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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
How should Wikipedia report the position of the Indian Medical Association on Ayurveda?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
What this RfC is not:
Useful search terms (with the quotes) for finding sources on this include:
The main positions on this question appear to be:
(Please do not post threaded responses in this section)
(Please use ":" and not "*" in this section)
Those portions of Morgan Leigh's !vote and Hipocrite's !vote that failed to follow the instructions above and the violate Wikipedia's policies on
WP:OR and
WP:PRIMARY ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.") should be disregarded by the closer. I encourage both editors to delete that portion of their !vote that violates Wikipedia's policies and to focus on providing reliable secondary sources. Nobody cares what my interpretation or your interpretation of the primary sources is. The only thing that matters is how independent secondary sources interpret the primary sources.
Also, please place your !votes in the survey section and and responses in the threaded discussion section. Experience has shown that conducting a contentious RfC in this way avoids some editors WP:BLUDGEONING the survey section. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
BAMSqualification as quackery. See point 2. None of the sources say that. The IMA explictly states a quack as:
Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.. This diff claiming that IMA calls ayurveda quackery has also been reverted in the past.
"We're not against traditional medicine". Again, the secondary_source by User:Chandra.sarthak also states,
We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy. We are proud of our national heritage and richness but let it coexist with modern medicine. All we demand is not to mix the disciplines. It will also mean the end of pure Ayurveda,". This also explicitly states that IMA is not against ayurveda.
Indian Medicine (Ayurveda, Sidha, Unani & Tibb)is
BAMS/BUMS, and for practising
modern medicineis
MBBS. They state,
Even a cursory scrutiny of the chart above, it will be apparent that the Central Medical Acts have laid down separate area of practice for each system of medicine.. And that
Power to practice a system of medicine flows from the Central Acts under which one has acquired a qualification and the central or state register where one is registered in.These be quotes from primary source. Now let's look at secondary sources
India has over 485000 registered practitioners of ayurveda, siddha, or unani and 241 colleges that offer government accredited medical degrees in these disciplines.
Many Indians turn instead to traditional remedies such as Ayurveda – treatments prepared according to recipes from ancient Hindu texts –or to “quacks” who present themselves as doctors but lack any medical qualifications. About 57% of purported Indian doctors are thought to fall into the latter category.That means 43% of the purported Indian' doctors are not in the latter category', even though they may be practising Ayurveda and are in the former category.
The study revealed that the density of all doctors — allopathic, ayurvedic, homoeopathic and unani — at the national level was 80 doctors per lakh population compared to 130 in China. Ignoring those who don’t have a medical qualification, the number for India fell to 36 doctors per lakh population.
bridge coursebeing a
half bakedqualification. It is protesting against the government allowing ayurvedic practitioners with this underqualification/
half bakedqualification to practice
conventional medicine/
modern medicine.
"Indian doctors have accused the government of seeking to “sanction quackery” by proposing to allow homeopaths and others trained in alternative remedies to practise conventional medicine after taking a bridging course." "A similar law already in place in Madhya Pradesh state licenses traditional healers to dispense and prescribe 72 medicines after taking classes for three months." "The Indian Medical Association has criticised the plan, saying it will “lead to an army of half-baked doctors in the country”, according to the association’s president, KK Aggarwal."
"What is “mixopathy”? It’s a term the protesting doctors have coined by combining the word “mix” and the suffix “pathy,” or disease" "The Indian Medical Association is arguing that Ayurveda practitioners shouldn’t be allowed to carry out complicated surgeries that take years to learn."
Krishan champions the cause of medical professionals, fights for human rights, defends medical ethics, and is keenly interested in revamping the medical education in India. He uses alternative medicine - Yoga and Ayurveda - to treat his patients with diabetes and cardiac problems and believes that if we have to stop the Juggernaut of lifestyle disorders, we need to focus on primary prevention., see yet_another_source
untestedcoronil that
adulterate Ayurvedaagainst covid-19, or the harmfulness of mercury used in some preparations of Ayurveda is
an indicationof IMA calling all ayurvedic practitioners as quacks, is a violation of WP:OR
Practising modern medicineby those who are
who arenot qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) . All sources, every single one of them states only this.
modern medicineand
ayurvedaand states that having one and practising the other is quackery:
An Indian Supreme Court ruling in 1996 defines anyone practising modern medicine without training in the discipline, even if they are trained in alternative systems of medicine such as ayurveda, as quacks or charlatans.
in general, any person practising allopathic medicine who does not have a registered medical qualification comes under quackeryThe same secondary source already stated that the ayurvedic practitioners with relevant degrees have the qualification to practice under their non-allopathic system of medicine.
This is an explicit quote, not an interpretation.Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.
2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.
3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.
This is an explicit quote, not an interpretation.Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.
2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.
3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.
As for the idea that pretending to practicing modern medicine is practicing modern medicine, let me ask you a question: If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? Think about it before reading the next sentence. The correct answer is four. Just because I call something a leg that doesn't mean it is one.. Now Guy macon says that it is medicine:
Every Ayurvedic practitioner is practicing a system of medicine they are unqualified to practice. They are prescribing unsafe drugs containing Mercury. Prescribing drugs to cure disease is practicing medicine.
modernmedicine itself is quackery. See discussion under Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_19#Weird_sentence
"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery." How can the practice of modern medicine be quackery? Or is it only quackery when done by Ayurvedic practitioners? Achar Sva (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
It is quackery when done by people not qualified to do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
ALL: The IMA says that all ayurvedic practitioners are quacks.. Synthesizing such a claim by combining with sources about harmfulness of mercury is the very definition of WP:OR. - Wikihc ( talk) 05:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy.[21], the IMA also states
We're not against traditional medicine[22], whenever they define quackery. - Wikihc ( talk) 06:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
It must be noted that MjolnirPants explicitly acknowledges that IMA does not actually say
anyone who is not practicing modern medicine is a quack. Inferring based on how their statements sound or hypothesizing why they do so is a violation of
WP:OR.
Random Canadian labels IMA's stance as ambiguous
and instead asks to put together
with other sources which is again violating
WP:OR.
I encourage both editors to delete that portion of their !vote that violates Wikipedia's policies and to focus on providing reliable secondary sources.
-
Wikihc (
talk) 15:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
There's a POV fork at History of Ayurveda. It's yet in the WP:NPP queue but will have to be dealt with eventually. The topic has merit, obviously. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Indian medical practitioners do not call Indian medicinal practitioners as quacks. It calls any traditional practitioner practicing modern allopathy medicine as quack! This is an example of vandalism by the author against the Indian government health policies on implementing Ayurveda as a part of primary health care system Ifidont ( talk) 12:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
WHO is implementing indigenous medicine such as Ayurveda as a part and parcel of health system policies when authors are referring to certain books where someone believes Ayurveda is pseudoscientific without proper established fat sheet. It’s time to allow rectifications and correct mistakes when large scale differences in NPOV prevail. Ifidont ( talk) 12:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Needs to be removed since it is scientific! Indian flap surgery in rhinoplasty is the primary version of current para median forehead flap surgery. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3743909/ This is to state as a sample to what such medical system’s depth of knowledge is. If you persist to overlook such scientific areas, any author can call angioplasty as tooth fairy as well! Ifidont ( talk) 12:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I would appreciate assistance from any talk-page watchers here in updating the page National Policy on AYUSH, where AYUSH stands for Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy. This is a page about an Indian government policy on alternative medicine, which is somewhat outside my wheelhouse. I'm posting here in the absence of other logical places; the talk page for WikiProject Alternative Medicine does not seem terribly active. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I've tentatively edited the contentious statement to better reflect the consensus that was achieved in the RfC that was closed a few hours ago.
I really do hope this is fine. Aathish S | talk | contribs 02:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
nuancedpositions. Additionally,the new text
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments...The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant.In this case, the relevant arguments, as previously mentioned, agreed that the IMA calls some portion of Ayurvedic practitioners "quacks". The only question was what the proportion of those practitioners were quacks and if there was any way that the quack portion was qualified. The point of agreement between the statements of both the "Some" and "All" camps was a claim to practice medicine. There was disagreement about whether that claim needed to be devoid of qualifications, what qualifications would be relevant, and whether "medicine" meant only allopathic medicine or encompassed any form of "effective" medicine. As a result, the closing statement does not mention those points.
If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.While there were comments about NOR, WP:FRINGE and related policies were mentioned far more. Instead of selecting the better policy, I am constrained to respect those voices.
...it is not the vote that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important.The reasoning was greatly focused on whether the IMA qualified there label and how, as previously explained. Discussion participants are not limited to only expressing support for options presented by the RfC question writer and the closer needs to reflect what the discussion participants said. What they said most closely reflects the closing statement. I hope that answers the questions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The point of agreement between the statements of both the "Some" and "All" camps was a claim to practice medicine.This was there even prior to the RfC. Then you say,
There was disagreement about whether that claim needed to be devoid of qualifications, what qualifications would be relevant, and whether "medicine" meant only allopathic medicine or encompassed any form of "effective" medicine. As a result, the closing statement does not mention those points.These disagreements was the very reason the RfC was started. And as you have written, no consensus was reached on the very points of disagreement, namely the qualifications and the scope of the word "medicine". It appears you were not aware of this
significant portion of the discussion and contextof the RfC, or have not taken it into account. The RfC is now closed at the very state of disagreement for which it began.
predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supportingone policy over others come from. As for the application of WP:FRINGE itself, there are three issues.
WP:FRINGE is a content guideline which prohibits unwarranted promotion of theories which are not supported by mainstream scholarship and science in the theory's field. Issues unrelated to scholarship and science, then, cannot be fringe despite being minor viewpoints or widely opposed. In those cases, WP:UNDUE in the appropriate policy.As you can read in the RfC, the issue is not about whether ayurveda practioners are quacks or not (in which case it would have been an issue of science and scholarship), but it is about the opinion of an association, namely the IMA.
This isn't an RfC on the general topic of Ayurveda or the IMA. It is only about what the IMA says about Ayurveda..
The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately.. Additionally it states what should be done when the guideline of WP:FRINGE conflicts with the core policies like WP:NOR,
Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.. So in any case WP:NOR takes precedence over WP:FRINGE as per WP:FRINGE page itself.
The reasoning was greatly focused on whether the IMA qualified there label and how, but you also say that
There was disagreement about whether that claim needed to be devoid of qualifications, what qualifications would be relevant. Thus, it is unclear why you closed the RfC and how you derived your proposed statement from the discussion. - Wikihc ( talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
significant portion of the discussion and contextof the RfC, or have not taken it into account.
mentionedsame number of times in the discussion. One is not predominant. Those who mentioned WP:FRINGE did not reason how it applies. Because it does not apply as the discussion is about - what is an association saying. If it were to be applied anyway, it would have been to remove the fringe source or move it down. Also WP:FRINGE guideline itself states that WP:NOR policy should be prioritized over it.
The reasoning was greatly focused on whether the IMA qualified there label and howbut also state that there was no consensus on that. So it is unclear how your proposed statement derives from it. - Wikihc ( talk) 07:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I dont normally read the poorly spelled "the Skceptic" magazine, but somebody called Ernzt made some interesting points yesterday regarding current discussions between Boris' Government and the Indian one, in
The UK’s plan to please India by promoting Ayurvedic medicine puts politics ahead of science, and I thought of page watchers here.
It seems we are going to "Explore cooperation on research into Ayurveda and promote yoga in the UK. Increase opportunities for generic medicine supply from India to the UK by seeking access for Indian pharma products to the NHS and recognition of Indian generic and Ayurvedic medicines that meet UK regulatory standards." This is a win/win situation for Boris and the Modi Government. Modi can say "look, Boris is going to look at Ayurveda", and Boris ought to say "No ayurvedic medicine meets UK regulatory standards" but he probably wont.
I myself am still not watching this page, but wish you all good cheer! - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a reminder to refresh yourselves with WP:TALK which reminds us that article talk pages are only for discussing actual edits and not one's own speculations or opinions: "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The sentence in the introduction reads, "The Indian Medical Association labels Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks." This is not what the quoted reference says, it seems to be distorted to fit the editor's POV.
The actual quote from the IMA website is : "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine."
Their claim is about those practising a modality that they are not trained in ("allopathy"), not "those who claim to practice medicine" as Wikipedia says. This distorted quote does not help in defining Ayurveda in any way, nor does it accurately reflect the reference, and should be removed from the introduction. Puck42 ( talk) 14:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
whether "medicine" meant only allopathic medicine or encompassed any form of "effective" medicine. As a result, the closing statement does not mention those points.Even if some may not like it, the source clearly differentiates modern and traditional medicine. As for speculating why it does that,
Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Wikihc ( talk) 01:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine, which is missing from the article. Alternate phrasing that uses only medicine while alluding to the above lack of qualification has also been proposed. Wikihc ( talk) 10:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
system of medicineMeanwhile, "all medicine is not modern" referred to its use in not just the source but also its existing use in the article (written for a general global audience) in context of ayurveda, per prior consensus. Modern medicine is a neutral, WP:MEDRS term, explicitly used by the source, and even recommended by WP:MEDMOS in this situation. We should avail this exact phrasing to accurately represent IMA's statement. Wikihc ( talk) 18:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the claim of 6000BCE. No matter how many {cite books}, claiming such extraordinary antiquity is like turning the world upside down. There will be a thousand books that claim tens of thousands of years of age for Ayurveda. There is so far NO scholarly consensus for any Indian texts dating to 6000BCE. Except for passing references in books on alternative medicine, no historical evidence exists for Ayurveda being 8000years old. Not every form of traditional Medicine is Ayurveda. Ayurveda has some fundamental features that defines it as Ayurveda. Ayurveda is a post-Vedic and it follows many facets derived from Vedas— which itself are not older than 4000 years old. Some unknown person drilling teeth using flint-stone cant be called Ayurveda.
None of the three references given there (which I removed and was later reverted by Abhishek0831996) are books on history of medicine or history of Ayurveda. Two of them are books on pseudoscientific alternative medicine and the third makes only passing references of “8000” year old claim without citing any further sources or evidence whatsoever.
garbage in, garbage out. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Editorkamran:@ BirdValiant:@ Azuredivay:
@ Editorkamran: By passing reference, what I meant is that it doesn’t talk about the age of Ayurveda with any clear evidence. And that book is only co-authored by Kenoyer, the other part being by Kimberley Burton Heuston. If that particular chapter was written by Kenoyer, it would be full of archaeological information (Kenoyer being an archaeologist)
. Othmanjo-Budhi is in Karachi district in Sindh province, which is nearby Arabian Sea. [1] You are shifting goal posts, even if cuttlebones were found at far away places from ocean, how does that prove cuttlebones were used for Ayurvedic purpose given that they are also used as natural sandpaper, as additive in flour and also as cosmetic? Cuttle fish is an edible marine animal. How hard is it for people to understand that remains of a fish doesn’t necessarily mean they were used for Ayurevedic practice?Cuttlebones, internal shells of fish of the family cephalopod were found at the site of Othmanjo-Buthi in Sindh
“Cuttlebones, internal shells of fish of the family cephalopod were found at the site of Othmanjo-Buthi in Sindh”. Othmanjo-Buthi is in Karachi district in Sindh province, which is nearby Arabian Sea. I am gonna repeat my point as long as you chose to deliberately ignore it. There is no well known date for Ayurveda. All samhitas were composed only in the last 3000 years- or even much lesser . 5000 year old is a trope. There are people who with a bigger voice than me claiming Ayurveda is 10000 years old? Should Wikipedia take them seriously too? Since you are not able prove what those cuttlebones were actually used for so you shifted the goalpost towards trying to prove my ignorance about location. Also: Neither Possehl nor Kenoyer makes any inference that Ayurveda was practiced in IVC. What exactly are you trying to prove by saying it is my personal opinion?
It is ahistorical to claim that Ayurveda can be traced to IVC in any form or manner - no historian of Indian Medicine makes these claims. The above discussion makes it obvious that the sentence has no consensus, in favor. See David Hardiman ( 2009) on such claims. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog:, I had cited the original article ( https://www.oarsijournal.com/article/S1063-4584(18)30082-7/fulltext ) that I had found from PubMed ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29426006/). It has also been published by Elsevier on ScienceDirect ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063458418300827). Do any of these count as WP:MEDRS? — Yuyutsu Ho ( talk) 14:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Medicine has been practiced since prehistoric times, during most of which it was an art (an area of skill and knowledge) frequently having connections to the religious and philosophical beliefs of local culture ... Prescientific forms of medicine are now known as traditional medicine or folk medicine, which remains commonly used in the absence of scientific medicine ... Contemporary medicine applies biomedical sciences, biomedical research, genetics, and medical technology...Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kareena.agni.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
can we add a portal or section on a list of herbs/plants of Ayurveda medicine? Things such as [Bacopa monnieri]], Centella asiatica, Tulsi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.177.218 ( talk) 11:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
It has its own protocol in treatment with particular data You can refer to ccim and ccras websites Bkbngharavalli ( talk) 11:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific. Basic texts described its own research methodology. Reference: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A%C2%A0narrative%20review%20of%20research%20in%20Ayurveda&publication_year=2013&author=P.%20Ram%20Manohar#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DMXmrL2OCuO0J
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975947618308957#bib2 Anand Londhe ( talk) 17:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
If scientific articles are not reliable source, reference books are not reliable source, then what is exact reliable source? Wikipedia? Anand Londhe ( talk) 18:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to understand what Wikipedia considers a 'reliable' source when discussing a system of medicine that comes from the East? Wikipedia is exhibiting bias by refusing to acknowledge validity or the "ancient science" of Ayurveda by denying the validity of any source that represents it, (govt departments or professional body) is an authority on it, (Indian or western qualified doctors/practitioners) or published journals (JACM) AYUSH is the Indian govt department of Ayurveda and states "These systems are based on definite medical philosophies and represent a way of healthy living with established concepts on prevention of diseases and promotion of health." Some people commenting in this thread "stop reading" scientific papers because of slight grammatical 'errors' made by non-native speakers. This is openly racist and insulting. Ayurveda is a system of medicine which pre-dates modern science. Modern science cannot accommodate it because Ayurveda is founded in principles that far outreach the modern definition of medicine and science, and Wikipedia and its editors are doing a gross disservice to their readers by refusing to allow a counter-case to the "pseudoscience" definition that is published on the site. Step up and stop the bias Wikipedia editors.
D4dotty37 ( talk) 06:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Who exactly are you referring to when you say "our sourcing requirements"? Because I have been a donor to WP for 4 years. If WP are not willing to change with the times, and demonstrate inclusivity and non-bias then stop claiming it belongs to everyone. D4dotty37 ( talk) 12:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Science of Ayurveda reported in reputable Nature Journal. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15786 Done by neutral leading scientific institute CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology. Again science is now starting to figure out the validation of ancient traditional practice with modern techniques. This does not mean it is pseudoscience.
Sriramk750 ( talk) 16:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Two of the three places which carried out this research are closely linked with supporting Ayurveda, so possible conflict of interest.Can we start applying that to pharmaceutical firms carrying out research? Really, if a well-designed study has rigorous standards & is peer-reviewed by non-involved third-parties, this statement would be inapplicable. Let's wait for the review of the literature before we start casting aspersions. Peaceray ( talk) 20:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Nature has the highest impact factor of any journal publishing basic scientific research. It has more than 70 research papers related to Ayurveda which increasing every year. Check here https://www.nature.com/search?q=Ayurveda&journal= Sriramk750 ( talk) 17:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
So request to remove the phrase “pseudoscience” from the article . Sriramk750 ( talk) 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Ayurvedic approaches are effective for some conditions and it may not effective for some. Same is true for modern medicine. But the main point of this discussion is whether Ayurveda is pseudoscience or not.
Set of beliefs or activities is said to be pseudoscience, if it lacks three basic features of scientific approach - Systematic Empiricism, Empirical Questions and Public Knowledge. ( https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/understanding-science/ )
i)Systematic Empiricism - learning based on observation. Scientists learn about the natural world systematically, by carefully planning, making, recording, and analyzing observations of it.
Ancient Indian physician like sushruta (Father of Surgery) ( /info/en/?search=Sushruta ) have observed the effect of different types of plants with different kinds of people with various genetic disposition (Prakriti). After many set of experiments, these results are handed to the future generations in terms of manuscripts like Sushruta Samhita ( /info/en/?search=Sushruta_Samhita) which is world's first treatise on surgery. ( https://artsandculture.google.com/exhibit/susruta-samhita-ancient-indian-surgical-knowledge-national-council-of-science-museums/8wKyx4LRDmyVKA?hl=en )
ii)Empirical Questions- questions about the way the world actually is and can be answered through systematic empiricism. These are questions which are raised about the experiment and method which are used to cure the disease.
Charakacharya, who wrote major treatise of Ayurveda, Caraka Samhita has mentioned three different means of gaining knowledge (Trividha gyanopaya) of science as –Adhyayana(learning), Adhyapana(teaching) and third means of gaining knowledge is known as Tadvidya-Sambhasha. It is a method of debate between two knowledgeable physicians in the presence of viewers. Ref:- https://www.ayurlog.com/index.php/ayurlog/article/view/61/54
iii)Public Knowledge- After asking their empirical questions, making their systematic observations, and drawing their conclusions, scientists publish their work. Equivalent to modern day seminars, Ancient Indian scholars have gathered in groups and discussed their treatise in presence of their king before publishing their work. There is proof that different seminars(sangams) happened in India around 2000 BC ( /info/en/?search=Tamil_Sangams) This is happening now in terms of the scientific journal publications (like in Nature mentioned above).
If you see, Ayurveda meets all the three aspects of scientific approach.
Request to change the sentence. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. -> The theory and practice of Ayurveda is based on aspects of science.
We are having healthy debate here. what is the source for “ there is nothing scientific about Ayurveda “? Sriramk750 ( talk) 09:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Going forward with change unless there is valid statement to deny it. Sriramk750 ( talk) 10:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Please provide valid reason for revert in talk before making the change. Sriramk750
reverts are happening without any discussion in this page. whether this is valid way of reverting? Sriramk750 ( talk) 11:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
total rubbish and quackery.
For given “according to …” statements, please provide valid references, so that it could be incorporated in the article. Wikipedia maintains neutral point of view, Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Sriramk750 ( talk) 16:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
How many of you agree with 2 changes to make the article neutral. We can have elaborate sub-sections for both pseudoscientific and scientific aspects of Ayurveda. Sriramk750 ( talk) 17:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Seeing that the article Short description was far too long, I changed it from Pseudoscientific alternative medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent
⇒ Alternative medicine with roots in India
.
That change was reverted with the instruction Please get a consensus for this change on the talk page
.
I understand that this article has had an "interesting" history and I have no view about Ayurveda itself, so here I am.
Alternative Short descriptions might be:
I propose Alternative medicine with roots in India
as short and sufficient for a Short description —
GhostInTheMachine
talk to me 17:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ayurveda or Ayurvedashastra is an Indian medical system. Ayurveda is the scripture in which knowledge of life and disease is imparted. Ayu is the name of the union of body, senses and sattva (mind) and soul. In modern words it is the same life. The life-giving body is said to be alive.
The relationship between age and body is eternal. This subject has been considered in Ayurveda. As a result, it is also eternal. The system through which knowledge of all kinds of cognitive facts related to life can be obtained or by following which longevity is attained is called Ayurveda. Ayurveda is considered to be a sub-veda of Atharva Veda.
It shows the way of survival of human beings as well as the means of their complete development. So Ayurveda, like any other medical system, is not only a medical system, but the knowledge of the whole life. In Ayurveda, it is called Ayushya Hit (Pathya Ahar Vihar), Ahit (Apathya Ahar Vihar), Diagnosis of Disease and Treatment of Disease.
Consumption of diet as well as abstinence from unhealthy diet can help a person to stay completely healthy. According to Ayurveda, only a healthy person can achieve the ultimate goal of life, Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha. The body is the main means of attaining Purushartha Chatushtayam. Therefore, paying special attention to the protection of the body, Ayurveda says that the body is the main means of attaining Dharma Artha, Kama, Moksha. The body should be specially protected in all ways.
Bhav Prakash, the famous scripture of Ayurveda says that the knowledge of life through Shastra, knowledge of interest and non-harmful diet, knowledge of Vyadhi Diagnosis and knowledge of Shaman, the name of this Shastra is Ayurveda. Raj ladani ( talk) 09:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this page there is wrong definition of Ayurveda and said ayurveda as alternative medicine system. It's a clearly wrong and without reference sentence. So I want to edit this. Raj ladani ( talk) 13:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are thousands of research papers validating Ayurvedic medicines and treatment. Many research papers have been published under Ministry of Ayush, Govt of India and also by Patanjali Ayurveda & Acharya Balkrishna of Patanjali in India. So, the statements that Ayurveda is a pseudo science and that There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease.[23] are totally false. Please remove these misleading and false statements from your Wikipedia page on Ayurveda. 223.233.73.111 ( talk) 17:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no reference of that foolish sentence. And they have no rights to say 'pseudoscience' to our Indian medical science (Ayurveda). Even they don't know what is ayurveda then how can they write this much about ayurveda without knowledge. Raj ladani ( talk) 13:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
So, a quibble, but cinnamon is made from the inner bark of a tree, and not a seed. I mean, of course that tree was once a seed, but the way the sentence is written it is either redundant or misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:69B0:0:0:0:2229 ( talk) 09:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
In the further reading section, the last link to "Use Caution With Ayurvedic Products - US Food and Drug Administration" is no longer active. It needs to be either removed or repaired. Cedar777 ( talk) 14:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lede repeats the wiki links to lead, arsenic, and mercury. At minimum, this paragraph would be improved by single wiki links. Better yet to have the two sentences combined to cover both points, eliminating the need to repeat the terms lead, arsenic, and mercury twice in succession. And perhaps a stronger source is available for this content than a UK Charity? Cedar777 ( talk) 14:56, 9 February 2022 (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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
How should Wikipedia report the position of the Indian Medical Association on Ayurveda?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
What this RfC is not:
Useful search terms (with the quotes) for finding sources on this include:
The main positions on this question appear to be:
(Please do not post threaded responses in this section)
(Please use ":" and not "*" in this section)
Those portions of Morgan Leigh's !vote and Hipocrite's !vote that failed to follow the instructions above and the violate Wikipedia's policies on
WP:OR and
WP:PRIMARY ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.") should be disregarded by the closer. I encourage both editors to delete that portion of their !vote that violates Wikipedia's policies and to focus on providing reliable secondary sources. Nobody cares what my interpretation or your interpretation of the primary sources is. The only thing that matters is how independent secondary sources interpret the primary sources.
Also, please place your !votes in the survey section and and responses in the threaded discussion section. Experience has shown that conducting a contentious RfC in this way avoids some editors WP:BLUDGEONING the survey section. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
BAMSqualification as quackery. See point 2. None of the sources say that. The IMA explictly states a quack as:
Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.. This diff claiming that IMA calls ayurveda quackery has also been reverted in the past.
"We're not against traditional medicine". Again, the secondary_source by User:Chandra.sarthak also states,
We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy. We are proud of our national heritage and richness but let it coexist with modern medicine. All we demand is not to mix the disciplines. It will also mean the end of pure Ayurveda,". This also explicitly states that IMA is not against ayurveda.
Indian Medicine (Ayurveda, Sidha, Unani & Tibb)is
BAMS/BUMS, and for practising
modern medicineis
MBBS. They state,
Even a cursory scrutiny of the chart above, it will be apparent that the Central Medical Acts have laid down separate area of practice for each system of medicine.. And that
Power to practice a system of medicine flows from the Central Acts under which one has acquired a qualification and the central or state register where one is registered in.These be quotes from primary source. Now let's look at secondary sources
India has over 485000 registered practitioners of ayurveda, siddha, or unani and 241 colleges that offer government accredited medical degrees in these disciplines.
Many Indians turn instead to traditional remedies such as Ayurveda – treatments prepared according to recipes from ancient Hindu texts –or to “quacks” who present themselves as doctors but lack any medical qualifications. About 57% of purported Indian doctors are thought to fall into the latter category.That means 43% of the purported Indian' doctors are not in the latter category', even though they may be practising Ayurveda and are in the former category.
The study revealed that the density of all doctors — allopathic, ayurvedic, homoeopathic and unani — at the national level was 80 doctors per lakh population compared to 130 in China. Ignoring those who don’t have a medical qualification, the number for India fell to 36 doctors per lakh population.
bridge coursebeing a
half bakedqualification. It is protesting against the government allowing ayurvedic practitioners with this underqualification/
half bakedqualification to practice
conventional medicine/
modern medicine.
"Indian doctors have accused the government of seeking to “sanction quackery” by proposing to allow homeopaths and others trained in alternative remedies to practise conventional medicine after taking a bridging course." "A similar law already in place in Madhya Pradesh state licenses traditional healers to dispense and prescribe 72 medicines after taking classes for three months." "The Indian Medical Association has criticised the plan, saying it will “lead to an army of half-baked doctors in the country”, according to the association’s president, KK Aggarwal."
"What is “mixopathy”? It’s a term the protesting doctors have coined by combining the word “mix” and the suffix “pathy,” or disease" "The Indian Medical Association is arguing that Ayurveda practitioners shouldn’t be allowed to carry out complicated surgeries that take years to learn."
Krishan champions the cause of medical professionals, fights for human rights, defends medical ethics, and is keenly interested in revamping the medical education in India. He uses alternative medicine - Yoga and Ayurveda - to treat his patients with diabetes and cardiac problems and believes that if we have to stop the Juggernaut of lifestyle disorders, we need to focus on primary prevention., see yet_another_source
untestedcoronil that
adulterate Ayurvedaagainst covid-19, or the harmfulness of mercury used in some preparations of Ayurveda is
an indicationof IMA calling all ayurvedic practitioners as quacks, is a violation of WP:OR
Practising modern medicineby those who are
who arenot qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) . All sources, every single one of them states only this.
modern medicineand
ayurvedaand states that having one and practising the other is quackery:
An Indian Supreme Court ruling in 1996 defines anyone practising modern medicine without training in the discipline, even if they are trained in alternative systems of medicine such as ayurveda, as quacks or charlatans.
in general, any person practising allopathic medicine who does not have a registered medical qualification comes under quackeryThe same secondary source already stated that the ayurvedic practitioners with relevant degrees have the qualification to practice under their non-allopathic system of medicine.
This is an explicit quote, not an interpretation.Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.
2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.
3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.
This is an explicit quote, not an interpretation.Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.
2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.
3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.
As for the idea that pretending to practicing modern medicine is practicing modern medicine, let me ask you a question: If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? Think about it before reading the next sentence. The correct answer is four. Just because I call something a leg that doesn't mean it is one.. Now Guy macon says that it is medicine:
Every Ayurvedic practitioner is practicing a system of medicine they are unqualified to practice. They are prescribing unsafe drugs containing Mercury. Prescribing drugs to cure disease is practicing medicine.
modernmedicine itself is quackery. See discussion under Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_19#Weird_sentence
"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery." How can the practice of modern medicine be quackery? Or is it only quackery when done by Ayurvedic practitioners? Achar Sva (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
It is quackery when done by people not qualified to do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
ALL: The IMA says that all ayurvedic practitioners are quacks.. Synthesizing such a claim by combining with sources about harmfulness of mercury is the very definition of WP:OR. - Wikihc ( talk) 05:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy.[21], the IMA also states
We're not against traditional medicine[22], whenever they define quackery. - Wikihc ( talk) 06:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
It must be noted that MjolnirPants explicitly acknowledges that IMA does not actually say
anyone who is not practicing modern medicine is a quack. Inferring based on how their statements sound or hypothesizing why they do so is a violation of
WP:OR.
Random Canadian labels IMA's stance as ambiguous
and instead asks to put together
with other sources which is again violating
WP:OR.
I encourage both editors to delete that portion of their !vote that violates Wikipedia's policies and to focus on providing reliable secondary sources.
-
Wikihc (
talk) 15:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
There's a POV fork at History of Ayurveda. It's yet in the WP:NPP queue but will have to be dealt with eventually. The topic has merit, obviously. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Indian medical practitioners do not call Indian medicinal practitioners as quacks. It calls any traditional practitioner practicing modern allopathy medicine as quack! This is an example of vandalism by the author against the Indian government health policies on implementing Ayurveda as a part of primary health care system Ifidont ( talk) 12:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
WHO is implementing indigenous medicine such as Ayurveda as a part and parcel of health system policies when authors are referring to certain books where someone believes Ayurveda is pseudoscientific without proper established fat sheet. It’s time to allow rectifications and correct mistakes when large scale differences in NPOV prevail. Ifidont ( talk) 12:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Needs to be removed since it is scientific! Indian flap surgery in rhinoplasty is the primary version of current para median forehead flap surgery. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3743909/ This is to state as a sample to what such medical system’s depth of knowledge is. If you persist to overlook such scientific areas, any author can call angioplasty as tooth fairy as well! Ifidont ( talk) 12:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I would appreciate assistance from any talk-page watchers here in updating the page National Policy on AYUSH, where AYUSH stands for Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy. This is a page about an Indian government policy on alternative medicine, which is somewhat outside my wheelhouse. I'm posting here in the absence of other logical places; the talk page for WikiProject Alternative Medicine does not seem terribly active. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I've tentatively edited the contentious statement to better reflect the consensus that was achieved in the RfC that was closed a few hours ago.
I really do hope this is fine. Aathish S | talk | contribs 02:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
nuancedpositions. Additionally,the new text
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments...The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant.In this case, the relevant arguments, as previously mentioned, agreed that the IMA calls some portion of Ayurvedic practitioners "quacks". The only question was what the proportion of those practitioners were quacks and if there was any way that the quack portion was qualified. The point of agreement between the statements of both the "Some" and "All" camps was a claim to practice medicine. There was disagreement about whether that claim needed to be devoid of qualifications, what qualifications would be relevant, and whether "medicine" meant only allopathic medicine or encompassed any form of "effective" medicine. As a result, the closing statement does not mention those points.
If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.While there were comments about NOR, WP:FRINGE and related policies were mentioned far more. Instead of selecting the better policy, I am constrained to respect those voices.
...it is not the vote that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important.The reasoning was greatly focused on whether the IMA qualified there label and how, as previously explained. Discussion participants are not limited to only expressing support for options presented by the RfC question writer and the closer needs to reflect what the discussion participants said. What they said most closely reflects the closing statement. I hope that answers the questions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The point of agreement between the statements of both the "Some" and "All" camps was a claim to practice medicine.This was there even prior to the RfC. Then you say,
There was disagreement about whether that claim needed to be devoid of qualifications, what qualifications would be relevant, and whether "medicine" meant only allopathic medicine or encompassed any form of "effective" medicine. As a result, the closing statement does not mention those points.These disagreements was the very reason the RfC was started. And as you have written, no consensus was reached on the very points of disagreement, namely the qualifications and the scope of the word "medicine". It appears you were not aware of this
significant portion of the discussion and contextof the RfC, or have not taken it into account. The RfC is now closed at the very state of disagreement for which it began.
predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supportingone policy over others come from. As for the application of WP:FRINGE itself, there are three issues.
WP:FRINGE is a content guideline which prohibits unwarranted promotion of theories which are not supported by mainstream scholarship and science in the theory's field. Issues unrelated to scholarship and science, then, cannot be fringe despite being minor viewpoints or widely opposed. In those cases, WP:UNDUE in the appropriate policy.As you can read in the RfC, the issue is not about whether ayurveda practioners are quacks or not (in which case it would have been an issue of science and scholarship), but it is about the opinion of an association, namely the IMA.
This isn't an RfC on the general topic of Ayurveda or the IMA. It is only about what the IMA says about Ayurveda..
The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately.. Additionally it states what should be done when the guideline of WP:FRINGE conflicts with the core policies like WP:NOR,
Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.. So in any case WP:NOR takes precedence over WP:FRINGE as per WP:FRINGE page itself.
The reasoning was greatly focused on whether the IMA qualified there label and how, but you also say that
There was disagreement about whether that claim needed to be devoid of qualifications, what qualifications would be relevant. Thus, it is unclear why you closed the RfC and how you derived your proposed statement from the discussion. - Wikihc ( talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
significant portion of the discussion and contextof the RfC, or have not taken it into account.
mentionedsame number of times in the discussion. One is not predominant. Those who mentioned WP:FRINGE did not reason how it applies. Because it does not apply as the discussion is about - what is an association saying. If it were to be applied anyway, it would have been to remove the fringe source or move it down. Also WP:FRINGE guideline itself states that WP:NOR policy should be prioritized over it.
The reasoning was greatly focused on whether the IMA qualified there label and howbut also state that there was no consensus on that. So it is unclear how your proposed statement derives from it. - Wikihc ( talk) 07:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I dont normally read the poorly spelled "the Skceptic" magazine, but somebody called Ernzt made some interesting points yesterday regarding current discussions between Boris' Government and the Indian one, in
The UK’s plan to please India by promoting Ayurvedic medicine puts politics ahead of science, and I thought of page watchers here.
It seems we are going to "Explore cooperation on research into Ayurveda and promote yoga in the UK. Increase opportunities for generic medicine supply from India to the UK by seeking access for Indian pharma products to the NHS and recognition of Indian generic and Ayurvedic medicines that meet UK regulatory standards." This is a win/win situation for Boris and the Modi Government. Modi can say "look, Boris is going to look at Ayurveda", and Boris ought to say "No ayurvedic medicine meets UK regulatory standards" but he probably wont.
I myself am still not watching this page, but wish you all good cheer! - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a reminder to refresh yourselves with WP:TALK which reminds us that article talk pages are only for discussing actual edits and not one's own speculations or opinions: "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The sentence in the introduction reads, "The Indian Medical Association labels Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks." This is not what the quoted reference says, it seems to be distorted to fit the editor's POV.
The actual quote from the IMA website is : "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine."
Their claim is about those practising a modality that they are not trained in ("allopathy"), not "those who claim to practice medicine" as Wikipedia says. This distorted quote does not help in defining Ayurveda in any way, nor does it accurately reflect the reference, and should be removed from the introduction. Puck42 ( talk) 14:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
whether "medicine" meant only allopathic medicine or encompassed any form of "effective" medicine. As a result, the closing statement does not mention those points.Even if some may not like it, the source clearly differentiates modern and traditional medicine. As for speculating why it does that,
Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Wikihc ( talk) 01:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine, which is missing from the article. Alternate phrasing that uses only medicine while alluding to the above lack of qualification has also been proposed. Wikihc ( talk) 10:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
system of medicineMeanwhile, "all medicine is not modern" referred to its use in not just the source but also its existing use in the article (written for a general global audience) in context of ayurveda, per prior consensus. Modern medicine is a neutral, WP:MEDRS term, explicitly used by the source, and even recommended by WP:MEDMOS in this situation. We should avail this exact phrasing to accurately represent IMA's statement. Wikihc ( talk) 18:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the claim of 6000BCE. No matter how many {cite books}, claiming such extraordinary antiquity is like turning the world upside down. There will be a thousand books that claim tens of thousands of years of age for Ayurveda. There is so far NO scholarly consensus for any Indian texts dating to 6000BCE. Except for passing references in books on alternative medicine, no historical evidence exists for Ayurveda being 8000years old. Not every form of traditional Medicine is Ayurveda. Ayurveda has some fundamental features that defines it as Ayurveda. Ayurveda is a post-Vedic and it follows many facets derived from Vedas— which itself are not older than 4000 years old. Some unknown person drilling teeth using flint-stone cant be called Ayurveda.
None of the three references given there (which I removed and was later reverted by Abhishek0831996) are books on history of medicine or history of Ayurveda. Two of them are books on pseudoscientific alternative medicine and the third makes only passing references of “8000” year old claim without citing any further sources or evidence whatsoever.
garbage in, garbage out. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Editorkamran:@ BirdValiant:@ Azuredivay:
@ Editorkamran: By passing reference, what I meant is that it doesn’t talk about the age of Ayurveda with any clear evidence. And that book is only co-authored by Kenoyer, the other part being by Kimberley Burton Heuston. If that particular chapter was written by Kenoyer, it would be full of archaeological information (Kenoyer being an archaeologist)
. Othmanjo-Budhi is in Karachi district in Sindh province, which is nearby Arabian Sea. [1] You are shifting goal posts, even if cuttlebones were found at far away places from ocean, how does that prove cuttlebones were used for Ayurvedic purpose given that they are also used as natural sandpaper, as additive in flour and also as cosmetic? Cuttle fish is an edible marine animal. How hard is it for people to understand that remains of a fish doesn’t necessarily mean they were used for Ayurevedic practice?Cuttlebones, internal shells of fish of the family cephalopod were found at the site of Othmanjo-Buthi in Sindh
“Cuttlebones, internal shells of fish of the family cephalopod were found at the site of Othmanjo-Buthi in Sindh”. Othmanjo-Buthi is in Karachi district in Sindh province, which is nearby Arabian Sea. I am gonna repeat my point as long as you chose to deliberately ignore it. There is no well known date for Ayurveda. All samhitas were composed only in the last 3000 years- or even much lesser . 5000 year old is a trope. There are people who with a bigger voice than me claiming Ayurveda is 10000 years old? Should Wikipedia take them seriously too? Since you are not able prove what those cuttlebones were actually used for so you shifted the goalpost towards trying to prove my ignorance about location. Also: Neither Possehl nor Kenoyer makes any inference that Ayurveda was practiced in IVC. What exactly are you trying to prove by saying it is my personal opinion?
It is ahistorical to claim that Ayurveda can be traced to IVC in any form or manner - no historian of Indian Medicine makes these claims. The above discussion makes it obvious that the sentence has no consensus, in favor. See David Hardiman ( 2009) on such claims. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog:, I had cited the original article ( https://www.oarsijournal.com/article/S1063-4584(18)30082-7/fulltext ) that I had found from PubMed ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29426006/). It has also been published by Elsevier on ScienceDirect ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063458418300827). Do any of these count as WP:MEDRS? — Yuyutsu Ho ( talk) 14:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Medicine has been practiced since prehistoric times, during most of which it was an art (an area of skill and knowledge) frequently having connections to the religious and philosophical beliefs of local culture ... Prescientific forms of medicine are now known as traditional medicine or folk medicine, which remains commonly used in the absence of scientific medicine ... Contemporary medicine applies biomedical sciences, biomedical research, genetics, and medical technology...Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kareena.agni.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
can we add a portal or section on a list of herbs/plants of Ayurveda medicine? Things such as [Bacopa monnieri]], Centella asiatica, Tulsi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.177.218 ( talk) 11:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
It has its own protocol in treatment with particular data You can refer to ccim and ccras websites Bkbngharavalli ( talk) 11:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific. Basic texts described its own research methodology. Reference: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A%C2%A0narrative%20review%20of%20research%20in%20Ayurveda&publication_year=2013&author=P.%20Ram%20Manohar#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DMXmrL2OCuO0J
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975947618308957#bib2 Anand Londhe ( talk) 17:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
If scientific articles are not reliable source, reference books are not reliable source, then what is exact reliable source? Wikipedia? Anand Londhe ( talk) 18:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to understand what Wikipedia considers a 'reliable' source when discussing a system of medicine that comes from the East? Wikipedia is exhibiting bias by refusing to acknowledge validity or the "ancient science" of Ayurveda by denying the validity of any source that represents it, (govt departments or professional body) is an authority on it, (Indian or western qualified doctors/practitioners) or published journals (JACM) AYUSH is the Indian govt department of Ayurveda and states "These systems are based on definite medical philosophies and represent a way of healthy living with established concepts on prevention of diseases and promotion of health." Some people commenting in this thread "stop reading" scientific papers because of slight grammatical 'errors' made by non-native speakers. This is openly racist and insulting. Ayurveda is a system of medicine which pre-dates modern science. Modern science cannot accommodate it because Ayurveda is founded in principles that far outreach the modern definition of medicine and science, and Wikipedia and its editors are doing a gross disservice to their readers by refusing to allow a counter-case to the "pseudoscience" definition that is published on the site. Step up and stop the bias Wikipedia editors.
D4dotty37 ( talk) 06:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Who exactly are you referring to when you say "our sourcing requirements"? Because I have been a donor to WP for 4 years. If WP are not willing to change with the times, and demonstrate inclusivity and non-bias then stop claiming it belongs to everyone. D4dotty37 ( talk) 12:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Science of Ayurveda reported in reputable Nature Journal. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15786 Done by neutral leading scientific institute CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology. Again science is now starting to figure out the validation of ancient traditional practice with modern techniques. This does not mean it is pseudoscience.
Sriramk750 ( talk) 16:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Two of the three places which carried out this research are closely linked with supporting Ayurveda, so possible conflict of interest.Can we start applying that to pharmaceutical firms carrying out research? Really, if a well-designed study has rigorous standards & is peer-reviewed by non-involved third-parties, this statement would be inapplicable. Let's wait for the review of the literature before we start casting aspersions. Peaceray ( talk) 20:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Nature has the highest impact factor of any journal publishing basic scientific research. It has more than 70 research papers related to Ayurveda which increasing every year. Check here https://www.nature.com/search?q=Ayurveda&journal= Sriramk750 ( talk) 17:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
So request to remove the phrase “pseudoscience” from the article . Sriramk750 ( talk) 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Ayurvedic approaches are effective for some conditions and it may not effective for some. Same is true for modern medicine. But the main point of this discussion is whether Ayurveda is pseudoscience or not.
Set of beliefs or activities is said to be pseudoscience, if it lacks three basic features of scientific approach - Systematic Empiricism, Empirical Questions and Public Knowledge. ( https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/understanding-science/ )
i)Systematic Empiricism - learning based on observation. Scientists learn about the natural world systematically, by carefully planning, making, recording, and analyzing observations of it.
Ancient Indian physician like sushruta (Father of Surgery) ( /info/en/?search=Sushruta ) have observed the effect of different types of plants with different kinds of people with various genetic disposition (Prakriti). After many set of experiments, these results are handed to the future generations in terms of manuscripts like Sushruta Samhita ( /info/en/?search=Sushruta_Samhita) which is world's first treatise on surgery. ( https://artsandculture.google.com/exhibit/susruta-samhita-ancient-indian-surgical-knowledge-national-council-of-science-museums/8wKyx4LRDmyVKA?hl=en )
ii)Empirical Questions- questions about the way the world actually is and can be answered through systematic empiricism. These are questions which are raised about the experiment and method which are used to cure the disease.
Charakacharya, who wrote major treatise of Ayurveda, Caraka Samhita has mentioned three different means of gaining knowledge (Trividha gyanopaya) of science as –Adhyayana(learning), Adhyapana(teaching) and third means of gaining knowledge is known as Tadvidya-Sambhasha. It is a method of debate between two knowledgeable physicians in the presence of viewers. Ref:- https://www.ayurlog.com/index.php/ayurlog/article/view/61/54
iii)Public Knowledge- After asking their empirical questions, making their systematic observations, and drawing their conclusions, scientists publish their work. Equivalent to modern day seminars, Ancient Indian scholars have gathered in groups and discussed their treatise in presence of their king before publishing their work. There is proof that different seminars(sangams) happened in India around 2000 BC ( /info/en/?search=Tamil_Sangams) This is happening now in terms of the scientific journal publications (like in Nature mentioned above).
If you see, Ayurveda meets all the three aspects of scientific approach.
Request to change the sentence. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. -> The theory and practice of Ayurveda is based on aspects of science.
We are having healthy debate here. what is the source for “ there is nothing scientific about Ayurveda “? Sriramk750 ( talk) 09:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Going forward with change unless there is valid statement to deny it. Sriramk750 ( talk) 10:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Please provide valid reason for revert in talk before making the change. Sriramk750
reverts are happening without any discussion in this page. whether this is valid way of reverting? Sriramk750 ( talk) 11:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
total rubbish and quackery.
For given “according to …” statements, please provide valid references, so that it could be incorporated in the article. Wikipedia maintains neutral point of view, Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Sriramk750 ( talk) 16:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
How many of you agree with 2 changes to make the article neutral. We can have elaborate sub-sections for both pseudoscientific and scientific aspects of Ayurveda. Sriramk750 ( talk) 17:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Seeing that the article Short description was far too long, I changed it from Pseudoscientific alternative medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent
⇒ Alternative medicine with roots in India
.
That change was reverted with the instruction Please get a consensus for this change on the talk page
.
I understand that this article has had an "interesting" history and I have no view about Ayurveda itself, so here I am.
Alternative Short descriptions might be:
I propose Alternative medicine with roots in India
as short and sufficient for a Short description —
GhostInTheMachine
talk to me 17:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ayurveda or Ayurvedashastra is an Indian medical system. Ayurveda is the scripture in which knowledge of life and disease is imparted. Ayu is the name of the union of body, senses and sattva (mind) and soul. In modern words it is the same life. The life-giving body is said to be alive.
The relationship between age and body is eternal. This subject has been considered in Ayurveda. As a result, it is also eternal. The system through which knowledge of all kinds of cognitive facts related to life can be obtained or by following which longevity is attained is called Ayurveda. Ayurveda is considered to be a sub-veda of Atharva Veda.
It shows the way of survival of human beings as well as the means of their complete development. So Ayurveda, like any other medical system, is not only a medical system, but the knowledge of the whole life. In Ayurveda, it is called Ayushya Hit (Pathya Ahar Vihar), Ahit (Apathya Ahar Vihar), Diagnosis of Disease and Treatment of Disease.
Consumption of diet as well as abstinence from unhealthy diet can help a person to stay completely healthy. According to Ayurveda, only a healthy person can achieve the ultimate goal of life, Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha. The body is the main means of attaining Purushartha Chatushtayam. Therefore, paying special attention to the protection of the body, Ayurveda says that the body is the main means of attaining Dharma Artha, Kama, Moksha. The body should be specially protected in all ways.
Bhav Prakash, the famous scripture of Ayurveda says that the knowledge of life through Shastra, knowledge of interest and non-harmful diet, knowledge of Vyadhi Diagnosis and knowledge of Shaman, the name of this Shastra is Ayurveda. Raj ladani ( talk) 09:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this page there is wrong definition of Ayurveda and said ayurveda as alternative medicine system. It's a clearly wrong and without reference sentence. So I want to edit this. Raj ladani ( talk) 13:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are thousands of research papers validating Ayurvedic medicines and treatment. Many research papers have been published under Ministry of Ayush, Govt of India and also by Patanjali Ayurveda & Acharya Balkrishna of Patanjali in India. So, the statements that Ayurveda is a pseudo science and that There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease.[23] are totally false. Please remove these misleading and false statements from your Wikipedia page on Ayurveda. 223.233.73.111 ( talk) 17:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no reference of that foolish sentence. And they have no rights to say 'pseudoscience' to our Indian medical science (Ayurveda). Even they don't know what is ayurveda then how can they write this much about ayurveda without knowledge. Raj ladani ( talk) 13:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
So, a quibble, but cinnamon is made from the inner bark of a tree, and not a seed. I mean, of course that tree was once a seed, but the way the sentence is written it is either redundant or misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:69B0:0:0:0:2229 ( talk) 09:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
In the further reading section, the last link to "Use Caution With Ayurvedic Products - US Food and Drug Administration" is no longer active. It needs to be either removed or repaired. Cedar777 ( talk) 14:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lede repeats the wiki links to lead, arsenic, and mercury. At minimum, this paragraph would be improved by single wiki links. Better yet to have the two sentences combined to cover both points, eliminating the need to repeat the terms lead, arsenic, and mercury twice in succession. And perhaps a stronger source is available for this content than a UK Charity? Cedar777 ( talk) 14:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)