Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2023 (2)

To make the article unbiased and to provide a fair comparative context, please add the following to the end of the last paragraph of the lead of this article.

Edit note: with condensed and rephrased text from adverse effect.

Comparatively, the modern Western medicine also causes adverse side effects and complications, causing at least 142,000 deaths globally in 2013, resulting in numerous lawsuits against western drug manufacturers. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done - we shouldn't be suggesting equivalency between modern medicine, which while not perfect is highly effective, and pseudoscience like Ayurveda. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

Please edit the first sentence in the lede

roots in the Hinduism and the Indian subcontinent.

Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

References

I'm not generally opposed to the edit, but I am unconvinced by the sources neither of which - the former due to age, the latter due to content - appear to be overly reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary descriptor

>Through well-understood processes of modernization and globalization, ayurveda has been adapted for Western consumption

Are these processes really "well-understood"? I see the source referenced has essays on the development of international brands of the subject but the wording makes it sound like the results of Eastern and Western cultural mingling are easily predictable. Anyone interested in striking that descriptor? I feel like quite the pedant here, but it hits a tone that annoys me. 2600:1015:B12A:24C7:3852:9FB8:5D5C:F4A1 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I agree. It sounded pretty bad, given that the next sentence calls out fraud. Not pedantic at all, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nano-ayurvedic medicine

The article Nano-ayurvedic medicine was recently created. I just blanked and redirected it here. There may be some useful information for expanding this article available in the sources used there. See this revision if you'd care to dig through the references. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Now a redlink because it was restored and I draftified. See Draft:Nano-ayurvedic medicine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ayurveda using population in india

the article says "It is heavily practiced in India and Nepal, where around 80% of the population report using ayurveda" coined with somewhat vague citations such as people in nepal (Not in india) using ayurveda as first aid.This projects a false narrative that 80% people in india uses ayurveda over modern medicine, But according to latest data 90% of indian population prefers modern medicine over ayurveda and other pseudoscientific medications.(Which makes sense as people's health will be in jeopardy if they use alternative pseudo medicines for chronic illness instead of real medicines)

Here I'm linking a news article about it https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/90-of-indians-prefer-allopathy-over-ayush/articleshow/47981441.cms

Here's the National Sample Survey Office(NSSO) survey report that shows that 90% of Indians use allopathic or modern medical treatments as primary health care treatments.(refer Table 10). https://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/nss_71st_ki_health_30june15.pdf

Deejayyyoung (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Err no it does not, as it doesn't say that. That is a bit like trying to say that people using a bus never use cars. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wording is quite problematic giving the impression that 80% of indians depends on ayurveda as their primary medical care ,It'll be wiser to add at least that they use ayurveda as secondary or supplementary treatment after modern medical care. Deejayyyoung (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

And I disagree it gives that impression. Niter for us to make your susgesrted edit the sources must say " use ayurveda as secondary or supplementary treatment after modern medical care.", not that they just use it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You would find the sources supporting the claim of 80% use are of very poor quality. One of them says 80% of Nepal population use ayurveda as first aid(Like a band aid?) and other one is about heavy metal poisoning in ayurveda , And the third one is from a low quality book about herbal medicine apparently written by a bcom(business degree) graduate . Deejayyyoung (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are only the sources we use in the lede, there appear to be others in the body. So you need to find a source actually contesting what we actually say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not my burden to prove the flying spaghetti doesn't exist but the burden of ones who claim that they exist in the first place . Check and verify the deteriorate quality citations used to claim absurd assumptions. Deejayyyoung (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:v wp:consensus and wp:burden. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion

Hi, @MrOllie, you reverted my very careful edits wholesale. That is explicitly Could we discuss things here, calmly, before agreeing on a text that satisfies us both? You gave the reason "the mainstream position is not just another competing opinion" and I agree with you. And if you read my edits, I carefully avoided saying this.

The issue is this: Ayurveda has a long and literate history, very similar to the medicine of Hippocrates and Galen. If you look at the WP entry for Hippocrates, for example, it starts "Hippocrates of Kos ... was a Greek physician of the classical period who is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine." That entry doesn't start by saying "Hippocratic medicine is pseudoscience". That is because few people today accept and practice Hippocratic medicine wholesale (although parts of Hippocratic medicine are still important, such as the Oath). What is the issue here? It is that Ayurveda as practised today in a modernised and globalised form and as contrasted with modern establishment medicine is a pseudoscience. Sure, no problem. But in, say, 1000 CE, in South Asia, it was not an alternative in the modern sense; it was the most professional and learned system available, just as Galen's medicine was in Europe. So how do we express all this in a manner that doesn't upset the people who are passionate about criticising pseudoscience, but at the same time explaining to WP readers that Ayurveda has a history, just like Greek medicine.

The second issue is that Ayurveda - pseudoscience as it may be - is still supported by the Governments of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal. India has a whole ministry devoted to Ayurveda, and the country is full of Government Ayurvedic colleges, clinics, and so on. People go to university and get degrees and doctorates in Ayuveda. Somehow, in a WP entry on "Ayurveda" we need to express this, again without upsetting people who are passionate about criticising pseudoscience.

What do you suggest? I tried my best to do this, and I emphasize again that I did not present pseudoscience as "just another competing opinion". How would you express the historical and sociological dimensions of this topic?

Wujastyk (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the existing treatment in the lead section, which covered all the history. You relocated that into a new section - it did a better job summarizing the article than your new version did. Also, adding unnecessary attributions like Most practitioners of modern establishment medicine consider absolutely is casting the mainstream position as an opinion. This sets up a false balance where proponents of Ayurveda are given equal validity to mainstream medicine. MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no denying that if MDs would practice today what Hippocrates practiced then, it would be labeled WP:CB. That's thoroughly accepted in the West: Western MDs and Western medical authorities have for the most part rejected that as Ancient superstition. Indian government did not reach a similar conclusion. That is, the West has removed Ancient superstitions from medical science, India didn't. Again, there is no denying that two centuries ago that was far from settled. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Tgeorgescu and @MrOllie, are you aware of the long history of struggle in India during the 20th century to find a government policy that recognizes the merits of indigenous tradition but at the same time privileges modern establishment medicine? This has been significant, involving more than twenty government commissions of different types that examined issues in diagnosis, pharmacy and other topics, working their way towards a system that is acceptable to the various stakeholders in the pluralistic health care situation in India. This has been documented in many publications by medical anthropologists and medical historians. What has emerged in the contemporary India establishment is a modernized form of Ayurveda in which modern clinical skills and ideas are taught alongside traditional concepts and therapies. It's really quite bizarre in some ways. What I'm getting at here is that a medicine practiced under the name "Ayurveda" is not one monolithic thing. Very often, doctors with Ayurvedic qualifications will be measuring blood pressure, using stethoscopes and dispensing antibiotics. I have been an observer in clinical situations in which the Ayurvedic doctor routinely referred patients to allopathic clinics for ailments that he felt were not in his purview. Furthermore, what is touted under the name "Ayurveda" in European and American settings is very different again. It's often a hybridized system presenting a melange of CAM ideas with a patina of Ayurvedic terminology. Don't you think it would be helpful to readers if we could capture some of this history and diversity in the WP article? Wujastyk (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting, but one of the many benefits that Wikipedia enjoys is that we can follow what the best available sources say, and we do not have to be concerned with following government policies. I believe it is more 'helpful to readers' to summarize the best available, mainstream sources, and they're quite clear about this. Your point seems to be that Ayurveda is practiced more like Integrative medicine - but the mainstream opinion on that is quite clear, too. When you add pseudoscience to evidence-based medicine, it is still pseudoscience.

PS: Adding citations when you have an obvious conflict of interest with the authors of those sources is not a good idea either, you should not do that again. - MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie I did not for a minute suggest that anyone should follow government policies. I wish you would read more carefully. What I said was that such policies exist, and a WP article should document what exists. We all need to keep NPOV and make these articles descriptive. While we do have strong views, WP isn't the place to vent. We're here to describe people, events, institutions and history as neutrally as we can.

A lot hangs on what you mean by "the best available, mainstream sources." It seems to me that there is a lot of scholarly historical, anthropological and ethnographic literature that doesn't get referenced in this WP page. That's what I'm trying to introduce. There's a mountain of untrustworthy writing about Ayurveda out there, most of it produced by self-promoting practitioners and people with a nationalist agenda making presentist claims for ancient sciences. We need to guide our readers towards the best expert consensus on matters of medical history and related interpretative disciplines.

You say "When you add pseudoscience to evidence-based medicine, it is still pseudoscience," and I think that's an important point. But perhaps it's more like an emulsion than a solution. The 400,000 or so ayurvedic physicians in India are pracising a complex series of diagnoses and therapies, some of which are pseudoscientific, and some of which are identical to the practices of establishment-qualified doctors. That's why medical anthropologists refer to situations like India's as sites of plural medicine.

I don't recall citing authors with whom I had any conflict of interest. Could you point out what you are referring to? When I add citations, I am careful to cite solid, peer-reviewed academic materials. And I cite materials that support the point I am making (obviously), not materials with which I disagree or have a conflict of interest. This is all in line with WP policy, with which I am very well acquainted, and normal academic writing practice.

Gotta go.

Wujastyk (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't recall adding multiple references to Dominik Wujastyk? You've done it several times, most recently in the reverted edit being discussed here, which was only a few days ago. MrOllie (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're mixing me up with my wife, Dagmar Wujastyk, who has written on the modernization and globalization of Ayurveda, ancient medical ethics, and other topics. Wujastyk (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding citations either to your wife or to yourself is an obvious conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it. MrOllie (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. I've been down this road before, and discussed it with the gods of WP. What matters is to cite reliable public sources. And your remark assumes that my wife is alive or that I agree with her. You should actually read the cited works and think about what they say before making superficial judgements.

Wujastyk (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Either the 'gods of WP' were mistaken or you misunderstood. This is exactly the kind of thing that the COI guideline is about. MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wujastyk Your edit would never be accepted. You cited Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, a pseudoscience journal. Please check WP:CITEWATCH before you edit. All the books you cited are unreliable WP:MEDBOOK. — hako9 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hako9 No, I didn't cite the JAIM. That was someone else and, incidentally, it was cited as evidence that Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. By all means delete it.

Look, we're trying to have a good conversation here about how to strengthen this WP article about Ayurveda. We need to read carefully and accurately and try to think the best of each other.

Wujastyk (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The diffs do not lie: [1]. We can see in the article history that you did. MrOllie (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not add that citation. I don't read JAIM and have no interest in it. You must have misinterpreted the diffs. Wujastyk (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll believe the Wiki software and my own eyes, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, where Hippocratic/Galenic medicine is still practised, we do in fact say that it is pseudoscientific, and that its practitioners have been described as quacks, in the lead. Brunton (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't disagree (read what I said). But you wouldn't start a WP article on Hippocrates by saying "Hippocratic medicine is pseudoscientific". You might say - see Hippocrates - that Hippocrates was someone, "... who is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine. He is traditionally referred to as the "Father of Medicine" in recognition of his lasting contributions to the field, such as the use of prognosis and clinical observation". I.e., give the history and background. Then you could say, "contemporary practitioners of Hippocratic medicine are practicing pseudoscience." If you read the WP entry on Hippocrates (the authors of Hippocratic corpus), you'll notice that he is given a great deal of positive description for discovering all sorts of things for the first time. For example, "Hippocrates is credited as the first person to believe that diseases were caused naturally, not because of superstition and gods." or "Hippocratic medicine was notable for its strict professionalism, discipline, and rigorous practice." Parallel statements could be made about ancient Ayurvedic physicians and ancient Ayurvedic medicine (in fact Ayurveda is so similar to Hippocratic medicine that at one time medical historians used to claim that early Indians adopted Greek medicine from Alexander's generals who remained in India after his death.) There's a great deal in the classical Ayurvedic classical treatises about how to identify quack doctors and how dangerous they are. The article on Hippocrates doesn't use the word "pseudoscience" or "quack" once. Why? Because no community is practicing Hippocratic medicine today on a large scale. That's where Ayurveda and TCM are different. They are trying to drag a largely obsolete medical system into the present. So that's a very important thing to describe and that's where one could use terms like "pseudoscience." It would be completely pointless to accuse Hippocrates of being pseudoscientific. Science in the modern sense didn't exist in the fifth century BCE, so it's a meaningless assertion. What does this mean for the WP entry on Ayurveda? How can we improve it?

Wujastyk (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything for the WP entry on Ayurveda. You seem to be conflating historical figures with medical systems. Brunton (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Brunton What I am suggesting that this article would be better if we disaggregated historical description from contemporary issues of practice and pseudoscience. I do not see that this is problematic. Could this article not have a history section describing the history of Ayurveda in a neutral and objective way, as well as a section describing how the practice of modern and global Ayurveda is problematic from all sorts of perspectives? Wujastyk (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

But it is still being practised, so we treat it as a system that is still being practised. "Disaggregate" it all you like (short of a WP:POVFORK, obviously), it is still being practised. And description of the system as currently practised will need to stay in the lead. Brunton (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Our articles on ancient Vedic doctors do not claim they practiced pseudoscience, either; in fact, some of them actually employ in-universe descriptions of Ayurveda in Wikivoice, which is a much more serious breach of NPOV and OR. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

But are they practicing today? Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay Yes, that article on Charaka is very poor too, for many reasons. Basically, the problem is that non-historians try to write about historical topics. Most people writing about Ayurveda are either contemporary practitioners or else motivated by feelings of national pride. I did try to improve that Charaka article, back in 2020. Some of my references to secure dates and serious literary history are still there, but they are drowned out by vague, unsubstantiated assertions and references to equally poor publications by non-specialists. Wujastyk (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Note

• WP:FTN#Nano-ayurvedic medicine, again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Accusations of bias

hi @Dāsānudāsa. My edits were intended to make comprehension of the material easier. What in particular did you find biased? Apart from changing the word "some" to "many" medicines (which I feel is justified. 20% of over a hundred medicines is not a small sample), I thought I actually improved the neutrality. I thought it particularly important to include that these toxic metals are deliberately part of the ingredients. The introduction in its current form reads as if this is not the case, and that the use of these metals is due to incompetence, deception (for what reason is anyone's guess), or both. Also (since you reverted 2 of my edits) we are back to building on claims to treating cancer that, as far as I know, have never been made. Was cancer even identified at the time of these scriptures? I await your reply. Aero13792468 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely misread your edits. I have no excuse other than that I have cancer and are both foggy-headed from the chemo and extremely super-sensitive about anyone promoting this sort of nonsense as a cancer cure (which clearly you weren't). I will self-revert. Your changes are an improvement. Apologies again; must concentrate more, revert less. Best, Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)