Talk:Ayurveda

RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As an uninvolved admin in the area of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, I am mandating the following Request for Comment to resolve this dispute. The question is as follows: should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence? El_C 09:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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-/) is a system of traditional medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. Within India, Ayurveda is practiced alongside Western medicine as a complementary medicine, and Ayurvedic therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications. 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. 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.

  -- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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-/) 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, and the Ayurvedic therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use. 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. 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.

Though I still ask, are we going to mention pseudoscience twice in entire lead? I don't think that needs to be done. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

• 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))

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose for the entire lead now per the conclusive arguments made below. Siddsg (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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.[1] शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  That would be a blatant NOT, POV, and FRINGE violation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am astonished that you think the scholarly view of Ayurveda is that it has scientific basis. Would love to see a reliable source that indicates this. jps (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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[2]
• 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."[3]
• "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."[4]
• "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."[5]
• "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."[6]
• "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."[7]
• "Fake science label on Ayush tip"[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."[9]
• "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."[10]

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Most are unreliable sources and that is what we call WP:SYNTH. There is no consensus among mainstream to call Ayurveda pseudoscientific. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  Ah yes, I meant to specify the first sentence of the lede, homeopathy style. Thanks. --tronvillain (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose mention of the term on lead. I agree with the above comments and Wikipedia is not for WP:OR or personal 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)

  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)

  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)

• CRC Press is a good WP:RS for scientific subjects. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)
• Oppose any mention Term isn't supported by any of the reliable sources so we can't state it in WP:WIKIVOICE. If you can't state something in Wikivoice then it does not belong in lead. As for the AC/DS, this subject falls under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture exclusive for "Complementary and Alternative Medicine", and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, exclusive for anything about India and Pakistan. This means that any WP:SYNTH based on the WP:ARBPS ultimately holds no water. Pratyush (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Term isn't supported by any of the reliable sources" ← very obviously untrue. Alexbrn (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Passing mentions don't count. Siddsg (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support using pseudoscientific or pseudoscience in the first sentence.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 [11] and [12]. 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.

• And those 2 sources don't support the term "pseudoscience". Siddsg (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

• Support in lead sentence - This is a defining trait per sources, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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",[13] (WHO) "ancient science",[science",[14][15] should not be misrepresented as "pseudoscience". Capankajsmilyo (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that Galen's humorism is now 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)

• 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)

But then the comparison with "humorism" would be pretty far-fetched since Ayurveda is much broader. Azuredivay (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• support using pseudoscience in the first sentence--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• support the use of pseudoscience in the first sentence of the lead. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• support the use of pseudoscience in the first sentence of the lead and then expanded in the main article. JenOttawa (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• Support in lead sentence. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think that this question should also be asked for the Traditional Chinese Medicine article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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 traditional or alternative medicine. I don't think Wikipedia should be exploited to change the mainstream view. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  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)

• Oppose per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (such a heavy tag must be undisputably supported by relevant sources) and such a term is already far from mainstream definition of the subject as noted above. Regards, Field Marshal (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose: This term is overused on Wikipedia. It's completely unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Are you saying that accurately describing the topic doesn't add anything to the article? Grayfell (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• Oppose per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The article would read nothing more than a soapbox for misleading POV pushing if "pseudoscience" is how you define a pioneering medical subject. Tessaracter (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

@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)

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)

As will be noticed, you did not answer my question. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• '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)

• 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)
• Support This is basically required by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, since mainstream reliable sources support the claim. It is surprising that some participants do not consider the Oxford University Press, the MIT Press, or the NIH to be reliable publishers. < Atom (Anomalies) 11:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC). Fixed 3rd link. 21:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

*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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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 | Talk 12:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support in first sentence of the lead - WP:MEDRS is not necessary to apply WP:PSCI, WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL. WP:RS is enough and the body covers it so should the WP:LEAD. It's not always necessary that this be in the first sentence, but if we have the choice, it's even better. —PaleoNeonate – 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment both the claims seems to be a case of personal opinion Shrikanthv (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:RGW and WP:LABEL. I am hearing this label for the first time myself, and it should not be included since it misleads general details about the actual subject. Shashpant (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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)

• Support mentioning pseudoscientific or pseudoscience in the first sentence, considering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Idealigic (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • "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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • WP:PSCI, part of WP:NPOV, states, The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. NPOV actually backs up "support" comments. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • Per WP:PSCI, it does not matter what the topic's own identity is. What matters is what reliable objective observers say about it. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not justifiable in the face of the objection above noting near lack of prominent usage of the term and basic violation of WP:LABEL. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Oppose Given the lack of substantial consensus within academic sources for the term, it would be violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. It is better to leave it as is. Capitals00 (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in the lead, proposed full lead below is also good to go, as it is properly referenced. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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 Lightning 11:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The two sources they used were already addressed above as being WP:PROFRINGE themselves and not valid. Your suggestion runs afoul of WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

Full lead

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-/) 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, and the Ayurvedic therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use. 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. 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.

The main classical Ayurveda texts begin with accounts of the transmission of medical knowledge from the Gods to sages, and then to human physicians. In Sushruta 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. Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia. 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.

Scholars assert that Ayurveda originated in prehistoric times, and that some of the concepts of Ayurveda have existed from the time of the Indus Valley Civilization or even earlier. 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. Doṣa balance is emphasized, and suppressing natural urges is considered unhealthy and claimed to lead to illness. Ayurveda treatises describe three elemental doṣas viz. vāta, pitta and kapha, 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.

If everyone agrees with this compromised version then we can move on faster.

Opinions? Azuredivay (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

AzuredivayYes, this lede can work. You cite your sources. Pseudoscience term can be added but it has to attributed.Manabimasu (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

refs for proposed edits

refs
References

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)

  RexxS, I doff my hat to your excellently framed analysis, and concur with everything you just wrote. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Then I also wonder very much why it is not done similarly with Faith healing, Traditional Chinese Medicine (any mention of "pseudoscience" on lead is entirely missing there) and many other medicinal subjects which are far less effective and more pseudo-scientific than Ayurveda is. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: WP:SOFIXIT! Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

---

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

Wikipedia’s Culture of Editorial Chaos and Malice

Both can be traced to our old friend, Gary Null. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinged here from wikiproject medicine, it is impossible for me to support this proposal when a better one exists below, as proposed by Guy in the section here Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion to Shed Biases

Hello, Namaste, @Alexbrn @Guy Macon. Alex mentions that he has Phd in English, certainly not in Medicine. Similarly, Guy mentions he's an engineer, not a Doctor. So, none of you have any expertise in Medicine or any other Biological Sciences. Right!? So, I suggest you guys to shed your biased glasses and look at things objectively.

Now, to enlighten you about multiple fields in which Ayurvedic treatments are much Superior than so-called "Modern Medicine", I will give just one Example of Fistula. Until this decade, Modern Medicine was unable to permanently cure it, while a simple procedure in Ayurveda has been able to effectively cure it for thousands of years. Ksharsutra. So, I request and suggest you guys to not to superimpose your biases on Wikipedia. Thanks. (Maybe, other biased editors too can take a cue from this. Also, someone who is interested can atleast mention Ksharsutra in this article.)

Bye. (which means God(s) be with you) Dhawangupta (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's see: PMID 26283840. A primary study in a non-MEDLINE indexed journal is very far from being a reliable source. WP:MEDRS gives our guidance for medical sourcing and, since we know from other reliable sources that Ayurveda is pseudoscience/quackery, any claims of benefit would be WP:EXCEPTIONAL and so need the very best sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I brought this up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Journal of Natural Science Biology and Medicine so that it would be in the RSNB archives the next time someone tries to cit it. Here is the response:

• Unreliable There are always predatory publishers willing to publish bogus studies supporting the effacy of traditional medicines, so I was suspicious from the start. The publisher of the journal Phcog.net, an Indian organisation, is obscure, but was on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers between 2012 and 2015. Per WP:RSMED primary studies on the efficacy of treatments should not be cited in articles as they lend undue weight to the effectiveness of treatments in comparison to reviews. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Could the kind high-level editors of Wikipedia also check reliability of 421 papers mentioned here, and 5 papers mentioned here??

Moreover, bias of "opinion makers" (which includes high level wiki editors acc. to me), is also mentioned here along with mention of person who got benefit from it. And, this is just one person's experience, not mentioning countless others who got benefit from it. Further, I forgot to mention earlier, blind belief is bad, but, blind disbelief is equally bad, and even prevents other people from taking advantage of variety of treatments offered. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You are skating perilously close to making unduly personal comments; you have been alerted to the sanctions in force for this topic already. Any editor wanting to make a change to the article needs to have text backed by a reliable source. Your proposal was very obviously not based on a reliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not attempting to make personal comments which are unrelated to topic and respective views of editors regarding the topic. It is pretty evident that me and the editors to whom I responded hold opposing viewpoints. Mine was a suggestion for the sake of NPOV.

Further, yes, this can be considered as an edit request that, Ksharsutra redirects to this article, but it is not even mentioned once. Now, I am unaware of the history of this article, forgive me, but, I think it is quite obvious that there is something wrong. Dhawangupta (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Focus on content rather than editors.

If you want to improve the article, suggest a change supported by an independent reliable source. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are useful to check the reliability of a potential reference. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Quackery

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.[16] 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)

Alexbrn, see the section below this one for a proposal to fix this. Your input on the wording would be very helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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).

References

Claims of Extreme Antiquity

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: 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: 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: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:: 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.

Given all of this, I think we could afford to clarify the existing first two sentences a little. --tronvillain (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Template:Alternative medical systems

The Template:Alternative medical systems allows six single word parameters as described at Template:Alternative medicine sidebar/doc #Usage. Presumably the removal of "traditional" by Retimuko was a good-faith mistake. --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a misunderstanding on my part. Retimuko (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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; and a Cochrane review that includes research on Boswellia serrata.

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.

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.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markworthen (talk • contribs) 07:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Indeed Markworthen, sources are everything. I have not looked at your non-osteoarthritis sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

"... 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)

Cow urine

Cow urine for corona virus

Drink cow urine to fight virus: Bengal BJP chief - https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kolkata/drink-cow-urine-to-fight-virus-bengal-bjp-chief/article32119516.ece

‘For curing coronavirus, global leaders must drink cow urine’: Hindu Mahasabha chief - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/for-curing-coronavirus-global-leaders-must-drink-cow-urine-hindu-mahasabha-chief/story-xLvC7FC18GU6Q7YYIl3v1N.html

Hindu activists in India drink cow urine to ‘protect’ themselves from coronavirus - YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9OdFmHb9E

A Bharatiya Janata Party activist with India's ruling party has been arrested after a volunteer fell ill from drinking cow urine at a party to combat the novel coronavirus. - https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1882000/india-political-activist-arrested-for-selling-cow-urine-to-combat-virus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskyblue3 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See Urine therapy. Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And Panchagavya. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparent error in lead

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)

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)

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).

That being said, do we have any actual examples of anything from Ayurveda making it into conventional medicine? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• My comment was not directed at you or anyone in particular but at westerners as a group. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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." [17] Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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."

User:Guy Macon Yes to mainstream medicine accepting at least a few of them. Examples from Source- NCCIH:

1. turmeric may help with ulcerative colitis
2. "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."
3. "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."
4. "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:

1. Kessler 2015 osteoarthritis pain - evidence for one drug and some evidence for a second, no evidence for massage, steam therapy, and enema
2. pmid 26728196 osteoarthritis possible use
3. pmid 31530988 curcurmin possibly useful in some due disorders
4. A Cochrane review for schizophrenia found slightly in favor of a conventional drug with vomiting and nausea side effects from the Ayurveda treatment
5. 11 Systematic reviews here
6. Cochrane Review for type 2 diabetes some effect on blood sugar
7. IBS

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)

What about sources stating there is no evidence the proposed mechanisms of Ayurvedic healing have any scientific basis? JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

I stopped there. It appears that the answer to my question is no. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

WP:MEDRS clearly states "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine." (emphasis in original) Turmeric#Medical research is an example of medical content in a non-medical page, and thus MEDRS applies, as it does to the Ayurveda page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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.

Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs could do with some updates too. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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.[18] Yup, just as in other countries, politicians-in-power in Indian are as deluded as f*ck. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Quack

The Johannes Quack source

• Quack, Johannes (2011). Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. Oxford University Press. pp. 213, 3. ISBN 9780199812608.

is currently used to support the text

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 (or ANiS), an anti-superstition movement and how its members view Ayurveda. I propose this text

Ethnologist Johannes Quack writes than although the rationalist movement Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti officially labels Ayurveda – like astrology – a pseudoscience, these practices are in fact embraced by many of the movement's members.

as a fair & accurate summary of the source. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 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)

Alexbrn, Best. Source. Name. Evah. Guy (help!) 12:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Manohar's "trans-science"

We are using this source

• Manohar, P. Ram (2009). "The blending of science and spirituality in the Ayurvedic healing tradition". In Paranjape, Makarand R. (ed.). Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India. Anthem Press. pp. 172–3. ISBN 9781843317760.

by an Ayurvedic practitioner, to relay his view that ayurvedic medicine is a "trans-scientific" system.

Given this is not a WP:FRIND source, I am not sure how WP:DUE this is, and think it is certainly undue in the lede. Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Do any better sources, especially independent sources, demonstrate its encyclopedic value and weight? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably too specific for the lead. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

•  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)

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)

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.[19] [20] [21] [22]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines .
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

A lead paragraph without the whitewashing

Those who make their living from Ayurveda are not going to like this, but here is a proposed lead paragraph that avoids whitewashing.

Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is a pseudoscientific system of medicine that prescribes remedies containing lead, mercury, and arsenic, substances known to be harmful to humans. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterizes the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as quackery. Ayurveda has historical roots in the Indian subcontinent but has been adapted for Western consumption, notably by Baba Hari Dass in the 1970s and Maharishi Ayurveda in the 1980s.

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good point. Which should I mention? Leeches? Vomit therapy? Drinking Urine? Opium? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think "remedies containing lead, mercury, and arsenic, substances known to be harmful to humans" gets it right. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

​​​​​ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Littleolive oil: I stand by the edit 100%. The result of the rfc was no consensus. Have a look at https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/ayurvedic-medicine-in-depth There should be no debate after what the NIH has said. What you are accusing others is very incivil. You must apologise, or abstain from editing. - hako9 (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• @Guy Macon; Instead of misrepresenting the conclusion from the RfC, I think it must be better if you drop WP:STICK in this regard now. I have reverted your edit that goes against the result of the RfC. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)