Jump to content

Talk:Ayurveda: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 185: Line 185:
:::::::::The very fact that you used a phrase here on this page,'''for which you yourself blocked me from editing here when I used it''' leads me to suggest that you should, following your disastrous stewardship of this page, recuse yourself from any further involvement. That will help us build this part of the encyclopaedia far far easier than anything else. There are admins aplenty to help in your civility crusade - your help is not required. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the <small>black and white</small> dog™]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 11:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::The very fact that you used a phrase here on this page,'''for which you yourself blocked me from editing here when I used it''' leads me to suggest that you should, following your disastrous stewardship of this page, recuse yourself from any further involvement. That will help us build this part of the encyclopaedia far far easier than anything else. There are admins aplenty to help in your civility crusade - your help is not required. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the <small>black and white</small> dog™]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 11:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::What are you folks doing here, if not promoting a point of view that you feel is absolutely vital for the world to hear, and talking about banning people from Wikipedia for being "stubborn edit warriors" and the like? I think there's a cultural thing going on here, promoting "skepticism" and the need to stick a "pseudoscience" label on things. From a sociological point of view, i see a relative picture of this thing, and i hear sharpening of knives. "Of course, most people feel that the problem is mainly with other people, which is itself part of the problem." [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 10:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::What are you folks doing here, if not promoting a point of view that you feel is absolutely vital for the world to hear, and talking about banning people from Wikipedia for being "stubborn edit warriors" and the like? I think there's a cultural thing going on here, promoting "skepticism" and the need to stick a "pseudoscience" label on things. From a sociological point of view, i see a relative picture of this thing, and i hear sharpening of knives. "Of course, most people feel that the problem is mainly with other people, which is itself part of the problem." [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 10:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::[[Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans|Well, yes.]] -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 11:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:23, 8 June 2015

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes ~~~~. Note that you can be bold and fix mistakes yourself you cannot be bold editing this article. It 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.

Template:Vital article

The Article needs NPOV tagging

Hi folks. If there was no permanent block on editing the page, I would have placed an NPOV tag today. Why? Because of the swathes of text indicating that Ayu medicine, and thought come to that, is real, the "research" has merit, and even if the system of medicine that has sprung from this historical elephant has coverage in huge tracts of the less developed world, Modern science has shown that there is no basis to think that Ayurvedic medicine is anything other than nonsense. We don't say that, and we should, if we are being honest with WP:PAG.

Obviously, sanctions will not allow this, or any real improvement to the article. What should we do to deal with this? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 13 April 2015

The changes to the lede are: "Modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[15] Other researchers consider it a proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.[16][17][18]"

The changes to the article are: "Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.[16][17][18]"

I propose the this change to summarise the body and expand the article a bit.

Protected edit request on 3 May 2015

I would like permission to make small, incremental edits to the Ayurveda page, following discussion on the Talk page. DomLaguna (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wujastyk: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I want to correct the opening statement that ayurveda is "Hindu". But having to ask permission for every little change is too limiting and laborious to allow serious work to take place. I'll come back in a few years. Bye. DomLaguna (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BYE. We'll be waiting ! -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 10:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 20 May 2015

I would like to submit a propsal to change the sentence "Modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[15] Other researchers consider it a proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead." 

to

"Some researchers consider ayurvedic medicine as pseudoscientific while some other researchers consider it proto-science, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead."

I beleive the revised wording removes any bias which was present. naveen cherian 03:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposal is unsourced. I disagree with replacing sourced text with original research. QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: As QuackGuru says, this proposal fails WP:V and WP:OR. Also, you need to gain a consensus for your edits before making protected edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Now that accounts such as Bladesmulti, నిజానికి, Noteswork, and AmritasyaPutra have been blocked as sockpuppets of OccultZone, I think we have some cleanup to do. bobrayner (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Grief. How didn't I know about this. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC is now bogus. See Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_9#Should_this_article_be_categorized_as_.22pseudoscience.22.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm angry, I shall be switching off my internetz in a moment. May I suggest that all sanctions over and above the arbcom pseudoscience thing be immediatly rescinded, so that GF editors can resume good faith editing. I could say much more. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John's rules were a response to the disputes between socks and legitimate editors on this article. The rules were poorly thought out and quite counterproductive. Surely, now that some socks have been blocked, we can lift those rules and resume normal editing? If problematic content has been repeatedly added to the article by OccultZone socks, then removing it is perfectly OK by the usual wikipedia policies, but removing it is a blockable offence according to the rules imposed on this article.

Trash talk from any editor on whichever "side" (and the idea that there are "sides" is one of the main problems here, in my opinion) will result in a block, whether it is directed at a particular editor or against the other "side" in general.

Is that rule lifted too, or will I get blocked for making honest statements about POV-pushing by sockpuppets? bobrayner (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here is a thing. QG and myself were blocked for exactly that. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You think John's rules were a response to the disputes on this article? I think you don't understand what really happened. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested the closing admin to reevaluate the RFC close.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoscience

See Talk:Ayurveda#Cleanup for what was causing the main issues to this article. I propose adding the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should [[Category: Pseudoscience]] be added to the article?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • support classic pseudoscience: the presentation of woo in a white labcoat to try and make it look respectable. The initiator and multiple commentors in the previous RfC being specifically identified as socks essentially nullifies any claim of "consensus" decision decision from there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User TheRedPenOfDoom, questions for you: Is "woo" a word or an abbreviation? In either case, what does it mean in your use? Are you referring to the photo of a practitioner in a white shirt? Or are you being metaphorical? SageRad (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Woo second entry. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i am not sure why you think that having a long history of pseudoscientific practices should somehow cancel the fact that it is pseudoscientific?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Adding a category does not "label the entire article as pseudoscience", but large portions of ayurveda most certainly are pseudoscience. Being 100% pseudoscience in all aspects is not our normal criteria for adding something to a category.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would see the "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic" per WP categorization, in this case, the topic Ayurveda, as a traditional health care system not as pseudoscience. While we may view aspects of Ayurveda as pseudoscience I do not see that as an essential characteristic. I see trad health care systems with pseudoscience aspects. Others I realize see the reverse - pseudoscience with some trad. health care modalities. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Reliable sources disagree. For example, the WP:LEDE says "Modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[15]" QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the lede shouldn't be written that way (i.e. calling something pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice), given the disagreement between sources and the polemical slant of the single source cited. It's fine to use that source, but it should be with in-text attribution. Doing otherwise needs something like WP:RS/AC, which hasn't been supplied there. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is a pseudohistorical nonsense (and a violation of core Wikipedia principles) to retroactively apply a category only rationally applicable to the modern era to a subject pre-dating anything that could remotely be described as 'science' by thousands of years. Find another forum for your revisionist quack 'history'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In which case it is clearly misleading, and grossly inappropriate, to tag an article covering (depending on your sources) many thousand years of history based on a category that can only apply to the last century at most. Would you apply the same standards to Western medicine, and label it 'pseudoscience' on the grounds that evidence-based practice has only been the norm for the last few years - and is still not considered appropriate for many common forms of treatment? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect to find non-scientific fields held up as "medicine" to be in this cat. Particularly "medicines" working under the premises of energy healing and dispensing concoctions containing heavy metals and arsenic as "cures". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, sufficient sources identify the pseudoscientific elements of this that to describe it merely as folk medicine would be wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – If reliable sources say that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience then we should put Ayurveda in the pseudoscience category. Suggestions that Ayurveda is somehow immune to the pseudoscience category by virtue of some unwritten grandfather clause are wholly irrelevant in an encyclopedia driven by reliable sources. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Reliable sources describe this topic as pseudoscience in its "modern" usages. Pre-modern times ayurveda was pre-scientifical but the article has a substantial coverage of the modern aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It is a form of traditional medicine based on prescientific theories. The label pseudoscience is a pejorative, and does not meaningfully add anything to the article.Herbxue (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
again, having no scientific basis for a long period of time does not make one immune from being pseudoscience when one continues the nonscientific basis but is presented as if there is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding a category to an article does not imply that "the entire article" falls under that category. This should be self-evident, but take for instance the Health in India category to which the article also belongs: the entire article isn't about health in India.
  • There is no doubt that much of Ayurveda as currently practiced today falls under pseudoscience, as shown in the sources mentioned by QG. This designation is not invalidated by Ayurveda's historical origins, or by the aspects of Ayurveda that are orthogonal to evidential claims.
  • It is a common misconception that the pseudoscience label is for "naming and shaming" or intended merely as "pejorative". No, the label carries information that readers deserve to know, namely where the topic is located in relation to the demarcation problem.
Manul ~ talk 08:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the modern practice is pseudoscience. The article is the primary article for the modern practice Ergo the article is in the pseudoscience category QED.
  • Support Reliable sources describe the modern practice of Ayurveda as pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are enough aspects of this subject which are pseudoscientific to include this article in such a category. Note that just because an article is categorized does not mean that every single encyclopedic perspective on the subject must be so categorizable. There are certainly historical aspects of ayurveda that are not "pseudoscience", but the fact that today there are pseudoscientific applications of ayurveda means that it is totally appropriate for one of the categories on this page to be pseudoscience. jps (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

  • History - A previous RFC was written in November 2014. I closed the RFC in December 2014 with a conclusion that there was consensus against labeling Ayurveda as Pseudoscience, largely because it was originally a philosophy that preceded the concept of modern science by at least one millennium. My close was challenged, and a closure review in February 2015 resulted in no consensus, leaving the original close standing. I was now asked to review my original close again, this time based on sock-puppetry by an editor who was recently banned. I concur with the conclusion that the original RFC was invalid due to sock-puppetry, and have withdrawn my close. Since the comments of some valid registered editors concurred with the comments of the banned sock-puppets, the original RFC cannot be reclosed, and a new RFC is needed. I concur with the action by Kww in posting a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment left me wondering, Robert, so for anybody else like me, the old RfC is Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_9#Should_this_article_be_categorized_as_.22pseudoscience.22.3F here and the retraction of the close and deletion of the sock !votes can be seen in this dif. The SPI case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OccultZone/Archive. I'm adding a note to the archive explaining this, as what is there makes no sense on the face of it. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note that this RFC is precisely worded as to asking whether to add the category of pseudoscience to the article, and not whether all of Ayurveda is pseudoscience. I will be providing a Qualified Support to the RFC, based on the understanding that Ayurveda is only pseudoscience when scientific claims are made for it, but that scientific claims made for it are not science and so are pseudoscience. This comment also applies to other systems of traditional medicine, such as Traditional Chinese medicine, and to associated forms of treatment, such as Acupuncture. They are pseudoscience when and only when they are advertised as science. (This argument does not apply to Homeopathy, which is pseudoscience from the start because it is of late-eighteenth-century European origin.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm overlooking something, we've basically two arguements against the category (Feel free to add others if I've missed something): --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Pseudoscience does not apply to the history of Ayurveda, but only the modern practice. Since this article is not limited to the history, this argument doesn't apply to this article. More importantly, Ayurveda is most notable for modern applications, where the category most definitely applies. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    2) The category is offensive when applied here. Editors say it is "blaming and shaming" and "is a pejorative". Some may feel that way, but Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so.. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protection downgraded

Following a request from User:Robert McClenon at my talk page, I have downgraded the protection to semi. All previous injunctions remain; no edit-warring, however mild, no major edits without prior consensus here, and no name-calling. Good luck. --John (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that isn't what is required, John. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 22:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what is required. You are expected to behave like responsible Wikipedia editors rather than being locked out like children and required to work through administrators as parents. Any editor who engages in edit-warring, however mild, major edits without prior discussion, name-calling, or uncivil edit summaries will be blocked, either by an administrator directly, or by arbitration enforcement, and I will have no sympathy for their blocks. Behave like responsible Wikipedia editors, or be prevented from editing. That is what is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Robert. Incidentally, it would be a good idea to get a formal close to any RfCs so there can be no dispute about any further edits. I strongly suggest getting a neutral closer. I recommend asking at WP:AN. --John (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as to formal closure by neutral closers via AN:RFC. (I tried being the neutral closer earlier, but that RFC was corrupted by sock-puppetry, and now I am involved.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, Robert McClenon, is that this is one of the articles under constant attack by advocates: note the sockpuppet farm that spent considerable time destroying the article and corrupting consensus. We've seen the "no name-calling" injunction abused to block editors for pointing this out. It sounds wonderful in theory, but in practice, it hasn't worked out so well.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a better idea? I agree that the current situation is very imperfect. Do you really think that placing the article under indefinite page protection is a better idea? The usual reason for full page protection is to work out issues so as to avoid blocking the edit-warriors so that they can be forced to work things out. If we have truly stubborn edit-warriors who absolutely won't work things out, why should we lock the article just to keep from blocking them? What exactly do you suggest? I know that nothing in particular has worked out well, but do you think that anything else will work better? Do you really want the article permanently locked in the approved version? By the way, that is a common request at the Help Desk for a highly promotional version of a BLP, and it is of course always denied. But do you really mean that the article should be in permanent lock-down because of fighting, or do you agree that sometimes the fighters should be blocked? (I probably sound hostile, but I really want to know whether you think that a very-long-term lockdown really is what is needed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have always felt like vigorous enforcement of our pseudoscience decision should be enough: editors that attempt to portray pseudoscience as fact should be warned against doing so and quickly blocked for repeated offenses. If we rapidly and efficiently removed editors that were not here to help us build an encyclopedia, most of the behavioural problems on the pseudoscience articles would quickly diminish to a manageable level.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly agree that we should "rapidly and efficiently remove... editors that [are] not here to help us build an encyclopedia" and I will continue to assist with this. If anyone reading this is here to promote a point of view which they feel is absolutely vital for the world to hear, they should definitely reconsider whether they are best suited to editing here. Of course, most people feel that the problem is mainly with other people, which is itself part of the problem. --John (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that you used a phrase here on this page,for which you yourself blocked me from editing here when I used it leads me to suggest that you should, following your disastrous stewardship of this page, recuse yourself from any further involvement. That will help us build this part of the encyclopaedia far far easier than anything else. There are admins aplenty to help in your civility crusade - your help is not required. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you folks doing here, if not promoting a point of view that you feel is absolutely vital for the world to hear, and talking about banning people from Wikipedia for being "stubborn edit warriors" and the like? I think there's a cultural thing going on here, promoting "skepticism" and the need to stick a "pseudoscience" label on things. From a sociological point of view, i see a relative picture of this thing, and i hear sharpening of knives. "Of course, most people feel that the problem is mainly with other people, which is itself part of the problem." SageRad (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayurveda&oldid=666021981"