Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:31, 14 September 2008

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

August 2006 – August 2008

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.

Notes on Archive 1

• Lots of complaints about biased article, minor problems, long diatribes on the use of metals in Ayurvedic medicine.
• Indications on the talk page that Hkelkar did a good revision of the article.
• Difference between Ayurvedic beliefs and independent facts or opinions regarding Ayurvedic medicine need to be made clear.
• Consider cutting unreferenced, wordy information down.
• I left some of the more substantive stuff.

II | (t - c) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Salya-Chikitsa vs. Shalya Tantra

The introduction paragraph says that surgery is called "Salya-Chikitsa", but the section on the Eight Branches states that surgery is "Shalya Tantra".

One of these needs to be corrected by someone familiar with the subject.

Oosterwal 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts about where this article is going...

First off, I'm no expert. I'm just your average jane/joe wikipedian, mosying along the[REDACTED] trail. This article seems to be in flux, to say the least. At best it looks like a brainstorm of ideas (verified and unverified); at worst, it looks like a wall where people just threw a bunch of stuff at and some of it stuck, and some of it didn't.

If I could throw a couple cents your way, I'd say this article needs a restructuring of sections. Something basic like, 1) History, 2) Medical Practicioning 3) Current practice 4) Criticisms. Unfortunately, I have no idea what any of the details are, so I can't really re-structure it competently. I'll make an effort, though, once I've done a little studying. But if you are better educated in these matters, I believe new, more comprehensive sections would spiffy-up this article very well. Rhetth (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - that would certainly help, and I'd love to help with that as well. --Shruti14 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Moved from ImperfectlyInformed's talkpage:

All the subjects added in List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Religious_and_spiritual_beliefs predates sceitific methods. Whether it predates scientific method or not is not the factor to label something a pseudoscience. The same is applied to Ayurveda. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that section starts off with the appropriate sentence "spiritual and religious practices and beliefs are normally not classified as pseudoscience". Generally traditional medicines should not be classed as pseudoscience because they don't claim to be a science at all. Modern people might claim that they are scientific, but that shouldn't dominate the fact that they aren't, although they are perhaps protoscientific in that the herbs are often effective because their effects were discovered through trial and error, a primitive form of research. If something is not normally classed as something, then adding the category is questionable. See Misplaced Pages:CAT#Some_general_guidelines. Note #7 and #8. You may want to include the section from the list of pseudoscientific concepts in the main Ayurveda article in the criticism section, or in a section on the modern form. I don't really care that much, but it doesn't seem stylistically or logically correct to put the category in. If you put it in again I won't revert, but on record I oppose. And I'm moving this to discussion to the talk page where it belongs. :p II | (t - c) 07:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I am not adding the category back, but I have added List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts in the see also section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Resources relevant to this page

Succinctly link to references on the web here.

• Pharmacological And Neurobiochemical Evidence For Antidepressant-Like Effect Of Sumind, A Herbal Product In Animals – the study may not be great, but its bibliography could be useful.

II | (t - c) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also potentially useful: "Herbal Products Sold Online Contaminated in 20 Percent of Cases" One in five herbal products used in so-called Ayurvedic medicine and sold over the Internet contain harmful levels of toxic metals, a study found. — Scientizzle 19:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's already in the page, see the safety concerns section. I've revised the history section to reduce redundancy. Apparently one of the better sources on the history, the Bulletin of the Indian Institute of History of Medicine, does not have a website. This is the best website they've got. II | (t - c) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The already-linked version is from 2004. The new one was just published; it analyzed 4x the number of products (bought online) than the prior one, and the results were similar. It's probably worth including both. — Scientizzle 00:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Then include it? II | (t - c) 00:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On Scientific studies and standards

I am not Indian but I know it is certainly wrong to judge or measure any of the Ayurvedic therapies by the criteria of science. Precisely, Ayurveda is alternative to modern medical science – if you insist that the claims of Ayurveda be first proven through research, you are intellectually befuddled, because Ayurveda is beyond science. ‘Critics object to the dearth of rigorous scientific studies and clinical trials of many Ayurvedic products.’ Of course they do! Those critics believe only in science. Like Buddhism, Ayurveda has been there long before science itself was born and clinical trials were invented. If you insist on research to prove any Ayurvedic claim, you are in fact saying that research-based therapy and not folk wisdom is the only way to travel on the road to/of wellness. Even the Father of Modern Medicine, Hippocrates, will tell you that you are wrong. Hippocrates believed in the ability of the human body to heal itself, with a little help from Nature. Frank (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)frankahilarioFrank (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic. This is not the place for our thoughts on what Hippocrates would think about contemporary medicine. :p II | (t - c) 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank, I think you make a good point. Note that this is one of the biggest debates going on in Misplaced Pages -- whether the encyclopedia should be written from a scientific point of view vs. a neutral point of view. Right now the SPOV seems to be ascendent, in part because there's a strong bloc of editors who impose that view on articles. See, for example, the social construction thread on this discussion page. It's not an easy issue to sort out. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

JSR's new article replacing the existing one

JSR's article]http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ayurveda&oldid=238310061] completely removes the existing article. I've copied the discussion from my talk page, as it belongs here. Comments are welcome.

I have asked several other editors for their views on how the article needs to be expanded. Their opinions should arrive soon. Kindly let the shorter and completely sourced version stand till then. Regards, JSR (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Much of the version you deleted was sourced. Yes, it uses a website for some stuff: the Indian government's website on Ayurveda. It also uses some scientific journal articles for other information. You apparently have not read it. 2) I don't see why we should be defaulting to your heavily abridged version. 3) Why aren't you using the article talkpage? It sounds as if you are canvassing. How are you contacting these people? I don't see you asking editors in your contributions. II | (t - c) 07:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No canvassing :) I tried to rewrite and then ask for opinions much before your edits. I worked hard on sourcing that draft and would have improved upon it since almost all of the current article is unsourced and untrue. You have the final say (by which I mean I'm too tired to argue so any version you choose is ok, but the shorter version details ayurveda from reliable sources. Please read it. Its still longer than Britannica and Encarta). Good Day JSR (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to finish this today, but I can conclusively say that we're not wholesale destroying the existing article if it's up to me. I don't see why you don't want to integrate the existing information, which has a lot more detail, much of it accurate and sourced, with your new information. Please read the current article, since I've already read yours. ;)

You still haven't let me know how you're contacting these people. Why was there no discussion of this on the talk page? You seem to have no history on the article. Anyway, your draft is nice, and it should be integrated into the current article, although unfortunately it covers a lot of existing ground.

I also prefer to use accessible sources when possible. In this case, we have the CCRAS website. Books are a huge pain to access. Can you understand that? II | (t - c) 07:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• Past Indian collaborations of the month
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Unknown-importance Hinduism articles