Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Efficacy

I fleshed out a few of the comments in this section. I forgot the edit summary on the last one--just clarified that the promise in the herbal treatments stems from animal experiments. Desoto10 (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not happy that these changes have been made without discussion, but due to the unusual circumstances of this page, it is unclear if it is permissable for me to make modifications to those changes without incurring the wrath of the Admins, and thus incurring unjustified blots on my copybook. I shall instead register this objection. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope he is aware of Talk:Ayurveda#Update. Desoto10's changes were fine and he has explained them, he was just expanding the information per citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No, they weren't fine. That is why I objected. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there something going on here that I don't know about? The only restriction that I see are is the administrative sanctions bit which is usual for many of these kinds of articles. Why would you not be able to change my edits?Desoto10 (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to some vigorous edit warring in the recent past an admin has imposed restrictions based on the arbcom ruling allowing an admin to do so. They are on this talk page at the link provided above. My interpretation is Roxy is required to provide smoe more detailed explanation of the objections and perhaps have some consensus or level of support. I don't really understand the restrictions that well as they would seem to imply that before making the edits Desosto10 should have discussed them and sought/gotten support/consensus. What I see as best for this article is propose and discuss edits before making them if they could be considered substantial or controversial (although anticipating controversy requires both common sense and a crystal ball). Whatever, I anticipate Roxy will provide an explanation of their objections shortly and discussion will follow. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Real life gets in the way sometimes. this diff over eggs the pudding somewhat, suggesting far more promise for future herbal treatments than wikipedia should express. The changes here are a backward step - meaning is the same, but clarity is lost. Will readers know what RA is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy the dog (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 November 2014‎

I think meaning is also lost in the second change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I intend to change it back then, as there are no objections. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. Destoto can explain whenever he has enough time. నిజానికి (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The reverted edits have been explained. They are an expansion that closely follows the sources and should be restored. There is consensus support. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

safe intake of heavy metals by food standards, is anything linking to this topic found in a ref?

Safe intake should have its own section on this page above or bellow or even within the heavy metal section, "The Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives Secretariat recommends that a 70-kilogram, or 154-pound, person consume no more than 250 micrograms of lead, 50 micrograms of mercury and 150 micrograms of arsenic per day."

Would it be possible to use it as it gives rough guide to the safe daily dose which humans can safely intake?http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/fashion/18skin.html?_r=092.236.96.38 (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Caplock

It is not very possible to list every update. You can propose if you have any in your mind. నిజానికి (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We aren't prescribing or warning. Any content added must be supported by a source that includes a direct reference to Ayurveda. and must be MEDRS compliant and mainstream. Information that is not directly supported by such a source and which makes a implied connection to Ayurveda is Original Research and is outside the scope of our articles. I have heard that in the past some Ayurvedic products where shipped in drums that had been used for chemical pesticides and so were contaminated. No source for that just the word of an environmental lawyer and friend. That was apparently a long time ago-30 years or so; things have probably changed since then. Anyway no OR for us.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC))_

LOO, did you read the proposed source? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope I didn't, and thanks for calling me on that. This is what comes of rushing around before leaving town! I took the cmt here at face value and it didn't say anything about Ayurvrda. My error. I don't think the source is MEDRS compliant though, although it may refer to sources that are. I don't have time to check. I guess I was implying above that there probably are compliant sources that indicate some products may be contaminated. Apologies all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC))

No problem. Since your comments weren't consistent with the article's text, I thought perhaps you had confused it with a different source. Safe travels. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

These edits were made despite civil and good-faith objections above from other editors. This contradicts the spirit and letter of the sanctions extant on this article. User:Prodigyhk may have been unaware of this component of the sanctions, so I would invite him or her to self-revert. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-insertion of these edited were discussed here. The objections were regarding the 2nd part of the discussion "Outside Indian Continent" section Prodigyhk (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Prodigyhk. Since there appears to be a difference of opinion regarding the nature of these edits, I have invited an administrator to give his opinion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Ayurveda#Other changes since 0RR for review - Only the part under Ayurveda#Efficacy was objected, not other changes. He had notified when he had added these, last month. See Talk:Ayurveda#Natural medical substances used- further additions. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris I hope you have reviewed the reasons from Bladesmulti and myself on why this edit was made. Please advice if you are satisfied with our response. If not, please advice the specific objections raised by other editors on this edit that has raised your concern. This will help us understand better the difference of opinions and respond effectively. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Also see the section called History, some sections above. Some errors are still appearing on the page. నిజానికి (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Had to be done by now, terminology would need to be edited in order to meet the proposed edits to history. నిజానికి (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed it now. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK references not valid?

"an ancient Indian system of medicine which began about 5,000 years ago. It is not just one treatment. It is a way of diagnosing illness and using a wide range of treatments and techniques. Some regards it as" this text was deleted from the article by User:Roxy the dog as per this. May I know why it is reverted eventhough I provided Cancer Research UK's reference? Please have a look at the reference and if you don't find text mentioned here on the reference page, revert it. If you find it, please justify your reason to delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsvyas (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Before you make a major change like this[1], read Talk:Ayurveda#Update, if conclusion is that there is no scientific proof from the same citation, then you will just have to keep it on lead. Although I do agree with this change[2], and it is not really a major change, but only Roxy the dog has problem with it. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that there is no scientific proof and hence have not removed it from the text. Please have a revised text read. If it is the same reference that suggests that some of it is useful, what is the reason for hiding that fact? Why can't both stay side by side?-- Dhaval^Talk 11:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, the one on which this discussion started, clearly states that it is an ancient Indian system of medicine, why is that not depicted on the page and the edit is reverted? I have even left the fact in next paragraph where it is referred to as complementary medicine. If source for one statement is considered valid, why is it not for the other? Roxy the dog has problem in calling it anything but complementary medicine, despite the reference from reliable source?-- Dhaval^Talk 11:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

About your wikilinks, yes there was clear agreement for keeping them. Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 54#MEDRS verification, though no agreement for removing them. If you have agreed, that you will not change the lead(starting paragraphs) again, then it is alright. Again, we cannot claim any scientific benefits at least on lead about Ayurveda. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dsvyas, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, thanks. Also, as you are in violation of the sanctions in place on this page and the article page by violating 1RR twice, please could you self-revert your reverts of my two contributions to the article today. Thank you. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

He knows how to sign, he may not have been aware of "0-revert" rule, however his other edit was not a major, just a partial recovery of content that was recently(october 2014) removed without any discussion or concord. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@John: please sort this out, thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it would help things run smoothly if everyone were to agree that a revert is a revert, full stop. Otherwise there is potential for endless argument over which reverts "count". Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the contentious edits made by Dsvyas. I do not think we can directly equate the terms as proposed. Yobol (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dispute is probably about psychiatry, although backed by reliable citations, but I would ask, you will prefer Exorcism or demonology or both of these two as replacement? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Others have explained why those lead edits require consensus. Dsvyas should not add anything about how old Ayurveda is, naming it as ancient or traditional is enough for the lead, if you need more information, then you can read rest of the page. నిజానికి (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

References

edit by Dsvyas

with regard to this edit, I think that Dsvyas is perhaps not aware of the editing restrictions on this page. I manually reverted in this dif. Dsvyas, please familiarize yourself with the editing restrictions on this article, and please also see the following section in the archives discussing exactly the sort of thing you did: Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_5#Unexplained_removal_of_terms_on_eight_components. Ironically, I believe it was edit warring over that very topic that led to the editing restrictions we have today. Dsvyas, please discuss and obtain consensus for your proposed changes before re-adding them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How about editors work on grammar problems without worrying about editing restrictions?

The grammar problems in the article are laughable. How about we put improving this article, where grammar is concerned, over the editing restrictions? Anyone object? --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't object, but please bear in mind that some editors here run off to report infarctions of restrictions at the drop of a hat, and John uses his mop and bucket like the Sword of Damocles and is very unpredictable, so be careful. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Do I smell a violation of 1RR here?[3][4] The restrictions here are for a purpose. Any violation of them should be sanctioned. Nobody is interested in hearing endless rants about those. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Jay, it was the edit after those that violated the sanctions, the ones I made were quite acceptable. Cheers. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You are walking on a thin ice, Roxy the Dog. I hope you are wearing your icepicks on your neck. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, I can't see any problem with fixing the grammar issues. After all, that's not a revert on the substance. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I added copyedit template. Cleanup template is mostly for spam. నిజానికి (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a stab at the current version of the lede. Some of the grammar probems that I noticed in the lede earlier were a part of the content under dispute that is currently removed.

I tagged "medieval period" as needing clarification. Perhaps we trim the lede a bit and expand on the topic in the History section? I'm not seeing any definition within this article about what "medieval period" refers to at all, but I could be overlooking something.

I also considered tagging "Vedic tradition" as having similar problems. Maybe link it to Vedas? --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Medieval probably meant for the section Ayurveda#Further development and spread, starts with "The field of Ayurveda flourished throughout the Indian Middle Ages". Vedic tradition means Vedic period. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I will attributed the tagged Medieval period to Ayurveda#Further development and spread any objections? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2014

There are lot of scientific research evidences for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine available in Pubmed, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. (Example : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25395997 or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25498854 ). So please remove this sentence from the page : There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease. The given reference Cancer Research UK. Retrieved August 2013 is discussing about cancer diseases only. Then how could you say treatment of any disease. Please remove it and modify it with new scientific research references. Riyami (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation(CRU} suggests "or any other disease". Bladesmulti (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The first ref is pretty good, actually, and concludes that the evidence for Ayurveda is poor and very sparse and that, if practitioners wish to declare otherwise, then they need to actually do some research. The second is a mouse study. Desoto10 (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nepal

It seems to me the Nepal sub-section discusses herbal medicine, without saying that it is Ayurvedic. It's possible the source does say "Ayurvedic". Perhaps it should be removed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

75% is an estimate[5], somebody removed the actual title and publisher which is Routledge.[6] More can be written from that citation and the other one.[7] Bladesmulti (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Repetition of information

The third paragraph in the introduction section repeats the same thing as that of the 7th section - Use of toxic metals. Delete one of them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 13:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LEAD tells you to repeat the major highlights of the article. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The major highlight of the Article on Ayurveda is some copied part of abstract propagandist researches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

History of Ayurveda

THIS IS THE FACT. REFERENCES WERE IMPROPERLY ADDED TO SENTENCES. EDIT THIS.

Origins of Ayurveda have been traced back to 5,000 BCE, originating as an oral tradition and later as medical texts. Ayurveda is the upaveda of Atharvaveda.

Brahma is the premier source of knowledge of Ayurveda. Brahma imparted the knowledge to Daksha Prajapati who taught this knowledge to Ashwini Kumaras and then to Lord Indra.

Several writers and scholars have different idea on how Indra imparted his knowlege of Ayurveda.

According to Charaka Saṃhitā, Ashwini Kumaras imparted their knowledge to Lord Indra, Bhardwaj and Atreya.

Atreya then taught Ayurveda to his six students, namely Agnivesa (अग्निभेष), Bhel (भेल), Atukarna (अतुकर्ण), Prasar (परासर), Harit (हारित), Ksharpani (क्षारपाणी).

According to Suśrutha Saṃhitā, Lord Indra imaparted his knowledge to Lord Dhawantari. Lord Dhawantari then imparted his knowledge to Sushruta followed by Aupadhenav, Aurabhra, Vaitaran, Kar Virya, Gopurakshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 January 2015(UTC)

References

It would look trivial, everything that you have mentioned is already mentioned. You cannot use Gujarat Ayurved University, planetayurveda.com and few others as citation because they are Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned one legend (was received by Dhanvantari (or Divodasa) from Brahma) and also mentioned that it is just an example, there are few others. The lengthy explanations of legends will distract from the historicity. If you are interested in writing the views of Charaka Samhita and Susrutha Samhita, then why you don't just edit Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda pages needs attention. There are several technical and factual errors on this page. References has been randomly added. I am not allowed to edit them. Nor, can I add my references, either from online or published book. Editors in the talk page has been vandalizing my rights, and imparting false knowledge and propaganda. I have kept my things in the upper sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please make your suggestions and the reliable sources you wish to support them with here. See WP:IRS and WP:V for what constitutes a reliable source. See WP:NOTVAND for what is and is not considered vandalism. --John (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nepal

In Nepal, 80 per cent of the population receives Ayurvedic medicine as first aid treatment. - See more at: http://thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Weeklong+programme+to+observe+Health+Day&NewsID=395245#sthash.Idu28jQY.dpuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It will work, we can remove "According to a WHO survey, about 75% of the population of Nepal uses herbal medicines" and estimate the population figure at 80% - 75%. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please edit [[User:Bladesmulti|Bladesmulti]. Because if I do, you gonna revert it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Add this sentence

Add this statement - From its ancient origins in India, Ayurveda has now spread all over the world.

Reference: PAGE NUMBER 7 of Discovering the True You with Ayurveda: How to Nourish, Rejuvenate and Transform Your Life Sebastian Pole, North Atlantic Books, 2013 - Health & Fitness - 256 pages

That opinion is shared by multiple researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty obvious and requires no mention. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an Wikipedia article on Facebook and it reads "After registering to use the site, users can create a user profile." Pretty obvious and requires no mention, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 11:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You are not talking about your edit, stay on it, even if someone disagreed. నిజానికి (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a clear sentence of disagreement. The references are perfect. The sentence gives a clear idea to the reader on Ayurveda. Ayurveda is flourishing. This fact hasn't been covered in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

He disagreed and so I did. No one agreed with your change, unless you could mention that how many countries have the Ayurveda centers, it may have been attributed that way. We don't state that "Bible is read all over the world." Because it is something obvious just like prevalence of any popular treatment. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe articles in Wikipedia rely on facts. I see no errors in telling people that Ayurveda, in spite of being Indian origin has flourished all over the world. Even the fact is Ayurveda is spreading throughout South and Central America and hardly a country remains untouched by it. There is nothing wrong informing reader that Russia, which has a life expectancy of over 70 years, has conducted several studies on the use of Ayurveda medicines, with one study showing that application of preventive Ayurvedic measures reduces the risk of acute respiratory diseases by 70 per cent. These things are to be prioritized in the article. But, it seems that facts are being deleted. I have been getting reply from a single editor, and this can not be the mass view of all editors. If none is convinced, delete facts from the article. Editswikifornepali (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Then make a new section of Russia and mention, but don't distract by adding something on, you are not adhering to BRD. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine

This is totally incorrect to write personal views in Wikipedia. What is the definition of scientific evidences? There are several research paper online (PubMed or whatever) that proves the scientific evidence of Ayurveda. More than 80% of the people in South Asia use Ayurveda. The reference for this statement comes from a website regarding cancer research, putting the statement around the disease of cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 12:38, 6 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Nonsense. There is scientific evidence for some treatments which are part of Ayurveda, but not for much of it, nor the methodology as a whole. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I see WP:YESPOV to the statement - There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease. Reference: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/ayurvedic-medicine, is an opinion of an organisation and this is not the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 10:44, 7 January 2015‎(UTC)

That opinion is shared by multiple researchers. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The website cites no references to this statement. Please read WP:YESPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)

They are reference for their own research. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have an objection to this. Then they come into Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editswikifornepali (talk • contribs) 11:02

They don't, you can confirm it from Wikipedia:RSN. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Keeping in both sort of researches is good, just don't edit the lead. నిజానికి (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"here is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease." is absolutely correct. There is some scientific evidence that some of the herbs sometimes recommended by Ayurvedic medicine are effective for some conditions. (The "sometimes" refers to the fact that Ayurvedic medicine is not scientific, so that it does not "prescribe" according to only the conditions, or, in fact, to any limited set of criteria.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)