Jump to content

Talk:Ayurveda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eupterraen (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 5 May 2016 (→Adding reference to a paragraph under Principles and Terminology: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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.

Proposals

There is opposition to both changes proposed here. Consensus is that Ayurveda's status as pseudoscientific is well documented enough that it does not need to be ascribed to a particular source or sources. Sam Walton (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

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

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)[reply]

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.[1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

NIH Data on Efficacy

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

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 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)[reply]

You must have misread the ref, so no. Roxy the dog™ woof 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, search for Ayurvedic, not Ayurveda in the cited text. Peaceray (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, though searching is not necessary, just read it. Took me all of thirty seconds. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article titled "History of Ayurveda" and shifting major contents there?

I saw this article of History of alternative medicine and found large information here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_alternative_medicine#Ayurvedic_medicine And then I was thinking what if a seperate article is dedicated to History of Ayurveda and if we shift lot of focus there. Many people who try to edit the article in positive way generally want to add up to the information they know about. They must have read something somewhere. So it will be a place where they can write. And as long as it is a history, one need not bother how it will affect patients today because automatically people will see it from the point of history and not as a current medical practice. It was just an off thought. Kindly consider if other senior editor here considers that as a right way to go ahead. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ayurveda vs ayurvedic.

I know both ayurveda and ayurvedic are employed but I see only one need to imply both meanings those two words give and that is ayurveda. If I somehow want Devanagari ayurvedic ( a nonsense in my mind), I get this आयुर्वेदिच् which makes ayurvedich in sound. The following gives the k sound but is entered as ayurvedik to a translating website to achieve that;आयुर्वेदिक. As no virama formed on k it is ka, so ayurvedika which is ok but I dont see the k or ka spelling making headway at this late stage. A virama could be added and ayurvedik would be the result. So did the k come about through a Germanic common usage which became an English c? In the first place such a word as ayurveda has a very definite meaning expressed by the devanagari आयुर्वेद. This latter symbol has not the convolutions the others have and that is a context of ayurveda also in my mind.Sudaama90 (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ayurveda" is the noun, and "Ayurvedic" is the corresponding adjective in English. I see that the adjective goes back at least as far as 1933 (see Chopra's Indigenous Drugs Of India), and probably several centuries. In English, the adjective "Ayurvedic" is also much more common than the noun "Ayurveda" (see Google ngrams). As far as I know, the English adjective corresponds to the Hindi phrase आयुर्वेद का. -- 120.19.90.19 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

The introduction concludes with the statement "Today, according to a study by the University of Minnesota, about 90% of Indians use some form of Ayurvedic medicine." (end note 21). However, when the reader clicks through, the citation leads to a LiveScience article making the same assertion (90 percent). Clicking through on that hyperlink leads to a newsletter from a University of Minnesota center for alternative medicine, which makes the 90 percent assertion with no reference to a study. I'd argue this line should be removed until the actual study can be found.

Jodicompton (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/ayurvedic-medicine would be reliable enough IMO to keep the section. --allthefoxes (Talk) 22:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I concur, a source to a general information academic site lacking authors and citations is not a suitable source for a medical or science article at Wikipedia. Raise discussion here, there are now two edits in favour of removal, one opposed. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reference to a paragraph under Principles and Terminology

{edit semi-protected}

Under the section Principles and Terminology, regarding the following paragraph:

"Ayurveda also 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. One Ayurvedic view is that the doshas are balanced when they are equal to each other, while another view is that each human possesses a unique combination of the doshas which define this person's temperament and characteristics. In either case, it says that each person should modulate their behavior or environment to increase or decrease the doshas and maintain their natural state."

I have written an article describing the specific details behind this belief in the doshas in this page: http://eupterrafoundation.com/ayurvedic-body-types-diet-recommendations

Would it be helpful to have this linked to the "modulate their behavior or environment" phrase as a link or add reference to this to the paragraph for further information for readers to have?

~EupterraenEupterraen 15:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayurveda&oldid=718777212"