WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Ayurveda is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBPS). The current restrictions are:
Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don't make the edit.
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures:
Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
NOTICE FOR NON-CONFIRMED AND IP EDITORS This talk page is currently protected due to disruptive editing. If you wish to make a comment or a request, there is a separate page for you to do so at Talk:Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments. That page is monitored by administrators and other editors who will move your comments to this page if they are constructive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Ayurveda is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
The contents of the Panchakarma page were merged into Ayurveda. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Ama (ayurveda) page were merged into Ayurveda. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (17 November 2018)
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Arunjithp (talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence
Close in progress:Anadministratororother editor is in the process of closing this discussion. Please do not contribute further to it; the result should be posted shortly.
More information:
The user who added this notice will be listed in the page history; the page was last edited by Sandstein at 13:59, 30 August 2020. It is intended to help reduce edit conflicts, and to avoid closers duplicating each other's work. It also helps avoid a late comment being added to the discussion but not being taken into account in the close. If this page has not been edited for a few hours, it is usually safe to remove this template. However, if the debate is long, complex, or acrimonious, please allow more time.
Support inclusion I'm not too fussed whether the word appears in the first sentence, but I feel that it should be included in the first paragraph to align with the guidance given by WP:PSCI that it be featured prominently. GirthSummit (blether)11:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion GS has it pitch perfect above. We don't need to wring our hands over whether it's in the first sentence but it should be in the first three sentences in the lede. --AdamF in MO (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamfinmo, thanks for the kind words - the trouble is, this RfC is discussing where in the lead it should go. It has for a long time been down in the third paragraph of the lead; recently, it was added to the first sentence, which I feel was an improvement. My view is that it should be introduced very early on, so either the first sentence, or at least in the first paragraph. GirthSummit (blether)12:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit You are correct. I was not specific enough in my original comment. I think pseudoscience should be in the first three sentences. I've edited my comment to reflect that since only a few minutes have passed and you are the only respondent. Thank you. --AdamF in MO (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article begins with the story of Ayurveda having its roots in India. The present status of Ayurveda as a medical system in India is as relevant as its roots in India. Unless that aspect is also covered, the article is incomplete. Ayurveda is and always has been a mainstream medical system in India. There are hundreds of ayurvedic medical colleges in India [1]; as well as medical councils in each state for Ayurveda(e.g.[2]). Research institutes under a central research council [3][4], Ayurveda Universities[5], Postgraduate institutes , Doctoral programs[6], several institutes of national importance - e.g. [7]and vibrant scientific communities[8][9][10] exist for Ayurveda. India has ensured the availablity of ayurvedic to all its citizens (which is almost a fifth of world population [11]) by establishing central Ayush ministry [12] as well as separate departments in each state[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] thereby making ayurveda a mainstream medical system. There is also a group of western medical practitioners who call it pseudoscience. Another group having no idea about fundamental principles of Ayurveda also oppose it. This fact about the two opposing arguments (against and for ayurvedic science in Indian contet) is ignored in the present version of this article. Readers are shown only one side (i.e., ayurveda is pseudoscience), without them undertanding that it is also a mainstream medical system in India[37] while reading the present version --Arunjithp (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they lack an understanding of the fundamental principles, more the acknowledgement that those principles rest on tenets that are no longer plausible considering the scientific knowledge we have today. Particular forms of its institutionalization may possibly phase out deprecated beliefs or treatments while embracing a type of syncretism, but at the same time problematic practices and claims are made. Consider for instance that according to the scientific method, discredited medical hypotheses (medicine has a long history of such) are no longer promoted or used to diagnose and treat in proper medicine practice. —PaleoNeonate – 21:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since most articles on ayurveda start with its history of 2000 years, people wrongly believe that ayurveda is still stagnant at that time. The fact that it has been evolving as a science is often overlooked. The references for its academic and scientific background in India has been given above. A very large group still practicing it without adequate academic qualifications and background has only added to these misunderstandings --Arunjithp (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion per RexxS below. Anything else is against the grain of WP:PSCI policy, and NPOV is strictly non-negotiable. Best in the first sentence to satsify the requirement for prominence and clarity. Alexbrn (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supportive comment - I think RexxS has very well described why the topic must be identified as pseudoscience very early in the lede, and any objection to that is moot by policy. However I feel that labelling the entire topic pseudoscience before any other description of what it is (such as its role as a traditional cultural practice) does the topic a disservice. It's not undue weight exactly, more like the statement is poorly contextualized. We say "this is pseudoscience" but don't explain why until much later. How about this as a suggestion:
Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə,-ˈviː-/)[38] is a system of traditional medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent.[39] Within India, Ayurveda is practiced alongside Western medicine as a complementary medicine, and Ayurvedic therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications.[40][page needed] Since the 1960s, the commercialization of Ayurveda and promotion as an alternative to Western medicine has raised ethical and legal issues, and is considered pseudoscience.[41][42][43] Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances used in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no scientific evidence that any are medically effective as currently practiced.[44]
@Ivanvector: There are a few corrections needed in your statements - Firstly, in India, Ayurveda is NOT a complementary medicine. Ayurveda is a mainstream medical system in India [45] where AYUSH systems are specifically mentioned as medical systems. Secondly, Ayurvedic therapies and practices are not limited to wellness applications. They are mainstream and used for medical treatment alongside western medicine in India.--Arunjithp (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your statements need corrections as well. Outside of India, Ayurveda is at best alternative medicine. Ayurveda is not a mainstream system outside of India. Ayurvedic therapies and practices have no evidence of effectiveness, and yet evidence exists of the damage done by ingestion of heavy metals. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ayurveda is a mainstream medical system in India (which is almost a fifth of total world population). I have NOT said that it is mainstream outside India. But almost half a million people travel to India for ayurvedic treatment every year [46] Regarding the evidence of damage done by heavy metals - It just proves that ayurvedic medicines are also being subject to scientific scrutiny and clinical trials, and changes in formulations happen as new clinical evidences emerge. Since the present wikipedia article on ayurveda starts with its roots in India, the presenet status of Ayurveda in India also needs to disclosed. And that status is NOT that of a pseudoscience (in India) --Arunjithp (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Science has no borders. There is no Indian science. Therefore if something is a pseudoscience, it is such everywhere. If Indian government decided to allow practicing quackery as a mainstream medicine, it still remains quackery. Retimuko (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/On hold until these concerns are resolved:
Ivanvector's version is most likely best proposed here, though there is WP:SYNTH but there a few problems which can be easily solved, I would better prefer a version which say:-
Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə,-ˈviː-/)[47] is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent.[39] Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurveda traditions are a type of alternative medicine,[41][42] and the Ayurvedic therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use.[48] Since the 1960s, the commercialization of Ayurveda and promotion as an alternative to Western medicine has raised ethical and legal issues, and is considered pseudoscience.[41][42][43] Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances used in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no scientific evidence that any are medically effective as currently practiced.[44]
Support in lead sentence. It's well-sourced and we should not water it down as "is considered" pseudoscience (by whom? Why are we using WP:In-text attribution?). When you Google Ayurveda, the first result (after ads, of course) is Wikipedia, which as a preview displays only the first two sentences, which currently reads: Ayurveda is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurveda traditions are a type of alternative medicine. Calling it it a "system of medicine" is highly misleading in favor of ayurveda and a violation of WP:MEDRS; having "system of traditional medicine" is only slightly better but still misleading by omission. There is no good reason to shove "pseudoscience" further down so less people see it. Crossroads-talk-15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going to note here that "oppose" !votes which gesture towards WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL, without actually having read them and noting that those pages support use of the term, should be given very little weight. Crossroads-talk-17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, and we must describe it as such clearly in the opening sentence. There is no need to repeat later in the lead (but certainly should be elaborated on in the body, since the lead is supposed to summarize the body). Retimuko (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any mention For first sentence but I am fine with keeping the term in first paragraph in 3rd sentencd if it has been explained the way Ivanvector, Aman Kumar Goel have explained. Otherwise whole lead. There is a lack of WP:RS (which could meet WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) describing Ayurveda as "pseudoscience" and we should not be doing that as well because that would require scholarly consensus among reliable sources. That does not exist in this case. Also see Talk:Ayurveda#Full lead. Azuredivay (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC) (Modified comment per concerns raised validly raised below. 03:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Support calling it pseudoscience somewhere in the first three sentences. I don't see a compelling reason this has to be in the very first sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for first sentence but support for first paragraph only if the relevance of term has been described like Ivanvector/Azuredivay did in their proposals. There is no need to mention "pseudoscientific" more than once in the lead overall. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for first sentence but support for first paragraph if the reason behind term has been at least identified that why it is being mentioned as proposed by Ivanvector, Aman Kumar, and Azuredivay.Siddsg (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the lede or at least the first three sentences. Quacks weasel in "traditional" and "native" and "ancient" all the time to legitimize pseudoscience; the public by and large does not recognize that such "tradition" is what is left over after any useful properties have been integrated into mainstream science. The features that differentiate Ayurveda from other healing systems are exactly what define it as a pseudoscience, and framing it otherwise just dilutes the import of any subsequent characterization of it as woo. The same should be done with TCM. JoelleJay (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the list of sources supplied by Guy Macon below. They are well known and easily support the points made by JoelleJay. You are the one making claims without reliable sources to back them up. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Since the 1960s, the commercialization of Ayurveda and promotion as an alternative to Western medicine has raised ethical and legal issues, and is considered pseudoscientific" isn't grammatical (the commercialization of Ayurveda isn't what is pseudoscientific) and should be reworded. And we don't need to soften this with "is considered"--the practice is almost definitionally pseudoscientific. JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any mention in lead. I'm not convinced by the arguments of the supporters who seem to be simply advancing preconceived opinions in place of providing reliable sources to demonstrate the alleged pseudoscientific nature of the subject concerned.
Some have come up with their understanding of WP:PSCI, but nowhere does it allow editors to engage in original research to label just anything as 'pseudoscience' if it supposedly contradicts some modern scientific narratives. Any mention of "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" in lead would run counter to the scholarly view about the subject which are more inclined towards the scientific basis of Ayurveda. While on one hand there is a glaring lack of sources (satisfying the policies listed at WP:IRS such as WP: CONTEXTMATTERS and WP: EXCEPTIONAL) holding Ayurveda to be a "pseudo-science", there are on the other hand, reliable sources explicitly rejecting the WP:LABEL of pseudo-science vis-à-vis Ayurveda.[2]शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ayurveda is often officially described and commonly known even among its practitioners as 'alternative medicine' whereas the available sources clearly show that it was the mainstream health care programme in the sub-continent for roughly more than two and a half millennia in the past. This is perhaps the result of an inherent indifference to the historical background of the development of the indigenous medicine. Medicine and its practice do not exist in a vacuum nor do they flourish without economic and social necessities.[49] This aspect also needs to be included in the lead so that all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources are present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are a member of Wkiproject Alternative medicine and yet do not know that Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Say it as early as possible. First sentence, or, if that is out, second sentence, and so on. You don't want to keep the reader in suspense too much. Completely omitting it from the lede, as has been suggested by someone, does not comply with the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mention of either term on the lead. It is a label. WP:LABEL says "With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such."" But this requirement was never met for this subject. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You only quoted part of WP:LABEL. The part you left out says '"Per the content guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources." Prescribing remedies containing lead, mercury, and arsenic is about as Fringe as it gets.
Here are sources that label Ayurveda as pseudoscience:
Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, pg. 23: Ayurveda[3]
Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, pg. 293: "Ayurveda research can be classified as 'tooth fairy science,' research that accepts as its premise something not known to exist."[4]
"Coronavirus spread not just an epidemic, pseudoscience has made it a ‘misinfo-demic’ too. Although research for a cure is going on at breakneck speed globally, the Modi government is choosing to focus on ayurveda and homoeopathy to prevent coronavirus infection."[5]
"Baba Ramdev, a popular guru, told a television channel that Ayurvedic remedies could be deployed... The promotion of nationalist pseudoscience under the BJP has worried Indian scientists and skeptics for years."[6]
"Some politicians are proposing a bill to license practitioners of Siddha, Ayurvedic, and homeopathic medicine as health care providers in India... Regardless of the initial reasons given for regulations allowing the practice of pseudoscience in medicine, once the regulations exist they will be presented and interpreted generally as an indication that the pseudoscience is legitimate."[7]
"Pseudoscience pretends to be science, but uses theories that are obviously unscientific or bogus... Alternative medicine is any healing practice 'that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine'. In some cases it is based on historical or cultural traditions, and usually not based on unbiased scientific theories... Some of the practices included in CAM are Acupuncture, Ayurveda, Biofeedback, Chiropractic medicine, Herbalism, Homeopathy, Hypnosis, Meditation, Naturopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Yoga."[8]
"Central to the arguments by the critics of AYUSH [Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Naturopathy, Siddha and Homeopathy] is the lack of a scientific and evidence-based system in the alternative treatments offered. It is for the same reason that the scientific and medical community, by and large, considers homoeopathy to be a pseudoscience, and dismisses it as quackery."[10]
"To Tackle a Virus, Indian Officials Peddle Pseudoscience... At an April 2 press conference, Shripad Naik, India’s minister for alternative medicines, declared that the treatment’s supposed success 'validates our age-old practice.' The British government swiftly issued a statement rejecting his claim. 'This information is incorrect. The Prince of Wales followed the medical advice of the National Health Service in the U.K. and nothing more,' a spokesperson said the following day. But this hasn’t deterred Naik’s Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy — or AYUSH for short — from promoting Indian alternative medicines as treatments for Covid-19. Established in 2014, the goal of AYUSH is to develop and popularize these treatments, many of which have their historical roots in India. Ayurveda, for example, has been practiced in India for thousands of years. Now, Naik said, the ministry aims to confirm that Prince Charles was cured using a combination of Ayurveda and the pseudoscience known as homeopathy, which has its roots in Germany, so that the treatment can be rolled out to the masses. This is in stark contrast to the position of mainstream medicine, which has not yet confirmed any evidence-based medicine for Covid-19, and is still highly cautious of giving experimental drugs to patients."[11]
Nonsense. We're using reliable sources. There's no SYN. Assertions of what is or is not the "mainstream" viewpoint is OR. DUE material must be presented to meet POV. FRINGE also applies. We're here to write a serious encyclopedia, not act as a soapbox. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support the explicit mention of pseudoscience in the first sentence of the lede. It's clearly established as such by previous RfC, and burying the obvious identifier further back (or leaving it out entirely) is hard for me to see as anything other than profringe. Clearly, that's not going to be popular with proponents and practitioners, but that shouldn't make any more difference than it does with homeopathy. --tronvillain (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC); edited 16:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tronvillain, hi, sorry to badger you - the inclusion of pseudoscience in the lead already has long-standing consensus, this RfC is about whether to include it in the first sentence of the lead (or, as a number of people have suggested, requiring that it be early on in the first paragraph, but not necessarily in the first sentence) - just wondered if you'd like to expand on your comment. GirthSummit (blether)15:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mention of the term on lead. I agree with the above comments and Wikipedia is not for WP:ORorpersonal analysis not supported by the source. This is another such excellent source on the subject, and to quote from the preface of this book: "While there are many books devoted to Ayurveda, very few have any in-depth basis in scientific studies. This book provides a critical evaluation of literature, clinical trials, and biochemical and pharmacological studies on major Ayurvedic therapies that demonstrates how they are supported by scientific data. Providing a natural bridge from Ayurveda to Western medicine, Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies facilitates the integration of these therapies by health care providers." -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "back cover" rather than preface, and that book is an excellent example of pseudoscience, explicitly trying in the introduction take the five basic "indivisible" elements of earth, water, fire, air, and space as components of the three humors and interpret all of that as established biology. Then there's "The oxidized form of metal and mineral preparations, called bhasma, is also extensively used in Ayurvedic medicine. ... The common metals used in making bhasmas for therapeutic use are gold, silver, iron, zinc, tin, arsenic, gypsum, lime, alum, borzx, silica, diamond, ruby, emerald, saphire, jade, moonstone, sunstone, turqouise, and mica." And then there's "It is interesting to note that many Western-trained physicians question, for example, the scientific underpinning or rationale for the use of Ayurvedic medicine, homeopathy, and traditional Chinese medicine." Putting yourself on par with homeopathy is the biggest red flag imaginable. --tronvillain (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is an in-universe pseudoscience source, and and excellent example of why Ayurveda is considered pseudoscientific. If you question that, see whether you can find me positive reviews of the book in proper scientific or medical journals. (I don't mean other in-universe journals - serious academics have better things to do than review obvious nonsense - I expect that the book has been entirely ignored by the field outside of other pseudoscience sources.) GirthSummit (blether)17:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't judge reliability purely on the basis of who published something. You could replace CRC Press with OUP in that sentence and it wouldn't make it true. GirthSummit (blether)07:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any mention of the term in lede. Essentially what Shiv Sahil writes. This realm of reliable scholarly views on Ayurveda indicating its scientific basis and dismissing the applicability of terms such as "pseudo-science" has astonishingly remained an uncharted domain as far as this discussion is concerned. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence of this article. A system of medicine that, at its core, depends on a religious and cultural context cannot be reasonably described as "scientific." This is not meant to be a blanket indictment of the field, nor is it meant to dismiss any benefit that a person may yield from it. However, we (I mean humanity) were not exactly doing randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trials in 4000 BCE; whatever this form of medicine was then cannot be called "scientific," despite the interest of its modern adherents in applying modern science to its claims. The same can be said of TCM. If the term is not in the first sentence, I would not want it to be much farther from it.―Biochemistry🙴❤21:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the first sentence. This actually needs to be rammed home. You only have to read a few Indian press headlines to see that the practitioners of this art are outright profiteering and contributing to the death of people. One of the early headlines I saw, now months old, was the one where a group of fundamentalist Hindus were encouraging people to drink cow urine in the street, and stuff since has been both far worse in likely outcomes and far more bizarre. Although arguably not as bizarre or bad as the whimsical suggestion of you know who re: bleach. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: You read stuff about urine. We got that. But why do you link it to ayurvda ? where is the evidence and reference ? or is it your personal opinoin ?--Arunjithp (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to pretend that Ayurveda doesn't promote the practice of drinking urine? You'll find that it does – and that its adherents think it can cure cancer. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not difficult to find sources about the use of urine in Ayurveda and sources abound about related claims and quackery, including recently in relation to COVID-19. Links and sources have already been provided recently in discussions on this page. —PaleoNeonate – 21:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The legal basic qualification to practice ayurvedic medicine in India is the 5.5 year B.A.M.S course governed by Central council for Indian medicine [50], with an extremely comprehensive syllabus[51][52][53][54]. There are scientific protocols for each treatment decisions which are to be taken only by qualified doctors. However, there are unqualified persons, who practice ayurveda without the official training and knowledge who can only be termed as quacks[55]. The cow urine craze that happened in relation to COVID 19 cannot be linked to the scientific ayurvedic practice in India as there are no reference or evidence of the academic community of ayurveda having endorsed it --Arunjithp (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the first sentence. Firstly, if we see pages of other topics of pseudoscience like Astrology, Chromotherapy, Homeopathy etc., they mention in the first line itself that it is a pseudoscience. So, there is no reason to have an exception for Ayurveda. Secondly, a lot of cases of poisoning have been reported due to presence of toxic levels of heavy metals in ayurvedic medicines. Some scientific studies to support my claim are [12] and [13]. So, mentioning it as a pseudoscience in the first line itself will help stress the fact in the reader's mind that it is not a type of medicine worth relying upon. Jasksingh (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked for socking.[reply]
Jasksingh's comment has been unstruck. That user has only been blocked for one week, meaning they will be back to normal by the time the RfC ends. Do not restrike or you will be taken to WP:ANI. Crossroads-talk-02:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any mention. Entirely depending on a single mention of this book does not justify the classification of the entire subject as "pseudoscience". Per WP:LEAD, lead should be rid of any dubious information because since "pseudoscience" is not justified by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it should not be mentioned on lead altogether. Unless we are also going to refer the methods of Hippocrates, Galen, etc. as "pseudoscientific", I don't see any sense in referring Ayurveda, largely known as "protoscientific",["protoscientific",[14] (WHO) "ancient science",[science",[15][16] should not be misrepresented as "pseudoscience". Capankajsmilyo (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Galen's humorismisnow a pseudoscience. Anyone practicing those ancient theories in the modern world is a quack. Since the article explains that Ayurveda is a modern practice, it would be false and misleading to refer to it as an "ancient science", because science adapts to new information. As a modern practice, it is currently pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Capankajsmilyo, I think you missed the point. People are still publishing sciencey-looking papers making bold but incorrect claims about ayurveda, so it is now a pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 13:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, certainly in the first paragraph / 3 sentences and I am not opposed to including in the first sentence. Wikipedia doesn't do "other ways of knowing". Guy (help!) 13:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The very first top 20 results on Google does not say Ayurveda is a "pseudoscience". Apparently, the above arguments are based WP:OR than anything credible. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find good sources which consider the question of whether or not Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. That's already been done, and they find it is. The question of this RfC is then how to deal with that fact to satisfy policy best. Alexbrn (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Shiv Sahil. How come Ancient Greek Medicine does not include this term anywhere on that article but instead reads like a fluff piece? Where do WHO, NIH, NHS call Ayurveda a pseudoscience? They only prefer calling it a traditionaloralternative medicine. I don't think Wikipedia should be exploited to change the mainstream view. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed above. If people were still publishing sciencey-looking bogus research about Ancient Greek Medicine, we'd call that pseudoscience too. GirthSummit (blether)13:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support mention in opening paragraph at least. The lead sentence calls this a system of medicine, not mentioning that it's considered psuedoscience and the lack of rigorous scientific evidence about the effectiveness would be to put a false balance. I think the existing para in the lead (third) should then be slightly trimmed, it's a bit too detailed for the lead. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is important to immediately identify pseudoscientific beliefs as such as it gives the entire article the necessary context. IMO no argument can be made that this is a scientific belief system. PainProf (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as similar to WP:RACIST. This guideline may not necessarily directly cover this instance (nor do I believe this is a valid medicine), but just because a certain label is true doesn't necessarily mean we should use it for an encyclopedia. A line like "according to [certain scientific papers], no scientific basis exists for this medicine" gets the same point across without the label. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion; the first sentence would be fine, but I'm not convinced that the second or third would be too late. The arguments offered in opposition don't hold water, for reasons already hashed out (If people were still publishing sciencey-looking bogus research about Ancient Greek Medicine, we'd call that pseudoscience too, et cetera). XOR'easter (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in lead. Mainstream independent sources don't claim this. Arguments based on its prior categorization on WP are also unscientific since categorization dues not require referencing and is frequently incorrect. Amousey(they/them pronouns)(talk)13:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amousey: So if a reputable academic text book from OUP, considering what and why some things are pseudoscientific, is not a "Mainstream independent source", what is? Have you looked at the several sources categorizing Ayurvedic medicine as pseudoscience? Why are you saying they are not "mainstream" or "independent" - this seems extraordinary. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is some apparent cherry-picking of sources here - the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience cited above for example states some Ayurveda texts are in use in Indian medical schools, and that the validity is in doubt - but stops well short of suggesting that it's all total nonsense or fringe - this text may have an "editor" but it only appears to have minimal named contributions - all of which are in the preface.
There are (to my surprise) a very long list of reviews in pubmed, including multiple systematic reviews by Cochrane - one of which has some positive findings in support of specific treatments for diabetes mellitus, for example - although all are 9 or more years old. Cochrane don't review fringe or pseudosciencd. The NCCIH, which I got to from a source in the current lead, is also funding trials abs describes some evidence for specific Ayurveda treatments.
Evidence found for treatments such as turmeric for pain and inflammation in osteoarthritis is one I noticed (when intentionally avoiding journals for alternative therapies).
WHO report (2019) describes recognition including regulation, training standards, and prescriptions of Ayurveda medicine in many different countries. Clearly an alternative medicine. Amousey(they/them pronouns)(talk)00:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Support in the first sentence. There is nothing scientific about it and everything pseudo-scientific. If Ayurveda isn't pseudoscience, what is? We need to reveal this fact to reader without delay. GPinkerton (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see no reliable sources for the claim, other than mutual agreement between set of contributors, do not believe that a set of beliefs by certain users should be allowed as a claim to be true and completely alter the context of the article WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, also do not see any concrete evidence for the claim by "support" users, could be mass campaign outside wiki to push the POV WP:NPOV Shrikanthv (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1st link does not describe Ayurveda, 2nd link does not refer Ayurveda as "pseudoscience" and your 3rd link is same as your 1st link. So yes, the participants opposing the term are absolutely correct per on the grounds of WP:NPOV, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which is what "basically required". Siddsg (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GASLIGHTING is a really bad idea on a topic under discretionary sanctions. The closing admin will be able to see for themselves that the good sources we cite directly and unambiguously declare Ayurvedic medicine to be pseudoscience/pseudoscientific. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Siddsg The 1st link says "These pseudoscientific theories may ... confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki, therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine)". The 2nd link says "someof these 'scholarly' journals devoted to Ayurveda alone, others to Ayurveda and other pseudoscience", "including those devoted to pseudoscience topics such as An International Quarterly Journal of Research in Ayurveda." I pasted the wrong url into the 3rd link - it was supposed to be this link. < Atom (Anomalies) 21:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General thought not a vote. The first sentence of the lead should be about whatever it is that made the subject of the article notable. Subsequent content in the lead goes on to describe the subject. Is pseudoscience what made the subject notable or is it that this is a traditional health modality? Are there problems with selecting other subjects for Wikipedia just because they are pseudoscience topics or should we be choosing article topics based on other notability. Seems to me these questions underlie how we write articles. And I don't have the answers. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As has been mentioned, the nub here is WP:PSCI which requires us to make it plain and prominent when something is pseudoscientific. The (very specific) question of this RfC seeks to determine how that should best be done in this case, since Ayurveda is a known pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my question would be does a fundamental guideline guiding article writing- notability- take a second place to WP:PSCI. I think there are two possibilities: it does or it doesn't. Perhaps, fundamentally, that's what the RFC is about. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not a guide to article writing, it is a guide to whether articles should exist or not. NPOV (of which PSCI is part) is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and the reason for notability is generally established in the first line. Is pseudoscience the reason for notability or the reason for writing the article, or is the basic information about Ayurveda notable and placed in the first line which means pseudoscience would go later in the lead. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a made up rule, and evidently not true in many cases. This in no way advances the discussion which about how best to satisify WP:PSCI's requirement to make the pseudoscientific nature of Ayurveda properly plain and prominent. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. And I understood the RfC was about adding pseudoscience to the first sentence. Perhaps the question should be where in the lead do we add pseudoscience to make the term prominent or prominent enough which is quite different. I could go on given WP:MOS but it was not my intent to either derail this nor do I have a definitive position on this which from your comments I assume you think I do. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking comments. In most articles I've been involved in notability was expected to be established in the first sentence but on rechecking the guideline there is no explicit statement saying that. There are questions about what prominence means in terms of placement as well as whether to establish the pejorative before notability has been described, although pseudoscience is not necessarily considered a pejorative term by many. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any mention - A statement, claiming that an ancient medical system is "pseudoscientific", itself looks like an engagement in pseudohistory. Unless there is a clear consensus about the term with relation to the subject within actual WP:RS, there shouldn't be any mention of the term at all. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question of this RfC is not whether Ayurveda is a pseudoscience (that has already been determined, and there is RS). The question is whether it should be mentioned in the first sentence, or later. Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not pseudoscience (as clearly determined through enough information above) then there are even fewer chances of providing any mention. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should stop bringing up "ancient" and/or "history". This isn't 300 BCE Wikipedia. This is 2020 CE, and practitioners who willfully ignore up-to-date medical science in favor of Ayurveda are engaging in pseudoscience. Crossroads-talk-16:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I looked into the sources, and I agree that they don't pass the guideline which say "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Unless WHO agrees that it is pseudoscience, it should be deemed WP:UNDUE. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that categorise it as pseudoscience do not do so in passing. Nowhere in any policy or guideline does it say that such a categorisation must be made by the WHO. GirthSummit (blether)14:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some users seem to have raised the objection that not many sources call it a pseudoscience. From a scientific perspective one reason is that most mainstream scientists evaluate only plausible claims. We won't put patients at risk of harm by evaluating treatments that are likely to be unsafe or do not have a plausible claim of efficacy as this is unethical. For this article, the sources found reflect as large a number of sources for the statement as would be possible. Notably, there are no reliable scientific sources taking the opposite view. The premise of this RFC made me curious about what the literature says about the most effective methods of combatting scientific misinformation and whether there was any reliable academic work that might be instructive in the most effective method to address misinformation. Based off the academic work in the field I found that a meta-analysis suggests the most effective method to combat misinformation is to immediately debunk it in detail. I think this should correspond to devoting quite a few sentences to debunking within the first few paragraphs. The research as emphasises that the counterarguments are should be exceptionally well argued. In this light, I would suggest after the briefiest possible basic description we introduce the no medical efficacy and dangerous effects to give them both due weight and prominence. The fourth paragraph's beliefs could also be challenged as "mystical" etc. Based off the academic studies, the detailed debunking of the beliefs should occur as early in the article as possible so the structure could be rearranged so that this is possible. In this case, I interpret due weight on the topic to mean that mainstream science views will be given the most prominence in he article than the views of practitioners. PainProf (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So are you agreeing to the point that each claims have to be debunked , that also means that just labeling or branding the entire approach alien to some region as pseudo in the lead itself is just closing doors of any possibility of debunking a claim, while in the beginning itself you have already assumed answer to be of particular result and then look into possibility for just affirming your stated affirmation ? Shrikanthv (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion in the first sentence. Wikipedia should be upfront about this. Oh, and I suggest to the closer that the vote of any editor who claims Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience at all should be ignored on general principle. --Calton | Talk12:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LABEL, 3rd paragraph, requires us to clearly describe it as pseudoscience. RGW applies to those arguing against the best sources and the science. The rest is irrelevant. Crossroads-talk-16:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as egregiously flawed. The sources being used for supporting 'pseudoscience' are in fact not using the term from the first sentence either. Overall the term just does not fit here. IndyaShri (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy or guideline that says that for us to mention something in the first sentence of our lead, our sources must mention it in their first sentence. Such a notion is ridiculous - we are writing fairly short articles about specific subjects, using sources which are often much longer, covering multiple such subjects. (If I write an article about a specific building, drawing on information in architectural guides that cover a whole city, I don't worry about the fact that my particular building isn't mentioned until page 548 when thinking about how to compose my lead.) GirthSummit (blether)08:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if one is to consider the above claims that Ayurveda is pseudoscience (which it is not in the sense that it pre-dates science), then still it is nothing more than one of the view than "concise overview of the article's topic" as required by MOS:LEAD. Lead should only reflect the common definition. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who told you that things that predate science cannot be pseudoscience? That would make alchemy, astrology, and creationism "science". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support mentioning pseudoscientific or pseudoscience in the first sentence, considering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Idealigic (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support mention of pseudoscience in at least the opening paragraph. Simply calling it a "system of medicine" inaccurately suggests that the system actually healing in a reliable way, which it demonstrably does not. There are several sources which may be used to support the label of "pseudoscience", such as those suggested by Ivanvector and Guy Macon. BirdValiant (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience" has only 1.9k results on Google, with mostly forum posts and blog comments. Compare it with "Ayurveda is an ancient" (6 million results), "Ayurveda is a traditional" (100k results), "Ayurveda is a medical" (2.5 million results), etc. are clearly much better options. Orientls (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Ayurveda is a pseudoscience" = 854 Ghits. "Ayurveda is a pseudoscientific" = 1,590 Ghits. "Ayurveda is an ancient" = 1,040,000 Ghits. "Ayurveda is a traditional" = 364,000 Ghits. "Ayurveda is a medical" = 89,100 Ghits. Your numbers are way out, presumably because you failed to enclose each phrase in quotes. Google hits are not a reliable method of determining the balance of content in reliable sources. "Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience" = 10 Ghits (not one of them a reliable source). --RexxS (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It can be added as pseudoscience or pseudo scientific in the lead, but the sources have to be attributed if so. For example in the lede, "is a pseudoscience according to ... names of sources. " Editors shouldn't decide the labels the sources should.Manabimasu (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having it in the first sentence of the lead announces to the reader that Wikipedia has a strong bias and doesn't adhere to NPOV. Ayurveda is a traditional system, and it would be most representative to present it as such.TimidGuy (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of obvious factual concerns. Ultimately, in 21st century you can find reliable sources connecting many of the subjects with terms like "dictator", "terrorist", "pseudoscience", "fake", "liar", "crackpot", etc. but what we have to look into is WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS none of which appears to have been satisfied. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first sentence, but definitely support presence in lede. The prime identity of the topic is as a traditional practice with deep cultural roots, and the lede should start off with that angle. Modern (in)applicability is important but on the second rung. Second or third paragraph seems fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LABEL, 3rd paragraph, specifically states that pseudoscience should be described as pseudoscience: With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources.Crossroads-talk-17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support either in the first sentence or in the opening paragraph. The fact that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience is beyond doubt, and is described as such in many reliable sources. The opposing view, that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience, has virtually no presence in reliable sources. The oppose arguments asserting that sources don't refer to Ayurveda as a pseudoscience or as pseudoscientific is simply untrue, and numerous reliable sources have been cited to show that. Because the mainstream view is so well-accepted, it is not as common to see it explicitly expressed in sources as to find it implicitly assumed. As an analogy, we don't find "the Earth is round" in most geographical articles, but that is not an argument supporting a proposition that the Earth is flat. There is little doubt that Ayurveda is an ancient, traditional system used for medical purposes in parts of the world, but that is not an argument against describing it as "pseudoscience" as well. Those considerations should be sufficient to discount oppose !votes attempting to remove all mention from the lead. These are generally from SPAs concerned with promoting Ayurveda.
The real question that needs to be examined is whether "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience" should be part of: (1) the first sentence; or (2) the opening paragraph; or (3) a later paragraph in the lead. The relevant polices are MOS:BEGIN and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The former gives the following guidance "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view ... It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." and "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." The latter states this: "editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." It is clear that being a pseudoscience is a key defining feature of Ayurveda, particularly for the lay reader. From that, I believe that the pseudoscience description must be in the first paragraph, and is as important a feature as being traditional or ancient, especially for the lay reader. In addition, we should not be presenting readers with just the Ayurva's internal perspective, but we are obliged to ensure that it does not obscure the mainstream view, that of being a pseudoscience. My preference would therefore be to include pseudoscience as part of the definition in the first sentence; placing it further on the opening paragraph would be a second choice. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion in the first sentence - RexxS above makes a very good point about just how much of truth should be covered as per MOS:BEGIN and how it should be stated. Also withdrawing my support for the lead below: it seems a little bit too apologetic, giving the idea that everything in Ayurveda is well defined and that the "pseudoscience" theory is just a Westerners' concept. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In view of the sources Shiv Sahil, TheodoreIndiana and some of the other opposers brought up. They make it clear that there exist reliable sources that not only explicitly reject the label of pseudoscience for ayurveda but also lend support to its scientific basis, and this, surely, is something that cannot be disregarded. As it says on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the article should not take sides, but explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias, so as to better serve the reader and help him understand both viewpoints (as also suggested by Manabimasu). Regards, MBlaze Lightning11:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - in the Discussion section, evidence is given that there may have been offsite canvassing for the "oppose" side. Roxy the dog there states he supports a version suggested by Guy Macon, which is also uses "pseudoscience" in the lead sentence. Sunrise notes a previous RfC regarding categorization of pseudoscience and that there was sockpuppetry there in favor of "oppose". Crossroads-talk-17:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in opening sentence but fine in second sentence or anywhere else in the lead. In terms of format, the opening sentence should establish why we are writing this article, that is, why the subject matter is notable, and what it is we're talking about. The subject is notable because it is a form of traditional health care not because it is pseudoscience. Bringing in pseudoscience in the first sentence is a bit like hammering the reader over the head with the Wikipedia position, a warning siren or red flag. We can describe the mainstream scientific position on Ayurveda once the reader has a sense of what the topic is. I have no problem with the version in place in the article now or the version below. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing strongly that Ayurveda is pseudo.It is a traditional medical ssystem wherein research in terms of modern techniques and methods are in the developing stage. Although a lot more needs to be done in the research field, there are many evidences of successful treatments and concepts thereof.
A single primary study (published in "Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine") is an anecdote, not evidence. We have such gems as "The calculated cardiointervalography values are combined into three integral indexes, which according to the authors' opinion reflect the influence on heart rhythm of vata, pitta and kapha, the regulation systems of the body known as doshas in Ayurveda." and "Heart Rate Variability (HRV) spectral data was collected from 42 participants ..." See WP:MEDRS to get some idea of what is considered evidence for biomedical claims. What you have there is what is normally regarded as in-universe wishful thinking. --RexxS (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion in opening sentence. It is a pseudoscience and this should be mentioned prominently, in the first paragraph at least. P-K3 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Survey (reopened)
Support A thousand(s) year old protoscience based on Vedas, that hasn't/refuses to change. Can modern medical practitioners prescribe Aurvedic medicines? No. Ayurvedic medicines are exempt from clinical trials in India [17]. This system of belief (not science) places faith above reason. It remains on the shadowy sidelines of scientific scrutiny. The very limited success which can be attributed to Ayurveda is the herbal prophylaxis, like turmeric or ashwagandha and such, which has very limited application in modern science. Indian government has spent thousands and thousands of crores into this, built a special ministry for it. What are the results? They exempted this field of protoscience from getting scientifically scrutinised. It shows that political pressures and money alone can't guarantee scientific success. Where do the AYUSH ministers go when they need medical attention. To modern medical hospitals[18]. How convenient. Where are the editors who oppose the word pseudoscience that can show us an Ayurvedic medicines that passed an RCT. - hako9 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All clinical trials in India - including ayurveda are registered in CTRI database[56]. To get official information on clinical trials in Ayurveda and Ayurvedic medicine, do the appropriate search on CTRI - search for trials page[57]
Support While there is no need to put a disclaimer in every sentence, an encyclopedia has to start with the fundamental facts of life, according to reliable sources. When independent, repeatable trials demonstrate Ayurveda's benefits it will be part of mainstream medicine and pseudoscientific can be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The present state of Ayurvedic medicines should go first in the lead, which sadly means, per the many sources supplied, mention of the pseudoscientific aspect. I would not object to the first sentence also mentioning its traditional roots. I also hope any closer reflects on the fact that the voters claiming no cite for pseudoscience are dishonest.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - At least the first sentence. It is currently mentioned several times in the first paragraph alone, it is debatable that the first sentence already does include it by saying is an alternative medicine system. Having it in every sentence does not help or improve the article. I would argue that it is also not the most notable thing about it either given it's long history. I think the current first paragraph is acceptable.[19]PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because current wording ("Ayurveda is an alternative medicine system") already tells/explicitly implies it is nonscientific or pseudoscientific. Just "alternative medicine" tells it all. Current version is simply ridiculous because it repeates the same in every phrase. 1st phrase: it is an alternative medicine system. 2nd: it is quackery. 3rd: it is pseudoscientific and also unscientific. This reads like a mockery. My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should re-assess your !vote. The rfc is about whether the term should be included in the opening sentence. That's it. We can always change the lead after the rfc is over to address your concern of multiple implied insertions of the word. - hako9 (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would stick to my vote because simply "alternative medicine" defines a lot more precisely than "pseudoscience" what it really is. In my view, "alternative medicine" is a widely used and widely known terminology, and we have a big page about it, so that anyone can check it. Telling in addition "pseudoscience" is like crying "wolf!" many times.My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers will not follow a link to determine that Alternative medicine contains topics such as Ayurveda that are pseudoscientific. Its definition is not widely-known. Leaving a label of "medicine" in the opening sentence (with any qualifier) affords Ayurveda a status that it does not deserve; it is misinformation. Treatments that have evidence that they work are "medicine"; those that don't are not medicine, and shouldn't be graced with the term that they have no right to use. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Alternative medicine" does not mean medicine, just as "alternative science" does not mean science, alternative history does not mean history, etc. In addition, current verion of the lead (three first phrases) do not make clear what it really is: alternative medicine, quackery, pseudoscience, nonscience, or protoscience. I think "alternative medicine" is the closest approximation. Now, should we cry out loud "pseudoscience!" or rather make a more neutral description? Let's check how John Hopkins site tells about Ayurveda: [20]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say shame on JHU for presenting the information in that way, with all the disclaimers at the bottom. It's pretty irresponsible writing to call something a "natural system of medicine" in the first sentence and then write "While Ayurveda can have positive effects when used as a complementary therapy in combination with standard, conventional medical care, it should not replace standard, conventional medical care, especially when treating serious conditions" in the very last sentence of the piece. That's not how an encyclopedia article should be written. We shouldn't call it "medicine" at all if it's not medicine. Lev!vich18:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that Traditional medicine is a pseudoscience, or it has been described in overhealming majority of RS as a pseudoscience. It was not, as already reflected in the first 3 phrases of the current version. This is simply not science, just like folklore, religion, love and a lot of other things. Something like LysenkoismorNew chronology (Fomenko) - yes, THAT is pseudosciense. As about Aurveda having positive effect on patients, this is nothing special. A lot of things does - for purely psychological reasons. That's why people use placebo during clinical trials. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike folklore, religion, etc., Ayurveda promotes itself as scientific. If Ayurveda was merely a historical system not practiced today, à la "humors", then we could just classify it as "not science" or "protoscience". However, unlike folklore, religion, etc., Ayurveda is currently presented as a science -- see, for example, the multiple types of doctoral degrees offered in "vedic microbiology". In fact, it is extremely similar to Lysenkoism: short-sighted, poorly-considered programs by the government led to a humanitarian crisis (in the USSR, the famine; in India, a dramatic shortage of health care providers and infrastructure). In an attempt to combat (or at least appear to combat) this crisis and to boost nationalistic morale (i.e. redirect despair and criticism away from the ruling elite), the government heavily propagandizes a home-grown system of "science" with enormously-exaggerated validity, efficacy, scope, and benefit that can replace/supplement "foreign" (Western) methods. Lysenko was the Soviet hero who was supposed to rescue the peasants from famine; a revitalized Ayurveda will be the savior of Indian health care. Neither uses rigorous evidence-based approaches; both are rooted in a deprecated conceptualization of the physical world; both characterize opposition as an attack on their cultural ideology/identity and suppress negative reports. Both are examples of institutionalized pseudoscience. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment/response. One can simply consult with reputable Encyclopedia to identify consensus on the complex subject. I am sorry, but neither Encyclopedia Britannica nor Oxford Reference nor any other major encyclopedia describes it as a pseudoscience, especially in the first phrase. Let's check Encyclopedia Britannica. Here: "Ayurveda, also called Ayurvedic medicine, traditional system of Indian medicine. Ayurvedic medicine is an example of a well-organized system of traditional health care, both preventive and curative, that is widely practiced in parts of Asia. Ayurveda has a long tradition behind it, having originated in India perhaps as much as 3,000 years ago. Today it remains a favoured form of health care in large parts of the Eastern world, especially in India, where a large percentage of the population uses this system exclusively or combined with modern medicine." and so on. Does it say "pseudoscience" in the 1st phrase?No. Neither does website of John Hopkins University (see above). Oxford Reference: [21]. No. EB on the history of medicine in Asia [22] - no. As about Lysenko and Ayurveda, that is definitely WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any Wikipedia rule that says that in the description of a subject, we are only allowed to use words the Encyclopedia Britannica uses to describe the same subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reputable encyclopedia are tertiary sources. According to our guidelines [23], Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. This is exactly such case. Due weight. Trying to make presentations which are dramatically different from those in reputable encyclopedia is a red flag. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's quite a leap. You started with "tertiary sources may be helpful in evaluating due weight" and transformed it into "anything that is dramatically different from a particular tertiary source is a red flag". Impressive! Nonetheless, we should stick with what reliable WP:MEDRS secondary sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Final comment/response", in my experience the best way to stop talking about something is to stop talking about it. Saying that you have stopped talking about it while continuing to talk about it. not so much. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say ""anything that is dramatically different from a particular tertiary source is a red flag". I said any lead summary which is dramatically different from allreputable tertiary RS on the subject is a red flag. That's why I looked at all tertiary RS that could be easily found (see my comment above). You can easily disprove me if you find any really good tertiary source (on par with EB) which tells that "Ayurveda is a pseudocience" in the first phrase. I could not quickly find any. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I missed it. OK. I think the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience provides good description of Ayurveda, much much better than the lead of this page (!)[29]. Sure, unlike the EB, it assumes by default that Ayurveda belongs is related to the wide area of pseudoscience - simply because it is included in the book. However, does it say anywhere in first paragraphs that "Ayurveda is pseudoscience"? NO. It tells something very different. OK, let's describe it exactly as in Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. This is an argument in my favor. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, in such works everything is assumed to be in relation to pseudoscience, so they don't need to mention it everywhere. On Wikipedia the situation is different and we consequently also have WP:PSCI... —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in this encyclopedia, a lot of subjects are not at all pseudoscience, but something related to it (like a village of Avebury, etc.). Actually, the Ayurveda (called "Ayurvedic medicine in the Encyclopedia) consider Ayurveda as an important historical medicine "classic volumes... still used...", etc. This is good neutral description. No so here. 2nd phrase of the lead is written in a propaganda-like style as if someone was trying to "prove a point" this is pseudoscience. We do not need to prove this point because this is not at all main point about this subject. All main points are properly emphasized in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience on in EB (whatever one prefers). My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience contains subjects that are pseudoscience, i.e beliefs that claim to be scientific but are demonstrably not so. Are you trying to use the fact that it's included in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience to argue that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience? Especially considering the number of reliable sources and the consensus of two RfCs that it is. Your position is a fringe belief and until you find an abundance of reliable sources stating "Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience", you're arguing out of thin air. You personal opinions simply have no weight. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really edit such subjects and only commented in the official RfC. I hardly have an opinion on the subject. I only checked how reliable tertiary sources summarize consensus on this highly complex subject and suggested that we do the same. This is exactly what WP guidelines recommend (see above). Based on that, current version of the lead seem to be POVish.My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support first sentence but then it doesn't need to be repeated again. Whenever the topic of the article is a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific belief, we should tell our readers that immediately. Now, if it were in the second sentence because of the way a particular lead is structured, that would be OK. At a bare minimum, it's got to be in the first paragraph and no later, and the preference would be in the first sentence, in the form of "[Title] is a pseudoscience" or "[Title] is the pseudoscientific belief" or something like that. That doesn't mean it should be repeated over and over, though. Just say it once up front. Lev!vich18:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I say that Ayurveda is a not a science. it something above the science. it has the effect and knowledge which came from thousands years before but it still exists and shows its effect in patients who administer it. The please remove the 2 lines.. because it given a bad impression. because its not a pseudoscience.Mr cosmic king (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Mr cosmic king (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Since several editors have above talked about how the lead should look like, than just mere first paragraph, I do think that it is more important to discuss what the full lead should look like.
After combining the proposed version above and leaving some parts out, I think the lead needs to be written like this:-
Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə,-ˈviː-/)[58] is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent.[39] Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurveda traditions are a type of alternative medicine,[41][42] and the Ayurvedic therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use.[59] Since the 1960s, the commercialization of Ayurveda and promotion as an alternative to Western medicine has raised ethical and legal issues, and is considered pseudoscientific.[41][42][43] Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances used in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no scientific evidence that any are medically effective as currently practiced.[44]
The main classical Ayurveda texts begin with accounts of the transmission of medical knowledge from the Gods to sages, and then to human physicians.[60]InSushruta Samhita (Sushruta's Compendium), Sushruta wrote that Dhanvantari, Hindu god of Ayurveda, incarnated himself as a king of Varanasi and taught medicine to a group of physicians, including Sushruta.[61][62] Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia.[39] Therapies are typically based on complex herbal compounds, minerals and metal substances (perhaps under the influence of early Indian alchemy or rasa shastra). Ancient Ayurveda texts also taught surgical techniques, including rhinoplasty, kidney stone extractions, sutures, and the extraction of foreign objects.[63][64]
Scholars assert that Ayurveda originated in prehistoric times,[65][66] and that some of the concepts of Ayurveda have existed from the time of the Indus Valley Civilization or even earlier.[67] Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period and later some of the non-Vedic systems such as Buddhism and Jainism also developed medical concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts.[67]Doṣa balance is emphasized, and suppressing natural urges is considered unhealthy and claimed to lead to illness.[68] Ayurveda treatises describe three elemental doṣas viz. vāta, pitta andkapha, and state that equality (Skt. sāmyatva) of the doṣas results in health, while inequality (viṣamatva) results in disease. Ayurveda treatises divide medicine into eight canonical components. Ayurveda practitioners had developed various medicinal preparations and surgical procedures from at least the beginning of the common era.[69]
^Zysk, Kenneth G. (1999). "Mythology and the Brāhmaṇization of Indian medicine: Transforming Heterodoxy into Orthodoxy". In Josephson, Folke (ed.). Categorisation and Interpretation. Meijerbergs institut för svensk etymologisk forskning, Göteborgs universitet. pp. 125–145. ISBN978-91-630-7978-8.
^Wujastyk, Dominik (2003). The Roots of Ayurveda: Selections from Sanskrit Medical Writings (3 ed.). London etc.: Penguin Books. ISBN978-0-140-44824-5.
^Dinesh Kumar Tyagi (2005). Pharma Forestry A Field Guide To Medicinal Plants. Atlantic Publishers. p. 34. Ayurveda, the organised and classic system of traditional medicine had known to the Indians from prehistoric times.
^Corwin Hansch, Peter George Sammes, Peter D. Kennewell, John Bodenhan Taylor (1990). Comprehensive medicinal chemistry: the rational design, mechanistic study & therapeutic application of chemical compounds. Pergamon Press. p. 114. The origin of Ayurveda is lost in antiquity. As was the case with many branches of human knowledge in prehistoric times, Ayurveda developed in close association with religion and mythology.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
My opinion is that this proposal is out-of-process for this RfC, which is asking a specific question. If other questions about the lede are unresolved they can be decided later. But I would not like to see this RfC sink because of lost focus. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think a question of "what should the opening sentence be" (paraphrasing the RfC) is an incomplete discussion without considering the lede as a whole. Taking into account Crossroads' observation about Google results, I think we're compelled to not describe it as a "system of medicine" (I'm personally okay with "system of traditional medicine" as the wikilink provides necessary context, and directly states that traditional medicine conflicts with science), and to flip the "Globalized and modernized..." and "Since the 1960s..." sentences, or otherwise modify so that the word "pseudoscience" appears in the first two sentences. Otherwise I think this is, at least, a very good starting point. But note that more concerns have been raised in new sections below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really looked into below sections before proposing this version. I agree that the RfC question is incomplete without deciding the whole lead. @Alexbrn: I don't see why we should wait for weeks if we can come to agreement about the version in less time. Azuredivay (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lede is meant to summarize the body. Per the discussion below the body is likely to change (maybe considerably) not least because of likely problems in the body text, and so the lede will have to change to remain a good summary. An RfC cannot "decide" an entire lede in any meaningful way because it will stymie the normal process of improving the article (with knock-on consequences for the lede). Let's stick to the question asked, and respect the responses already given to that question. Changing the RfC process now will just open it up to gaming attempts IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Azuredivay, nope. It's not a system of medicine, it's an atavistic throwback and a rejection of medicine in favour of folk remedies whose ineffectiveness are the entire reason that medicine developed in the first place. Guy (help!) 12:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It mustn't be whitewashed. There should be no passive voice pretending that that Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific. So no weaseling like "is considered". WP:ASSERT is absolutely clear that we assert facts in Wikipedia's voice when the fact is a stated in high-quality reliable sources, and not contradicted by equal quality sources. We have the quality reliable sources clearly stating "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience"; where are the equal quality sources stating "Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience"? No dispute = no attribution. --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This source has been already mentioned a few times, which says "Because Ayurveda does not seek to masquerade as a science, it is not fair to either characterize it as pseudo-scientific." You can't expect anything better than that since majority of academics don't even consider Ayurveda as pseudoscientific. Why a non-mainstream view should be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE?शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Ayurveda most certainly does seek to masquerade as a science. In particular, it seeks to masquerade as a medical treatment for various diseases and ailments.
Also, your link to an unreliable source above don't say what you claim it says. You appear to have confused the question you typed in with what the result Google books is. Here is the correct link (but it is still an unreliable source):[30] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
It is a fact that this article has been included as part of the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for several years without challenge. That settles the question of whether ArbCom regards the subject as pseudoscience.
ArbCom defined "Generally considered pseudoscience"as"Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." I believe that is the appropriate classification for Ayurveda.
The article has been categorised in Category:Pseudoscience (along with astrology) for several years, which reinforces the point above.
Our guideline at WP:FRINGE/PS states "Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." I believe this and the two points above provide overwhelming evidence that Ayurveda is pseudoscience as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
Our policy at WP:PSCI states "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." I believe that requires us to state clearly that Ayurveda is pseudoscience.
The lead of an article "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I believe that the requirement in PSCI to clearly describe the topic as pseudoscience makes it one of the most important content items, and therefore must be included in the lead.
The opening paragraph of the article "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." I believe that, in conjunction with PSCI, obliges us to establish in the opening paragraph the mainstream view that Ayurveda is pseudoscience.
The first sentence is described in the MoS over multiple bulletted points, but I believe the relevant ones are "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialized term, provide the context as early as possible" and "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." That leaves me uncertain whether we ought to include in the first sentence the context that Ayurveda is pseudoscience, or whether it can be left later on in the opening paragraph.
I suggest that the focus of the RfC should be on determining whether the first sentence or later in the opening paragraph should contain the wording about pseudoscience, as I think any other options are excluded by policy. --RexxS (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just came back after looking at both pages to say the same thing. I say we should go ahead and put pseudoscience in the first paragraph of each. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, adding pseudoscience to both of those would be completely reasonable. I imagine TCM might have quite a few proponents opposing any such change though. --tronvillain (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking over all of the pro-fringe !votes, and it got me to wondering whether there has been some off-wiki canvassing. I didn't find anything specifically mentioning this RfC, but there are a couple of websites that may be driving pro-fringe traffic to this page.
h t t p s : / / www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/wikipedias-hate-campaign-ayurveda/
Wikipedia’s Hate Campaign Against Ayurveda
h t t p s : / / www.globalresearch.ca/wikipedia-culture-editorial-chaos-malice/5716412
As mentioned above, the previous RfC has already established a consensus that use of the pseudoscience description is appropriate, and in particular the closing statement tells us that we can discard the arguments which claim the term is not supported by RS. Furthermore, at the time the topic was subject to socking in favor of the "Oppose" outcome (see AN discussion and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OccultZone/Archive). Given the number of new accounts this has attracted, I would agree that some form of misconduct is happening this time as well. Sunrise(talk)18:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Given the history of this page, please make everything about the close unambiguous. For example, a finding of "no consensus for X" should explain what no consensus means and specify whether or not this means "X is forbidden", "X is required", or "X is allowed". Whichever way the close goes I want there to be zero room for arguing about it -- it needs to settle the arguments one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: PainProf's response should be considered very carefully, as it is a strong counterpoint to the "oppose" arguments that hinge on the (alleged) lack of comprehensive, empirical scientific consensus on calling Ayurveda a pseudoscience. Namely, that the requisite experimentation for investigating Ayurveda as a whole (rather than selected compounds isolated from individual treatments) would be astoundingly unethical due to the inherent dangers of many of the "remedies" and the utter absence of any scientific basis for them. Independent doctors and translational researchers are not going to get IEB approval, let alone grants, to investigate the efficacy of an inherently toxic Rasa shastra formulation whose purification process and proposed mechanism of action have no basis in reality. More importantly, independent basic science researchers have even less impetus to evaluate the underlying concepts of Ayurveda--that is, the defining characteristics of Ayurveda that make it distinct from other systems of medicine. Ayurveda is more than any one bhasma; it is a holistic approach to health that is very much rooted in a medieval pseudoscientific framework. For scientists to experimentally discredit the practice to the extent some "oppose" voters seem to require, they would need to somehow quantify dosha levels, evaluate the physiological effects of various "concentrations" of doshas, and empirically validate the prescribed treatments for various dosha imbalances. None of these studies will ever happen because they are physically impossible. Instead, what is actually tested is the chemical behavior of compounds isolated and purified from the herbal part of an Ayurvedic preparation: i.e. not the preparation itself or any component ever identified through Ayurveda. The vast majority of these studies are negative and never reported publicly, but the few that eventually result in drugs are promoted as evidence of Ayurveda, despite all the steps after retrieving the concoction being wholly dependent on evidence-based science. For this reason, the relative "silence" of scientific thought on Ayurveda is actually a strong indictment against its claim of being a science, and the large body of secondary (non-experimental) literature that explicitly calls it a pseudoscience bolsters the argument for including the descriptor in the lead sentence. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: This RfC was created to settle an acute dispute about where the phrase "pseudoscience" (or "pseudoscientific") should be in the lead. Therefore, I contend that any close should attempt to determine whether consensus exists for any solution to the dispute, and I suggest that there is consensus to include the phrase within the first paragraph of the lead, if not in the first sentence.
I believe that it will be vital for an accurate close to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments presented, and I contend that it is impossible to do that without an understanding that Ayurveda is considered a pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific viewpoint, and by Wikipedia since its inception. If that starting point is accepted then the policies/guidelines at WP:PSCI and MOS:BEGIN are paramount and those arguments based on them are irrefutable and must be given the strongest weight; if it is rejected, then WP:PSCI is irrelevant. There isn't a "neutral option" on that issue. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Since you have already come this far by analyzing and closing the AN discussion, can you be the one to close this RfC as well? I don't think if any other admin will bother to touch this discussion even with 100 feet pole. IMO, there are only 2 possible outcomes, one that there is no consensus for anything like MrX's closure noted,[31] and another one is that there is consensus to include the term not in the first sentence but the first paragraph like RexxS[32] Guy Macon,[33] and JzG[34] said. The lead, especially the first paragraph of the article, was changed by 16 August[35] following the discussion on Talk:Ayurveda#A lead paragraph without the whitewashing where the discussion seemed independent of this RfC. Azuredivay (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "there is consensus to include the term not in the first sentence but the first paragraph". That could be interpreted and there being a consensus against including the term in the first sentence. I said that there is consensus to include the term in the first paragraph, but it does not have to be in the first sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ayurveda is a legal traditional medical system in India and is practised by doctors who undergo 51/2 years of graduate study and 3 years of post graduate study. (And even more) Ayurvedic hospitals and clinics are run all over India by the Central and State Governments and is a well established public health system with many patients benefitting out of it. Claiming a medical system to be "Pseudo", where people who who study that stream give in about 5-8 years of their lives by writing the toughest entrance exams- is nothing but gross injustice. If so, Yoga is the biggest pseudoscience because it is practised by people who have no formal training and need no registration with any medical councils whatsoever. If Wikipedia claims Ayurveda which has well structured syllabus and taught in Universities for 51/2 -8 years,which needs registration from Medical Councils etc to be "Pseudoscience" then please make changes in Yoga, Reiki, Acupuncture and so on Pseudoscience too please.
(There are multiple research centres for Ayurveda in India. Please note that it is an indigenous system to India and need funding in huge amount to do more research and is not propagated by multinational Pharma giants to come up with many studies. What is known is, many people are benefitted from the medical system and Wikipedia quoting it as Pseudoscience and quackery and quoting "IMA" which is an independent small organisation of modern medicine docs is disappointing. "IMA" in India has always opposed traditional medical systems, but on the other hand they certify air-conditioners and wall paints that purify air and get rid of bacteria/viruses - that is very SCIENTIFIC. Lol. Veena Hemesh (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of nonsense are legal in many countries, but that doesn't make then scientific. We are all fully aware of the utter lack of evidence that Ayurveda has any significant success in treating illness beyond placebo. We're all also fully aware of the documented harmful effects of heavy metals that are part and parcel of this so-called treatment. Science shows us that Ayurveda relies on ignorance and superstition to make its claims. It's a belief in non-scientific principles masquerading as "science", or worse as "medicine". If you think that Ayurveda actually benefits people, then show us the evidence: the RCTs, the quality independent reviews that Wikipedia require for any biomedical claims. If you can't produce them, then it's time to stop beating a dead horse.
We have longstanding prior consensuses that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience:
Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 12 #Category:Pseudoscience – "There is clear support here for adding Category:Pseudoscience to this article as a result of the reliable source coverage of it as a pseudoscience. The primary opposing argument is that Ayurveda is old and therefore shouldn't be labelled pseudoscience for its entire history - there have been strong arguments against this on the basis that it makes testable claims today which have been regarded as pseudoscientific in reliable sources."
Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 #Pseudoscience – "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"
I'll remind contributors that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions which include this requirement:
Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)
Now, it's abundantly clear that the policy WP:PSCI applies to this article, and there is no prospect of removing mention of the fact that Ayurveda is pseudoscientific, i.e. a system that claims to be scientific while having no basis in science. The issue under discussion is whether to include that fact in the opening sentence or in the first paragraph. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The link of IMA cited as (2) mentions that people who are unauthorized to practise modern medicine can be termed quacks which doesnt imply to Registered practitioners of any medical science who practise their own science. B.A.M.S. IS a 5 and half year course which is similar to M.B.B.S. in terms of duration. Such fake additions to term Ayurveda as quackery must be removed with immediate effect. Dhanwantari4u (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quackery 1
I am amazed that we do not seem to be even mentioning that the Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterizes the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as quackery.[36] It's really quite a sad indictment that we give acres of space to this nonsense without even bothering to reflect the views of legitimate medics in India. I will integrate the IMA's thoughts into the body, and when the lede RfC is complete we can think about whether it should also be in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn Here, again, your pre-existing bias can't let you see objectively. The link you mentioned, calls practitioners who misuse allopathic medicine as Quacks. It does not, I repeat, It does not characterizes the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as quackery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawangupta (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, the second category of quack is "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine." So, it doesn't actually go so far as to call Ayurveda (or even homeopathy) quackery—that probably wouldn't be a great political move at the moment. But, it does say that an estimated four hundred thousand practitioners of "Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb and Unani)" are quacks, which doesn't compare well to the "432,625 registered medical practitioners" in the article for 2003–2004. --tronvillain (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at something more recent, like this, with 7,44,563 AYUSH (the group that second category is specififically about) registered graduates as of January 1, 2015 and an estimated 7,600,000 by 2017, that's still an appalling ratio. It probably doesn't help when you have the government attempting to pass legislation to license those practitioners as health care providers (echoing China/TCM and the US/chiropractic).[1]
References
^Novella, Steven (3 January 2018). "Indian Doctors Fight Against Quackery". Science Based Medicine. There is already a massive problem of medical pseudoscience in India. This bill would legitimize all of it, give it regulatory and educational power, and set back the cause of science-based medicine in India indefinitely.
@Alexbrn
IMA is just a private medical organisation of modern doctors and its just a misleading bias from their side against Ayurveda. If any ayurveda physician is practising allopathy medicine he may be quack not the entire Ayurveda community. So it's shame to see such description in a public platform like Wikipedia. Anuram567 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The word quackery should be removed from this article, as the link in support of such claim doesn't say so. It says an ayurvedic doctor who practice allopathy as quack, the same way as an allopathic doctor who prescribe ayurvedic medicine as quack Bullz123 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's really disappointing to see certain people make fun of a medical system by terming it as "Quackery" which is legally permitted and run by State/Central Governments in India. Ayurvedic Physicians in India give the same exams as modern medicine docs in India and undergo 51/2 years of graduate study and 3 years of post graduate study. So how come an organisation/association of a few modern medicine docs like IMA claim Ayurveda to be quackery. This cannot be justified in any way and has to be removed at the earliest. And little did I know we had to get "Certification" from a small association of modern medicine docs like IMA in India and not the State Govt/ Universities or Medical Councils like how we did it. Veena Hemesh (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, IMA is not an organisation to certify other traditional medical systems as "Quackery" or not. This edit has been done intentionally by some people to malign Ayurvedic science and to mock doctors who practice the same. Veena Hemesh (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir I belong to Ayurved and I am Ayurvedic Doctor and I am proud of it ... Kindly remove the ridiculous language you used to describe our pathy ... If you don't know anything about our pathy you have no right to speak any such rubbish regarding Ayurved... VdNeha (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Medical Association is just a collective of Allopathic doctors in India. They are in no means a governing body to declare another medical system to be quackery or pseudoscience. The WHO classified Ayurveda under traditional and complementary medical sciences.The fact that it was originated in the Vedic times does not comply to the science being a pseudoscience. Hence for the best interest of public and the sensible sections of the society it is ideal to take down such un ethical and baseless accusations. Shilpahello1 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMA doesn't qualify Ayurveda as quakery. It says and I quote, "Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under, 1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever. 2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine. 3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act." HemaChandra88 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've covered this before and made some very limited progress, but I've managed to find a couple of new high quality sources that should help in shaping the introduction to the history section. Now, it's well established that Ayurveda originates with texts such as the Charaka Samhita, the Sushruta Samhita and the Bhela Samhita but it's also extremely common for modern Ayurvedic texts to make claims of extreme antiquity (anywhere from 3000–9000 years ago).
The Cambridge History of Science:[1]
From page 535:The archaeological findings from Mehrgarh do not allow for any conclusions on whether or not the religion of Mehrgarh included the conception of religious healing. However, the people of Mehrgarh apparently practiced an early form of dentistry already 9,000 to 7,500 years ago. This suggests that, probably, other medical practices were also employed in this early phase of South Asian medicine.
From pages 535–536:As in the case of the prehistoric settlement of South Asia, nothing definite can be said about the religion of the Indus Valley civilization due to the absence of intelligible written sources. ...There is also virtually no information available on medical beliefs, theories, and practices. However, some of the bronze razors, pins, and pincers that were found “must have,” according to Kenoyer, “been the tools of a barber or a physician.” This meager archaeological evidence for medical beliefs, theories, and practices in pre-historic South Asia hardly justifies a treatment of this phase of South Asian cultural history within a historical overview on Ayurveda, the medical concepts of which originate from the intellectual environment of a much later time. Although this can hardly be disputed with historical arguments, we find the anachronistic claim in some currents of modern Ayurveda that Ayurveda originated in the peak period of the Indus Valley civilization. The reason for this claim is the equation of antiquity with authenticity, on which some modern forms of Ayurveda draw to create acceptance for their CAM in the globalized world.
There follows a wealth of other material on Ayurvedic texts, doshas, rasa, etc.
Social History:[2]
From pages 263–264:Elsewhere, Chopra states that Ayurveda dates back ‘more than 5,000 years’ and that it ‘embodies the collective wisdom of sages who began their tradition many centuries before the construction of the Pyramids and carried it forward generation after generation.’ This claim of extreme longevity is repeated like a mantra in modern writings on Ayurveda, and not only in the mass-marketed texts of authors such as Chopra. David Frawley, an Indologist whose work is published by the scholarly Indian publisher Motilal Banarsidass claims likewise that: ‘Ayurveda is the five thousand year old Vedic “Science of Life”, the traditional healing system of India.’
For many historians, such assertions set alarm bells ringing. Following the work of Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, it is now common to question the antiquity of almost any claimed ‘tradition’. As they and the other contributors to their seminal book on The Invention of Tradition argue, many supposedly longstanding ‘traditions’ were created in the nineteenth or early twentieth century as an intrinsic part of the construction of new nationalities and nation states.
And then from page 266: There were, in addition, studies of pre-colonial forms of healing in India by Indologists such as Kenneth Zysk and Dominik Wujastyk, who were fully alive to the problems of chronology, dating and continuity. Zysk, for example, argued that the healing practised during Vedic times – e.g. a period that began around 1500 BC – were strongly shamanistic, and thus different in form to the Ayurveda of the classic texts of the first millennia CE. Wujaystk pointed out that there was no obvious continuity between the healing practised in the Vedic period and that of the classic Sanskrit Ayurvedic texts, which date to the time when Buddhism was in the ascendancy in the subcontinent.
And page 281:Today, such claims are made most stridently by those who seek to market Ayurveda for a western clientele. ‘Tradition’ is no longer asserted for a nationalistic purpose – it has assumed a more free-floating global meaning and usage. Even when Indians – who are mainly members of the middle class – consume such ‘Ayurveda’, they, like westerners, tend to view it as an ‘alternative’ medicine that complements the biomedical treatments that they also resort to as a matter of course.
Plus, a large amount of material on British Orientalism and the revival/synthesis of modern Ayurveda and Unani Tibb (which probably also needs a look).
And what one of the references already in the history section, Ayurveda: Life, Health and Longevity says is With such attention to sanitation, they almost surely possessed a system of medicine, though no firm evidence yet exists to support this conjecture except for the discovery in Harappan remains of substances such as deer antler and bitumen, which are used in classical Ayurveda and From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge.
Then there's Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradism, also already in the article, on page 12:[3]It is axiomatic to find statements in nearly all institutional, lineage, and popular presentations of Ayurveda that it is 5,000 years old, with some claiming that it is 8,000 years old, that it is a direct descendant of the medicine of the Atharva- Veda, that it was always allied with Tantra, and that the increasingly popular diagnosis by pulse (nå¿¥vijñåna), which is not mentioned in any classical text, is an ancient ayurvedic practice. Plus, a variety of other material not currently used in the article.
Then there's the English translation, A Concise Introduction to Indian Medicine:[4]: It says The remains of Mohenjo-Daro in the lower Indus valley and of Harappa, further north, attest to the existence of a civilization of such a high level, from as early as the third millennium BC, that we may safely think that medicine might already have been advanced there, but they do not tell us anything as regards its actual development", and In the absence of supplementary evidence, it has not been possible to determine the magnitude of the medical legacy from which the Aryan immigrants may have benefited.", as well as It was only towards the end of the Vedic period that Indian medicine began to become observational and rational and progressively constitute itself into a consistent system to which the name of Ayurveda, the 'Science (veda) concerning longevity (ayur)' was given." There's also large amount of other material, such as material in the Vedas, the eight components ("In fact, very few ancient texts follow this division which has been particularly in vogue among more recent authors."), Ayurvedic texts, examination of the pulse, etc.
^Mass, Philipp A. (1 December 2018). "27". In Jones, Alexander; Taub, Lisa (eds.). Indian Medicine and Ayurveda. The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 1 (2018 ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 532–550. doi:10.1017/9780511980145.029. ISBN9780511980145.
^Mazars, Guy (2006) [1995]. La médecine indienne [A Concise Introduction to Indian Medicine]. Translated by Gopalan, T. K. (1st ed.). Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. pp. 1–10. ISBN978-81-208-3058-5.
@Retimuko: No harm done. I must admit I had to check twice because we're all used to seeing |parameter = value but this is one of those rare exceptions. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ayurvedic interventions for osteoarthritis
There appears to be some preliminary scientific evidence that some Ayurvedic interventions for osteoarthritis might be safe and effective. However, because I do not possess expertise in this area, I defer to other editors regarding this research and whether or not to discuss these studies in the article. Here are some of the studies that use "Ayurveda" in the title or abstract;[1][2][3][4] and a Cochrane review that includes research on Boswellia serrata.[5]
Please note that I did not conduct a thorough search of the literature, and most of these studies constitute primary research, which is one reason I use the adjective "preliminary". And not all studies reported positive safety or efficacy results.[6]
Finally, I came across an interesting article about understanding cultural and economic differences between Asia & Africa vs. developed Western countries as it relates to clinical practice guidelines.[7]
For osteoarthritis The only source which is promising is PMID 25062981; the others are either primary sources, not about osteoarthritis, or publishing on a topic out of their field (A nutrition journal on arthritis). Because we we know ayurvedic medicine is pseudoscientific a WP:REDFLAG flies and we would need a much higher quality of sourcing to make any claims of efficacy, which would be surprising. Looking at PMID 25062981, it says there are several problems with the quality of evidence and that a only a single trial indicated promise, for the drug "Rumalaya". A fair summary might be "There is no good evidence that ayurvedic drugs are effective in treating osteoarthritis, and research in this area has been of poor quality." Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Alexbrn. One of the reasons I did some searching on PubMed is to honor a commitment I made to consciously challenge possible implicit biases I might have about various topics. Trying to weed out implicit biases is a worthy goal, but our reliance on reliable sources is paramount. Thus, I defer to you and other editors with more knowledge on this topic. - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 07:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that pmid:25062981 is the only usable source, and that it is cautious about the quality of the studies it reviewed. Nevertheless, it suggests the possibility that one or two of the Ayurvedic preparations it reviewed may contain efficacious compounds. One of the problems we find with judging traditional medicine is that if you have fed patients with a wide variety of ingredients over many years, you're likely to stumble across something that has value, in the way that willow bark led to aspirin. Of course, you're just as likely to stumble across a wide range of poisons that will kill the patients – and the hallmark of pseudoscience is the inability of the system to learn the difference between the two outcomes. --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"... the hallmark of pseudoscience is the inability of the system to learn the difference between the two outcomes." B Added to Wisdom file. - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest striking from the lead based on the sole source contradicting the claim:
"there is no scientific evidence that any are medically effective as currently practiced"
Source actually states: "Although Ayurveda has been largely untested by Western researchers, there is a growing interest in integrating some parts of the system into modern medical practice. In fact, a few of the herbs and substances have been purified into drugs that are used (along with other medicines) to treat cancer. Early studies suggest that other parts of Ayurveda may have potential therapeutic value."
Source is a dead link from 2011, which is not peer reviewed and is questionable under WP:MEDRS.
Also suggest striking grounds of sweeping generalization which is impossible to support for all possible treatments and all possible uses - even bad trial and error is likely to accidentally find something that at least partially works. Such over generalization and errors weakens the arguments and overall content of better sourced content. Reliable medical sources typically word things as "unknown", "unproven", "not an established treatment". Amousey(they/them pronouns)(talk)13:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The web page cited as dead and the website now suggests two helpful alternatives NCCIH, MSK. Wording on these might also be helpful in resolving issues with the lead Amousey(they/them pronouns)(talk)13:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article should say "there is no scientific evidence that any are medically effective as currently practiced" unless there are WP:MEDRS sources that say exactly that. It really is a broad overgeneralization; Big Pharma is well-known for looking at all sorts of alt-med and folk remedies in the hopes of finding another aspirin (based on medicines made from willow that date to ancient Egypt) or penicillin (based upon noticing that a blue-green mould inhibited bacterial growth).
The lead is meant to summarize the article. If the article has no content on research for western medicine effectiveness, the lead can say that in part because Wikipedia has taken a western-medicine, mainstream position. The onus would be on editors to thoroughly investigate for any MEDRS research, add it or not to the article then summarize in the lead. We don't generally try to prove a negative but in a lead we can summarize or maybe generalize. Our tone and wording is important to maintain neutrality. It's not up to us display any kind of POV. (Just thoughts). Littleolive oil (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying "Western medicine", but medicine does not have any such directions. It works the same everywhere. If you do separate between different cultures, it should be the pseudosciences: Homeopathy is Western pseudomedicine, and Ayurveda is Eastern pseudomedicine. Medicine is above those petty culture differences. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no. It's arrogant of us to think we have the only healing modality. Because something has not been researched within the western science model doesn't mean it doesn't work. Most civilizations had ways to heal; our so called western medicine is very young. For Wikipedia purposes it's critical that we add only content that is sourced to the western mainstream sources. This also doesn't mean that a traditional form of healing is necessarily either safe or useful, neither are western modalities. None of this is black and white. And yes, I'm familiar with the distinction made between medicine defined as that which heals and everything else but I don't find that distinction useful when dealing with the non-black and white. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proponents keep talking about lack of research and traditional ways to heal. It has been researched, and has been found not to work. Otherwise it would be accommodated into the medicine. The fundamental principles are completely divorced from science. Doshas and other such fundamental concepts are myths. Pretending that such things have some basis in reality is pseudoscience. Retimuko (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't label anyone here, please. Ayurveda from what I'm reading has multiple levels of application. Perhaps we can discuss that complexity with out labeling anyone. And don't think that because someone is open to discussion that makes them a proponent of anything. Traditional medicine that has only recently entered the field of western research is likely behind western medicine research. This doesn't mean there's anything to research just that we don't yet know all there is to know and or investigate. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How come you know what other people know and what they don't know? It is you who is arrogant. Also presumptious and condescending. And you are labeling medicine "Western". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should have something on this, it's quite important. I suggest CRUK as a top-line MEDRS: "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer, or any other disease." [44]Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest wording similar to that from User:Alexbrn but closer to that from the original cancer source, which said some may help lessen certain symptoms. The NCCIH disclaimer could be included and sourced to them "Don’t use Ayurvedic medicine to postpone seeing a conventional health care provider about a medical problem."
"a 2013 clinical trial compared two Ayurvedic formulations of plant extracts against the natural product glucosamine sulfate and the drug celecoxib in 440 people with knee osteoarthritis. All four products provided similar reductions in pain and improvements in function."
"A preliminary and small NCCIH-funded 2011 pilot study with 43 people found that conventional and Ayurvedic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis were similarly effective. The conventional drug tested was methotrexate and the Ayurvedic treatment included 40 herbal compounds."
"Outcomes from a small short-term clinical trial with 89 men and women suggested that a formulation of five Ayurvedic herbs may help people with type 2 diabetes. However, other researchers said inadequate study designs haven’t allowed researchers to develop firm conclusions about Ayurveda for diabetes."
Reviews found:
Kessler 2015 osteoarthritis pain - evidence for one drug and some evidence for a second, no evidence for massage, steam therapy, and enema
NCCIH states it is doing trials of "quality of life" in people with breast cancer using a mix of approaches eg yoga, pressure points, diet...
and a trial for Butea monosperma (BME) flowers which may "protect against joint destruction from osteoarthritis" but I don't know if that web page is now out of date. Amousey(they/them pronouns)(talk)23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any actual examples of anything from Ayurveda making it into conventional medicine?
"You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine." --Tim Minchin
"There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work. Alternative medicine is defined as that set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested or consistently fail tests." --Richard Dawkins
"Only desperation can account for what the Chinese do in the name of 'medicine.' That's something you might remind your New Age friends who've gone gaga over 'holistic medicine' and 'alternative Chinese cures." --Anthony Bourdain
"It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride There cannot be two kinds of medicine — conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted." Marcia Angell
"In some aspects of alternative medicine we are fighting an almost medieval belief in magic but debunking such beliefs is like telling people that the tooth fairy is sniffing glue." --John Diamond
"We hate Big Pharma. We hate big government. We don’t trust The Man. And we shouldn’t. Our health care system sucks. It’s cruel to millions of people. It’s absolutely astonishingly cold and soul-bending to those of us who can even afford it. So we run away from it, and where do we run? We leap into the arms of Big Placebo." --Michael Specter
When I asked the question "do we have any actual examples of anything from Ayurveda making it into conventional medicine?" I got some citations to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (formerly known as the Office of Alternative Medicine).
First I saw the claim "Turmeric may help with ulcerative colitis" But Turmeric#Medical research says "Turmeric and curcumin, one of its constituents, have been studied in numerous clinical trials for various human diseases and conditions, but the conclusions have either been uncertain or negative. Claims that curcumin in turmeric may help to reduce inflammation remain unproven as of 2020."
The next claim was "osteoarthritis pain - evidence for one drug and some evidence for a second, no evidence for massage, steam therapy, and enema", but the very first thing in the abstract of the source cited is "Ayurveda is one of the fastest growing systems within complementary and alternative medicine. However, the evidence for its effectiveness is unsatisfactory" and later "Based on single trials, positive effects were found... Well-planned, well-conducted and well-published trials are warranted to improve the evidence for Ayurvedic interventions." Again no evidence of any anything from Ayurveda making it into conventional medicine. Just a couple of single trials and a call to look into it further.
According to Wikipedia is not a WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia articles and is not primarily a medical source. If the turmeric article is out of date or accurate that has no impact on the weight of the Cochrane reviews, or high quality secondary sources.
The wording on the page suggests that there is no evidence for any of it - that's what is unfounded. The fact that the evidence is limited and for the majority of things also inadequate is also true. But to present something in such black and white terms shows a lack of neutrality. The sources don't claim the evidence is none - but the page does. Amousey(they/them pronouns)(talk)00:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are valid but the Wikipedia content is not. The turmeric page's claim "as of 2020" is also attributed to sources from no later than 2017. MEDRS states "Per the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources." Wikipedia does not cite itself. I will comment separately on general wording. I think any examples of evidence that treatments are shown to work clinically (ie by Western medicine science) should not be given undue weight due to being isolated cases, given they will be very limited number. As per MOS I would suggest not having a separate section for these but including in other text. Amousey(they/them pronouns)(talk)14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific wording for NPOV when evidence of harm outweighs suggestions of benefits
As someone who wouldn't go near anything labeled Ayurveda, and admittedly disliking "holistic" approaches, I have found myself disagreeing with much of the wording suggested on grounds that it generalizes or needlessly overstates the case in a way that comes across as bias - adding a few qualifiers would really help this.
I think there is mostly agreement that most (maybe virtually all) Ayurveda is totally scientifically unproven, and that some contains levels of specific substances known to be toxic (at that level) e.g lead - I haven't seen proponents dispute this. Referring to "scientific evidence" rather than simply "evidence" is helpful - personal experience is considered to be anecdotal evidence rather than no evidence - so this gets the same point across but more accurately/neutrally. Adding some qualifiers to statements is the typical way scientists avoid over-generalizing while getting their point across, and avoiding having a single trial return a result that contradicts what they said (ie don't accidentally setup a straw man).
This phrase from an unrelated review on a very different topic may be helpful in wording
"Some preclinical studies have shown positive evidence that these substances can induce apoptosis in skin cancer, but clinical studies proving efficacy are either insufficient, nonexistent, or show negative evidence."
I think shows neutrality on that topic (doesn't ignore opposing evidence nor give it undue weight) without over-generalizing. Ayurveda evidence I would describe as based on anecdotal reports/evidence with insufficient or nonexistent clinical studies showing benefits and evidence of potential harm and likely toxicity found in some treatments." Possibly strengthening that judgment on the amount of evidence of harms (haven't seen enough reviews to be sure of the weight of evidence or degree of harm).
I would very much like to include User:Alexbrn's source above from the Indian Medical Association stating that even in India, where it is recognized and it's practioners are licensed, Ayurveda practioners must not use it for conventional medicine. There may be government or licensing sources that back this up too.
I personally do not understand when it is considered an appropriate use (does the person feel something is not in balance and so consult a practioner?).
Given that Ayurveda is based on anecdotal evidence / historical reports of what practioners believe works - I would be very interested in ancedotal evidence from Western practioners eg surveys, collated opinions, and of course cases of harm reported where these are collated in a standardized way.
Any source that states which countries have no regulation or licensing regarding Ayurveda or Ayurveda marketing claims would be good to include.
As I recall, in the past the term "scientific evidence", as opposed to just "evidence" has been the focus of disputes with debates around whether "other kinds of evidence" apply. It's the "your science can't measure my woo" phenomenon. Although that's pretty abstruse, I think it's better/simpler just to use "evidence" when writing about medical topics. And, about anecdotes always remember this famous saying.
As to the reality of usage, there are a number of factors in play: ayurveda is a handy "medicine" that means can stand in as a reassuring imposter when real medicine is not available, and the Indian state knows this and actively promotes ayurveda as a form of supposed Indian soft power.[45] Yup, just as in other countries, politicians-in-power in India are as deluded as f*ck. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that the WHO is very kind about it for that reason (and they note it): in many places people cannot afford better medicine (either too costly or unavailable locally), when they do, they may still resort to it where it's the traditional wisdom to do so... Then there is complementary institutionalization with medical schools and practitioners integrating or borrowing names (some sources treat that as a form of syncretism, [46], [47], [48], [49]). Ayurveda is mentioned in all pseudoscience encyclopedias that I check, at the same time in an anthropology encyclopedia I see a mention of the demarcation between "old and new ethnomedicine", with a mention that the latter (post 1980s anthropology) is more permissive to consider it medicine, with more focus on specifics ([50]). Some other encyclopedias mention tenets of various traditional medicines without any critical information, yet they'll often mention the dangers of quackery as well as instances of lead poisoning and psychological distress (often they mitigate that with apologetics like that a licensed practitioner is important and that distress is considered to be progress on the "mind cleansing" path)... Good point about "scientific evidence" vs "evidence". —PaleoNeonate – 07:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a protoscience, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.
But consulting the source, this does not seem verifiable. Quack is writing not about how researchers "debate", but specifically about Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (orANiS), an anti-superstition movement and how its members view Ayurveda. I propose this text
Done I have fixed the Quack source and disentangled the surrounding material too, adjusting the lede to remain in sync with the body. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To explain further. If there are multiple terms from multiple sources to describe Ayurveda then the lead could summarize this fact but detailing each one may be too specific or may fall under undue. I don't know enough about the sources; this is more of a general view based on policy/guideline. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a problem in the body of the article. Articles contain more or less detail probably decided on by the interest of the editors. Again though, I don't know enough about sources to make this decision myself. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:
"Wikipedia’s policies [...] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[52][53][54][55]"
The people who try to water down the facts are doing incredible harm in the real world. At the risk of sounding too conceited, these magic cures are made for the most gullible of people. Wikipedia cannot change the world, but this feels like a small victory. - hako9 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the scientific papers published about Ayurveda rather than blabbering on unscientifically against it. Get your facts right.now u sound more like the people u r fighting against. All the best DrAyurveda1 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^Meulenbeld, Gerrit Jan (1999). "Introduction". A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ISBN978-9069801247.
I will have to wait for the current RfC to close, and I will most likely have to post an RfC when the inevitable howls of protest start up, but first I would like to ask if anyone has any wording tweaks to suggest. In particular, I am wondering if what I put after "Ayurveda has historical roots in the Indian subcontinent" is notable enough for the lead, and whether it is too US-centric. Who popularized Ayurveda in the UK and AU? the "Outside the Indian subcontinent" section only mentions the US. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal could be interpreted as all Ayurvedic remedies contain the toxic heavy metals mentioned. I'm not sure how to revise it without undue weight. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fixable. What say I change "prescribes remedies containing..." to "prescribes remedies, many of which contain..."? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to give undue emphasis to the heavy metals aspect of Ayurveda. It's much much more vast in its range of nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}20:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I agree with most of this except the clause listing the heavy metals. I think the dangerous prescriptions are certainly DUE in the article, probably even the first couple paragraphs, but I don't think the first sentence is an accurate summary of the scope of the practice. The problems in Ayurveda are much wider-reaching than just "some remedies contain metals at potentially toxic concentrations". The way the sentence is worded also doesn't clarify whether these metals are intentionally prescribed by practitioners as healthful remedies, are accidental contaminations due to poor quality control, are deceptively introduced to formulations to add bulk/whatever, or all the above. Mentioning pseudoscience and the scathing assessment by the IMA is more than enough to demonstrate where this system stands among real scientists/physicians. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thing my wording implies that they do it on purpose, and anyone interested in the details can look at the "Use of toxic metals" section. I don't want to load too much into the lead. And it does seem to be the one thing they do that cases the most harm. Plus, if a Ayurveda practitioner prescribes vomiting or urine drinking, it is obvious to the patent what is being prescribed. They falsely claim that the remedies are "purified" and won't give you heavy metal poisoning - yet the actual patients do end up with heavy metal poisoning. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could use clarification that ayurveda attempts to cure diseases using non-empirical formulations of herbs and potentially toxic levels of heavy metals. And it probably shouldn't be limited to just the rasha shastra aspect of ayurveda since doshas are the major conceptual framework behind it and deserve to be criticized early on. IMO even the article body doesn't draw an explicit enough comparison between ayurveda as currently understood and practiced in modern India, and the scientific theories of medieval Europe discarded over a century ago by western medicine. JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about modern vs. medieval. Are you up to adding a paragraph somewhere in the body? Right now I am focusing on the lead.
Until I read your comment above, I have no idea that the concept of Dosha exists. It is only mentioned in passing in the article and isn't even in the See Also. Because the lead must contain material covered in the body, I can't add any mention of Dosha to the lead until someone adds the material to the body. --Guy Macon (talk)
I'm surprised doshas aren't mentioned more, since one of the main purposes of Ayurveda seems to be balancing them. I am not an efficient writer at all, but I can take a stab at it... JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, just reading through this - if you do take a stab at this, I suggest exercising care with phrases like 'potentially toxic levels of heavy metals'. I don't have a source for this to hand, but my understanding is that with stuff like lead and arsenic, there isn't such a thing as a non-toxic level - the level of toxicity increases with the amount that you ingest, but there's no safe or 'non-toxic' level. We just need to be careful that we don't give the implication that there is any way that it's safe to ingest any preparation containing stuff like this. GirthSummit (blether)18:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just edited the lead as suggested. Thanks! Do Ayurvedic practitioners operate under a law or voluntary code of conduct that requires them to disclose if a remedy contains heavy metals? The websites I have looked at claim that they "purify" the products so that the heavy metals cause no harm (yet patients still keep ending up in hospital with heavy-metal poisoning). If, as I suspect, the patient is not told what they are getting, then it doesn't really matter if not all remedies contain heavy metals just as when discussing the dangers of playing Russian roulette it doesn't really matter if some of the chambers of the revolver are not loaded. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, the contamination is largely accidental, I think, and an effect of the lack of quality controls on herbal products. Recall that the in the US, thanks to lobbying by Big Herba, the FDA is not permitted to test or regulate herbal products unless there is compelling evidence of harm having been done. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article says, "Heavy metals are thought of as active ingredients by advocates of Indian herbal medicinal products". So, when you say, "the contamination is largely accidental", do you mean that the accidental contamination exceeds even the intentional addition of heavy metals? Is there a source for that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hob Gadling, you are right: I was only aware of the contamination issue in the US and EU (where products containing these metals are heavily regulated). I had forgotten that India is the Wild West for health claims. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a huge disservice to our readers that we have to water down the language because it might offend some people's beliefs? The citations present already, along with those added are more than sufficient to warrant the label. The rfc is no consensus. Can't we edit? Or is this a kind of a stalemate. - hako9 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed an extreme disappointment, but this is a fairly common occurrence on this website. See, for example, the endless, mind-numbing struggle at Indigenous Aryans to merely include the characterization of WP:FRINGE, despite this being obvious to anyone who has even heard the term "comparative method" whispered in a neighboring room before. The unfortunate situation is that there exists a huge bloc of people with deeply-held religious and political beliefs which prevent level-headed thinking. Not much else can be said about it. BirdValiant (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK,I am now going to post the lead paragraph without the whitewashing from the top of this section. Please keep your eye on this page; I expect howls of protest and a bunch of edit warring from those who value promoting pseudoscience above building an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the process of challenging the close as I believe a consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph was established, but missed by the closer. It might be worth hanging on a day or two while it's discussed at User talk:MrX #Ayurveda RfC close (and potentially at WP:AN). --RexxS (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon. You have ignored the RfC and the closer. You have labelled every editor who does not support your position as people who don't care about the encyclopedia, a gross incivility. You have ignored other possible versions of the lead in favor of your own. You have decided that only your version is not whitewashing- a POV position and just an amazing position from an experienced editor. You started this with a deliberate challenge that will /could create an edit war. I care enough about the encyclopedia to walk away, to not be baited into reverting, and starting the physical aspects of a big mess but this was started by Guy Macon. No Wikipedia article is worth this to me. This is truly sanctionable behavior on an DS article since the action pushes a POV in the face of a community consensus and is deliberate in attempts to create an edit war, to trap other editors who in good faith, whatever their position took part in an RfC on this. Too bad. The way to deal with this was to challenge the close\ as i see is being done. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus means there was no agreement to put pseudoscience in the first sentence. In adding the content anyway an editor is ignoring the RfC. The editor added his own version with out consensus as well when there were multiple other versions. The NIH position is only important as a reference to content. We don't adopt positions. The error you and others are making is assuming that the technical aspects of writing an article, where to place a word, is a display of a position rather than a technical point. The accusations made against editors is ugly, but worse is knowing that an experienced editor has knowingly created the potential for a very messy edit war. I will leave this to the admin. My vote was made as a technical point and I have no desire to argue this further. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In adding the content anyway an editor is ignoring the RfC ...That makes no sense. Does no consensus mean the status quo is right and cannot be challenged? The potential for an edit war, as you say, existed before the rfc and after the rfc. The only way to end it was to make a decision. - hako9 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The closing comment of the RfC included "Upon re-examination, there appears to be a weak consensus for sustaining the pseudoscience descriptor in the lead."
If you look at the discussion, the consensus was that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence, but there was no consensus that it can't be in the first sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that that's settled, I hope @Littleolive oil: sees the error in calling your edit a sanctionable behaviour. None of the 1RR, or incivility or reinstatement of edit challenged via reversion rules were broken. - hako9 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon; I had to revert your edit because it really goes against the conclusion of the RfC. Earlier there was no consensus for adding "pseudoscience" in the lead either, thus a new consensus will have to be established to add "pseudoscience". Frankly, I would prefer the solution provided by RexxS to mention "pseudoscience" in the first paragraph (but not the lead) as a good compromise. But can we look into a modified and better proposal before making any edits? Also, it would make no sense to mention "pseudoscience" or any related terms 2 times on the whole lead. So can we propose a full length lead now? I hope this helps. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: The above proposal has no consensus. Can you highlight where you found consensus for it? I am opposed to this proposal. Littleoliveoil too opposed it, while RexxS is supportive of "pseudoscience" in first paragraph, but not the lead. There is no consensus for the recent edit by Guy Macon and it currently stands challenged. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let make it easier by repeating and expanding on it. The closing comment of the RfC included "Upon re-examination, there appears to be a weak consensus for sustaining the pseudoscience descriptor in the lead." If you look at the discussion, the consensus was that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence, but there was no consensus that it can't be in the first sentence.
It is possible that Shiv Sahil doesn't understand what "in the lead" (not to be confused with "in the lead paragraph") means. The lead is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. In this case the lead contains four paragraphs, and the first of those paragraphs contains three sentences.
It is also possible that Shiv Sahil doesn't understand what "no consensus" means. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS"In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."
RfC was about "should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence?" There is no consensus for that. I still don't see where is the consensus for mentioning "pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific)" in the first sentence which is still lead, but enough editors were either opposed or supported the inclusion of the term but not for the "opening sentence". शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Guy Macon. There was no consensus against putting it in the lead sentence, and that is the WP:STATUSQUO from before the edit warring and the RfC. Calling it a "system of traditional medicine" and especially calling it a "system of medicine" is grossly WP:POV via failing WP:GEVAL and WP:MEDRS. Crossroads-talk-17:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@शिव साहिल: You've been explained multiple times by Johnuniq and Guy Macon. They highlighted the part of the edit from the closing review, too. Still you fail to show no comprehension in this regard. - hako9 (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:STATUSQUO, the mention of pseudoscience should remain in 3rd paragraph, not the first sentence. "system of medicine" is well supported by thousands of reliable sources, but it is not for wikipedia editors to decide what is correct. Currently, the first paragraph as written is gross misrepresentation of the source. This source made no mention of "pseudoscientific". It further says "FDA has warned that 1 in 5 Ayurvedic medicines" which has been misrepresented to a statement which is giving impression that 5/5 Ayurvedic medicines use them. Azuredivay (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone can start another rfc (once the discussion at AN is closed), on how exactly the wording in the lead should be. From the closed rfc, the consensus (doesn't matter if it's weak or no) is that pseudoscience should be in the lead (unless overturned at AN). That's settled. - hako9 (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a terrible use of an RfC; it is something that RfCs are really bad at. What is needed is an open talk page discussion. I proposed a lead paragraph at the top of this section, and asked for comments. I got very few. Anyone is free to propose changes to the current lead paragraph. Such proposals will be evaluated and discussed. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this. RFCs are good for yes/no situation. It will likely get stuck for a descriptive type consensus. - hako9 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Thank you for making this edit. Of course I have my own disagreements but for now I would recommend inclusion of "Ayurveda has been adapted for Western consumption, notably by Baba Hari Dass in the 1970s and Maharishi Ayurveda in the 1980s", as the last sentence in the first paragraph as proposed by JzG aka Guy above. I haven't seen anyone opposing it so far. Also, you should be changing "Avurveda" to "Ayurveda". शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Break (lead paragraph)
Suggestion for the second sentence: The modern practice of Ayurveda relies on a pseudoscientific framework that distinguishes it from evidence-based medicine. Possibly add clause on IMA characterization of Ayurvedists who try to practice real medicine as quacks?JoelleJay (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury in Ayurveda: A Poison Turned Nectar
From:
Mercury in Ayurveda: A Poison Turned Nectar[57]
Dr Avinash Kadam
Rasayani Biologics Pvt Ltd, Pune, India Rasamruta,
November 2013
(For non-Ayurveda research on the effects of inorganic mercury, see [58], [59], [60],)
"In recent days we frequently gets news about the Minamata Convention on mercury which aimed to ban trade of Mercury and its gradual phase out by Year 2020... the ban on trade of Mercury will have a disastrous effect on Ayurveda."
"Even historically mercury was used to treat syphilis and besides this mercury is being used in preparation of Ayurveda Medicines. Ayurveda has a special branch called as Rasashastra which deals with the use of metals in treating various illnesses. Formulations prepared using these metals and minerals are called as “Rasaaushadhis”. Mercury is considered as Nucleus of these Rasaaushadhis as a major percentage of these Rasaaushadhis contains some mercurial compounds. In fact the literal meaning of the word Rasashastra is “Science of mercury” . Use of Metals and minerals in Ayurveda became more prevalent after 8th century AD.... It is estimated that 80% of 1 billion Indian population are using Aurveda medicines. It is to be noted that about 35-40 % of all Ayurveda medicines contains some metal."
"All the metals used in Ayurveda formulations undergoes special procedures called as “Shodhan” and “Maran”. These procedures are specialty of traditional Indian medicine and are mentioned in books around 1500 years old. These procedures aims to detoxify metals and makes compatible for human consumption. Mercury also undergoes extensive detoxification procedures before being used in medical formulations. It first undergoes “Shodhan” which purifies it. This is followed by another procedure which is believed to transforms mercury in to therapeutically effective and safe form called as Baddha or Murchita parad."
"Mercury obtained by all these procedures is an inorganic form of mercury (mainly sulphides)... Toxicity seen due to mercury is due to elemental and organic form and not due to inorganic form."
"Also there is a possibility that the detoxification process which mercury undergoes would bring some chemical changes which makes consumption of Mercury safe. This hypothesis needs to be studied by conducting rigorous scientific experiments."
"Conclusion: Mercury is a metal with known toxic potential. But it is used safely in large number of Ayurveda formulations since centuries. The reason for this safe use can be attributed to its unique detoxification process as mentioned in Ayurveda classics."
I was curious about the phrase "It first undergoes 'Shodhan' which purifies it." I figured that somebody must have described the "purification" process so I looked it up. Keep in mind that multiple Ayurveda sources claim that Shodhan makes Mercury safe to ingest.
"Shuddha Parad is processed mercury as per Ayurvedic Rasa Shastra principles. The several processes are used for detoxifying and purifying the mercury. These processes are called SHODHAN KARMA. The main purpose of SHODHAN KARMA is to make organic or inorganic substance consumable for human. These processes help decreasing side effects, toxicity and after effects of the substance."
"Which is Shuddha Parad?"
"According to Bhaishajya Ratnavali, Mercury (Parad) should be extracted from the Cinnabar (Hingula). The Mercury (Parad) obtained from the cinnabar should be processed with Garlic Juice, Betel Leaf juice and Triphala Decoction. Then Mercury (Parad) should be washed with Kanji water (ayurvedic fermentative preparation) to obtain Shuddha Parad. The Parad Obtained through this process is called Shuddha Parad."
"However, it is a simple and easy method, but ayurveda has explained more methods to obtain Shuddha Parad and they may be different as per specific ayurvedic texts."
I looked up a couple of the unfamiliar words in the above. First some Ayurveda sources:[62][63] Everyone here will be glad to hear how this remedy cures heart disease, diabetes, and flatulence. Then I checked out some Wikipedia pages. Shilajit seems kind of sort of OK if i squint:
"While Shilajit has been used in traditional Indian medicine as an antiaging compound, its health benefits lack substantial scientific evidence"
"Studies using Triphala report antibacterial, anticancer, antiobesity, antiarthritic, anti-inflammatory, and hypolipidemic properties. Triphala also shows neuroprotective effects against methotrexate-induced damage"
The pseudoscience has been removed from Triphala. So now Wikipedia no longer states that "taking the dried Triphala fruit with honey and ghee daily has the potential to make a person live to a hundred years, free of old age and diseases". Oh well, back to watching my diet and exercising... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst there has been a lot of discussion about one sentence in the lead, looking at the broader context there seem to be a number of other areas to address. I suspect some of these changes will be controversial so talk page first:
The whole part about the WHO is not what that source is about. Ayurveda is mentioned three times in the entire report. From my understanding its more about bringing alternative medicine practioners into the fold, particularly in countries where actual medicine is less available. Similarly obviously the WTO doesn't endorse traditional medicine, it promotes protection from misappropriation of traditional knowledge. Basically you can't patent it. - I suggest we remove all of this, it doesn't address ayurveda, it is general about traditional medicine, its inclusion is an attempt to foster legitimacy where it does not exist.
This part "For example, a person who is thin, shy, excitable, has a pronounced Adam's apple, and enjoys of esoteric knowledge is likely vata prakriti and therefore more susceptible to conditions such as flatulence, stuttering, and rheumatism. Deranged vata is also associated with certain mental disorders due to excited or excess vayu (gas),"
Should not be written "in universe". - Should we counterbalance this section by point? Perhaps context would help explain why ideas from the middle ages are often erroneous?
"In the Bhaisajya Ratnavali, opium and camphor are used for acute gastroenteritis. In this drug, the respiratory depressant action of opium is counteracted by the respiratory stimulant property of Camphor", Is written in universe, fundamentally there is no need to take an opioid so strong that a stimulant is required to stop you from respiratory arrest for diarrhea, this is insane PainProf (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This part "For example, a person who is thin, shy, excitable, has a pronounced Adam's apple, and enjoys of esoteric knowledge is likely vata prakriti and therefore more susceptible to conditions such as flatulence, stuttering, and rheumatism. Deranged vata is also associated with certain mental disorders due to excited or excess vayu (gas)," Should not be written "in universe". - Should we counterbalance this section by point? Perhaps context would help explain why ideas from the middle ages are often erroneous?
Heh, I wrote this while expanding the doshas section -- I agree it should be written out-of-universe (my intent was that example and the "ghost of a sinful Brahman" part would be faithful descriptions of Ayurvedic diagnostics while also being obviously ridiculous, but of course that assumes readers would be able to recognize them as such). JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not here
As is obvious from the number of edit requests, we're encountering a barrage of sockpuppets or meatpuppets who are taking coordinated action to damage debate on this page. Our most precious resource is editor time, and I'm not prepared to waste it dealing with these purely disruptive new editors.
I will therefore block indefinitely on sight each and every editor who continues the disruption, because they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite a personal wish to stay away from this topic for the time being, I cannot stay away from FTN. I welcome and support the statement, above and any action Rexxs takes in this area. -Roxy the inedible dog .wooF02:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Mean concentration of arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, copper and zinc was 73.15, 104.92, 0.496, 3.89, 4.04 and 17.23 ppm, respectively."
First, I would like to request some original research from someone with a chemistry background: are these concentrations large enough to be of a concern?
Second, I would like to request some original research from someone with an Ayurvedic background: Mow many grams of Shilajit are used to make Ayurvedic medicine?
(Obviously if someone eats a kilogram the acceptable arsenic, mercury, and lead concentrations are lower than in the case where someone eats a milligram).
"The EPA has established a limit of 2 parts per billion (ppb) of allowable mercury of drinking water. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood (1 ppm)."
I get calling it quackery due to the source but the source itself doesn't call it quackery but says that some practitioners who practice Ayurveda/Indian Medicine under the guise of Modern Medicine are quacks. I found it confusing because in India, we have a degree for Ayurveda and there is also an gov. institute for it.
Tl;dr
Source doesn't say that Ayurveda is quackery. Can someone look into it? ]
In the UK, homeopathy was funded by the government for many years, even though it is ineffective pseudoscientific garbage with no biological plausibility or, indeed, possibility to work under the laws of physics in our universe. Just because a government support something, or has the framework to grant special degrees for it, that doesn't mean that it's true in any way. In this case, the government of India has a strong incentive to support Ayurveda due to its relative cheapness compared to evidence-based medicine and due to the country's current alignment with Hindutva and increasing Hindu nationalism; likewise in mainland China, the government has a strong incentive to support Chinese traditional medicine due to its cheapness and due to increasing Chinese nationalism.
Speaking of government support for pseudoscience, Lysenkoism enjoyed the strongest possible government support in the USSR. Starting around 1934, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, competing geneticists were executed or sent to labor camps. Over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism and genetics research was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953. So no, Wikipedia does not give a lot of weight to the opinions of governments and politicians[64] or even news organizations[65] in matters of science. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BirdValiant I get it that it is quackery but that is not what IMA is saying, is it? That is your opinion. Either change the source or change the sentence. The sentence is that IMA catergorizes it as quackery but it doesn't. Also, on the latest consensus on this issue. The edit was revoked but it is still there, why? It is bringing unnecessary publicity and hate to the article which is otherwise fine.
I call the sentence as against WP:RS because it has no valid sources. I am not aware of many Wikipedia customs so I would like someone to open a Rfc or Consensus on this issue.
I agree it is quackery, but I think its possible this is a case of a difference in Indian English. Rather hilariously Quack is originally German and in that case it originally means one who gives their patients mercury i.e. someone giving fake treatments so Ayurveda fits well. I think this page actually describes quacks as people who practice medicine without a medical license, noting a lot of the Ayurveda practioners do this. Quacks (as fake doctors) are an incredibly serious problem in India, I think its something like 57% of "doctors" don't have a medical degree according to the WHO... generally it would be illegal to practice in most Western countries, if you wanted to for example diagnose a medical illness you're gonna need a medical degree (so by that definition it would be "quackery" if the law in India is the same), I dunno how that works in India though. PainProf (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But re-reading carefully this is correct as a sentence, the source does say when Ayurvedic practioners practice medicine it is quackery, it is only not quackery when they practice ayurveda which is not medicine. PainProf (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence: "IMA categorizes Ayurveda as quackery."
It doesn't. All your points are valid that Ayurveda is quackery but IMA doesn't say that. The source says that Ayurvedic practitioner who claim to Allopathic doctors are quacks but them practicing Ayurveda doesn't make them a quack. If IMA doesn't say so then why use it as a source. WP:RS still applies
Just to clear it, I am not some single purpose account as I have been here for near a year now. It is just that this caught my eye.
The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. Which seems to be correct to me as that page describes ayurveda practitioners practicing medicine - they are not allowed to do that they can only practice Ayurveda. PainProf (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FlyingNinja1: I could live with seeing it mentioned further down in the lead, but I do feel it is important to establish the context in which Ayurveda exists. The fact that the IMA labels the practice of medicine by Ayurvedics as "quackery" is significant in establishing that Ayurvedic practitioners are not qualified to practice medicine as we understand it. In any case, we are going to have to hold another RfC to re-establish the wording of the whole lead once we have consensus on where to place the "pseudoscience" description. This isn't going to be a quick process, so we might as well take our time and get it right. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest do we cover the problem of Quackery in India, it sounds like a fascinating topic. I've never heard of such rampant health fraud 57% (from an RS) is crazy. PainProf (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Warning
@Vjrahul: Learn to indent and learn to sign your posts.
Your assertion, now removed, is deliberately untrue. The article says:
The purpose of this compendium of court orders and various rules and regulations is to acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine.
It clearly applies the epithet "quackery" to the actions of "practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine", i.e. including Ayurveda, when they attempt to practice real medicine. Now if you continue this gaslighting to waste productive editors' time, I'll request an AE admin familiar with this topic – ping El C as an alert – to take steps to remove you from this arena. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the paragraph of quackery for practicing medicine seems pretty out of place. Maybe putting it in later in the India section would be appropriate. FlyingNinja1 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: Thank you for pointing out. I shall try to learn intending and signing soon. Pardon me now for still trying to put in my point before doing that. It is only because as much as I respect an editor's time being spent on these, I am very sure about what I speak. I may be ignorant on Wikipedia rules and etiquette, but I believe that even when spoken by someone like me, facts are facts. Wikipedia must serve as a platform that acts neutral. Which is very much broken here.
The very statement referred to in the warning given to me, ends with "barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine." And in the interpretation that follows, the words chosen were 'real medicine'. It is implied that Modern Medicine is the only real medicine. That is not a neutral statement. Even the apex body on Medicine, the WHO, does not share this view on other medical sciences, including Ayurveda. Now is that suitable for Wikipedia? At least, why not display just the original words?
The earlier statement also linked the IMA to this issue, while IMA has never, and can never take such a public stand on Ayurveda, which is a completely legal medical system in India. Now, that statement has been taken away, which is appreciable. I only wish that the currently displayed statement ("The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific while the practice can be classified as protoscience or unscientific.[3]") is also studied properly. The exact cited reference is not even available for verification on Google books. This is nothing personal against the editor who has been repeatedly removing my edits, with strict warnings, while one of it has actually now been approved (the removal of the IMA statement). I only wish that facts are published here. Vjrahul (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjrahul: You've learned to sign. That's a good start. I do agree that facts are facts, but you will have to accept that on Wikipedia facts are statements expressed by high-quality reliable sources that are not contradicted by equally reliable sources.
You say that the implication that what you charmingly call "modern medicine" (what the rest of us regard as evidence-based medicine) is the only real medicine, is not a neutral statement. You're wrong. Medicine that has been shown to work is medicine. Anything else is superstition. And when the proponents of that superstition make claims that it is based on principles resembling scientific principles, it becomes a pseudoscience. That is the position with Ayurveda.
The WHO most certainly does not regard Ayurveda as having any basis in evidence, nor does any mainstream scientific viewpoint. You can either learn to live with that, or you can continue to pretend that Ayurveda has a basis in evidence-based medicine. In either case, your baseless protestations will not change the large number of reliable sources that show Ayurveda is based on nothing but unsupportable traditional beliefs, and that Ayurvedic practitioners who attempt to practise your "modern medicine" are properly labelled as quacks by every sensible body.
If you decide to remove properly sourced content purely because you don't like what it says, you will soon find yourself unwelcome on Wikipedia. That's a prediction, not a warning. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why moved to end of lead? Revert?
Inthis edit, Nizil Shah moved this information to the end of the lead for the explicit reason he considered it "irrelevant". I think it's highly relevant. It shows that modern medicine and ayurveda are separate. Even though some people think that pseudoscience can be integrated with medicine.
This is getting very tiresome. We don't do it often, but is it time to semi-protect this talk page until whichever source is sending this endless stream of SPAs gets bored with it? Black Kite (talk)12:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon. they can wait a couple of days. The main problem is that the unprotected page would get the same dozens and dozens of posts generated by the ongoing campaign against Wikipedia on twitter. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really concerned about having no means for non-confirmed editors and IPs to be able to comment. I would endorse creating an unprotected subpage, especially when we have to reimpose semi-prot. That would allow a confirmed editor to copy genuine comments to this page, and we could regularly take out the rubbish remaining. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would I, as a regular editor, be allowed to do when the unprotected page fills up with near-identical posts from SPIs? Set the archiving to a small number? Hat? Delete? Ignore? Given the history at Twitter I suspect that "ignore" will result in hundreds of "see how many people are complaining" tweets linking to the unprotected page, and anything else will result in hundreds of "see how they suppress the truth" tweets linking to the unprotected page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected it again because this is just silly. I'm going to create a sub-page as RexxS has mentioned, and I'll put direction to it here and in the edit notice. I'll monitor it and if anyone else would like to, feel free. Give me 5 ... Black Kite (talk)10:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite and Guy Macon: I've put it on my watchlist. I recommend manually archiving disruptive posts as they will be evidence for the inevitable ArbCom case, but just deleting them is okay as they are still in page history. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph states unambiguously that "The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". This seems to paint with too broad a brush. Are we supposed to infer that historians writing about traditional medicine systems and scientists measuring toxic metals in Ayurveda medicine are engaging in pseudoscience? ~Awilley (talk)18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to hijack, but the second half of that sentence also seems to be a problem. It reads, while the practice can be classified as protoscience or unscientific. But checking the source, while it does not seem to mention Ayurveda on page 3, on page 213 it straightforwardly refers to the practice of Ayurveda as pseudoscience: ordinary members told me how they practice some of these pseudosciences,...most often Ayurveda. There's nothing here about how the practice of it is merely "protoscience", nor in distinguishing the practice from the "study" of it (which may be at the root of the problem Awilley identified). This is why I preferred a lead sentence reading, Ayurveda ([pronunciation])[1] is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. If the term is put in a follow-up sentence, it should be straightforwardly called a pseudoscience there. Crossroads-talk-19:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not accurate. I believe we can say Ayurveda is or can be described as a pseudoscience because we have sources that say so and we have a Wikipedia position that dictates that we can and should say so if "pseudoscience" is in the mainstream sources. I like simplicity. I don't think it matters what any one of us thinks about Ayurveda which only muddies the position. (I've done some reading on Ayurveda recently and had a small bit of knowledge before. This is an incredibly complex system which covers not only herbal combinations, complex philosophical thought, but also behavior and general wellness considerations which are touted by most modern medical practices as well- bedtimes, exercise, moderation in drink and food and so on. So we have to be careful to use the simple guidelines while not becoming simplistic, a different matter altogether. Many Ayurvedic physicians are highly trained and sometimes that training has come down through generations. Quacks are in my mind those without training who deliberately try to hoodwink people. So quacks are not limited to Ayurveda or any other kind of health care, nor are practicing physicians with extensive training in their fields.) But that doesn't matter. We have a RS/document which describes Ayurvedic physicians as quacks. I, nor does anyone else have to think that is true for all Ayurvedic physicians but perhaps we do, dependent on consensus have to use the document. (And we are using it.) We don't have MEDRS sources that indicate Ayurveda is effective. Ayurveda research is at best Fringe and some of the research but not all, dependent on how it is carried out is probably pseudoscience. In terms of structure, if I write an article on Tsukuhara, do my readers know what that is? Probably not. So I start off by describing what the article is about, what Tsukuhara is. Then I can describes aspects of this. I can say, Tsukuhara is a gymnastic vault named after a Japanese gymnast which includes rotations on ...... Then I can say the vault is described as dangerous, can cause certain kinds of injuries and so on. I can say also Ayurveda is.... , and then can say it has been described as pseudoscience. I am going on and on but seems to me our personal positions are becoming entangled here with a few basic Wikipedia standards. Tell the reader what it is. Describe it and (perhaps not true in every article) how it has been received in the mainstream per our Wikipedia standards. We note in this kind of article the research or lack of it since Ayurveda is a purported health care modality and we have strict standards for health care articles. Wikipedia provides an implied template for how to write articles like this. Oh yeah, I've gone on and on! Littleolive oil (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley, pseudoscience is that which adopts the trappings of science but without the fundamental assumption of the null hypothesis. The study of ayurveda is indeed classically pseudoscientific. It seeks to prove "truth", not to test it. It embodies the fallacy of begging the question. It's basically homeopathy, but with the concrete refutation lagging maybe five years behind. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG I think you may have missed my point because you didn't really respond to it. I have asserted above that A is not always B, giving two counterexamples. You seem to be rebutting that by saying that CisB. But that doesn't prove that AisB unless you can demonstrate that AisC (i.e. that the study of Ayurveda is Ayurveda). Let me try another counterexample: You have obviously done some amount of research into homeopathy, Ayurveda, and alternative medicines. Does your study of Ayurveda mean that you've engaged in pseudoscience? If not, then there is a problem with the unqualified assertion that "the study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". ~Awilley (talk)01:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine many (any?) readers are jumping to the interpretation that "the study of Ayurveda" (or for that matter "the study of medicine") means "the meta-perspective of _____" in this context. I do think the lead ought to be reworded to avoid the clunky passive voice second sentence -- "Ayurveda is a pseudoscientific system of medicine..." would be better as the first sentence, and then we could drop the current second line altogether. Ayurveda is pseudoscientific because of the fundamental principles it assumes and the framework it is built upon, which does not permit rigorous hypothesis testing. It is marketed as an individualized approach to health where the "whole person" is considered during ddx/tx, and therefore cannot be replicated (you can't reproduce a person's complete physical and spiritual makeup), or at least that's my understanding of how they explain away any negative RCT results. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change XtoY".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
I would like to propose the following changes to the initial paragraphs on this matter of pseudoscience and ayurveda :
changing the wording - "The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". A study [1]is an educational activity. There is a logical error saying that a "study" is pseudoscientific.
Since article begins with the story of Ayurveda having its roots in India, the present status of Ayurveda as a medical system in India is as relevant as its roots in India. That aspect is not covered in the introduction of this article. Without it, this article is incomplete. Ayurveda is a mainstream medical system in India. There are hundreds of ayurvedic medical colleges in India [2]; as well as medical councils in each state for Ayurveda(e.g.[3]). Research institutes under a central research council [4][5], Ayurveda Universities[6], Postgraduate institutes , Doctoral programs[7], several institutes of national importance - e.g. [8]and vibrant scientific communities[9][10][11] exist for Ayurveda. India has ensured the availablity of ayurvedic to all its citizens (which is almost a fifth of world population [12]) by establishing central Ayush ministry [13] as well as separate departments in each state[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] thereby making ayurveda a mainstream medical system. There is also a group of western medical practitioners who call it pseudoscience. Another group having no idea about fundamental principles of Ayurveda also oppose it. This fact about the two opposing arguments (against and for ayurvedic science in Indian contet) is ignored in the present version of this article. Readers are shown only one side (i.e., ayurveda is pseudoscience), without them undertanding that it is also a mainstream medical system in India[38] while reading the present version. This needs to be corrected.
The second paragraph starts with Gods and sages, this article lead people to wrongly believe that Ayurveda is still stagnant from that time onwards. The fact that it has been evolving as a science is often overlooked. The references for its academic and scientific background in India has been given above. This aspect needs to included so as to convey a true picture about status of Ayurveda to readers.
Ayurveda is a mainstream medical system in only a few countries such as India, Nepal, Sri Lanka etc. But, it is more than one fifth of the entire population of our world. Also, there are western medical practitioners who call it pseudoscience. It is proposed that these two facts be presented in a true and neutral manner.
SoLet's see... Dosha is not protoscience, metaphysical and pseudoscientific? Other than WP:PSCI about presenting pseudoscience as such, Wikipedia also has WP:MEDRS for sources that can be used on the efficacy of biomedical claims and WP:YESPOV, where things as obvious that tenets are pseudoscientific should not be presented as someone's (or some group's) opinion... —PaleoNeonate – 05:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
B Added to Wisdom file. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have fixed the Quack source and disentangled the surrounding material too, adjusting the lede to remain in sync with the body. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done okay, removed from the lede since that seems obvious. But how due is it in the body? Alexbrn (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue which has been discussed on this page. The thread is "Close challenge". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
