improve the article. His enthusiasm for contribution should not be diminished. However, wholescale replacing of an article created but multiple editors does not fit with the spirit of wiki collaboration and is probably not the best way to proceed. It was probably not JSR's intent, but it can been seen as antagonistic as well.
Why not make several proposals for discussion, maybe discuss even the wholescale replacement of the article, and proceed from there? It might be useful to put this to comment from the WP community as well.
Best regards, Djma12 ( talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of Wiki, the article in its previous form was incorporated in this version. The only part missing is the one without sources. The discussion above did start with me replacing the entire article with all but this version. Since the discussions held above I have incorporated all the reliable sources from the previous article into this version, which is completely sourced (every single line).
I'm sure that the above mentioned heading did seem like me replacing a article and removing all the sources bought by the previous editors, thereby violating the 'collective spirit' of Wiki. But since objections were raised after this edit of mine I have undertaken every possible effort to incorporate every source and sourced statement from the earlier versions to create this version (which is a result of countless editors adding sources and this draft of mine).
In other words the sources available in the present version ( this version) all existed in the version just before ( this one) but the article currently removed every single citation from here without exception. All of the references section here is gone.
I acted on a suggestion of 'incorporate my sources', 'removing all unsourced information' and 'incorporate all sources of those who were here before me'. I did just that but it seems that it has been taken that I was 'incorporating my sources', 'removing all unsourced information', and 'removing all sources of those who were here before me'.
Not the case. I think that misunderstanding has occurred and all sources here have been removed and unsourced information has been added (remember that all sources which stand now were there in the previous version).
Of course I understand why it might have happened. I did replace the content once with an all-sourced version but was reverted and it was suggested that I integrate the sources from the previous articles which is just what I did. The heading 'JSR's new article replacing the existing one' was true at one point on Sep 14 but not on Sep 15, when the reverts were made presuming that 'JSR's new article had replaced the existing one' when what happened was 'JSR's new article had incorporated the existing one' by then.
I incorporated all sources from the previous version and asked for feedback. When given then I improved it more and now was in the process of further expansion. The article right now has all the previous sources (which the reverted version also had), all the unsourced information (which is undesirable) and none of the sources from this version.
Regards,
JSR ( talk) 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
As this is an article about an alternative/complementary treatment, I don't think it requires as high an academic citation standard as an article on, say, chemotherapy. However, when we deal with the Scientific Evidence section, I think we need to stick with the academic citation standard as established by WP:RS.
As such, only original articles should be cited, including the journal they were published from. These articles should be peer-reviewed and accessible through pubmed.gov.
Djma12 ( talk) 19:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Look here, Meera Nanda articles such as this one [4] are not reliable sources. She typically makes libellous ( Swami Ramdev) remarks with a far-left bias indoctrinated into her by her ideological mentor, the ultra-Communist revisionist, hesperophobe and Naxalite sympathizer Brinda Karat). She is a FELLOW (no less) of the highly questionable intelligent design promoting John Templeton Foundation. Her articles are neither peer-reviewed (in political magazines) and not really academic (she has a PhD in biotechnology, not an MD in medicine). I suggest you find better articles from peer-reviewed medical journals rather than op/eds from ideocentric yentas. There are plenty of medical journals and studies that have scrutinized traditional medicines in recent years. Why not find a few, and remove this ideological promotion. Goingoveredge ( talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Following concerns raised by you, Nanda 2006 has been removed from the article. If you have further concerns then kindly note that the article may not be perfect since its a 'work in progress', as are other Wiki articles. JSR ( talk) 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a general systemic bias in this article, with the predominant references quote mined and selectively placed in order to disparage the subject. Note that far more balanced analyses of Ayurveda can be obtained by simply searching "Ayurveda" in the NCCAM web site. The acupuncture article uses NCCAM extensively to justify it's practices, yet these views are aggressively edit-warred out of this article. Why is that, I wonder? A balanced article needs to mention all the medical perspectives on this subject, not just the bad ones. This seems to be a pattern of hostile agenda-driven editing I'm seeing in many India-related articles. Goingoveredge ( talk) 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The lede has been bought on par according to the source you bought or the EB or Chopra 2003 sources. As for bias, Yes, the same thing was said a number of times and sources quoting Saper are still used multiple times when we have Saper 2004 itself. JSR ( talk) 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
BRANCHES AND SUB-BRANCHES ARE DISCRIBED IN THE BOOK: HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF AYURVEDA BY PROF. DR. SUBHASH RANADE AND DR. RAJENDRA DESHPANDE. THIS BOOK IS USED BY AYURVEDA COLLEGES IN INDIA AS OFFICIAL COURSE BOOK. THE AUTHORS ARE FAMOUS EXPERTS OF AYURVEDA.
INDIA PATENTING AYURVEDA: READ THE FOLLOWING LINK:
http://www.augustayurveda.com/showarticles.asp?id=121
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Yoga--ayurveda-being-documented-to-stop-patent-misuse-5095-1/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4506382.stm
- samar60 ( talk) 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Ayurveda is discussed in the above article, with references, therefore there should be a see also link to this article. Can people please stop editwarring and using socks to remove this list, and instead use the talk page to discuss it? Thanks, Verbal chat 10:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
That was a guarded response which gave us a conclusion only. Apparently others disagree with that conclusion and questions remain unanswered. I'm removing the link from the article due to lack of consenseus.
Greek, C. R. & Greek, J. S. (2002) in "The Philosophy of Science: Alternative Medicine and Animal Models", Specious Science: How Genetics and Evolution Reveal Why Medical Research on Animals Harms Humans, 36, Continuum: ISBN 0-8264-1398-6:
There is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven evidence based data and therapy and treatments that have not been scientifically proven...Alternative medicine is a pseudoscience...Alternative medicine. which includes a wide range of healing practices such as accupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy, herbalism, homeopathy, and even faith healing and psychic healing, cannot be considered science because they relay heavily on anecdote, testimonials, and belief rather than evidence obtained through careful study and repeated examination.
The List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts covers more than one Alternative medical system. For promotion of the "List of" article move the link to template: Alternative medical systems for better coverage instead of cherry picking articles.
Its just one wikilink and not a major issue. Time and effort would be better spent elsewhere.
JSR 0562 05:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not the case here: The "cherry picked articles" do not include Traditional Chinese Medicine, another article mentioned in that list. Accupuncture, Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Herbalism, and Homeopathy are also eligible for the same treatment as Ayurveda as per the above mentioned citation.
Ayurveda should not be singled out. You have to include other alternative disciplines as well or leave the idea of a 'see also' template in just one health related article on Wikipedia altogether. If you have to promote the "List of" article then add the link to the template, where it will be carried to plenty of articles. Making a case for adding it to Ayurveda alone may seem easier but will require some explanation.
Also try and reach consensus before reverting so much. Consensus helps in adding material. Adding content when people disagree is not worth a six word wikilink.
JSR 0562 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JSR that this article should be linked in Accupuncture, Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Herbalism, and Homeopathy as well as Ayurveda. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument for removing this article from this page. Please let's not do it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 10:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
My reply to SciecneAplogist: I was merely suggesting an alternative and asking for hold till consensus was reached on whether the link has to be put in here alone or whether it has to be put in a template that is connected to other articles as well, including this one.
What worries me is that when the same topic can be put into a template and connected to multiple articles in a few seconds (and that way it also stays in the Ayurveda article, among others) then why has it been thought that placing it in one article alone is the only way to do things?
template: Alternative medical systems is also connected to Ayurveda so a removal from 'see also' and a shift to : template: Alternative medical systems would have meant that the link would have stayed in the Ayurveda article without removal.
JSR 0562 11:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist is a prolific wikipedian who is well-known for combating pseudoscience in wikipedia and his/her contribution in pseudoscience related articles is excepted and required. If you want to add the link to template: Alternative medical systems, there should be a discussion in the template talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 11:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The list entry is now called "Maharishi's Ayurveda" and points to Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health -- Enric Naval ( talk) 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the see also list from the article because I think it is stupid to have a see also list in an article. It's lazy editing. We should be able to incorporate relevant links into the article and since there are no shortage of editors active here, we should have no problem writing sentences that incorporate each of these links into the article.
In particular, I think a link to pseudoscience would be good. Here is an article expressly criticizing Ayurveda as pseudoscience by Meera Nanda who obtained a Ph.D. in biotechnology from the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, before moving on to the field of philosophy of science. She is currently a research fellow of the Templeton Foundation. An excellent thing for the LEAD, I would say, wouldn't you all?
This removes this stupid problem of having an unannoted list of "related topics" at the end of the article.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 11:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Its the best suggestion I have heard thus far. Removing the 'See Also' list and adding something from a well published book into the article can solve this issue once and for all. As for Nanda, concerns were raised earlier in the Meera_Nanda section but the idea of adding something from a well published source itself seems to be worth working on.
I need a few hours to add some material in the article as per your suggestion (I need to get to some books or search online for some and that would take some time).
JSR 0562 12:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It's an article from a magazine, but per WP:PARITY, since most of Ayurveda is sourced from sources which share in a similar amount of rigor, there is no problem referencing it. I agree with you, JSR, that if there are better sources we can include them as well. However, I have a really hard time with people removing sources due to false claims of reliability or a desire to keep away "magnets for attacks". Bring on more sources, keep the old. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. The sources given here are better than Nanda, almost every single one of them. Lets not debate Nanda when we know she generally does good work regardless of this citation quality. In any case, It would be best if you ended the article using a few lines and give the involved parties a rest (although we may have engaged you for too long as well).
The Safety Concerns section can do with a short conclusion. Regards, JSR 0562 12:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Here are some references.
Some are scholarly source, some are not. But can serve a good starting point. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I placed a neutrality tag on the article because while reading through it, I found it to be consistently positive about its efficacy, even in the sections "Scientific evidence" and "Safety concerns." While it's true that scientific studies are lacking, it is certainly not embraced by the scientific community or Western medical community as one might think after reading this. I would like to learn more about scientific criticism of Ayurveda, but there doesn't seem to be much available here. Does anyone know where I could find more information about criticism so that I can eventually balance this article out to become more NPOV? -- Ships at a Distance ( talk) 00:42, 15 January 2009 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Veda does not mean science. It means book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.25.69 ( talk) 12:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
II | ( t - c) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The introduction paragraph says that surgery is called "Salya-Chikitsa", but the section on the Eight Branches states that surgery is "Shalya Tantra".
One of these needs to be corrected by someone familiar with the subject.
Oosterwal 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
First off, I'm no expert. I'm just your average jane/joe wikipedian, mosying along the wikipedia trail. This article seems to be in flux, to say the least. At best it looks like a brainstorm of ideas (verified and unverified); at worst, it looks like a wall where people just threw a bunch of stuff at and some of it stuck, and some of it didn't.
If I could throw a couple cents your way, I'd say this article needs a restructuring of sections. Something basic like, 1) History, 2) Medical Practicioning 3) Current practice 4) Criticisms. Unfortunately, I have no idea what any of the details are, so I can't really re-structure it competently. I'll make an effort, though, once I've done a little studying. But if you are better educated in these matters, I believe new, more comprehensive sections would spiffy-up this article very well. Rhetth ( talk) 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Moved from ImperfectlyInformed's talkpage:
All the subjects added in List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Religious_and_spiritual_beliefs predates sceitific methods. Whether it predates scientific method or not is not the factor to label something a pseudoscience. The same is applied to Ayurveda. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 07:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Succinctly link to references on the web here.
II | ( t - c) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Also potentially useful: "Herbal Products Sold Online Contaminated in 20 Percent of Cases" One in five herbal products used in so-called Ayurvedic medicine and sold over the Internet contain harmful levels of toxic metals, a study found. — Scien tizzle 19:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's already in the page, see the safety concerns section. I've revised the history section to reduce redundancy. Apparently one of the better sources on the history, the Bulletin of the Indian Institute of History of Medicine, does not have a website. [1] This is the best website they've got. II | ( t - c) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not Indian but I know it is certainly wrong to judge or measure any of the Ayurvedic therapies by the criteria of science. Precisely, Ayurveda is alternative to modern medical science – if you insist that the claims of Ayurveda be first proven through research, you are intellectually befuddled, because Ayurveda is beyond science. ‘Critics object to the dearth of rigorous scientific studies and clinical trials of many Ayurvedic products.’ Of course they do! Those critics believe only in science. Like Buddhism, Ayurveda has been there long before science itself was born and clinical trials were invented. If you insist on research to prove any Ayurvedic claim, you are in fact saying that research-based therapy and not folk wisdom is the only way to travel on the road to/of wellness. Even the Father of Modern Medicine, Hippocrates, will tell you that you are wrong. Hippocrates believed in the ability of the human body to heal itself, with a little help from Nature. Frank ( talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)frankahilario Frank ( talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please try to stay on topic. This is not the place for our thoughts on what Hippocrates would think about contemporary medicine. :p II | ( t - c) 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
JSR's article [3] completely removes the existing article. I've copied the discussion from my talk page, as it belongs here. Comments are welcome.
I have asked several other editors for their views on how the article needs to be expanded. Their opinions should arrive soon. Kindly let the shorter and completely sourced version stand till then. Regards, JSR ( talk) 07:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The invite was before your edits and now that my edits have been reverted I doubt that anyone has anything to say since the message read: "I have just finished rewriting Ayurveda using only the most reliable scholarship. Kindly take a look and let me know if you approve. It would also help if you could point out what more needs to be added to the article (except images of course, to which I get to soon). This edit was made using a draft I had prepared earlier and may not be perfect so please be sure to look and recommend."
Relax, I'm here to try and make the article better and not have any conflict. You have asked me to keep the reliable sources intact and to keep sourced material in the article and I agree to your suggestion. You dispute my edits so its up to me to work and address your legitimate concerns and I intend to address them.
I have read the article and I think we can work something out. Those images dealt with religion and not Ayurveda. I uploaded this one and it deals with Ayurveda. Will do more later.
JSR ( talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that you mean the below mentioned lines:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I removed 1 because I could not understand what the sentence meant, perhaps it can be reworded (insufficient evidence for what?). I removed 2 because the author tag showed Mamtani R, Mamtani R, which was wrong so I thought I'll remove it and fix it later. I have fixed the tag and replaced line 2.
I know that a lot of tags need fixing and a once-over is due. I'll get to it tomorrow. All the central elements including the three dosas and the eight ways of treatment are given in the article. Both Underwood & Rhodes (2008) and Chopra (2003) have highlighted the major aspects admirably.
JSR ( talk) 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I applaud JSR for his efforts to improve the article. His enthusiasm for contribution should not be diminished. However, wholescale replacing of an article created but multiple editors does not fit with the spirit of wiki collaboration and is probably not the best way to proceed. It was probably not JSR's intent, but it can been seen as antagonistic as well.
Why not make several proposals for discussion, maybe discuss even the wholescale replacement of the article, and proceed from there? It might be useful to put this to comment from the WP community as well.
Best regards, Djma12 ( talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of Wiki, the article in its previous form was incorporated in this version. The only part missing is the one without sources. The discussion above did start with me replacing the entire article with all but this version. Since the discussions held above I have incorporated all the reliable sources from the previous article into this version, which is completely sourced (every single line).
I'm sure that the above mentioned heading did seem like me replacing a article and removing all the sources bought by the previous editors, thereby violating the 'collective spirit' of Wiki. But since objections were raised after this edit of mine I have undertaken every possible effort to incorporate every source and sourced statement from the earlier versions to create this version (which is a result of countless editors adding sources and this draft of mine).
In other words the sources available in the present version ( this version) all existed in the version just before ( this one) but the article currently removed every single citation from here without exception. All of the references section here is gone.
I acted on a suggestion of 'incorporate my sources', 'removing all unsourced information' and 'incorporate all sources of those who were here before me'. I did just that but it seems that it has been taken that I was 'incorporating my sources', 'removing all unsourced information', and 'removing all sources of those who were here before me'.
Not the case. I think that misunderstanding has occurred and all sources here have been removed and unsourced information has been added (remember that all sources which stand now were there in the previous version).
Of course I understand why it might have happened. I did replace the content once with an all-sourced version but was reverted and it was suggested that I integrate the sources from the previous articles which is just what I did. The heading 'JSR's new article replacing the existing one' was true at one point on Sep 14 but not on Sep 15, when the reverts were made presuming that 'JSR's new article had replaced the existing one' when what happened was 'JSR's new article had incorporated the existing one' by then.
I incorporated all sources from the previous version and asked for feedback. When given then I improved it more and now was in the process of further expansion. The article right now has all the previous sources (which the reverted version also had), all the unsourced information (which is undesirable) and none of the sources from this version.
Regards,
JSR ( talk) 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
As this is an article about an alternative/complementary treatment, I don't think it requires as high an academic citation standard as an article on, say, chemotherapy. However, when we deal with the Scientific Evidence section, I think we need to stick with the academic citation standard as established by WP:RS.
As such, only original articles should be cited, including the journal they were published from. These articles should be peer-reviewed and accessible through pubmed.gov.
Djma12 ( talk) 19:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Look here, Meera Nanda articles such as this one [4] are not reliable sources. She typically makes libellous ( Swami Ramdev) remarks with a far-left bias indoctrinated into her by her ideological mentor, the ultra-Communist revisionist, hesperophobe and Naxalite sympathizer Brinda Karat). She is a FELLOW (no less) of the highly questionable intelligent design promoting John Templeton Foundation. Her articles are neither peer-reviewed (in political magazines) and not really academic (she has a PhD in biotechnology, not an MD in medicine). I suggest you find better articles from peer-reviewed medical journals rather than op/eds from ideocentric yentas. There are plenty of medical journals and studies that have scrutinized traditional medicines in recent years. Why not find a few, and remove this ideological promotion. Goingoveredge ( talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Following concerns raised by you, Nanda 2006 has been removed from the article. If you have further concerns then kindly note that the article may not be perfect since its a 'work in progress', as are other Wiki articles. JSR ( talk) 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a general systemic bias in this article, with the predominant references quote mined and selectively placed in order to disparage the subject. Note that far more balanced analyses of Ayurveda can be obtained by simply searching "Ayurveda" in the NCCAM web site. The acupuncture article uses NCCAM extensively to justify it's practices, yet these views are aggressively edit-warred out of this article. Why is that, I wonder? A balanced article needs to mention all the medical perspectives on this subject, not just the bad ones. This seems to be a pattern of hostile agenda-driven editing I'm seeing in many India-related articles. Goingoveredge ( talk) 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The lede has been bought on par according to the source you bought or the EB or Chopra 2003 sources. As for bias, Yes, the same thing was said a number of times and sources quoting Saper are still used multiple times when we have Saper 2004 itself. JSR ( talk) 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
BRANCHES AND SUB-BRANCHES ARE DISCRIBED IN THE BOOK: HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF AYURVEDA BY PROF. DR. SUBHASH RANADE AND DR. RAJENDRA DESHPANDE. THIS BOOK IS USED BY AYURVEDA COLLEGES IN INDIA AS OFFICIAL COURSE BOOK. THE AUTHORS ARE FAMOUS EXPERTS OF AYURVEDA.
INDIA PATENTING AYURVEDA: READ THE FOLLOWING LINK:
http://www.augustayurveda.com/showarticles.asp?id=121
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Yoga--ayurveda-being-documented-to-stop-patent-misuse-5095-1/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4506382.stm
- samar60 ( talk) 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Ayurveda is discussed in the above article, with references, therefore there should be a see also link to this article. Can people please stop editwarring and using socks to remove this list, and instead use the talk page to discuss it? Thanks, Verbal chat 10:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
That was a guarded response which gave us a conclusion only. Apparently others disagree with that conclusion and questions remain unanswered. I'm removing the link from the article due to lack of consenseus.
Greek, C. R. & Greek, J. S. (2002) in "The Philosophy of Science: Alternative Medicine and Animal Models", Specious Science: How Genetics and Evolution Reveal Why Medical Research on Animals Harms Humans, 36, Continuum: ISBN 0-8264-1398-6:
There is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven evidence based data and therapy and treatments that have not been scientifically proven...Alternative medicine is a pseudoscience...Alternative medicine. which includes a wide range of healing practices such as accupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy, herbalism, homeopathy, and even faith healing and psychic healing, cannot be considered science because they relay heavily on anecdote, testimonials, and belief rather than evidence obtained through careful study and repeated examination.
The List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts covers more than one Alternative medical system. For promotion of the "List of" article move the link to template: Alternative medical systems for better coverage instead of cherry picking articles.
Its just one wikilink and not a major issue. Time and effort would be better spent elsewhere.
JSR 0562 05:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not the case here: The "cherry picked articles" do not include Traditional Chinese Medicine, another article mentioned in that list. Accupuncture, Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Herbalism, and Homeopathy are also eligible for the same treatment as Ayurveda as per the above mentioned citation.
Ayurveda should not be singled out. You have to include other alternative disciplines as well or leave the idea of a 'see also' template in just one health related article on Wikipedia altogether. If you have to promote the "List of" article then add the link to the template, where it will be carried to plenty of articles. Making a case for adding it to Ayurveda alone may seem easier but will require some explanation.
Also try and reach consensus before reverting so much. Consensus helps in adding material. Adding content when people disagree is not worth a six word wikilink.
JSR 0562 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JSR that this article should be linked in Accupuncture, Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Herbalism, and Homeopathy as well as Ayurveda. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument for removing this article from this page. Please let's not do it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 10:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
My reply to SciecneAplogist: I was merely suggesting an alternative and asking for hold till consensus was reached on whether the link has to be put in here alone or whether it has to be put in a template that is connected to other articles as well, including this one.
What worries me is that when the same topic can be put into a template and connected to multiple articles in a few seconds (and that way it also stays in the Ayurveda article, among others) then why has it been thought that placing it in one article alone is the only way to do things?
template: Alternative medical systems is also connected to Ayurveda so a removal from 'see also' and a shift to : template: Alternative medical systems would have meant that the link would have stayed in the Ayurveda article without removal.
JSR 0562 11:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist is a prolific wikipedian who is well-known for combating pseudoscience in wikipedia and his/her contribution in pseudoscience related articles is excepted and required. If you want to add the link to template: Alternative medical systems, there should be a discussion in the template talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 11:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The list entry is now called "Maharishi's Ayurveda" and points to Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health -- Enric Naval ( talk) 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the see also list from the article because I think it is stupid to have a see also list in an article. It's lazy editing. We should be able to incorporate relevant links into the article and since there are no shortage of editors active here, we should have no problem writing sentences that incorporate each of these links into the article.
In particular, I think a link to pseudoscience would be good. Here is an article expressly criticizing Ayurveda as pseudoscience by Meera Nanda who obtained a Ph.D. in biotechnology from the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, before moving on to the field of philosophy of science. She is currently a research fellow of the Templeton Foundation. An excellent thing for the LEAD, I would say, wouldn't you all?
This removes this stupid problem of having an unannoted list of "related topics" at the end of the article.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 11:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Its the best suggestion I have heard thus far. Removing the 'See Also' list and adding something from a well published book into the article can solve this issue once and for all. As for Nanda, concerns were raised earlier in the Meera_Nanda section but the idea of adding something from a well published source itself seems to be worth working on.
I need a few hours to add some material in the article as per your suggestion (I need to get to some books or search online for some and that would take some time).
JSR 0562 12:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It's an article from a magazine, but per WP:PARITY, since most of Ayurveda is sourced from sources which share in a similar amount of rigor, there is no problem referencing it. I agree with you, JSR, that if there are better sources we can include them as well. However, I have a really hard time with people removing sources due to false claims of reliability or a desire to keep away "magnets for attacks". Bring on more sources, keep the old. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. The sources given here are better than Nanda, almost every single one of them. Lets not debate Nanda when we know she generally does good work regardless of this citation quality. In any case, It would be best if you ended the article using a few lines and give the involved parties a rest (although we may have engaged you for too long as well).
The Safety Concerns section can do with a short conclusion. Regards, JSR 0562 12:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Here are some references.
Some are scholarly source, some are not. But can serve a good starting point. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I placed a neutrality tag on the article because while reading through it, I found it to be consistently positive about its efficacy, even in the sections "Scientific evidence" and "Safety concerns." While it's true that scientific studies are lacking, it is certainly not embraced by the scientific community or Western medical community as one might think after reading this. I would like to learn more about scientific criticism of Ayurveda, but there doesn't seem to be much available here. Does anyone know where I could find more information about criticism so that I can eventually balance this article out to become more NPOV? -- Ships at a Distance ( talk) 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)