Talk:Ayurveda

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes ~~~~. Note that this article is under a number of editing restrictions per discretionary sanctions. You must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article. Editors violating these restrictions may be blocked.

Charaka Samhita

I have updated the page on the Charaka Samhita which is the primary Ayurvedic text when it comes to drugs and diet. (The focus in the Susruta Samhita is on surgery, and the Susruta Samhita defers to the Charaka Samhita on questions regarding diet and drugs. The Susruta Samhita and the Charaka Samhita are really the two fundamental Ayurvedic texts--other Ayurvedic texts frequently defer to these two authorities.) I would like people editing this page to take a look at the current page on the Charaka Samhita. The things i would like to add to this article are: Charaka Samhita (and by implication Ayurveda) endorses consumption of meat (and not just herbal products--this is a common misconception). Further, the Charaka Samhita even endorses the consumption of beef. Also, the Charaka Samhita (and by implication Ayurveda) endorses the consumption of alcohol in moderate quantity and also has certain views regarding sexual activity. Additionally, there is controversy about whether Charaka (of Charaka Samhita fame) should be considered a single person or multiple individuals. It is also foolish to claim Charaka was the writer of Charaka Samhita when the final redactor, Drdbhala, says in the text that he wrote one third of the text by himself since this portion of the text had become extinct in his time; and further that he re-wrote the rest of the text. I have not used multiple sources for this information. I have only used a single text and fortunately this text is available online: Link I believe this is the single best book on the Charaka Samhita in that it is neither hindu apologist, nor does it dismiss the content in the Charaka Samhita as quackery, and at the same time a scientific textual analysis of the text is presented. Soham321 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with your assessment of the importance of Chattopadhyaya's much-respected study. DomLaguna (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ayurveda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121214094513/http://www.ayurveda.gov.lk:80/dept.html to http://www.ayurveda.gov.lk/dept.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Problematic edits/edit-warring

Amruth M D has now twice added biomedical material sourced to a low-quality primary source (and so which fails WP:MEDRS), stating it is published in the journal Nature - it isn't it's in Scientific Reports which just happens to be one of the many publications within the stable of the Nature Publishing Group. This material is thus inaccurate and has now been edit-warred into the article where it now stands. However I shan't be reverting again because of the exceptional DS regime governing these pages (under which Amruth M D will surely now be blocked). Alexbrn (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Restoring primary sources is not good. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Amruth M D has provided Government link ( ) and newspaper links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amruth M D (talk • contribs)

References

... which are not reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

New genome-wide analysis finds correlation with ayurvedic vata, pitta, kapha

This is quite interesting:

The practice of Ayurveda, the traditional medicine of India, is based on the concept of three major constitutional types (Vata, Pitta and Kapha) defined as “Prakriti”. To the best of our knowledge, no study has convincingly correlated genomic variations with the classification of Prakriti. In the present study, we performed genome-wide SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) analysis (Affymetrix, 6.0) of 262 well-classified male individuals (after screening 3416 subjects) belonging to three Prakritis. We found 52 SNPs (p ≤ 1 × 10−5) were significantly different between Prakritis, without any confounding effect of stratification, after 106 permutations. Principal component analysis (PCA) of these SNPs classified 262 individuals into their respective groups (Vata, Pitta and Kapha) irrespective of their ancestry, which represent its power in categorization. We further validated our finding with 297 Indian population samples with known ancestry. Subsequently, we found that PGM1 correlates with phenotype of Pitta as described in the ancient text of Caraka Samhita, suggesting that the phenotypic classification of India’s traditional medicine has a genetic basis; and its Prakriti-based practice in vogue for many centuries resonates with personalized medicine.[1]

This is published in Scientific Reports, an open access journal from the publishers of Nature. The 2014 impact factor is 5.578, which probably puts it at least in the top 20%.

I think this could be used as a source. The text could say: "A 2015 genome analysis suggested that there may be genetic evidence supporting the ayurvedic classification of individuals according to vata, pitta, and kapha constitutions." TimidGuy (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015

Please, could you place this into further reading or Further Reading or Controversy. Thank you!

• [2] Lead Poisoning in Pregnant Women Who Used Ayurvedic Medications from India — New York City, 2011–2012
• [3] Lead Poisoning Associated with Ayurvedic Medications --- Five States, 2000--2003
• [4] Lead Poisoning and Anemia Associated with Use of Ayurvedic Medications Purchased on the Internet — Wisconsin, 2015
• [5] Use Caution With Ayurvedic Products
• [6] WHO Drug Information Vol. 19, No. 3, 2005
• [7] Lead Poisonings in Children Associated With Some Ayurvedic Medications from India
• [8] Ayurvedic herbal medicine and lead poisoning
• [9] Ayurvedic Medicine Use and Lead Poisoning in a Child: A Continued Concern in the United States
• Lead Poisonings in Children Associated With Some Ayurvedic Medications from India
• Ayurvedic herbal medicine and lead poisoning
• Ayurvedic Medicine Use and Lead Poisoning in a Child: A Continued Concern in the United States

Thelosbellos (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• oppose link clutter. If they are reliable sources, they should be used to support content in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  I have deactivated this request as "not done." This seems like a contentious issue and it would be much better if consensus was reached regarding the addition of these links. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

In this edit[10], Prokaryotes removed well-sourced content from Cancer Research UK (with the comment it was a "charity link"), added material sourced to a NIH site which omitted its key finding, and added attribution where (per WP:ASSERT) it is not neccessary - all of which edits have WP:NPOV problems. Also, in my understanding any controversial edit made to this article without prior agreement on the Talk page would attract automatic discretionary sanctions as described in the notice at the head of this page. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (Add) And the edit has just beenin-part repeated.[11] Prokaryotes, I strongly recommend you self-revert. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Are the rather odd editing restrictions imposed on this page still in force? I believe so. Have they been broken? ... -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably, but I don't approve of them so I'm not seeking action. Alexbrn (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert by Alexbrn

In this DIF editor Alexbrn reverts to a version which omits some key infos and with less authoritative sources.

• Replaced infos on effectiveness with the related infos from NIH, which has more authority.
• Added basic info about source American Cancer Society, link is btw down
• Added basic info about source, Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry
• Removed double reference
• Added names per Wikipedia main usage

We can discuss the update in regards to Charity source vs NIH source. Maybe Alexbrn can explain in more detail why he thinks the NIH source is bad and a charity link better? prokaryotes (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice that editor Alexbrn claims now on my talk page i begun an edit war. prokaryotes (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• CRUK is one of the world's most respected medical organizations. (The fact it is a UK charity is neither here nor there, what would you expect it to be, a corporation?) It is about the strongest WP:MEDRS we could possibly use.
• The NIH source is good but if it's to be used its key point should be too, to quote: "there aren’t enough well-controlled clinical trials and systematic research reviews—the gold standard for Western medical research—to prove that the approaches are beneficial" rather than picking bits to run counter to what they say.
• attributing things can make them appear to be more a point of view when in fact there is no dispute. See WP:ASSERT.

Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've used the information about Efficiency, the scope of the section we discuss here, not the NIH lede, you quote above. And hence why i added inconclusive. If you want to add the CRUK source, then i will not contest this, but the NIH stuff certainly belongs there too. prokaryotes (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact you put "many trials have been inconclusive but some had similar effectiveness" [my bold], which isn't really a fair representation of what that source is saying. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

So what exactly you suggest is wrong with above sentence? prokaryotes (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It implies treatment efficacy when the source as a whole explicitly says these things have not been found efficacious. We need to reflect sources faithfully, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No. The source precisely state "had similar effectiveness" or even states "had greater decreases in pain". What you doing here is to try to remove editors from editing this article, because you think this article is yours. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR Btw. Do you have any conflict of interest when editing these pages?prokaryotes (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is going in a productive direction. Please WP:FOC. If you are saying you think you did faithfully represent the source then sorry, I disagree. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are unable to explain what is wrong with the content then you shouldn't remove it. You added double refs, you removed the NIH, you removed source infos,you follow my other edits and posts not in support, you threaten me with a block on my talk page, and claim i edit war. You managed to do this all within a couple of minutes, while i was still editing the page. Congratulations you have disrupted me.prokaryotes (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

To be clear I didn't threaten you with a block (I'm not an admin) but warned you were risking one because of the sanctions in effect here. I think I've explained my position on the content clearly enough. To move things forward it would probably help to see specific proposals for changes, if there are any. Alexbrn (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposals

Pseudoscience

There are 2-3 sources which are used for the claim that A is considered pseudoscience. One reference is from the Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry, which is used to suggest that A is per se pseudoscience. The part cited is rather brief and probably more within the scope of psychological aspects, not judging different herbal remedies. Besides that, there is also the mention that A is probably just a protoscience. But based on the Oxford source alone, when reading the article one gets the impression that almost all of India is just sticking to pseudoscience when it comes to medicine, since the protoscience aspect is only twice mentioned. Pseudoscience is mentioned 5 times. The section on research also mentions pseudoscience, but makes clear distinctions between research and methodologies and thus it depends on applied research methods.

The main source for the claim is very poor and we should at least name the source instead of giving readers a wrong impression about A in general.

• Proposed change
• 1. Add to all parts where it is claimed that A is per se a pseudoscience the name of the source for that claim, i.e. According to the Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry. prokaryotes (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose change as proposed. If we start attributing all the mentions of pseudoscience it will have the non-neutral effect of making this seem like a limited opinion, rather than the uncontentious (in RS) view it appears to be. See WP:ASSERT. Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose change as proposed. There are numerous sources that state it is pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Find better sources If this is as widespread a claim as the editors above me contend, then better sources can be found. All mentions of pseudoscience is currently attributed to a Psychiatry handbook; Other sources include a paper which references a blog by a librarian, another paper which does not call Ayurveda a pseudoscience, a book by an ethnologist, and lastly an academic specialising in complementary and alternative medicine, albeit in a commercial book titled Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Only the last is close to a reliable source for such a statement. Do the WHO, NIH, NHS call it pseudoscientific or do they prefer to wrap the term within traditional, complementary, or alternative medicine? Is it considered pseudoscientific by Indian medical organisations?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  We agree that there is a reliable source. Why do we need more? --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  Nope, we would need a mainstream, not just one book. The pseudoscience claim is a) no mainstream b) completely irrelevant (who cares about scientificality in real life?) and c) the term pseudoscience as such (compare the recent Suhrkamp volume on the topic) is far from being acknowledged and not a really useable term. The allegation can be mentioned in the body of the article but is no use neither for the lede nor as a category. Polentarion Talk 16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

One book will suffice if it's reliable and there is no disputing RS (which as far as I know there isn't). So far as I'm aware RS that considers the question of where Ayurveda sits on the spectrum, place it in the "pseudoscience" category. I mean: balancing your energies and so on .. it's kind of an obvious fact. If anybody is asserting this categorization is seriously disputed they need some good RS to back up their argument. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"we would need a mainstream" howso? Such a requirement seems to violate the policies at the foundation of the discretionary sanctions here, especially NPOV and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

We are being asked to provide a mainstream view, not a fringe view. The WHO does not care a bloody dam about the term pseudoscience. As said, the category and the term as such is useless. There is not much use of the term "pseudoscience" besides some sceptical cults, its a fringe view per se and compare a recent study the term as such as not much of a scientific base. Polentarion Talk 16:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your personal view, we have RS that does consider this categorization, and so it is neutral for us to reflect that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What is fringe? If one book calls Aryuveda pseudoscience and WTO and WHO, based on UNO resolutions and a long term strategy call to integrate Aryuveda in standard healthcare world wide do not care a bloody dam about that claim, pseudoscience is fringe. My view is based on actual practices. The term Pseudoscience lacks a solid scientific base. That said, we always have some sources for a certain view, but we have to apply WP:undue weight. .Polentarion Talk 17:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears we have some sources saying it's pseudoscience, and no sources that contradict them. So the weight would seem to tip the balance in favour of inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Which RS are you talking about, btw? There are a number of cited sources in the article that are being passed off as RS which are clearly not. A source that calls Ayurveda pseudoscience should also explain what about it is pseudoscientific (and that should be included in the article). The burden of proof lies on those making the claim. Terms such as "obvious", "widespread" etc. are quite meaningless. And if it's widespread and obvious then there should be a number of RS making the claim.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The RS we are using. The "obviousness" of pseudoscience is pertinent, as "obvious" pseudoscience can be labelled as such, as is explicitly set out in WP:FRINGE. There is nothing in the WP:PAGs that requires sources to "explain themselves", but as it happens our Oxford handbook does say why ayurvedic medicine is pseudoscience, and we faithfully relay that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn points show again that the term pseudoscience as such is fringy and not being used or discussed outside a certain camp. Its neither widespread nor obvious, its not even being discussed seriously. UndueWeight applies. Polentarion Talk 18:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be right that it's not seriously discussed (in RS). That is because (again from RS) it seems a settled view that needs no discussion. Wikipedia shall faithfully reflect such settled views. Again, people opposing this need to show otherwise. So far: nothing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry is far from being a serious study, its a nice popular book about psychatry, refers to Aryuveda with one sentence and has no scientific value at all. Its on a similar level as the For Dummies series. Its nice youre able to doo google book searches, but this entry has no place in the lede nor in the article. As said, the term pseudoscience per se has no scientific value. Polentarion Talk 19:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: an academic medical handbook, now in its 3rd edition, published by a well-respected press, and even highly commended by the BMA.[12] It meets both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. The point is that ayurvedic medicine being pseudoscience is a lightweight, commonplace sort of claim that does not need a heavyweight source. So this (actually quite heavyweight) source is easily more than ample for the purpose of supporting it. We reflect such knowledge here: that is the basic function of constructing an encyclopedia in a neutral way. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Its far from being an academic study about the topice here, it mentions Aryuveda once. As said, the term pseudoscience is a) rubbish and b) of no real world interest with regard to Aryuveda. The actual trend is to globally integrate Aryuveda and other traditional medical health practices in mainstream medicine. Backed by WTO and WHO. Polentarion Talk 19:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It is published by OUP's "Academic" division - that makes it an academic book despite your assertions to the contrary. This, and your other arguments, seem now to be simply personal objections ("rubbish" / "of no interest") which are not grounded in our WP:PAGs. As such, they can be dismissed for the purposes of reaching consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As said, its a one-word mentioned sideshow in a book having no direct connection to the topic of this article. RS should deal with the topic, not mention it once. Polentarion Talk 15:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC) PS.: I would prefer doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1364013 - its clear that Aryuveda - as a complete health system - is not part of evidence based medicine. Pseudoscience is something else. Polentarion Talk 14:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The particular source emphasized in the RfC is a perfectly good academic reference book, which seems to make a passing mention that A is pseudoscience. We have multiple reliable sources which state that it is pseudoscience, and no disagreement that the parts which claim to be science are, in fact, pseudoscience. There does seem to be disagreement as to what parts are claimed to be science. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The suggestion would not improve the article. We don't WP:ASSERT the obvious, and it's not allowable to frame nonsense with a favorable bias. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't do things like that, the source is fine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

NIH Data on Efficacy

The National Institute for Health has a page about A, including the effectiveness of A products.

• Proposed addition
• 1. Add: According to the NIH, many trials have been inconclusive but some tested similar effectiveness, i.e. herbs for rheumatoid arthritis, or turmeric may help with digestive disorders or arthritis. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ayurveda&type=revision&diff=695318588&oldid=695318490 prokaryotes (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Proposed Change - The claim that Ayurveda is pseudoscience pretty widespread. Are we going to name all the sources making the claim to all parts where it is claimed that Ayurveda is per se a pseudoscience? I think it's sufficient to make one simple statement in the lede saying something like "Most mainstream academic, professional and scientific authorities do not accept the efficacy of Ayurveda and consider it a pseudoscience". NickCT (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I support such a statement, but do we have a reference for this? The Oxford Handbook clearly has shortcomings for such a broad statement.prokaryotes (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't it would be that hard to find sources. Here's one "(Ayurveda) is largely seen as a pseudoscience" NickCT (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is with medical sources, that we need sources per WP:MEDRS, and btw Alexbrn the editor is one of the big proponents of this guidelines. But somehow on this page here he seems fine with a Handbook and brief unclear mention, talking about double standards. prokaryotes (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS sources are required for WP:BIOMEDICAL information. The question of whether something is pseudoscientific falls more into the realm of philosophy of science, which is not an area that requires MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet, the large majority in India the land of A, uses A as a health remedy. Hence why it falls under MEDRS. From your link: "Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health." prokaryotes (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If we were saying Ayurveda is or is not efficacious/pseudoscience MEDRS might apply. We're not saying that though. We're just saying a certain people set of people consider it pseudoscience. There's a subtle but important difference.... NickCT (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose change as proposed. We already have a CRUK source which says effectively the same thing as NIH/NCCIH (the page is here), and the proposed text rather cherry-picks the NCCIH source to imply Ayurvedic drugs might work, while omitting NCCIH's "key point" that no Ayurvedic remedy is considered efficacious. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, the NIH proposal is based on the NIH section for efficiency, and you ignore the word inconclusive, besides i pointed this out to you earlier already. prokaryotes (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to represent a source faithfully with a short extract, it's a good idea to get its "key points" (aka conclusion) rather than extracting something from the detail which, taken out of context, actually runs against the grain of what those key points say. WP:STICKTOSOURCE - the NCCIH never intended their source to be taken simply as a "hint" the particular ayurvedic remedies might work. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose change as proposed. We don't need to state "According to the NIH". QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No use for the lede. WHO (and WTO) is quite positive about the useability of traditional medicine (including Aryuveda), especially against chronical deaseases and has a whole program ongoing, trying to facilitate the integration of the on or other Aryuveda practice (if and when useable) in general healthcare. That said, you don't need a NHI perspective, there is a sort of acceptance on a global level. Its just better to ignore the likes of CSI and other sceptical movement adherents. Polentarion Talk 16:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Proposed change is irrelevant to the article. A neutral summary of the NIH article would be that, although there is no evidence that A is plausible or accurate, some herbs proposed in (some implementations of) A may be effective. I don't see why the latter part is relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC split

The RFC bot can't handle two separate proposals in the same RFC. Only the first gets "asked" on the central listings, and the other gets ignored. I've created a separate RFC tag for the second, so that it will be visible and advertised. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Length of the lede, Tags

Currently the length of the lede is way too long. I suggest to keep the first paragraph and change it slightly and move the rest in a section called background. The basic issue is that Aryuveda is being deemed a working healing method in Asia, especially India and a sort of wellness practice in the western world. I would give it the same credentials (not more but not less as well) as the likes of Sebastian Kneipp back here. Polentarion Talk 14:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's too long, but even the first paragraph has problems, plus reducing it that far would violate WP:LEDE. I think we just have too much detail, especially in-world detail. It needs a rewrite that adheres much more closely to LEDE: introduce the topic, explain why it's notable, be able to stand on its own, and create interest for readers to continue reading the article body. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. One step after the other. Polentarion Talk 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I played with it for a bit, and am convinced that a complete rewrite is the only solution.

The first step is to identify what should be in the lede: A definition, mention of the history, mention of the types of treatments, mention of the current status, mention of the alt med and pseudoscience aspects of current practice. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither me nor the WHO or WTO not the WIPO do care much about the pseudoscience aspects. But they managed to develope a strategy trying to get the best out of the traditional medieine. I would prefer to use complementary instead of alternative. Aryuveda is a complementary health practice AND a sort of wellness hype with quite some success in export and as well the original regions. I cut the lede in two pieces and added the WHO / WTO / WIPO traditional knowledge medicine strategy and other UN papers, all dealing with Aryuveda en detail. Polentarion Talk 18:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This change did not improve the lede. It is not a background section. It is a summary of the body. This is not the way to shorten the lede. The lede is usually 4 paragraphs. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No sweat with the deletion of the background title. I would still prefer to have a summary of the historical aspects, some of them are - from my POV - a way too detailed and historical for a lede. The current WTO/WHO stuff is much more important. Polentarion Talk 19:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not delete the background section. I moved it back to where the text was originally per WP:LEDE.

The WTO/WHO stuff is much more important? I'm not sure what you are proposing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As said, no prob. Normal BRD circle. But the lede currently has 6 paragraphs and is way too long and clumsy. Just read my edits. Polentarion Talk 19:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not normal to shorten the lede to one paragragh and create duplication in the body. You have not explained exactly which text is "clumsy". QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Its about readability. Currently the lede talks about medieval taxonomies of the Sanskrit knowledge systems and prehistoric setups. Point is we should describe Aryuveda from its presence status as a wellness hype and a complementary medicine with various practices in use. Its not about claiming antediluviuan background. I doubt any continuity in that timely range, e.g. ist rather doubtful that Aryuveda found much use during the british Raj. Polentarion Talk 19:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The lede doe not talk about medieval taxonomies. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Good start to move that section in the body. Something like Thus, the Sushruta Samhita narrates how Dhanvantari, "greatest of the mighty celestials," incarnated himself as Divodāsa, a mythical king of Varanasi, who then taught medicine to a group of wise physicians, including Sushruta himself is nothing of a summary. The whole section starting with "Although laboratory experiments suggest"... is a caveat, not a summary. The section with "Concerns were raised when 20% of Ayurvedic U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines" is as well no summary, but a single scandal. A text like "Ayurveda significantly developed during the Vedic period and later some of the non-Vedic systems such as Buddhism and Jainism also developed medical concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurvedic treatises" repeats the fact that it has deveolped, so what. Something like "Humoral balance is emphasized, and suppressing natural urges is considered unhealthy and claimed to lead to illness." could be said about any sort of medicine. The statement about "Ayurveda names three elemental substances, the doshas (called Vata, Pitta and Kapha), and states that a balance of the doshas results in health, while imbalance results in disease. Ayurveda has eight canonical components, which are derived from classical Sanskrit literature. Some of the oldest known Ayurvedic texts include the Suśrutha Saṃhitā and Charaka Saṃhitā, which are written in Sanskrit." is as well no summary but a very impressive show of facts. Sorry, thats not more than humoral balance and it could have been based on European influences. Nothing worth while mentioning in a lede. Polentarion Talk 20:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC) PS.: The claim of "Some scholars assert that Ayurveda originated in prehistoric times,[17] and that some of the concepts of Ayurveda have been discovered since the times of Indus Valley Civilization and earlier." is WP:weasel at its best. Delete or move it.

When there is an issue with the text you don't move it. You can add you specific proposal to each section below. QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

My point is that no sentence like this should ever be found in a lede. We do not try to impress people with a lede, its about informing. Therefore you have to provide a simple summary of the article, not lengthy sentences loaded with (doubtable) historical facts which are not part of the body. The current TOC mentions 6 basic aspects, the current lede is mainly about history.

1. 1Eight components
2. 2Principles and terminology
3. 3Practice
4. 4Current status
5. 5Classification and efficacy
6. 5.1Research
7. 6History

I'm not sure how I can help at this point. What do others think? QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Second paragraph: "Thus, the Sushruta Samhita narrates how Dhanvantari, "greatest of the mighty celestials," incarnated himself as Divodāsa, a mythical king of Varanasi, who then taught medicine to a group of wise physicians, including Sushruta himself.[7][8]" Is there any suggestion to rewrite the text? QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Third paragraph

[Proposals]

Fourth paragraph

[Proposals]

Draft for the lede

V1

Ayurveda (Sanskrit: आयुर्वेद Āyurveda , "life-knowledge"; English pronunciation /ˌaɪ.ərˈveɪdə/[1]) or Ayurvedic medicine is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. Ayurveda emphasizes a wide range of humoral balances. Besides a variety of elemental substances, the doshas, Ayurveda claims eight canonical components and tries to keep them in balance. Some of the oldest known Ayurvedic texts include the Suśrutha Saṃhitā and Charaka Saṃhitā, which are written in Sanskrit. A large variety of medicinal preparations and surgical procedures was developed in the medieval period. Therapies are typically based on complex herbal compounds, and mineral and metal substances (perhaps under the influence of early Indian alchemy or rasaśāstra) and various physical treatments. Ayurvedic treatises also provide surgical techniques, including rhinoplasty, perineal lithotomy, the suturing of wounds, and the extraction of foreign objects.

Ayurveda has received increased interest with the Indian independence movement and starting with the renewed international interest in traditional medicine in the late 1990ies. Today, according to a study by the University of Minnesota, about 90% of Indians use some form of Ayurvedic medicine.[3] Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurvedic traditions recently became a variety of complementary or alternative medicine[4][5], as well in the Western world. Massage techniques and dietary practices have been integrated in general wellness and touristic applications as well.[6]

Thats enough. ;) Polentarion Talk 20:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose drastic haircut. We should have 4 paragraphs for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why and where? The current content in the lede should be moved to the body, as it is nothing useful for an entry. Polentarion Talk 19:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving it to the body created duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If we had any duplication, delete it. But biggest part of the current lede has no base in the body. Its additional facts, which have no place in a lede. Polentarion Talk 19:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

We have 4 paragraphs. I don't think it should be drastically shortened. Do you have a specific proposal for a better summary for any specific paragraph while maintaining 4 paragraphs? QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why 4 paragraphs, any relation to the Karma of the article? Sorry, the lede should be readable and refering to the article body. Thats not the case so far. Therefore the tagging. Polentarion Talk 19:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

For the length of the body 4 is good. If a sentence is not readable then improve it. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Polentarion Talk 15:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

V2

Ayurveda (Sanskrit: आयुर्वेद Āyurveda , "life-knowledge"; English pronunciation /ˌaɪ.ərˈveɪdə/[1]) or Ayurvedic medicine is a system of traditional health practices with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent.[2]

Ayurveda has received increased interest with the Indian independence movement and starting with the renewed international interest in traditional medicine in the late 1990ies. Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurvedic traditions are a type of complementary medicine.[3][4] Its well known that Ayurveda does not fullfill basic assumptions of evidence based medicine.[5] Nevertheless, Ayurveda therapies and practices (which are manyfold) have been integrated in general wellness applications and as well in some cases in general medical use in the Western world.[6][5]

Ayurveda emphasizes a wide range of humoral balances. Besides a variety of elemental substances, the doshas, Ayurveda claims eight canonical components and tries to keep them in balance. Some of the oldest known Ayurvedic texts include the Suśrutha Saṃhitā and Charaka Saṃhitā, which are written in Sanskrit. A large variety of medicinal preparations and surgical procedures was developed in the medieval period. Therapies are typically based on complex herbal compounds, and mineral and metal substances (perhaps under the influence of early Indian alchemy or rasaśāstra) and various physical treatments.[7] Ayurvedic treatises also provide surgical techniques, including rhinoplasty, perineal lithotomy, the suturing of wounds, and the extraction of foreign objects.[8]

Various cases of toxic levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic and further poisonous contents in Ayurvedic patent medicines have been reported.[9][10][11]

Polentarion Talk 16:13, December 20, 2015‎ (UTC)

That is way too short. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

History

I organised history. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Poisons

The lede currently states: "Concerns were raised[by whom?] when 20% of Ayurvedic U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines sold through the Internet were found to contain toxic levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic."

This corresponds to a statement in the body of the article: "A 2008 study of more than 230 products found that approximately 20% of remedies (and 40% of rasa shastra medicines) purchased over the Internet from U.S. and Indian suppliers contained lead, mercury or arsenic."

But currently neither part of the article actually addresses any concerns that these are actually poisons. Should not this be clarified? Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The lede should summarize content, not repeat it in a dubious manner. Delete it. Polentarion Talk 15:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is an issue with the wording then reword it. QuackGuru (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. As said, if you want to have something in the lede, prove that it is a summary. Polentarion Talk 14:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What did you do? There were too many changes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My feelings as well. I was going to unravel the change to figure out what was done, but it was reverted before I could do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I added some sources that underlined poison and heavy metal content in much more than American cases. The current wording states some specific (US) facts, it should never be part of the lede, since its not refering to a larger text in the body. Polentarion Talk 20:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources you added were not in the body. That is a lede violation. You also used different sources that come to different conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dimadick, I clarified it in the lede and body. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

Hi. I noticed the lede reads "Ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[12]", however the citation goes to a chapter from a psychology book that never mentions ayurveda. Can someone replace that citation with a "cn" or remove the statement? Thanks! 71.94.63.135 (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)