Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:50, 26 September 2020

NOTICE FOR NON-CONFIRMED AND IP EDITORS This talk page is currently protected due to disruptive editing. If you wish to make a comment or a request, there is a separate page for you to do so at Talk:Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments. That page is monitored by administrators and other editors who will move your comments to this page if they are constructive.

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Ayurveda is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBPS). The current restrictions are: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayurveda article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Vital article

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

Ayurveda received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Dietary Supplements Low‑importance Ayurveda is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South Asia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The contents of the Panchakarma page were merged into Ayurveda. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Ama (ayurveda) page were merged into Ayurveda on 17 November 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Editswikifornepali (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Arunjithp (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Note to closer: please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323 #Close challenge for the debate on a previous challenged close. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 27 August 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)

  • This article begins with the story of Ayurveda having its roots in India. The present status of Ayurveda as a medical system in India is as relevant as its roots in India. Unless that aspect is also covered, the article is incomplete. Ayurveda is and always has been a mainstream medical system in India. There are hundreds of ayurvedic medical colleges in India ; as well as medical councils in each state for Ayurveda(e.g.). Research institutes under a central research council , Ayurveda Universities, Postgraduate institutes , Doctoral programs, several institutes of national importance - e.g. and vibrant scientific communities exist for Ayurveda. India has ensured the availablity of ayurvedic to all its citizens (which is almost a fifth of world population ) by establishing central Ayush ministry as well as separate departments in each state thereby making ayurveda a mainstream medical system. There is also a group of western medical practitioners who call it pseudoscience. Another group having no idea about fundamental principles of Ayurveda also oppose it. This fact about the two opposing arguments (against and for ayurvedic science in Indian contet) is ignored in the present version of this article. Readers are shown only one side (i.e., ayurveda is pseudoscience), without them undertanding that it is also a mainstream medical system in India while reading the present version --Arunjithp (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.ccimindia.org/colleges-ayurveda.php
2. https://www.mcimindia.org.in/
3. http://www.ccras.nic.in/
4. http://ayushportal.nic.in/
5. http://www.ayurveduniversity.edu.in/
6. http://ccras.nic.in/content/guidance-ayush-phd-fellowship-programme
7. http://ddnews.gov.in/national/institutions-gujarat-ayurved-university-get-status-institution-national-importance-0
8. https://aiia.gov.in/
9. http://www.nia.nic.in/
10. http://www.ravdelhi.nic.in/
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/Demographics_of_India
12. https://www.ayush.gov.in/
13. http://hmfw.ap.gov.in/ayush-org.aspx
14. http://health.arunachal.gov.in/?page_id=1057
15. http://ayush.assam.gov.in/
16. http://ayush.bihar.gov.in/web/(S(edtusnnbfmprefel0r20opi3))/Ayush/main.htm
17. http://cghealth.nic.in/ehealth/dishm/index.html
18. https://ayush.gujarat.gov.in/
19. http://www.ayushharyana.gov.in/en
20. http://ayurveda.hp.gov.in/
21. http://kgis.ksrsac.in/ayush/contactus.aspx
22. https://kerala.gov.in/ayush-department
23. http://www.ayush.mp.gov.in/
24. https://mahayush.gov.in/
25. http://ayushmanipur.gov.in/
26. http://meghealth.gov.in/dhs_mi/ayush.html
27. https://health.mizoram.gov.in/page/ayush
28. https://nagahealth.nagaland.gov.in/ayurveda-yoga-unani-siddha-homeopathy-ayush/
29. http://www.ayushodisha.nic.in/
30. http://pbhealth.gov.in/Ayurvedic.htm
31. https://health.rajasthan.gov.in/content/raj/medical/directorate-of-ayurved/hi/home.html/
32. https://www.tnhealth.org/imh/im.htm
33. http://ayush.telangana.gov.in/
34. http://tripuranrhm.gov.in/AYUSH.htm
35. https://ayushup.in/
36. https://www.wbhealth.gov.in/ayush/
37. https://www.ayush.gov.in/

• • It's not that they lack an understanding of the fundamental principles, more the acknowledgement that those principles rest on tenets that are no longer plausible considering the scientific knowledge we have today. Particular forms of its institutionalization may possibly phase out deprecated beliefs or treatments while embracing a type of syncretism, but at the same time problematic practices and claims are made. Consider for instance that according to the scientific method, discredited medical hypotheses (medicine has a long history of such) are no longer promoted or used to diagnose and treat in proper medicine practice. —PaleoNeonate – 21:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Since most articles on ayurveda start with its history of 2000 years, people wrongly believe that ayurveda is still stagnant at that time. The fact that it has been evolving as a science is often overlooked. The references for its academic and scientific background in India has been given above. A very large group still practicing it without adequate academic qualifications and background has only added to these misunderstandings --Arunjithp (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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 (/_Edits) 14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: There are a few corrections needed in your statements - Firstly, in India, Ayurveda is NOT a complementary medicine. Ayurveda is a mainstream medical system in India where AYUSH systems are specifically mentioned as medical systems. Secondly, Ayurvedic therapies and practices are not limited to wellness applications. They are mainstream and used for medical treatment alongside western medicine in India.--Arunjithp (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "Ayurveda". Oxford University Press.
2. Meulenbeld, Gerrit Jan (1999). "Introduction". A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ISBN 978-9069801247.
3. Populorum, Michael Alexander (2008-01-01). Trends und Beschäftigungsfelder im Gesundheits- und Wellness-Tourismus: Berufsentwicklung, Kompetenzprofile und Qualifizierungsbedarf in wellness-bezogenen Freizeit- und Gesundheitsberufen (in German). LIT Verlag Münster. ISBN 9783825813680.
4. Cite error: The named reference Smith+Wujastyk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. "A Closer Look at Ayurvedic Medicine". Focus on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 12 (4). Fall 2005 – Winter 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-12-09.
6. Cite error: The named reference psych2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Cite error: The named reference ACS2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. https://www.nhp.gov.in/ayush_ms

• Your statements need corrections as well. Outside of India, Ayurveda is at best alternative medicine. Ayurveda is not a mainstream system outside of India. Ayurvedic therapies and practices have no evidence of effectiveness, and yet evidence exists of the damage done by ingestion of heavy metals. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ayurveda is a mainstream medical system in India (which is almost a fifth of total world population). I have NOT said that it is mainstream outside India. But almost half a million people travel to India for ayurvedic treatment every year Regarding the evidence of damage done by heavy metals - It just proves that ayurvedic medicines are also being subject to scientific scrutiny and clinical trials, and changes in formulations happen as new clinical evidences emerge. Since the present[REDACTED] article on ayurveda starts with its roots in India, the presenet status of Ayurveda in India also needs to disclosed. And that status is NOT that of a pseudoscience (in India) --Arunjithp (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Science has no borders. There is no Indian science. Therefore if something is a pseudoscience, it is such everywhere. If Indian government decided to allow practicing quackery as a mainstream medicine, it still remains quackery. Retimuko (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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)

  @JoelleJay: You have not provided any evidence or refence for the claims made above. They can hence only be considered as your personal views on this matter. --Arunjithp (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  See the list of sources supplied by Guy Macon below. They are well known and easily support the points made by JoelleJay. You are the one making claims without reliable sources to back them up. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also, "Since the 1960s, the commercialization of Ayurveda and promotion as an alternative to Western medicine has raised ethical and legal issues" 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. 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)

  Ayurveda is often officially described and commonly known even among its practitioners as 'alternative medicine' whereas the available sources clearly show that it was the mainstream health care programme in the sub-continent for roughly more than two and a half millennia in the past. This is perhaps the result of an inherent indifference to the historical background of the development of the indigenous medicine. Medicine and its practice do not exist in a vacuum nor do they flourish without economic and social necessities. This aspect also needs to be included in the lead so that all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources are present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  You are a member of Wkiproject Alternative medicine and yet do not know that Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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
  • 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."
  • "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."
  • "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."
  • "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."
  • "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."
  • "Fake science label on Ayush tip"
  • "Central to the arguments by the critics of AYUSH 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."
  • "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."

  --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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture exclusive for "Complementary and Alternative Medicine", and Misplaced Pages: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)

  @Sitush: You read stuff about urine. We got that. But why do you link it to ayurvda ? where is the evidence and reference ? or is it your personal opinoin ?--Arunjithp (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Are you trying to pretend that Ayurveda doesn't promote the practice of drinking urine? You'll find that it does – and that its adherents think it can cure cancer. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not difficult to find sources about the use of urine in Ayurveda and sources abound about related claims and quackery, including recently in relation to COVID-19. Links and sources have already been provided recently in discussions on this page. —PaleoNeonate – 21:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• The legal basic qualification to practice ayurvedic medicine in India is the 5.5 year B.A.M.S course governed by Central council for Indian medicine , with an extremely comprehensive syllabus. There are scientific protocols for each treatment decisions which are to be taken only by qualified doctors. However, there are unqualified persons, who practice ayurveda without the official training and knowledge who can only be termed as quacks. The cow urine craze that happened in relation to COVID 19 cannot be linked to the scientific ayurvedic practice in India as there are no reference or evidence of the academic community of ayurveda having endorsed it --Arunjithp (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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 and . 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 02:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support in lead sentence - This is a defining trait per sources, and Misplaced Pages 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", (WHO) "ancient science", 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. This is 2020 CE, and practitioners who willfully ignore up-to-date medical science in favor of Ayurveda are engaging in pseudoscience. Crossroads 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

  See Special:Diff/974951507 —PaleoNeonate – 23:24, 25 August 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. Crossroads 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
• Opposing strongly that Ayurveda is pseudo.It is a traditional medical ssystem wherein research in terms of modern techniques and methods are in the developing stage. Although a lot more needs to be done in the research field, there are many evidences of successful treatments and concepts thereof. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29269119 article shows relation between HRV and fundamental tridoshas of ayurveda . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.63.64 (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — 117.230.63.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  A single primary study (published in "Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine") is an anecdote, not evidence. We have such gems as "The calculated cardiointervalography values are combined into three integral indexes, which according to the authors' opinion reflect the influence on heart rhythm of vata, pitta and kapha, the regulation systems of the body known as doshas in Ayurveda." and "Heart Rate Variability (HRV) spectral data was collected from 42 participants ..." See WP:MEDRS to get some idea of what is considered evidence for biomedical claims. What you have there is what is normally regarded as in-universe wishful thinking. --RexxS (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in opening sentence. It is a pseudoscience and this should be mentioned prominently, in the first paragraph at least. P-K3 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (reopened)

• Support A thousand(s) year old protoscience based on Vedas, that hasn't/refuses to change. Can modern medical practitioners prescribe Aurvedic medicines? No. Ayurvedic medicines are exempt from clinical trials in India . This system of belief (not science) places faith above reason. It remains on the shadowy sidelines of scientific scrutiny. The very limited success which can be attributed to Ayurveda is the herbal prophylaxis, like turmeric or ashwagandha and such, which has very limited application in modern science. Indian government has spent thousands and thousands of crores into this, built a special ministry for it. What are the results? They exempted this field of protoscience from getting scientifically scrutinised. It shows that political pressures and money alone can't guarantee scientific success. Where do the AYUSH ministers go when they need medical attention. To modern medical hospitals. How convenient. Where are the editors who oppose the word pseudoscience that can show us an Ayurvedic medicines that passed an RCT. - hako9 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• All clinical trials in India - including ayurveda are registered in CTRI database. To get official information on clinical trials in Ayurveda and Ayurvedic medicine, do the appropriate search on CTRI - search for trials page

References

1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/ayurveda-is-a-big-draw-for-medical-tourism/articleshow/73739231.cms#:~:text=Today%2C%20Ayurveda%20is%20attracting%20a,for%20wellness%20and%20Ayurveda%20treatment.
2. "Ayurveda". Oxford University Press.
3. Meulenbeld, Gerrit Jan (1999). "Introduction". A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ISBN 978-9069801247.
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Smith+Wujastyk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ "A Closer Look at Ayurvedic Medicine". Focus on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 12 (4). Fall 2005 – Winter 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-12-09.
6. Populorum, Michael Alexander (2008-01-01). Trends und Beschäftigungsfelder im Gesundheits- und Wellness-Tourismus: Berufsentwicklung, Kompetenzprofile und Qualifizierungsbedarf in wellness-bezogenen Freizeit- und Gesundheitsberufen (in German). LIT Verlag Münster. pp. 205–210. ISBN 9783825813680.
7. Cite error: The named reference psych2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Cite error: The named reference ACS2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Varier, Raghava (2020). A Brief History of Ayurveda. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190992101. {{cite book}}: Text "" ignored (help)
10. https://www.ccimindia.org/cc_act_ug_regulations_2012.php
11. https://www.ccimindia.org/downloads/1st_year_UG_Syllabus.pdf
12. https://www.ccimindia.org/downloads/2nd_year_UG_Syllabus.pdf
13. https://www.ccimindia.org/downloads/3rd_year_syllabus.pdf
14. https://www.ccimindia.org/downloads/4th_year_syllabus.pdf
15. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Quacks-give-ayurveda-a-bad-name/articleshow/747644218.cms
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/Clinical_Trials_Registry_%E2%80%93_India
17. http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/advancesearchmain.php

• Support While there is no need to put a disclaimer in every sentence, an encyclopedia has to start with the fundamental facts of life, according to reliable sources. When independent, repeatable trials demonstrate Ayurveda's benefits it will be part of mainstream medicine and pseudoscientific can be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The present state of Ayurvedic medicines should go first in the lead, which sadly means, per the many sources supplied, mention of the pseudoscientific aspect. I would not object to the first sentence also mentioning its traditional roots. I also hope any closer reflects on the fact that the voters claiming no cite for pseudoscience are dishonest.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - At least the first sentence. It is currently mentioned several times in the first paragraph alone, it is debatable that the first sentence already does include it by saying is an alternative medicine system. Having it in every sentence does not help or improve the article. I would argue that it is also not the most notable thing about it either given it's long history. I think the current first paragraph is acceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I cannot understand why the essence of a thing would nor be mentioned in the lede sentence of an article about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because current wording ("Ayurveda is an alternative medicine system") already tells/explicitly implies it is nonscientific or pseudoscientific. Just "alternative medicine" tells it all. Current version is simply ridiculous because it repeates the same in every phrase. 1st phrase: it is an alternative medicine system. 2nd: it is quackery. 3rd: it is pseudoscientific and also unscientific. This reads like a mockery. My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Most people do not know that alternative medicine is pseudoscientific quackery. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  You should re-assess your !vote. The rfc is about whether the term should be included in the opening sentence. That's it. We can always change the lead after the rfc is over to address your concern of multiple implied insertions of the word. - hako9 (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  I would stick to my vote because simply "alternative medicine" defines a lot more precisely than "pseudoscience" what it really is. In my view, "alternative medicine" is a widely used and widely known terminology, and we have a big page about it, so that anyone can check it. Telling in addition "pseudoscience" is like crying "wolf!" many times.My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Most readers will not follow a link to determine that Alternative medicine contains topics such as Ayurveda that are pseudoscientific. Its definition is not widely-known. Leaving a label of "medicine" in the opening sentence (with any qualifier) affords Ayurveda a status that it does not deserve; it is misinformation. Treatments that have evidence that they work are "medicine"; those that don't are not medicine, and shouldn't be graced with the term that they have no right to use. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Precisely. Crossroads 17:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  "Alternative medicine" does not mean medicine, just as "alternative science" does not mean science, alternative history does not mean history, etc. In addition, current verion of the lead (three first phrases) do not make clear what it really is: alternative medicine, quackery, pseudoscience, nonscience, or protoscience. I think "alternative medicine" is the closest approximation. Now, should we cry out loud "pseudoscience!" or rather make a more neutral description? Let's check how John Hopkins site tells about Ayurveda: . My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'd say shame on JHU for presenting the information in that way, with all the disclaimers at the bottom. It's pretty irresponsible writing to call something a "natural system of medicine" in the first sentence and then write "While Ayurveda can have positive effects when used as a complementary therapy in combination with standard, conventional medical care, it should not replace standard, conventional medical care, especially when treating serious conditions" in the very last sentence of the piece. That's not how an encyclopedia article should be written. We shouldn't call it "medicine" at all if it's not medicine. Lev!vich 18:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  "Shame on JHU". Well, I am sure JHU may have some projects funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. That may explain it. Should everything funded by this official USA institution be labeled pseudoscience? This is something disputable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  I do not think that Traditional medicine is a pseudoscience, or it has been described in overhealming majority of RS as a pseudoscience. It was not, as already reflected in the first 3 phrases of the current version. This is simply not science, just like folklore, religion, love and a lot of other things. Something like Lysenkoism or New chronology (Fomenko) - yes, THAT is pseudosciense. As about Aurveda having positive effect on patients, this is nothing special. A lot of things does - for purely psychological reasons. That's why people use placebo during clinical trials. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Unlike folklore, religion, etc., Ayurveda promotes itself as scientific. If Ayurveda was merely a historical system not practiced today, à la "humors", then we could just classify it as "not science" or "protoscience". However, unlike folklore, religion, etc., Ayurveda is currently presented as a science -- see, for example, the multiple types of doctoral degrees offered in "vedic microbiology". In fact, it is extremely similar to Lysenkoism: short-sighted, poorly-considered programs by the government led to a humanitarian crisis (in the USSR, the famine; in India, a dramatic shortage of health care providers and infrastructure). In an attempt to combat (or at least appear to combat) this crisis and to boost nationalistic morale (i.e. redirect despair and criticism away from the ruling elite), the government heavily propagandizes a home-grown system of "science" with enormously-exaggerated validity, efficacy, scope, and benefit that can replace/supplement "foreign" (Western) methods. Lysenko was the Soviet hero who was supposed to rescue the peasants from famine; a revitalized Ayurveda will be the savior of Indian health care. Neither uses rigorous evidence-based approaches; both are rooted in a deprecated conceptualization of the physical world; both characterize opposition as an attack on their cultural ideology/identity and suppress negative reports. Both are examples of institutionalized pseudoscience. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Very insightful, —PaleoNeonate – 04:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Final comment/response. One can simply consult with reputable Encyclopedia to identify consensus on the complex subject. I am sorry, but neither Encyclopedia Britannica nor Oxford Reference nor any other major encyclopedia describes it as a pseudoscience, especially in the first phrase. Let's check Encyclopedia Britannica. Here: "Ayurveda, also called Ayurvedic medicine, traditional system of Indian medicine. Ayurvedic medicine is an example of a well-organized system of traditional health care, both preventive and curative, that is widely practiced in parts of Asia. Ayurveda has a long tradition behind it, having originated in India perhaps as much as 3,000 years ago. Today it remains a favoured form of health care in large parts of the Eastern world, especially in India, where a large percentage of the population uses this system exclusively or combined with modern medicine." and so on. Does it say "pseudoscience" in the 1st phrase? No. Neither does website of John Hopkins University (see above). Oxford Reference: . No. EB on the history of medicine in Asia - no. As about Lysenko and Ayurveda, that is definitely WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  I am not aware of any Misplaced Pages rule that says that in the description of a subject, we are only allowed to use words the Encyclopedia Britannica uses to describe the same subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  The reputable encyclopedia are tertiary sources. According to our guidelines , Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. This is exactly such case. Due weight. Trying to make presentations which are dramatically different from those in reputable encyclopedia is a red flag. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Wow. That's quite a leap. You started with "tertiary sources may be helpful in evaluating due weight" and transformed it into "anything that is dramatically different from a particular tertiary source is a red flag". Impressive! Nonetheless, we should stick with what reliable WP:MEDRS secondary sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Re: "Final comment/response", in my experience the best way to stop talking about something is to stop talking about it. Saying that you have stopped talking about it while continuing to talk about it. not so much. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I did not say ""anything that is dramatically different from a particular tertiary source is a red flag". I said any lead summary which is dramatically different from all reputable tertiary RS on the subject is a red flag. That's why I looked at all tertiary RS that could be easily found (see my comment above). You can easily disprove me if you find any really good tertiary source (on par with EB) which tells that "Ayurveda is a pseudocience" in the first phrase. I could not quickly find any. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you missed the sources that Guy Macon provided? The very first one is Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. It was easily found from the discussion above, --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
      • And other works on pseudoscience also include it: , , , ... —PaleoNeonate – 23:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I missed it. OK. I think the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience provides good description of Ayurveda, much much better than the lead of this page (!) . Sure, unlike the EB, it assumes by default that Ayurveda belongs is related to the wide area of pseudoscience - simply because it is included in the book. However, does it say anywhere in first paragraphs that "Ayurveda is pseudoscience"? NO. It tells something very different. OK, let's describe it exactly as in Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. This is an argument in my favor. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly, in such works everything is assumed to be in relation to pseudoscience, so they don't need to mention it everywhere. On Misplaced Pages the situation is different and we consequently also have WP:PSCI... —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  If you look in this encyclopedia, a lot of subjects are not at all pseudoscience, but something related to it (like a village of Avebury, etc.). Actually, the Ayurveda (called "Ayurvedic medicine in the Encyclopedia) consider Ayurveda as an important historical medicine "classic volumes... still used...", etc. This is good neutral description. No so here. 2nd phrase of the lead is written in a propaganda-like style as if someone was trying to "prove a point" this is pseudoscience. We do not need to prove this point because this is not at all main point about this subject. All main points are properly emphasized in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience on in EB (whatever one prefers). My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience contains subjects that are pseudoscience, i.e beliefs that claim to be scientific but are demonstrably not so. Are you trying to use the fact that it's included in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience to argue that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience? Especially considering the number of reliable sources and the consensus of two RfCs that it is. Your position is a fringe belief and until you find an abundance of reliable sources stating "Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience", you're arguing out of thin air. You personal opinions simply have no weight. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not really edit such subjects and only commented in the official RfC. I hardly have an opinion on the subject. I only checked how reliable tertiary sources summarize consensus on this highly complex subject and suggested that we do the same. This is exactly what WP guidelines recommend (see above). Based on that, current version of the lead seem to be POVish.My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support first sentence but then it doesn't need to be repeated again. Whenever the topic of the article is a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific belief, we should tell our readers that immediately. Now, if it were in the second sentence because of the way a particular lead is structured, that would be OK. At a bare minimum, it's got to be in the first paragraph and no later, and the preference would be in the first sentence, in the form of " is a pseudoscience" or " is the pseudoscientific belief" or something like that. That doesn't mean it should be repeated over and over, though. Just say it once up front. Lev!vich 18:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I say that Ayurveda is a not a science. it something above the science. it has the effect and knowledge which came from thousands years before but it still exists and shows its effect in patients who administer it. The please remove the 2 lines.. because it given a bad impression. because its not a pseudoscience.Mr cosmic king (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Mr cosmic king (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support It's all been said above. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 26 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.

References

1. "Ayurveda". Oxford University Press.
2. ^ Meulenbeld, Gerrit Jan (1999). "Introduction". A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ISBN 978-9069801247.
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Smith+Wujastyk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ "A Closer Look at Ayurvedic Medicine". Focus on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 12 (4). Fall 2005 – Winter 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-12-09.
5. Populorum, Michael Alexander (2008-01-01). Trends und Beschäftigungsfelder im Gesundheits- und Wellness-Tourismus: Berufsentwicklung, Kompetenzprofile und Qualifizierungsbedarf in wellness-bezogenen Freizeit- und Gesundheitsberufen (in German). LIT Verlag Münster. pp. 205–210. ISBN 9783825813680.
6. Cite error: The named reference psych2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Cite error: The named reference ACS2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Zysk, Kenneth G. (1999). "Mythology and the Brāhmaṇization of Indian medicine: Transforming Heterodoxy into Orthodoxy". In Josephson, Folke (ed.). Categorisation and Interpretation. Meijerbergs institut för svensk etymologisk forskning, Göteborgs universitet. pp. 125–145. ISBN 978-91-630-7978-8.
9. Bhishagratna, Kaviraj Kunjalal (1907). An English Translation of the Sushruta Samhita Based on Original Sanskrit text. Calcutta: K. K. Bhishagratna. p. 1. Retrieved 16 October 2015.
10. Dhanvantari. (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 4 August 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/160641/Dhanvantari
11. Wujastyk, Dominik (2003). The Roots of Ayurveda: Selections from Sanskrit Medical Writings (3 ed.). London etc.: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-140-44824-5.
12. Mukhopadhyaya, Girindranath (1913). The Surgical Instruments of the Hindus, with a Comparative Study of the Surgical Instruments of the Greek, Roman, Arab, and the Modern European Surgeons. Calcutta: Calcutta University. Retrieved 16 October 2015.
13. Dinesh Kumar Tyagi (2005). Pharma Forestry A Field Guide To Medicinal Plants. Atlantic Publishers. p. 34. Ayurveda, the organised and classic system of traditional medicine had known to the Indians from prehistoric times.
14. Corwin Hansch, Peter George Sammes, Peter D. Kennewell, John Bodenhan Taylor (1990). Comprehensive medicinal chemistry: the rational design, mechanistic study & therapeutic application of chemical compounds. Pergamon Press. p. 114. The origin of Ayurveda is lost in antiquity. As was the case with many branches of human knowledge in prehistoric times, Ayurveda developed in close association with religion and mythology.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
15. ^ Pankaj Gupta; Vijay Kumar Sharma; Sushma Sharma (2014). Healing Traditions of the Northwestern Himalayas. Springer. p. 23. ISBN 9788132219255.
16. Cite error: The named reference WujastykXVIII was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
17. Sharma, Priya Vrat (1992). History of Medicine in India. New Delhi: Indian National Science Academy.

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 (/_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)

It mustn't be whitewashed. There should be no passive voice pretending that that Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific. So no weaseling like "is considered". WP:ASSERT is absolutely clear that we assert facts in Misplaced Pages's voice when the fact is a stated in high-quality reliable sources, and not contradicted by equal quality sources. We have the quality reliable sources clearly stating "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience"; where are the equal quality sources stating "Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience"? No dispute = no attribution. --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This source has been already mentioned a few times, which says "Because Ayurveda does not seek to masquerade as a science, it is not fair to either characterize it as pseudo-scientific." You can't expect anything better than that since majority of academics don't even consider Ayurveda as pseudoscientific. Why a non-mainstream view should be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE? शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ayurveda most certainly does seek to masquerade as a science. In particular, it seeks to masquerade as a medical treatment for various diseases and ailments.

Also, your link to an unreliable source above don't say what you claim it says. You appear to have confused the question you typed in with what the result Google books is. Here is the correct link (but it is still an unreliable source): --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• It is a fact that this article has been included as part of the scope of Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 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/

Misplaced Pages’s Hate Campaign Against Ayurveda

• h t t p s : / / www.globalresearch.ca/wikipedia-culture-editorial-chaos-malice/5716412

Misplaced Pages’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 Misplaced Pages: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)
• Discussion reopened: By consensus at WP:AN, the previous non-administrator closure of this RfC is overturned, and this RfC is to be reclosed by an administrator. Sandstein 18:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note to closer: Given the history of this page, please make everything about the close unambiguous. For example, a finding of "no consensus for X" should explain what no consensus means and specify whether or not this means "X is forbidden", "X is required", or "X is allowed". Whichever way the close goes I want there to be zero room for arguing about it -- it needs to settle the arguments one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note to closer: PainProf's response should be considered very carefully, as it is a strong counterpoint to the "oppose" arguments that hinge on the (alleged) lack of comprehensive, empirical scientific consensus on calling Ayurveda a pseudoscience. Namely, that the requisite experimentation for investigating Ayurveda as a whole (rather than selected compounds isolated from individual treatments) would be astoundingly unethical due to the inherent dangers of many of the "remedies" and the utter absence of any scientific basis for them. Independent doctors and translational researchers are not going to get IEB approval, let alone grants, to investigate the efficacy of an inherently toxic Rasa shastra formulation whose purification process and proposed mechanism of action have no basis in reality. More importantly, independent basic science researchers have even less impetus to evaluate the underlying concepts of Ayurveda--that is, the defining characteristics of Ayurveda that make it distinct from other systems of medicine. Ayurveda is more than any one bhasma; it is a holistic approach to health that is very much rooted in a medieval pseudoscientific framework. For scientists to experimentally discredit the practice to the extent some "oppose" voters seem to require, they would need to somehow quantify dosha levels, evaluate the physiological effects of various "concentrations" of doshas, and empirically validate the prescribed treatments for various dosha imbalances. None of these studies will ever happen because they are physically impossible. Instead, what is actually tested is the chemical behavior of compounds isolated and purified from the herbal part of an Ayurvedic preparation: i.e. not the preparation itself or any component ever identified through Ayurveda. The vast majority of these studies are negative and never reported publicly, but the few that eventually result in drugs are promoted as evidence of Ayurveda, despite all the steps after retrieving the concoction being wholly dependent on evidence-based science. For this reason, the relative "silence" of scientific thought on Ayurveda is actually a strong indictment against its claim of being a science, and the large body of secondary (non-experimental) literature that explicitly calls it a pseudoscience bolsters the argument for including the descriptor in the lead sentence. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Very well said, thanks. BirdValiant (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer: This RfC was created to settle an acute dispute about where the phrase "pseudoscience" (or "pseudoscientific") should be in the lead. Therefore, I contend that any close should attempt to determine whether consensus exists for any solution to the dispute, and I suggest that there is consensus to include the phrase within the first paragraph of the lead, if not in the first sentence. I believe that it will be vital for an accurate close to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments presented, and I contend that it is impossible to do that without an understanding that Ayurveda is considered a pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific viewpoint, and by Misplaced Pages since its inception. If that starting point is accepted then the policies/guidelines at WP:PSCI and MOS:BEGIN are paramount and those arguments based on them are irrefutable and must be given the strongest weight; if it is rejected, then WP:PSCI is irrelevant. There isn't a "neutral option" on that issue. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: Since you have already come this far by analyzing and closing the AN discussion, can you be the one to close this RfC as well? I don't think if any other admin will bother to touch this discussion even with 100 feet pole. IMO, there are only 2 possible outcomes, one that there is no consensus for anything like MrX's closure noted, and another one is that there is consensus to include the term not in the first sentence but the first paragraph like RexxS Guy Macon, and JzG said. The lead, especially the first paragraph of the article, was changed by 16 August following the discussion on Talk:Ayurveda#A lead paragraph without the whitewashing where the discussion seemed independent of this RfC. Azuredivay (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't say "there is consensus to include the term not in the first sentence but the first paragraph". That could be interpreted and there being a consensus against including the term in the first sentence. I said that there is consensus to include the term in the first paragraph, but it does not have to be in the first sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Azuredivay, I may do so if I find the time, but I can't promise it. Sandstein 06:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's quite a cheap ploy Azuredivay. Trying to reinforce your flawed conclusion from the rfc on an admin. - hako9 (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  This is pretty dirty. Mischaracterizing the discussion and misreporting what people are saying pretty low down. --AdamF in MO (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda is a legal traditional medical system in India and is practised by doctors who undergo 51/2 years of graduate study and 3 years of post graduate study. (And even more) Ayurvedic hospitals and clinics are run all over India by the Central and State Governments and is a well established public health system with many patients benefitting out of it. Claiming a medical system to be "Pseudo", where people who who study that stream give in about 5-8 years of their lives by writing the toughest entrance exams- is nothing but gross injustice. If so, Yoga is the biggest pseudoscience because it is practised by people who have no formal training and need no registration with any medical councils whatsoever. If Misplaced Pages claims Ayurveda which has well structured syllabus and taught in Universities for 51/2 -8 years,which needs registration from Medical Councils etc to be "Pseudoscience" then please make changes in Yoga, Reiki, Acupuncture and so on Pseudoscience too please. (There are multiple research centres for Ayurveda in India. Please note that it is an indigenous system to India and need funding in huge amount to do more research and is not propagated by multinational Pharma giants to come up with many studies. What is known is, many people are benefitted from the medical system and Misplaced Pages quoting it as Pseudoscience and quackery and quoting "IMA" which is an independent small organisation of modern medicine docs is disappointing. "IMA" in India has always opposed traditional medical systems, but on the other hand they certify air-conditioners and wall paints that purify air and get rid of bacteria/viruses - that is very SCIENTIFIC. Lol. Veena Hemesh (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Lots of nonsense are legal in many countries, but that doesn't make then scientific. We are all fully aware of the utter lack of evidence that Ayurveda has any significant success in treating illness beyond placebo. We're all also fully aware of the documented harmful effects of heavy metals that are part and parcel of this so-called treatment. Science shows us that Ayurveda relies on ignorance and superstition to make its claims. It's a belief in non-scientific principles masquerading as "science", or worse as "medicine". If you think that Ayurveda actually benefits people, then show us the evidence: the RCTs, the quality independent reviews that Misplaced Pages require for any biomedical claims. If you can't produce them, then it's time to stop beating a dead horse.

We have longstanding prior consensuses that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience:

• Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 12 #Category:Pseudoscience – "There is clear support here for adding Category:Pseudoscience to this article as a result of the reliable source coverage of it as a pseudoscience. The primary opposing argument is that Ayurveda is old and therefore shouldn't be labelled pseudoscience for its entire history - there have been strong arguments against this on the basis that it makes testable claims today which have been regarded as pseudoscientific in reliable sources."
• Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 #Pseudoscience – "Consensus is that Ayurveda's status as pseudoscientific is well documented enough that it does not need to be ascribed to a particular source or sources"

I'll remind contributors that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions which include this requirement:

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)

Now, it's abundantly clear that the policy WP:PSCI applies to this article, and there is no prospect of removing mention of the fact that Ayurveda is pseudoscientific, i.e. a system that claims to be scientific while having no basis in science. The issue under discussion is whether to include that fact in the opening sentence or in the first paragraph. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The link of IMA cited as (2) mentions that people who are unauthorized to practise modern medicine can be termed quacks which doesnt imply to Registered practitioners of any medical science who practise their own science. B.A.M.S. IS a 5 and half year course which is similar to M.B.B.S. in terms of duration. Such fake additions to term Ayurveda as quackery must be removed with immediate effect. Dhanwantari4u (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC closure explanation

I have read all opinions and tabulated them as follows:

I've evaluated them as follows:

• I've discounted opinions by blocked editors and IPs, given the canvassing concerns, and also all comments with personal attacks.

• I'm treating as cursory all pure votes, "per X" comments, comments that don't amount to more than "it is/isn't a pseudoscience", or comments that otherwise do not attempt to engage with the policies and guidelines governing pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages and to apply them in a cogent manner.

• For the "oppose" side, I'm treating as cursory all opinions that assert that there are no reliable sources supporting the label, without discussing why the ones cited in the article are insufficient (and a reference to Google hits isn't such a discussion). I'm similarly treating references to WP:LABEL that do not address how that guideline's guidance regarding pseudoscience should apply here. The "oppose" arguments I find valid include the view that "alternative medicine" sufficiently characterizes the practice, or those who cite sources disputing the characterization of Ayurveda as pseudoscientific.

• For the "support" side, I'm treating as cursory opinions that merely express disapproval of the practice or its practitioners. Those I'm treating as well-reasoned include opinions of the form "WP:PSCI requires a prominent mention if reliable sources call something a pseudoscience, and here are these sources."

An ideal discussion would have focused on the contents of the available sources and their reliability, and on whether e.g. "alternative medicine" might be sufficient or preferable based on these sources. But we probably can't ever expect an ideal discussion on Misplaced Pages.

On this basis, we see that a pure headcount yields something close to a 2:1 support for mentioning pseudoscience in some form in the lead. The proportion is similar if one takes into account only the relatively few well-reasoned opinions. In our practice, ceteris paribus, 2:1 is the approximate threshold for rough consensus. In my view, because of the high number of cursory opinions, we are on the threshold between a "no consensus" situation and positive consensus to prominently describe Ayurveda as pseudoscientific.

But I do not need to decide between these two possible closures because their outcome is the same. If we determine that this discussion yields no (informed) consensus, there is no consensus to change the current situation, in which pseudoscience is mentioned in the first paragraph, but not the first sentence. If we determine that there is rough consensus for highlighting the pseudoscientific nature of Ayurveda, we also see that there is no consensus to do so in the first sentence, which also means that the current prominence of the label remains roughly unchanged. This does not mean that discussions about improving the lead cannot continue, but in my view, on the basis of this RfC, any new wording of the lead section should not substantially increase or reduce the prominence of the "pseudoscience" description.

My declaration of interest: I have no knowledge of or experience whatsoever with Ayurveda, and also no medical education (alternative or otherwise). Sandstein 15:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Quackery 1

I am amazed that we do not seem to be even mentioning that the Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterizes the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as quackery. 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, Indian Medical Association (IMA) is a large group of doctors in India (practicing allopathy, not ayurveda) who have formed an association that acts for benefit and welfare of its members. IMA is Neither a legal nor statutory body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 01:40, 29 August 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

1. Novella, Steven (3 January 2018). "Indian Doctors Fight Against Quackery". Science Based Medicine. There is already a massive problem of medical pseudoscience in India. This bill would legitimize all of it, give it regulatory and educational power, and set back the cause of science-based medicine in India indefinitely.

@Alexbrn IMA is just a private medical organisation of modern doctors and its just a misleading bias from their side against Ayurveda. If any ayurveda physician is practising allopathy medicine he may be quack not the entire Ayurveda community. So it's shame to see such description in a public platform like Misplaced Pages. Anuram567 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The word quackery should be removed from this article, as the link in support of such claim doesn't say so. It says an ayurvedic doctor who practice allopathy as quack, the same way as an allopathic doctor who prescribe ayurvedic medicine as quack Bullz123 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It's really disappointing to see certain people make fun of a medical system by terming it as "Quackery" which is legally permitted and run by State/Central Governments in India. Ayurvedic Physicians in India give the same exams as modern medicine docs in India and undergo 51/2 years of graduate study and 3 years of post graduate study. So how come an organisation/association of a few modern medicine docs like IMA claim Ayurveda to be quackery. This cannot be justified in any way and has to be removed at the earliest. And little did I know we had to get "Certification" from a small association of modern medicine docs like IMA in India and not the State Govt/ Universities or Medical Councils like how we did it. Veena Hemesh (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

First and foremost, IMA is not an organisation to certify other traditional medical systems as "Quackery" or not. This edit has been done intentionally by some people to malign Ayurvedic science and to mock doctors who practice the same. Veena Hemesh (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir I belong to Ayurved and I am Ayurvedic Doctor and I am proud of it ... Kindly remove the ridiculous language you used to describe our pathy ... If you don't know anything about our pathy you have no right to speak any such rubbish regarding Ayurved... VdNeha (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The Indian Medical Association is just a collective of Allopathic doctors in India. They are in no means a governing body to declare another medical system to be quackery or pseudoscience. The WHO classified Ayurveda under traditional and complementary medical sciences.The fact that it was originated in the Vedic times does not comply to the science being a pseudoscience. Hence for the best interest of public and the sensible sections of the society it is ideal to take down such un ethical and baseless accusations. Shilpahello1 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@VdNeha: You're scamming people for a living, try to poison them with mercury... and you're proud of it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience. So Change fastly.

Quackery change.

Foreigners nothing know about Ayurveda so don't talk about Ayurveda like fool. Ashish15796 (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it appears that this section is filled with many Single-purpose accounts. , and and another one in a lower section . BirdValiant (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

IMA doesn't qualify Ayurveda as quakery. It says and I quote, "Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under, 1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever. 2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine. 3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act." HemaChandra88 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda is not quackery. IMA should apologize for it. IMA k baap ka v baap hai Ayurveda. Sumit845401 (talk) 07:11, 30 August 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)

wtf... GeraldWL ✉ 09:26, 26 August 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 Misplaced Pages is not a WP:MEDRS for Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources." Misplaced Pages 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)

There are many herbal preprations prescribed by Modern doctors; one example Liv 52. Please refrain from quoting biased man like Dawkins since he isnt famaliar with such things but pretends he knows about everything. He is practitioner of logical fallacy of Absence of evidence equals evidence of absence. Such radical attitudes are impediments towards better science and are subject to ones socio political biases. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You may want to see the BLP related warning that another editor posted on your talk page, but also read . Other editors are also invited to audit the related The Himalaya Drug Company article, —PaleoNeonate – 05:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that this may also apply here. Brunton (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

In response to the original question, I think it's fair to consider that Ayurveda does emphasise both personal and social hygiene, and probably has a longer track-record on that score than modern medicine. It also bases its practice on a holistic perspective, which is a good starting point for any diagnostic work. Finally, having had 3,000 years to test out a huge variety of different concoctions on willing human subjects, it would be unlikely that it had not stumbled across some herbs that had an efficacious effect in some circumstances. The mystery is why it didn't spot that feeding heavy metals to people kills them. I'm no apologist for Ayurveda, but I hope that we can appreciate that it has had sufficient success (even through placebo) to have acquired so many adherents. The pity is that those proponents have now decided for nationalistic reasons to attempt to portray Ayurveda as something which it is not: a scientifically recognisable system of medicine. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I can think of one such example. Opium has long been used in Ayurveda to treat pain. It is effective for this because it contains morphine, which is an opiate. Conventional medicine also used opium for that indication for many years before learning how to purify the morphine from the opium. Since then, it has mostly used purified forms and derivatives of opium alkaloids. While Ayurvedic herbs (or any herbs for that matter) are rarely used in conventional medicine, they have been a highly effective source of leads for new pharmaceuticals. That journal I just cited is a medline indexed review, buy the way. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for opium being adopted from Ayurveda? The opium article doesn’t seem to have anything about this, at least on a quick skim. Brunton (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it was adopted from Ayurveda specifically. Opium has been used in many different medical traditions around the world, and Ayurveda is just one of them. However, I do believe that there are other substances that may fit that bill. Conventional medicine does not deal in herbs, but it deals in substances derived from herbs pretty frequently. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Opium as a drug goes back at least as far as 3400 BCE, and was introduced to Western medicine in 1527 by Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, who never travelled to any part of the world where Ayurveda was practiced.

It is true that western medicine often uses substances derived from herbs, but where is the evidence of any western drug that can be traced back to any Ayurvedic herb, as opposed to an herb that was commonly used in Asia and also used in Ayurveda? No evidence has been presented. So to the question "Do we have any actual examples of anything from Ayurveda making it into conventional medicine?" the answer is still no. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The way I interpret it, the question is really "are there any conventional medicines that consist of Ayurvedic formulations in whole". Plenty of pharmaceutical compounds are isolated from natural products first used in traditional medicines (e.g. vinca alkaloids, artemisinin). But it is disingenuous to claim they are examples of traditional medicine working, because the way they were used in those systems does not work in any way comparable to the isolated components. People aren't treated for Hodgkin's with sadabahar, they are treated with vinblastine prepared via modern extraction, isolation, purification, and (semi)synthesis techniques; tested for two dozen years via basic mechanistic research, in vitro studies, in vivo mouse studies, and eventually multiple FDA-approved human RCTs that proved its efficacy; and administered under tightly-monitored evidence-based regimens supervised by oncologists. It is solely a triumph of modern allopathy. JoelleJay (talk) 08:21, 7 September 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. Yup, just as in other countries, politicians-in-power in India are as deluded as f*ck. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that the WHO is very kind about it for that reason (and they note it): in many places people cannot afford better medicine (either too costly or unavailable locally), when they do, they may still resort to it where it's the traditional wisdom to do so... Then there is complementary institutionalization with medical schools and practitioners integrating or borrowing names (some sources treat that as a form of syncretism, , , , ). Ayurveda is mentioned in all pseudoscience encyclopedias that I check, at the same time in an anthropology encyclopedia I see a mention of the demarcation between "old and new ethnomedicine", with a mention that the latter (post 1980s anthropology) is more permissive to consider it medicine, with more focus on specifics (). Some other encyclopedias mention tenets of various traditional medicines without any critical information, yet they'll often mention the dangers of quackery as well as instances of lead poisoning and psychological distress (often they mitigate that with apologetics like that a licensed practitioner is important and that distress is considered to be progress on the "mind cleansing" path)... Good point about "scientific evidence" vs "evidence". —PaleoNeonate – 07:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, just as in other countries, politicians-in-power in India are as deluded as f*ck. —PaleoNeonate – 10:35, 27 August 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)

I think there's room for it in the body of the article. The theory of Ayurveda is very much what we consider a fringe theory, that is, a theory that has adherents, but is a significant departure from mainstream thought. We should aim to present its tenets in the context of the mainstream view; but in the article about the theory itself, it is important to explain to the reader how the topic sees itself. This book may provide useful content for that description, as long as we are not giving the impression that it is not being presented as scientific fact. To make a facile analogy: in the article about the Flat Earth, we would explain how the theory is mistaken according to the near-universal viewpoint, but we would not omit to mention that the theory is that the Earth is flat. --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I also think it's acceptable, —PaleoNeonate – 21:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool beans. So what we currently have seems good then. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Misplaced Pages, once wrote:

"Misplaced Pages’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 Misplaced Pages 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. "

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. Misplaced Pages cannot change the world, but this feels like a small victory. - hako9 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read the scientific papers published about Ayurveda rather than blabbering on unscientifically against it. Get your facts right.now u sound more like the people u r fighting against. All the best DrAyurveda1 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Lots of phase 1,2,3,4 trials have been done on the medicine so please, do a favour and read more. DrAyurveda1 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Cite one then. And we can all see what a flimsy basis your claims rest on. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 24 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

1. "Ayurveda". Oxford University Press.
2. "Is Ayurveda treatment approved in the U.S?". WebMD.
3. "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association.
4. Meulenbeld, Gerrit Jan (1999). "Introduction". A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ISBN 978-9069801247.

I will have to wait for the current RfC to close, and I will most likely have to post an RfC when the inevitable howls of protest start up, but first I would like to ask if anyone has any wording tweaks to suggest. In particular, I am wondering if what I put after "Ayurveda has historical roots in the Indian subcontinent" is notable enough for the lead, and whether it is too US-centric. Who popularized Ayurveda in the UK and AU? the "Outside the Indian subcontinent" section only mentions the US. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Leeches are approved even by FDA as surgical and infection control devices — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 August 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)

Guy Macon, U. I would actually say:

Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is an alternative medicine system with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. Remedies have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, substances known to be harmful to humans. The study of Avurveda is pseudoscientific and the Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterizes the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as quackery. Ayurveda has been adapted for Western consumption, notably by Baba Hari Dass in the 1970s and Maharishi Ayurveda in the 1980s.

References

1. Food_and_Drug_Administration
2. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm?ID=NRN
3. "Ayurveda". Oxford University Press.
4. Meulenbeld, Gerrit Jan (1999). "Introduction". A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ISBN 978-9069801247.
5. "Is Ayurveda treatment approved in the U.S?". WebMD.
6. "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association.

Not all ayurvedic products contain heavy metals. I'm not averse to putting pseudoscience before alternative medicine (as per homeopathy). Guy (help! - typo?) 08:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I just edited the lead as suggested. Thanks! Do Ayurvedic practitioners operate under a law or voluntary code of conduct that requires them to disclose if a remedy contains heavy metals? The websites I have looked at claim that they "purify" the products so that the heavy metals cause no harm (yet patients still keep ending up in hospital with heavy-metal poisoning). If, as I suspect, the patient is not told what they are getting, then it doesn't really matter if not all remedies contain heavy metals just as when discussing the dangers of playing Russian roulette it doesn't really matter if some of the chambers of the revolver are not loaded. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the contamination is largely accidental, I think, and an effect of the lack of quality controls on herbal products. Recall that the in the US, thanks to lobbying by Big Herba, the FDA is not permitted to test or regulate herbal products unless there is compelling evidence of harm having been done. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The article says, "Heavy metals are thought of as active ingredients by advocates of Indian herbal medicinal products". So, when you say, "the contamination is largely accidental", do you mean that the accidental contamination exceeds even the intentional addition of heavy metals? Is there a source for that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, you are right: I was only aware of the contamination issue in the US and EU (where products containing these metals are heavily regulated). I had forgotten that India is the Wild West for health claims. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

​​​​​ 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 Misplaced Pages 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; I had to revert your edit because it really goes against the conclusion of the RfC. Earlier there was no consensus for adding "pseudoscience" in the lead either, thus a new consensus will have to be established to add "pseudoscience". Frankly, I would prefer the solution provided by RexxS to mention "pseudoscience" in the first paragraph (but not the lead) as a good compromise. But can we look into a modified and better proposal before making any edits? Also, it would make no sense to mention "pseudoscience" or any related terms 2 times on the whole lead. So can we propose a full length lead now? I hope this helps. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The above proposal has no consensus. Can you highlight where you found consensus for it? I am opposed to this proposal. Littleoliveoil too opposed it, while RexxS is supportive of "pseudoscience" in first paragraph, but not the lead. There is no consensus for the recent edit by Guy Macon and it currently stands challenged. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the comment at 20:26, 16 August 2020 (search for that text to find it)? Please address what it says. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Let make it easier by repeating and expanding on it. The closing comment of the RfC included "Upon re-examination, there appears to be a weak consensus for sustaining the pseudoscience descriptor in the lead." If you look at the discussion, the consensus was that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence, but there was no consensus that it can't be in the first sentence.

It is possible that Shiv Sahil doesn't understand what "in the lead" (not to be confused with "in the lead paragraph") means. The lead is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. In this case the lead contains four paragraphs, and the first of those paragraphs contains three sentences.

It is also possible that Shiv Sahil doesn't understand what "no consensus" means. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."

See the 20:25, 24 May 2020 version., which was stable from 19 May 2020 to 2 July 2020, when the edit warring kicked into high gear. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue which has been discussed on this page. The thread is "Close challenge". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC was about "should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence?" There is no consensus for that. I still don't see where is the consensus for mentioning "pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific)" in the first sentence which is still lead, but enough editors were either opposed or supported the inclusion of the term but not for the "opening sentence". शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Guy Macon. There was no consensus against putting it in the lead sentence, and that is the WP:STATUSQUO from before the edit warring and the RfC. Calling it a "system of traditional medicine" and especially calling it a "system of medicine" is grossly WP:POV via failing WP:GEVAL and WP:MEDRS. Crossroads 17:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: You've been explained multiple times by Johnuniq and Guy Macon. They highlighted the part of the edit from the closing review, too. Still you fail to show no comprehension in this regard. - hako9 (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO, the mention of pseudoscience should remain in 3rd paragraph, not the first sentence. "system of medicine" is well supported by thousands of reliable sources, but it is not for wikipedia editors to decide what is correct. Currently, the first paragraph as written is gross misrepresentation of the source. This source made no mention of "pseudoscientific". It further says "FDA has warned that 1 in 5 Ayurvedic medicines" which has been misrepresented to a statement which is giving impression that 5/5 Ayurvedic medicines use them. Azuredivay (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

failing WP:GEVAL and WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI —PaleoNeonate – 00:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The place to make your argument was the rfc. - hako9 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe someone can start another rfc (once the discussion at AN is closed), on how exactly the wording in the lead should be. From the closed rfc, the consensus (doesn't matter if it's weak or no) is that pseudoscience should be in the lead (unless overturned at AN). That's settled. - hako9 (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a terrible use of an RfC; it is something that RfCs are really bad at. What is needed is an open talk page discussion. I proposed a lead paragraph at the top of this section, and asked for comments. I got very few. Anyone is free to propose changes to the current lead paragraph. Such proposals will be evaluated and discussed. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. RFCs are good for yes/no situation. It will likely get stuck for a descriptive type consensus. - hako9 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thank you for making this edit. Of course I have my own disagreements but for now I would recommend inclusion of "Ayurveda has been adapted for Western consumption, notably by Baba Hari Dass in the 1970s and Maharishi Ayurveda in the 1980s", as the last sentence in the first paragraph as proposed by JzG aka Guy above. I haven't seen anyone opposing it so far. Also, you should be changing "Avurveda" to "Ayurveda". शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Break (lead paragraph)

Suggestion for the second sentence: The modern practice of Ayurveda relies on a pseudoscientific framework that distinguishes it from evidence-based medicine. Possibly add clause on IMA characterization of Ayurvedists who try to practice real medicine as quacks? JoelleJay (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The reference used here to claim Ayurveda as quackery is WP:Inaccuracy as well as it's not WP:NPOV simply because the body IMA is an organization of Allopathic practitioners. Ayurveda is one of the oldest extant health systems in the world with fundamental principles and theory-based practices. Literally, the Sanskrit meaning of 'Ayu' is life and 'Veda' is knowledge or science. Therefore, Ayurveda is also generally translated as the Science of Life . Finding that there had never been well established guidelines for Ayurveda, quite recently there are guidelines and policies formulated by Government of India. Guidelines and policiies have been published for clinical Evaluation Guidelines for Practitioners . By the WP:MEDORG policy, by virtue of having National guidelines for the practice of Ayurveda, the statment from IMA should be immediately removed. RamRaghubn (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24111950
2. https://www.ayush.gov.in/docs/clinical_evaluation.pdf
3. https://www.ayush.gov.in/docs/ayurved-guidlines.pdf

Mercury in Ayurveda: A Poison Turned Nectar

From:

Mercury in Ayurveda: A Poison Turned Nectar
Dr Avinash Kadam
Rasayani Biologics Pvt Ltd, Pune, India Rasamruta,
November 2013

(For non-Ayurveda research on the effects of inorganic mercury, see , , ,)

"In recent days we frequently gets news about the Minamata Convention on mercury which aimed to ban trade of Mercury and its gradual phase out by Year 2020... the ban on trade of Mercury will have a disastrous effect on Ayurveda."

"Even historically mercury was used to treat syphilis and besides this mercury is being used in preparation of Ayurveda Medicines. Ayurveda has a special branch called as Rasashastra which deals with the use of metals in treating various illnesses. Formulations prepared using these metals and minerals are called as “Rasaaushadhis”. Mercury is considered as Nucleus of these Rasaaushadhis as a major percentage of these Rasaaushadhis contains some mercurial compounds. In fact the literal meaning of the word Rasashastra is “Science of mercury” . Use of Metals and minerals in Ayurveda became more prevalent after 8th century AD.... It is estimated that 80% of 1 billion Indian population are using Aurveda medicines. It is to be noted that about 35-40 % of all Ayurveda medicines contains some metal."

"All the metals used in Ayurveda formulations undergoes special procedures called as “Shodhan” and “Maran”. These procedures are specialty of traditional Indian medicine and are mentioned in books around 1500 years old. These procedures aims to detoxify metals and makes compatible for human consumption. Mercury also undergoes extensive detoxification procedures before being used in medical formulations. It first undergoes “Shodhan” which purifies it. This is followed by another procedure which is believed to transforms mercury in to therapeutically effective and safe form called as Baddha or Murchita parad."

"Mercury obtained by all these procedures is an inorganic form of mercury (mainly sulphides)... Toxicity seen due to mercury is due to elemental and organic form and not due to inorganic form."

"Also there is a possibility that the detoxification process which mercury undergoes would bring some chemical changes which makes consumption of Mercury safe. This hypothesis needs to be studied by conducting rigorous scientific experiments."

"Conclusion: Mercury is a metal with known toxic potential. But it is used safely in large number of Ayurveda formulations since centuries. The reason for this safe use can be attributed to its unique detoxification process as mentioned in Ayurveda classics."

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I was curious about the phrase "It first undergoes 'Shodhan' which purifies it." I figured that somebody must have described the "purification" process so I looked it up. Keep in mind that multiple Ayurveda sources claim that Shodhan makes Mercury safe to ingest.

Shuddha Parad

Dr. Jagdev Singh

November 26, 2015

"Shuddha Parad is processed mercury as per Ayurvedic Rasa Shastra principles. The several processes are used for detoxifying and purifying the mercury. These processes are called SHODHAN KARMA. The main purpose of SHODHAN KARMA is to make organic or inorganic substance consumable for human. These processes help decreasing side effects, toxicity and after effects of the substance."

"Which is Shuddha Parad?"

"According to Bhaishajya Ratnavali, Mercury (Parad) should be extracted from the Cinnabar (Hingula). The Mercury (Parad) obtained from the cinnabar should be processed with Garlic Juice, Betel Leaf juice and Triphala Decoction. Then Mercury (Parad) should be washed with Kanji water (ayurvedic fermentative preparation) to obtain Shuddha Parad. The Parad Obtained through this process is called Shuddha Parad."

"However, it is a simple and easy method, but ayurveda has explained more methods to obtain Shuddha Parad and they may be different as per specific ayurvedic texts."

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, they can detoxify mercury? The antivaxers must be really happy about that! Guy (help! - typo?) 08:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Quackery kills. - hako9 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked up a couple of the unfamiliar words in the above. First some Ayurveda sources: Everyone here will be glad to hear how this remedy cures heart disease, diabetes, and flatulence. Then I checked out some Misplaced Pages pages. Shilajit seems kind of sort of OK if i squint:

"While Shilajit has been used in traditional Indian medicine as an antiaging compound, its health benefits lack substantial scientific evidence"

but Triphala is full of woo:

"Studies using Triphala report antibacterial, anticancer, antiobesity, antiarthritic, anti-inflammatory, and hypolipidemic properties. Triphala also shows neuroprotective effects against methotrexate-induced damage"

-- cited to non-WP:MEDRS sources such as "Altern Ther Health Med" and "BMC Complement Altern Med." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The pseudoscience has been removed from Triphala. So now Misplaced Pages no longer states that "taking the dried Triphala fruit with honey and ghee daily has the potential to make a person live to a hundred years, free of old age and diseases". Oh well, back to watching my diet and exercising...   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I also removed the pseudoscience from Shilajit. Are there any other related pages that need attention? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Shirodhara is another one already trimmed. PainProf (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Beyond the lead

Whilst there has been a lot of discussion about one sentence in the lead, looking at the broader context there seem to be a number of other areas to address. I suspect some of these changes will be controversial so talk page first:

The whole part about the WHO is not what that source is about. Ayurveda is mentioned three times in the entire report. From my understanding its more about bringing alternative medicine practioners into the fold, particularly in countries where actual medicine is less available. Similarly obviously the WTO doesn't endorse traditional medicine, it promotes protection from misappropriation of traditional knowledge. Basically you can't patent it. - I suggest we remove all of this, it doesn't address ayurveda, it is general about traditional medicine, its inclusion is an attempt to foster legitimacy where it does not exist.

This part "For example, a person who is thin, shy, excitable, has a pronounced Adam's apple, and enjoys of esoteric knowledge is likely vata prakriti and therefore more susceptible to conditions such as flatulence, stuttering, and rheumatism. Deranged vata is also associated with certain mental disorders due to excited or excess vayu (gas)," Should not be written "in universe". - Should we counterbalance this section by point? Perhaps context would help explain why ideas from the middle ages are often erroneous?

"In the Bhaisajya Ratnavali, opium and camphor are used for acute gastroenteritis. In this drug, the respiratory depressant action of opium is counteracted by the respiratory stimulant property of Camphor", Is written in universe, fundamentally there is no need to take an opioid so strong that a stimulant is required to stop you from respiratory arrest for diarrhea, this is insane PainProf (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This part "For example, a person who is thin, shy, excitable, has a pronounced Adam's apple, and enjoys of esoteric knowledge is likely vata prakriti and therefore more susceptible to conditions such as flatulence, stuttering, and rheumatism. Deranged vata is also associated with certain mental disorders due to excited or excess vayu (gas)," Should not be written "in universe". - Should we counterbalance this section by point? Perhaps context would help explain why ideas from the middle ages are often erroneous?

Heh, I wrote this while expanding the doshas section -- I agree it should be written out-of-universe (my intent was that example and the "ghost of a sinful Brahman" part would be faithful descriptions of Ayurvedic diagnostics while also being obviously ridiculous, but of course that assumes readers would be able to recognize them as such). JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Not here

As is obvious from the number of edit requests, we're encountering a barrage of sockpuppets or meatpuppets who are taking coordinated action to damage debate on this page. Our most precious resource is editor time, and I'm not prepared to waste it dealing with these purely disruptive new editors.

I will therefore block indefinitely on sight each and every editor who continues the disruption, because they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite a personal wish to stay away from this topic for the time being, I cannot stay away from FTN. I welcome and support the statement, above and any action Rexxs takes in this area. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 02:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Good. Crossroads 02:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, excellent solution. Please treat Ayurveda-related disruption of the Indian Medical Association and Pseudoscience pages the same way. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead

(Question copied from Talk:Shilajit#Arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead)

says:

"Mean concentration of arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, copper and zinc was 73.15, 104.92, 0.496, 3.89, 4.04 and 17.23 ppm, respectively."

First, I would like to request some original research from someone with a chemistry background: are these concentrations large enough to be of a concern?

Second, I would like to request some original research from someone with an Ayurvedic background: Mow many grams of Shilajit are used to make Ayurvedic medicine?

(Obviously if someone eats a kilogram the acceptable arsenic, mercury, and lead concentrations are lower than in the case where someone eats a milligram).

According to :

"The EPA has established a limit of 2 parts per billion (ppb) of allowable mercury of drinking water. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood (1 ppm)."

Note: original research is allowed on article talk pages, but if the original research leads me to believe that the levels are a concern, I will still have to find WP:MEDRS-complaint reliable secondary sources for any edits made to the Shilajit article. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages’s Hate Campaign Against Ayurveda

Misplaced Pages’s Hate Campaign Against Ayurveda]

By our old friend Gary Null. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Anti-Aging Elixir"
• "Slow Death by 5G Technology"
• "The Vaccine Deep State"

I'm surprised that I haven't seen the old "just eat Himalayan salt, it will cure everything" grift. BirdValiant (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Ernst's Law: if you are writing about alternative medicine and the quacks don't hate you, then you are doing it wrong. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Quackery 2

I get calling it quackery due to the source but the source itself doesn't call it quackery but says that some practitioners who practice Ayurveda/Indian Medicine under the guise of Modern Medicine are quacks. I found it confusing because in India, we have a degree for Ayurveda and there is also an gov. institute for it.

Tl;dr

Source doesn't say that Ayurveda is quackery. Can someone look into it? ]

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In the UK, homeopathy was funded by the government for many years, even though it is ineffective pseudoscientific garbage with no biological plausibility or, indeed, possibility to work under the laws of physics in our universe. Just because a government support something, or has the framework to grant special degrees for it, that doesn't mean that it's true in any way. In this case, the government of India has a strong incentive to support Ayurveda due to its relative cheapness compared to evidence-based medicine and due to the country's current alignment with Hindutva and increasing Hindu nationalism; likewise in mainland China, the government has a strong incentive to support Chinese traditional medicine due to its cheapness and due to increasing Chinese nationalism.

Please see the RfC above; you will find many citations which justify the use of the term "quackery". BirdValiant (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of government support for pseudoscience, Lysenkoism enjoyed the strongest possible government support in the USSR. Starting around 1934, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, competing geneticists were executed or sent to labor camps. Over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism and genetics research was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953. So no, Misplaced Pages does not give a lot of weight to the opinions of governments and politicians or even news organizations in matters of science. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@BirdValiant I get it that it is quackery but that is not what IMA is saying, is it? That is your opinion. Either change the source or change the sentence. The sentence is that IMA catergorizes it as quackery but it doesn't. Also, on the latest consensus on this issue. The edit was revoked but it is still there, why? It is bringing unnecessary publicity and hate to the article which is otherwise fine.

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I call the sentence as against WP:RS because it has no valid sources. I am not aware of many Misplaced Pages customs so I would like someone to open a Rfc or Consensus on this issue.

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is quackery, but I think its possible this is a case of a difference in Indian English. Rather hilariously Quack is originally German and in that case it originally means one who gives their patients mercury i.e. someone giving fake treatments so Ayurveda fits well. I think this page actually describes quacks as people who practice medicine without a medical license, noting a lot of the Ayurveda practioners do this. Quacks (as fake doctors) are an incredibly serious problem in India, I think its something like 57% of "doctors" don't have a medical degree according to the WHO... generally it would be illegal to practice in most Western countries, if you wanted to for example diagnose a medical illness you're gonna need a medical degree (so by that definition it would be "quackery" if the law in India is the same), I dunno how that works in India though. PainProf (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

But re-reading carefully this is correct as a sentence, the source does say when Ayurvedic practioners practice medicine it is quackery, it is only not quackery when they practice ayurveda which is not medicine. PainProf (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sentence: "IMA categorizes Ayurveda as quackery."

It doesn't. All your points are valid that Ayurveda is quackery but IMA doesn't say that. The source says that Ayurvedic practitioner who claim to Allopathic doctors are quacks but them practicing Ayurveda doesn't make them a quack. If IMA doesn't say so then why use it as a source. WP:RS still applies

Just to clear it, I am not some single purpose account as I have been here for near a year now. It is just that this caught my eye.

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. Which seems to be correct to me as that page describes ayurveda practitioners practicing medicine - they are not allowed to do that they can only practice Ayurveda. PainProf (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

PainProf, yes - anything to do with herbs other than cookery, is fraud. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok won me over. Just having it in the first para seems a little forced. Maybe later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingNinja1 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingNinja1: I could live with seeing it mentioned further down in the lead, but I do feel it is important to establish the context in which Ayurveda exists. The fact that the IMA labels the practice of medicine by Ayurvedics as "quackery" is significant in establishing that Ayurvedic practitioners are not qualified to practice medicine as we understand it. In any case, we are going to have to hold another RfC to re-establish the wording of the whole lead once we have consensus on where to place the "pseudoscience" description. This isn't going to be a quick process, so we might as well take our time and get it right. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of interest do we cover the problem of Quackery in India, it sounds like a fascinating topic. I've never heard of such rampant health fraud 57% (from an RS) is crazy. PainProf (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Warning

@Vjrahul: Learn to indent and learn to sign your posts.

Your assertion, now removed, is deliberately untrue. The article says:

• The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery.

The source is:

• "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association.

which states:

The purpose of this compendium of court orders and various rules and regulations is to acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine.

It clearly applies the epithet "quackery" to the actions of "practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine", i.e. including Ayurveda, when they attempt to practice real medicine. Now if you continue this gaslighting to waste productive editors' time, I'll request an AE admin familiar with this topic – ping El C as an alert – to take steps to remove you from this arena. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the paragraph of quackery for practicing medicine seems pretty out of place. Maybe putting it in later in the India section would be appropriate. FlyingNinja1 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thank you for pointing out. I shall try to learn intending and signing soon. Pardon me now for still trying to put in my point before doing that. It is only because as much as I respect an editor's time being spent on these, I am very sure about what I speak. I may be ignorant on Misplaced Pages rules and etiquette, but I believe that even when spoken by someone like me, facts are facts. Misplaced Pages must serve as a platform that acts neutral. Which is very much broken here.

• The very statement referred to in the warning given to me, ends with "barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine." And in the interpretation that follows, the words chosen were 'real medicine'. It is implied that Modern Medicine is the only real medicine. That is not a neutral statement. Even the apex body on Medicine, the WHO, does not share this view on other medical sciences, including Ayurveda. Now is that suitable for Misplaced Pages? At least, why not display just the original words?
• The earlier statement also linked the IMA to this issue, while IMA has never, and can never take such a public stand on Ayurveda, which is a completely legal medical system in India. Now, that statement has been taken away, which is appreciable. I only wish that the currently displayed statement ("The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific while the practice can be classified as protoscience or unscientific.") is also studied properly. The exact cited reference is not even available for verification on Google books. This is nothing personal against the editor who has been repeatedly removing my edits, with strict warnings, while one of it has actually now been approved (the removal of the IMA statement). I only wish that facts are published here. Vjrahul (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vjrahul: You've learned to sign. That's a good start. I do agree that facts are facts, but you will have to accept that on Misplaced Pages facts are statements expressed by high-quality reliable sources that are not contradicted by equally reliable sources.

You say that the implication that what you charmingly call "modern medicine" (what the rest of us regard as evidence-based medicine) is the only real medicine, is not a neutral statement. You're wrong. Medicine that has been shown to work is medicine. Anything else is superstition. And when the proponents of that superstition make claims that it is based on principles resembling scientific principles, it becomes a pseudoscience. That is the position with Ayurveda.

The WHO most certainly does not regard Ayurveda as having any basis in evidence, nor does any mainstream scientific viewpoint. You can either learn to live with that, or you can continue to pretend that Ayurveda has a basis in evidence-based medicine. In either case, your baseless protestations will not change the large number of reliable sources that show Ayurveda is based on nothing but unsupportable traditional beliefs, and that Ayurvedic practitioners who attempt to practise your "modern medicine" are properly labelled as quacks by every sensible body.

If you decide to remove properly sourced content purely because you don't like what it says, you will soon find yourself unwelcome on Misplaced Pages. That's a prediction, not a warning. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Why moved to end of lead? Revert?

In this edit, Nizil Shah moved this information to the end of the lead for the explicit reason he considered it "irrelevant". I think it's highly relevant. It shows that modern medicine and ayurveda are separate. Even though some people think that pseudoscience can be integrated with medicine.

I do think this would be better at the end of the first paragraph rather than the middle, however. Crossroads 19:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We should refrain from making unilateral edits without gaining consensus. Traditional Ayurveda (which also involves philosophy) and modern Ayurveda are two different things. Nizil Shah was correct in moving IMA sentence because it was agreed in the above the sections of this discussion. You should read the messages of Flyingninja and RexxS, which discussed moving IMA outside the first paragraph. As for what you removed as "not in the source", is actually supported by sources and can be also read at Ayurveda#Classification and efficacy. Lead does not require many or in fact any sources per MOS:LEAD. H P Nadig 04:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nizil Shah is the one who made the unilateral edit. And you also undid Littleolive oil's edit by going way back to before it. RexxS's statement that I could live with seeing it mentioned further down in the lead, but I do feel it is important to establish the context in which Ayurveda exists is hardly a ringing endorsement of actually moving it. Crossroads 04:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I moved it at the end of lead because the sentence was not about Ayurveda "is quackery" but about Ayurveda pratitioners practicing modern medicine "are quckery". The sentence created an impression that IMA considers Ayurveda as "quackery". There is a difference between "Carpenters doing plumbing is quackery" and "Carpentry is quackery". It should be clear and is not very relevant thing to put in the lead. That is why I moved it to last.-Nizil (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

This is getting very tiresome. We don't do it often, but is it time to semi-protect this talk page until whichever source is sending this endless stream of SPAs gets bored with it? Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Lev!vich 12:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

+1. I'm involved in the discussion, but this is tiresome. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Ayurveda. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon and GirthSummit, would it be a good idea to create an unprotected subpage in case of any legitimate enquiries from non-autoconfirmed users? Sam-2727 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixing ping to Girth Summit. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Too soon. they can wait a couple of days. The main problem is that the unprotected page would get the same dozens and dozens of posts generated by the ongoing campaign against Misplaced Pages on twitter. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, got it, makes sense. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm really concerned about having no means for non-confirmed editors and IPs to be able to comment. I would endorse creating an unprotected subpage, especially when we have to reimpose semi-prot. That would allow a confirmed editor to copy genuine comments to this page, and we could regularly take out the rubbish remaining. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably a good idea as long as a volunteer moderator can do the work, —PaleoNeonate – 02:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What would I, as a regular editor, be allowed to do when the unprotected page fills up with near-identical posts from SPIs? Set the archiving to a small number? Hat? Delete? Ignore? Given the history at Twitter I suspect that "ignore" will result in hundreds of "see how many people are complaining" tweets linking to the unprotected page, and anything else will result in hundreds of "see how they suppress the truth" tweets linking to the unprotected page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I've protected it again because this is just silly. I'm going to create a sub-page as RexxS has mentioned, and I'll put direction to it here and in the edit notice. I'll monitor it and if anyone else would like to, feel free. Give me 5 ... Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

All done. If anyone would like to watchlist Talk:Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments, please feel free! @Guy Macon: I've set the archiving to be really small. I would however just delete (or manually archive) anything that is not useful. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite and Guy Macon: I've put it on my watchlist. I recommend manually archiving disruptive posts as they will be evidence for the inevitable ArbCom case, but just deleting them is okay as they are still in page history. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I am watching it as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Unani medicine

The Unani medicine article has been getting some attention on twitter recently in comparison to the wording in this article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific"

The first paragraph states unambiguously that "The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". This seems to paint with too broad a brush. Are we supposed to infer that historians writing about traditional medicine systems and scientists measuring toxic metals in Ayurveda medicine are engaging in pseudoscience? ~Awilley (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to hijack, but the second half of that sentence also seems to be a problem. It reads, while the practice can be classified as protoscience or unscientific. But checking the source, while it does not seem to mention Ayurveda on page 3, on page 213 it straightforwardly refers to the practice of Ayurveda as pseudoscience: ordinary members told me how they practice some of these pseudosciences,...most often Ayurveda. There's nothing here about how the practice of it is merely "protoscience", nor in distinguishing the practice from the "study" of it (which may be at the root of the problem Awilley identified). This is why I preferred a lead sentence reading, Ayurveda () is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. If the term is put in a follow-up sentence, it should be straightforwardly called a pseudoscience there. Crossroads 19:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Well it's not accurate. I believe we can say Ayurveda is or can be described as a pseudoscience because we have sources that say so and we have a Misplaced Pages position that dictates that we can and should say so if "pseudoscience" is in the mainstream sources. I like simplicity. I don't think it matters what any one of us thinks about Ayurveda which only muddies the position. (I've done some reading on Ayurveda recently and had a small bit of knowledge before. This is an incredibly complex system which covers not only herbal combinations, complex philosophical thought, but also behavior and general wellness considerations which are touted by most modern medical practices as well- bedtimes, exercise, moderation in drink and food and so on. So we have to be careful to use the simple guidelines while not becoming simplistic, a different matter altogether. Many Ayurvedic physicians are highly trained and sometimes that training has come down through generations. Quacks are in my mind those without training who deliberately try to hoodwink people. So quacks are not limited to Ayurveda or any other kind of health care, nor are practicing physicians with extensive training in their fields.) But that doesn't matter. We have a RS/document which describes Ayurvedic physicians as quacks. I, nor does anyone else have to think that is true for all Ayurvedic physicians but perhaps we do, dependent on consensus have to use the document. (And we are using it.) We don't have MEDRS sources that indicate Ayurveda is effective. Ayurveda research is at best Fringe and some of the research but not all, dependent on how it is carried out is probably pseudoscience. In terms of structure, if I write an article on Tsukuhara, do my readers know what that is? Probably not. So I start off by describing what the article is about, what Tsukuhara is. Then I can describes aspects of this. I can say, Tsukuhara is a gymnastic vault named after a Japanese gymnast which includes rotations on ...... Then I can say the vault is described as dangerous, can cause certain kinds of injuries and so on. I can say also Ayurveda is.... , and then can say it has been described as pseudoscience. I am going on and on but seems to me our personal positions are becoming entangled here with a few basic Misplaced Pages standards. Tell the reader what it is. Describe it and (perhaps not true in every article) how it has been received in the mainstream per our Misplaced Pages standards. We note in this kind of article the research or lack of it since Ayurveda is a purported health care modality and we have strict standards for health care articles. Misplaced Pages provides an implied template for how to write articles like this. Oh yeah, I've gone on and on! Littleolive oil (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, pseudoscience is that which adopts the trappings of science but without the fundamental assumption of the null hypothesis. The study of ayurveda is indeed classically pseudoscientific. It seeks to prove "truth", not to test it. It embodies the fallacy of begging the question. It's basically homeopathy, but with the concrete refutation lagging maybe five years behind. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG I think you may have missed my point because you didn't really respond to it. I have asserted above that A is not always B, giving two counterexamples. You seem to be rebutting that by saying that C is B. But that doesn't prove that A is B unless you can demonstrate that A is C (i.e. that the study of Ayurveda is Ayurveda). Let me try another counterexample: You have obviously done some amount of research into homeopathy, Ayurveda, and alternative medicines. Does your study of Ayurveda mean that you've engaged in pseudoscience? If not, then there is a problem with the unqualified assertion that "the study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". ~Awilley (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine many (any?) readers are jumping to the interpretation that "the study of Ayurveda" (or for that matter "the study of medicine") means "the meta-perspective of _____" in this context. I do think the lead ought to be reworded to avoid the clunky passive voice second sentence -- "Ayurveda is a pseudoscientific system of medicine..." would be better as the first sentence, and then we could drop the current second line altogether. Ayurveda is pseudoscientific because of the fundamental principles it assumes and the framework it is built upon, which does not permit rigorous hypothesis testing. It is marketed as an individualized approach to health where the "whole person" is considered during ddx/tx, and therefore cannot be replicated (you can't reproduce a person's complete physical and spiritual makeup), or at least that's my understanding of how they explain away any negative RCT results. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I very much support merging the sentences in that way, per my comment above. And also bringing back to the first paragraph the statement about the IMA, per #Why moved to end of lead? Revert?. Crossroads 04:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, You could make the same case for the study of homeopathy not being pseudoscience, because philosophers of pseudoscience also study it as an example. I think the meaning is clear: the supposedly scientific study of the use and effects of ayurveda, is pseudoscience. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: "You could make the same case for the study of homeopathy not being pseudoscience" This presumes that I have made a case here that Ayurveda is not pseudoscience. I have not. I should probably just ignore it, but straw man arguments annoy me. ~Awilley (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't see a problem with being more general like "is considered pseudoscience", "considered to rely on pseudoscientific tenets", "the practice of ... is considered pseudoscience" or similar variants, the supporting sources could be selected as necessary... —PaleoNeonate – 23:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO, we do not have enough sources to actually describe Ayurveda as 'pseudoscience' given the large coverage it has received by all major medical institutes. Why is there a need to rely on a source which has only made a simple passing mention of Ayurveda? H P Nadig 04:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively and with finality at the RfC. There is no need to discuss this again; editor time is too valuable. Crossroads 05:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, the RfC closed has no consensus on this. Please refer User:Sandstein's clarification on this. I've been an editor here and on multiple language Wikis for more than 15 years and my time is valuable too, as an editor. What I'm seeing is blind reverts and hasty actions that seem to disrespect an old time editor and drag this endlessly. My question at this point is, where's the consensus to add "pseudoscience" in the lead? I haven't seen that "consensus" anywhere. This article is presently utterly misleading the readers to believe that Ayurveda is pseudoscience by digging up sources that cannot be used for 'defining' Ayurveda. H P Nadig 10:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein’s clarification clearly states that the RfC was looking at the question of whether “pseudoscience” should be in the opening sentence. Consensus for including it in the lead is clear; see the archives for this page.Brunton (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as the question actually asked in this thread is concerned, I think I agree with Awilley on this. Studying Ayurveda is not necessarily pseudoscience (although the practice and the theories behind it clearly are). Whether particular ways of studying it are pseudoscientific depends on what the purpose of study is, how particular studies are conducted, and how they arrive at their conclusions. Brunton (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Present Status of Ayurveda in India to be included in opening Paragraph

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at A. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

I would like to propose the following changes to the initial paragraphs on this matter of pseudoscience and ayurveda :

• changing the wording - "The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". A study is an educational activity. There is a logical error saying that a "study" is pseudoscientific.

References

1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/study

• Since article begins with the story of Ayurveda having its roots in India, the present status of Ayurveda as a medical system in India is as relevant as its roots in India. That aspect is not covered in the introduction of this article. Without it, this article is incomplete. Ayurveda is a mainstream medical system in India. There are hundreds of ayurvedic medical colleges in India ; as well as medical councils in each state for Ayurveda(e.g.). Research institutes under a central research council , Ayurveda Universities, Postgraduate institutes , Doctoral programs, several institutes of national importance - e.g. and vibrant scientific communities exist for Ayurveda. India has ensured the availablity of ayurvedic to all its citizens (which is almost a fifth of world population ) by establishing central Ayush ministry as well as separate departments in each state thereby making ayurveda a mainstream medical system. There is also a group of western medical practitioners who call it pseudoscience. Another group having no idea about fundamental principles of Ayurveda also oppose it. This fact about the two opposing arguments (against and for ayurvedic science in Indian contet) is ignored in the present version of this article. Readers are shown only one side (i.e., ayurveda is pseudoscience), without them undertanding that it is also a mainstream medical system in India while reading the present version. This needs to be corrected.

References

1. https://www.ccimindia.org/colleges-ayurveda.php
2. https://www.mcimindia.org.in/
3. http://www.ccras.nic.in/
4. http://ayushportal.nic.in/
5. http://www.ayurveduniversity.edu.in/
6. http://ccras.nic.in/content/guidance-ayush-phd-fellowship-programme
7. http://ddnews.gov.in/national/institutions-gujarat-ayurved-university-get-status-institution-national-importance-0
8. https://aiia.gov.in/
9. http://www.nia.nic.in/
10. http://www.ravdelhi.nic.in/
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/Demographics_of_India
12. https://www.ayush.gov.in/
13. http://hmfw.ap.gov.in/ayush-org.aspx
14. http://health.arunachal.gov.in/?page_id=1057
15. http://ayush.assam.gov.in/
16. http://ayush.bihar.gov.in/web/(S(edtusnnbfmprefel0r20opi3))/Ayush/main.htm
17. http://cghealth.nic.in/ehealth/dishm/index.html
18. https://ayush.gujarat.gov.in/
19. http://www.ayushharyana.gov.in/en
20. http://ayurveda.hp.gov.in/
21. http://kgis.ksrsac.in/ayush/contactus.aspx
22. https://kerala.gov.in/ayush-department
23. http://www.ayush.mp.gov.in/
24. https://mahayush.gov.in/
25. http://ayushmanipur.gov.in/
26. http://meghealth.gov.in/dhs_mi/ayush.html
27. https://health.mizoram.gov.in/page/ayush
28. https://nagahealth.nagaland.gov.in/ayurveda-yoga-unani-siddha-homeopathy-ayush/
29. http://www.ayushodisha.nic.in/
30. http://pbhealth.gov.in/Ayurvedic.htm
31. https://health.rajasthan.gov.in/content/raj/medical/directorate-of-ayurved/hi/home.html/
32. https://www.tnhealth.org/imh/im.htm
33. http://ayush.telangana.gov.in/
34. http://tripuranrhm.gov.in/AYUSH.htm
35. https://ayushup.in/
36. https://www.wbhealth.gov.in/ayush/
37. https://www.ayush.gov.in/

• The second paragraph starts with Gods and sages, this article lead people to wrongly believe that Ayurveda is still stagnant from that time onwards. The fact that it has been evolving as a science is often overlooked. The references for its academic and scientific background in India has been given above. This aspect needs to included so as to convey a true picture about status of Ayurveda to readers.

• Ayurveda is a mainstream medical system in only a few countries such as India, Nepal, Sri Lanka etc. But, it is more than one fifth of the entire population of our world. Also, there are western medical practitioners who call it pseudoscience. It is proposed that these two facts be presented in a true and neutral manner.

--Arunjithp (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

So Let's see... Dosha is not protoscience, metaphysical and pseudoscientific? Other than WP:PSCI about presenting pseudoscience as such, Misplaced Pages also has WP:MEDRS for sources that can be used on the efficacy of biomedical claims and WP:YESPOV, where things as obvious that tenets are pseudoscientific should not be presented as someone's (or some group's) opinion... —PaleoNeonate – 05:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As has been said many times on here, governments have a poor track record for judging what is science and what is pseudoscience. Crossroads 16:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Arunjithp, I've spent enough time in India and working with Indian friends and colleagues to know that deference to cherished belief is a core value of the culture. Acceptance is what makes India so welcoming. But it also makes India tolerant of gurus and other charlatans. The government is going to have a hard time coming out and saying that ayurveda or homeopathy are the nonsense they clearly are, but the science is clear. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is also clear on the matter of citing references. Arunjithp (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Matter of IMA opinion

This reference (and its cited quote) on Indian Medical Association website is misinterpreted in the present version of Ayurveda article on Misplaced Pages. I have fragmented the sentences that follow the above citation for clarification:

This statement - "Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :" - no clarification

This statement - "Quacks with no qualification whatsoever" - no clarification

This statement - "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practising Modern Medicine." includes two categories of "Qualified" Ayurvedic Practitioners: Firstly, those NOT qualified to practice modern medicine-Allopathy (as they are qualified in Ayurveda), but still practising modern medicine. IMA opinion about this category is correctly reflected in the present version of Ayurveda article on Misplaced Pages. However, there is a second and most important category of Ayurvedic Practitioners - Those qualified in Ayurveda and practising Ayurveda. IMA has NOT opinioned that they are quacks. The present version of Misplaced Pages article wrongly assumes IMA opinion about the second category. This needs correction.

The statement - "Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act." by IMA refers only to the "unqualified" people (Quacks). They are different from Qualified Ayurveda Practitioners. The present version of Misplaced Pages article wrongly assumes that IMA has the same opinion about Quacks and Qualified Ayurvedic Practitioners. This needs correction. IMA has correctly listed the medical acts also in their website. They have clearly stated the medical act for Ayurvedic practitioners as Central council of Indian medicine act 1970, and a minimum qualification of B.A.M.S

If IMA is quoted, it needs to be done correctly - and the above factors need to be considered. IMA has NOT taken the stand of Medical practice by Qualified ayurvedic professionals as quackery in the cited reference.

--Arunjithp (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The flaw in the above analysis is the mistaken belief that there is more than one kind of medicine. In fact, medicine is treatment that has been shown to work. Anything else has either not been shown to work, or has been shown not to work. In either case, it's not medicine. Ayurveda falls into the second group along with homeopathy, faith-healing, etc. IMA has correctly identified the dangers of unqualified people attempting to practise medicine. --RexxS (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• The article in question is about Ayurveda. There are qualified ayurvedic practitioners practising Ayurveda in India. IMA has NOT called such qualified Ayurvedic practitioners practising Ayurveda as Quacks. But this information is misrepresented as "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery" in the present version of the article. This needs correction. --Arunjithp (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement ”The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery” is adequately supported by the source cited (although it could be further paraphrased by omitting the word “modern”). Brunton (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

But what about a common person reading this article ? he will not stop and think about the fine print (about modern medicine). This statement will give an immediate impression that "IMA Characterises .... .... practice by ayurvedic practitioners as quackery" - This needs to be corrected. Arunjithp (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The point is that it’s a perfectly good summary of the source. Are you withdrawing your claim that it’s a misrepresentation? Brunton (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am withdrawing my claim that it's a misrepresentation. The only concern remaining is how readers will perceive the practice of "Qualified" Ayurveda practitioners when they read this article. They are NOT doing Quackery. IMA also does not say that they are doing Quackery. The concern is how to clarify this fact in a simple way.Arunjithp (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

They certainly are doing quackery. This term means "fraudulent or ignorant medical practices". Anyone practicing Auyrveda is either lying or ignorant. Retimuko (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References are vital Arunjithp (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The flaw in Johannes Quack source needs to be fixed

In a reference cited in current version first paragraph, about a statement in Johannes Quack's Book ,

• A - > It seems author found that an organization labels Ayurveda as pseudoscience / protoscience / unscientific (? which one ?)
• B -> Author mentions this in his book

But,[REDACTED] article is relying only what author said in his book, Instead of getting a verifiable reference directly from that organization. Is it author's personal opinion ? was the author prejudiced ? Did author do any study to verify this ? all these question remain unanswered. Need to fix these.--Arunjithp (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That's published via a reputable university press and a secondary source from an ethnologist, that is usable on Misplaced Pages. In any case, as has been demonstrated, many other sources agree with that assessment. —PaleoNeonate – 07:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Arunjithp: you're not qualified to analyse sources, nor is any other Misplaced Pages editor, whose job is to assess the quality of the source. What is published in good quality reliable sources should be summarised dispassionately without bringing in your own editorial biases. A book published by a reputable publisher carries the extra weight gained by the publishing process under editorial oversight. So not only are we taking into account the expertise of the author, but also that of the Oxford University Press who have a reputation to maintain. --RexxS (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• If

secondary source is " Johannes Quack mentioned that X officially labels Ayurveda a pseudoscience this in his book"

• Then

event is: "X officially labels Ayurveda a pseudoscience"

• But the current version of the article has misrepresented the event as "The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific." - This anomaly needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 14:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The flaw in David Semple & Roger Smyth source needs to be fixed

In a reference cited in current version first paragraph, there is a passing statement by the author(s) that "These pseudoscientific theories..... new age psychotherapies confuse metaphysical with emperical claims (e.g. Ayurvedic medicine)" .

• How does this support ayurveda as pseudoscience / protoscience / unscientfic ? - need to fix

How did author reach this conclusion ? Unless that aspect is clarified, it is only the personal opinion of the author. - need to fix. --Arunjithp (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association. The purpose of this compendium of court orders and various rules and regulations is to acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine.
2. "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association. Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
3. "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.
4. "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practising Modern Medicine.
5. "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.
6. "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association. Practitioners of so called ....*which do not exist in any Act*
7. Quack, Johannes (2011). Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. Oxford University Press. pp. 213, 3. ISBN 9780199812608.
8. Semple D, Smyth R (2019). Chapter 1: Thinking about psychiatry (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 24. doi:10.1093/med/9780198795551.003.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-879555-1. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (subscription required)

Nonsense. The personal opinion here is your dislike of something that is written by respectable authors and published by a reputable publisher. Stop wasting editor's time with your continual inappropriate quibbling. --RexxS (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Arunjithp said, ’In a reference cited in current version first paragraph, there is a passing statement by the author(s) that " new age psychotherapies confuse metaphysical with emperical claims (e.g. Ayurvedic medicine)"’ Nope: what it actually says regarding Ayurveda is, “These pseudoscientific theories may ... confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. ... Ayurvedic medicine)”. That puts Ayurveda firmly within pseudoscientific theories. Brunton (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Brunton: You are right. I have made the corrections above. Arunjithp (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Then we’re done here. Brunton (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Needs clarification - is the David Semple & Roger Smyth source a Primary Source or a Secondary source for this article? Arunjithp (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Neither "for this article", since they don't consider "this article". Their view qua view is primary, but their view is secondary commentary on Ayurveda - exactly the kind of sourcing Misplaced Pages most values. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree we're done here; the OP just seems to be trying to find any way to get rid of something they don't agree with. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Brunton: If their view is considered secondary (commentary on ayurveda), WP:SECONDARY states that a secondary source "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". Here, the primary source on which authors arrived at conclusion is missing - this needs to be fixed. Arunjithp (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Authors are not required to "show their working" to your personal satisfaction. We simply reflect their knowledge. If you want the authors to revise their book, I suggest you write to them and/or the publishers. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Good. So we agree that the authors merely reflected their knowledge without disclosing how they arrived at it - in the matter of this reference. Arunjithp (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Source of M.R. Raghava Varier - A Brief History of Ayurveda - to be added

A relevant source - "Following a general trend, Ayurveda is often oficially described and commonly known even among its practitioners as 'alternative medicine', whereas the available sources clearly show that it was the mainstream healthcare programme in the subcontinent for roughtly more than two-and-a-half millenia in the past" needs to be added Arunjithp (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Where, and why, do you think this needs to be added? The lead already says it’s alternative medicine and has been used for over two millennia, and the same info is in the body of the article. Brunton (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Where - In the first paragraph

Why - This is a reputed reference (by the same publisher as that of Johannes Quack) that portrays the true status of Ayurveda in India - "As a mainstream medical system" - I am talking about Qualified Ayurvedic practitioners practising Ayurveda. This aspect is missing in the current version of first paragraph. Arunjithp (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No. He says it was a mainstream medical system. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Good. So we agree on that. Arunjithp (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We report things as they are, and the info is already in the lead. A source that says that it’s regarded as alternative medicine, and has been used for thousands of years, doesn’t add anything. Brunton (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Lets agree on reporting things as they are - Ayurveda is (and was) a mainstream medical system in India. Since the reference for this fact is available. The missing element in the current version is the concept of Mainstream medical system Arunjithp (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It says “was”. And research from the Indian government suggests that it no longer is, with the whole of ‘AYUSH’ having only 5 to 7% usage. NB: I’m not suggesting using that as a source for this article as it would probably involve WP:SYN, but it’s certainly something to keep in mind when assessing other sources. Brunton (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it says "was" - But let's not forget the publication "was also" in 2020.

Regarding the survey report- The following points are to be noted:

1. Look at the heading - it is a survey on social consumption, NOT about mainstream medicine.

2. Look at the sample size used for the study in a country with a population of 1.3 billion.

36480 households in 4577 villages - 7 households in a village.

29452 households in 3720 urban blocks - less than 8 households in an urban area.

How can the result of survey be relevant, when the sample size taken was only less than 70,000 when the total population is 1.3 Billion?

This is another research on usage of ayurvedic products in India, which gives the figure as 77 percent. This study is more relevant as it is based on market sales data and done jointly by Confederation of Indian Industry and PricewaterhouseCoopers Arunjithp (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's controversial to report that it's popular in India. Afterall it's one reason why significant syncretism exists there (some related sources here). —PaleoNeonate – 05:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Popular is good. Arunjithp (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Who all are legitimate medics & what constitutes a legitimate medical practice in India?

legitimate medics

Health comes under State List as per Constitution of India. Each state has its own medical council due to this.

It is a state medical council that grants permission to a Qualified medic to practice medicine in that state .

• Medics qualified in M.B.B.S are given the permission to practice modern medicine, and
• Medics qualified in B.A.M.S are given permission to practice ayurvedic medicine

by the same state medical council as per the Indian medicine central council (IMCC) act 1970 .

Indian Medical Association is only a group of doctors who have passed M.B.B.S. and comprise only a part of legitimate medics in India. There are similar association of legitimate medics in Ayurveda also

The first paragraph in the current version of Ayurveda article places overwhelming importance on the opinion of IMA (M.B.B.S doctors), who have nothing to do with this article on Ayurveda - NEED TO FIX.

legitimate medical practice

Medical practice as per the permissions granted by the state medical council (explained above with references) is legitimate in India.

quackery constitutes all forms of medical practice that is not legitimate (explained above). For e.g., Unqualified persons practising modern or Ayurveda, MBBS doctors practising Ayurveda, Ayurvedic doctors practising modern (only in those cases where the respective state council has not allowed such practice. There are certain state councils that allow modern practice by ayurvedic doctors also )

The first paragraph in the current version of Ayurveda article mentions only one type of quackery, relying upon only on the opinion of MBBS Doctors (IMA) and ignoring all the other types of quackery. NEED TO FIX. Arunjithp (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

India isn't the world. Nobody outside of India takes seriously the unproven and dangerous methods of Ayurveda, which is not medicine. People who successfully train to be doctors are correctly regarded as medics by the mainstream throughout the world. Those who train to be Ayurvedic practitioners are not recognised as qualified to perform medicine, and the 1,000,000 unqualified people who practise medicine in India are properly described by the IMA as quacks. This article properly reflects the mainstream view of Ayurveda and your tendentious attempts to whitewash that view are disruptive. NOTHING NEEDS TO BE FIXED. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And there are many non-Ayurveda hospitals in India too. "Legitimate" may also be misleading without making the distinction between what is legal and what is proper medicine. —PaleoNeonate – 01:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverted inclusion of any COVID-19 material.

Please do not include any "Guidelines" for Ayurvedic medicines for the treatment of COVID-19, they are not relevant to the status of Ayurveda and considering their pseudo-scientific basis should not be given any weight. Inclusion of non-MEDRS material for COVID-19 broadly construed is prohibited. PainProf (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:PainProf Wondering how mentioning about there are guidelines issued for Ayurveda practitioners (not for general public) is in violation of WP:MEDRS ? Was referring to the change you reverted -  ? The documents were published by the Ministry of Ayush for the Ayurvedic practitioners i.e Doctors of Ayurveda. Nothing from the guidelines or the document was interpreted or reproduced in the article. The status of Ayurveda as in the opening statement is purely based on the observation made by a body of Medical practitioners where as there are National and International policy (WHO's) issued for Ayurveda practitioners which as per the WP:MEDORG supercedes the IMA's statement. However, my reference is not about the status but my request is to put back my edit you reverted and it has nothing to do with the status of the Ayurveda or the pseduoscience status the[REDACTED] community decided earlier. RamRaghubn (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Varier, Raghava MR (2020). "Preface". A Brief History of Ayurveda (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 9780190992101.
2. (https://www.mciindia.org/CMS/information-desk/state-medical-councils/list-of-state-medical-councils
3. https://medicaldialogues.in/myths-about-medical-council-registration-busted?infinitescroll=1
4. http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1970-48_0.pdf
5. https://ayurveda-amai.org/
6. https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/sc-dismisses-plea-against-ayurveda-homeopathy-docs/48027842
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ayurveda&type=revision&diff=975843054&oldid=975827415

Those who have a degree in Ayurvedic medicine are not medical doctors or even medical practitioners, pseudoscientific organisations do not count as a medical organisation whereas the Indian Medical Association is. We aren't going to link to it because it has nothing to do with the status, it is isn't due because not every publication they produce is notable, and in this case it is a blatant attempt to insinuate Ayurvedic medicine can be used for COVID-19 which I consider to be an exceptionally dangerous and false claim. PainProf (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:PainProf, I respect your opinion but in Misplaced Pages, it's not about a person's opinion but a consensus based on what's the popular notion about a topic is to be published. I don't think anywhere in the links I have shared prescribe any sort of medical concoction or regime for Ayurveda Doctors to be administered on COVID-19 patients. All it had was about the guidelines for Ayurveda doctors to follow while treating COVID-19 patients. At the same time, AYUSH cannot be treated as a pseudoscience - as it's a Government body (is a Govt of India organization). Anything that's from a Government body will definitely have precedence over the statements issued by a body of Medical practitioners like Indian Medical Association - as per the WP:MEDORG policy. Also, the[REDACTED] list of pseudoscience topics doesn't mention anything about Ayurveda. Please don't be confused with 'Maharishi Ayurveda or Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health', which is a practice founded in the 1980s. If you still wish to call Ayuveda as pseudoscience, please try to get it included in that list as well. Let me know if you have any further objections in putting back my edits to the 'India' section. Specifically it's going to be as below :

"The Ministry of AYUSH has published guidelines and policies for drug development and clinical research. With an objective of having a standard regime for COVID-19 patients who has approached an Ayurveda Doctor, it has also issued another guidelines document to be referred and followed solely by the practitioner." RamRaghubn (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
2. https://www.ayush.gov.in/docs/clinical_evaluation.pdf
3. https://www.ayush.gov.in/docs/ayurved-guidlines.pdf

It's very simple, the ministry is not considered reliable for biomedical claims on Misplaced Pages considering its context and what it advocates. If you would like to keep contesting this, input from more editors could be obtained at WP:RSN. —PaleoNeonate – 23:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Guidelines" you are trying to link are basically an exceptional list of very bad advice for treating patients with COVID-19. It advises prescribing a number of random herbal concoctions instead of referring people to legitimate medical professionals. If someone is having cardiovascular or renal problems associated with COVID-19 they need immediate medical attention not random herbs. Ditto for ARDS. I strongly advise that you do not include this material again. PainProf (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Which reminds me of Pseudoscience § Health and education implications —PaleoNeonate – 00:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that your objection is in referring to the COVID-19 guidelines. Hence, with due respect to the opinion of a fellow[REDACTED] editor, I am assuming a statement mentioning that there had been a guidelines document published for clinical research and drug development was published in India by the Ministry of Ayush. Specifically, the edit to the 'India' section will look like

"In 2018, the Ministry of AYUSH has published guidelines and policies for drug development and clinical research in Ayurveda RamRaghubn (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Key quotes from the Ministry of AYUSH document:

"Ayurveda-the science of life, evolved as a comprehensive system of healthcare systematically through scientific experimentations of high order backed by sound and reproducible evidence base and stood the test of the time."

"A holistic approach may be adopted to validate the therapies and approaches with integration of principles of Ayurveda and biomedicine without losing the vital fundamentals of both systems."

"It is essential to adopt an interdisciplinary approach for validation of Ayurvedic drugs and therapies without losing core fundamentals of Ayurveda. The suggested model is in Figure 1."

(Figure one suggests combining "Diagnosis based on modern methods" with "Ayurvedic Principles Prakrti,Dosha, Dushya etc." followed by "Analysis based on Ayurvedic Principles")

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see Ministry of AYUSH § Criticism and all the sources there. For your suggestion to be included it should ideally be mentioned and covered by an independent source that the article text would reflect, rather than simply providing an uncritical controversial link or self-description (i.e. WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:MISSION may give an idea of the concept)... —PaleoNeonate – 02:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@RamRaghubn: you ask "If you still wish to call Ayuveda as pseudoscience, please try to get it included in that list as well." However, it is already included in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience twice: first of all as "Alternative medicine" (see Alternative medicine #Traditional ethnic systems), and as Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, which – despite your claim to the contrary – is clearly described as "representing the entirety of the ayurvedic tradition". --RexxS (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for Urgency

I understand that the Misplaced Pages editors are working on this and beyond but it baffles me to see the contradiction between what is going on the talk page and the actual page. If I have not missed anything, the latest revision by @Painprof is against the latest consensus. See, the quackery 2 section. It would have made sense if IMA had categorized the entire study of Ayurveda as quackery but it is due to a specific condition, it doesn't make sense to put it in the 1st para and gives an unnecessary hate to the article. While, I recognize that Ayurveda is quackery, it is also the belief of hundreds of millions of people. By putting such negative bias and vibe in the 1st lines of the article, the article feels harsh to those people. A lot of things in the world are quackery but saying so will hurt people's sentiments. I do not understand why the article has turned so obviously biased when it was once neutral. I have seen articles on many negative personalities and system but I don't see such blatant negativity in the opening. I totally the understand that Ayurveda is bs but it is the bs of the ancestors of many Indian people and they, as humans, love their ancestral bs. Please revert the article to pre-negativity levels and put current criticism in its own section.

A Rfc on this would be appreciated.

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingNinja1: Yes, I believe, you have missed a lot. In particular, that mentioning "hate", "negativity", "hurting somebody's sentiments" is not the right course of discussion here. Please focus on accurate description according to reliable sources, in this case medical and scientific sources. Pseudoscience and quackery are appropriate terms to describe the subject according to the sources. There is nothing hateful about them. And, yes, Misplaced Pages is biased towards reason and reality, and in this case, science-based medicine. Please see WP:YESBIAS. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are biased against me, acting like I do not think reason and logic are important. I get that bias but this kind of extreme bias was not found by me in any article related to these fringe theories. Yes, it is a pseudoscience then include it in the 1st line, going out of your way to point that out is suspicious. Relating, to the other line, you have not answered the discrepancy between consensus and edits and never told me what I missed? While I was trying to explain the unreasonable hate and spam the Indian people are giving this article, you did not explain why the line about medicinal usage by Ayurvedic practitioners is quackery is put in the lead. Who is governed by emotion here? FlyingNinja1 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingNinja1: I am not against you. Please keep the focus on the article, not on editors. I don't find that the lead is against consensus. According to WP:PSCI we must clearly and prominently describe pseudoscience as such. And quackery (promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices) is the right technical term to describe the subject according to sources. Retimuko (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It is the belief of hundreds of millions needs a source, it is my understanding that most Indian people know that this isn't real medicine. The practice of medicine by Ayurvedic medicine practitioners represents a serious risk to India's public health, so it is due in the lead and those discussions appear to fit that consensus. Its not due to a "specific condition" its because Ayurvedic "doctors" are 1) Diagnosing conditions when they do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to recognise them 2) prescribing medicines and surgeries from Western medicine without the appropriate training. 3) prescribing Ayurvedic treatments when real medicine is essential causing death or disability unnecessarily. PainProf (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

FlyingNinja1, we're not biased against you, you just believe something that is objectively wrong. Since this is true of virtually every religious or quasi-religious belief, it's not a judgment on you personally, in any way. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingNinja1: please shift your gaze to the Astrology article. Its lead opens and closes with:

Astrology is a pseudoscience that claims divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events ... While polls have demonstrated that approximately one quarter of American, British, and Canadian people say they continue to believe that star- and planet-positions affect their lives, astrology is now recognized as a pseudoscience — a belief which its advocates incorrectly present as scientific.

Perhaps you should also be taking up the cause of the 100+ million people of America, Britain and Canada, who are upset by that characterisation of their deeply-held beliefs?

If you think the analogy is too far removed, then how about turning your attention to the injustice done to Homeopathy which starts and finishes its lead thus:

Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine. ... The National Health Service in England ceased funding homeopathic remedies in November 2017 and asked the Department of Health in the UK to add homeopathic remedies to the blacklist of forbidden prescription items, and France will remove funding by 2021. In November 2018, Spain also announced moves to ban homeopathy and other pseudotherapies.

Ayurveda's treatment is a whitewash job in comparison. --RexxS (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Look at Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health for another whitewash. Feels like a walled-garden around this general topic. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Remember, the result of the RfC was to put pseudoscience in the first paragraph, that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence, but that it could be placed in the first sentence or anywhere else in the first paragraph. Please suggest wording that contains less whitewash.

On Twitter, OpIndia is coordinating the attacks on this page, and part of their advice for those doing the attacking is to fight to keep pseudoscience out of the first sentence because Google presents the first sentence in search results. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No it was not. The result of the RFC was The outcome of this RfC is that Ayurveda should continue to be described as a pseudoscience in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence. It specifically says not in the lead sentence. Also accusations of white washing are never helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Which unfortunately casts an undesirable light on those wanting the lead first sentence to be worded with out pseudoscience for more Misplaced Pages compliant reasons. I'm not sure we should consider the position of OpIndia and Google although I do understand they are creating a SPA mess for admins trying to maintain some kind of order here. There are things which cloud the issues we have to deal with here. Twitter is one of them. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, calling out whitewashing is often constructive when it addresses the issues of false balance. We cannot leave readers with the impression that Ayurvedic practice is equivalent to evidence-based medicine, because it simply is not. Much of what Ayurveda practises is harmless, some of it is helpful, such as attention to hygiene and holistic techniques, and the placebo mechanism ensures that it does some good. Nevertheless it's not rooted in science, and makes major mistakes such as prescribing ingestion of materials containing heavy metals.

Our readers deserve to get the full picture, without being filtered through the lens of Ayurvedic adherents who naturally wish to see their beliefs reinforced, not challenged. While external agents are campaigning for nationalistic reasons to whitewash our content, I'll continue to call that out, and I'll do my best to ensure that Misplaced Pages's consensus system is not distorted by SPAs brought in to achieve that. Let's be clear: many recent posts to this page have been made by people whose principal motivation is not to improve our encyclopedia, but to impose a particular view on this article. They are not welcome here, and their efforts should be condemned by the reasonable voices on both sides of the debate. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That is starting to sound like a WP:RGW type speech. If you think that every sentence of the first paragraph is required to give the reader the correct impression you are either operating outside of NPOV or think very little of the reader. Luckily consensus found that the lead adequately calls out the pseudoscience aspects so past that is obviously outside a wide community consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not difficult to take a facile view like yours, but it's never helpful. Your distorted perspective fails to recognise that editors like me are working with consensus to maintain Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If you had bothered to look instead of scoffing, you'd have seen the clear consensus for establishing the mainstream view on Ayurveda in the lead, and particularly in the opening paragraph. Reasonable folks are happy to acknowledge Ayurveda's antiquity, its roots in traditional Indian medicine, and its importance to large numbers of people in India, but unlike you, they also think it important that our readers are not misled by self-published hagiography. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

So far every sentence in the lead paragraph makes the pseudoscience nature of the subject clear so I am not sure what you are on about. No one is trying to remove that. If you bothered to read the RFC close or my statements it is expressly about the first sentence not requiring the word pseudoscience specifically. If you want to continue to push that view you will, obviously, be against community consensus and a harm to the project as a whole. I would suggest not trying to do that, but it's your hill I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope that nothing I have ever said here indicates I support whitewashing this article. My comment above was specifically concerning Twitter and whether a relationship with Twitter could confuse the already complex issues here. Nor was my comment directed at anyone. My preference to have pseudoscience in the second sentence instead of the first is a technical preference; if in the second the first sentence or line tells the reader what the article is about, provides context for the next sentence which discusses the concerns medicine has with Ayurveda. I don't write or make decisions thinking about Google-it doesn't enter my mind-and how an article will appear on Google. Nor am I saying anyone else does that. I am in no way supporting the numerous SPAs that have shown up here and I know they create a lot of work; I'm not one of them. I have clearly supported having pejorative content about Ayurveda in the first paragraph or even second sentence per my understanding of community agreement and consensus on pseudoscientific topics. That my posts don't explicitly indicate that is both shocking and discouraging. And I would tend to agree that Ayurveda may be helpful in some cases, not in others, and dangerous (especially in the wrong hands) in many. Human beings have been using herbal medicines since the beginning of time which does not make them safe or effective or as effective as something like an antibiotic. And alternative health care treatments too, can have very serious contraindications, some known, some not. Our Misplaced Pages articles, are in my mind written for the lay reader not medical experts which is why it's important to include very early on a strong and neutral position on where this content is placed in reference to the mainstream medicine position. We don't have to give MDs or medical hospitals that information, I hope, but then we aren't writing for serious academics in this field which doesn't make the articles less important, but perhaps more important with extra care needed in the writing, since we could be directing those who are not professionals in this area. I'm sorry my position has been misunderstood. Perhaps, I have to be clearer in how I state those positions. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Add: Regarding Twitter. I found for myself, that a long time ago, following Misplaced Pages issues off-Misplaced Pages was not only exhausting but clouded my thought on the article content. Thus my comment in reference to Twitter; I wondered whether knowledge of what was going on on Twitter was helpful or clouding what we know is needed for the article, have already decided with discussion and RfC, and exhausting as a result. Once again, what I meant and what I thought I was saying wasn't clear. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to revert edit

This edit should be reverted as WP:PROFRINGE, failing WP:PSCI, and failing WP:V. I proposed these changes scattered around the talk page, got no objections after a while, and implemented them. I don't see a discussion that decided on the old text, and in any case it has too many problems and needs to be discussed now. Gathering the issues with the old text all in one place:

• Saying the "study of" Ayurveda is pseudoscientific is misleading per the reasoning set out here, and does not fit the sources well, as will be described below.

• Calling the practice merely "protoscience" is grossly POV. That term is not in that source at all, and it only appears in this article as something stated by an Ayurvedic practitioner. "In-universe" descriptions do not get equal validity, or go in the lead. "Unscientific" also is watered down, does not appear in the source, and only appears in the body as stated by an Ayurvedic practitioner.

• The RfC closure at the top of the page states, The outcome of this RfC is that Ayurveda should continue to be described as a pseudoscience in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence. Saying that only the "study of" it is pseudoscientific, but the "practice" is just protoscience or unscientific, is in violation of the RfC.

• Describing the "theory and practice" as pseudoscience is according to the sources. Emphasis added: These pseudoscientific theories may...confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g....Ayurvedic medicine) ordinary members told me how they practice some of these pseudosciences, either privately or as certified doctors themselves, most often Ayurveda. , p. 213.

• The statement about what the Indian Medical Association says is highly relevant and should remain in the lead paragraph. It shows that the relevant experts says that modern medicine and Ayurveda are to be separate, and cannot be "integrated" like some people claim. And we most certainly do not give WP:FALSEBALANCE to Ayurvedic practitioners as equal to medical doctors who work under the framework of scientific knowledge as accepted by WP:MEDRS sources. Thus, the viewpoint of medical doctors deserves high prominence. How the Indian or any other government views the two is of no relevance whatsoever. Governments are often poor judges of science for political reasons, as seen with homeopathy, climate change, COVID-19, etc.

If anyone is going to argue that my points above are wrong and that the wording I implemented should not be restored, then it needs to be explained why on the basis of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Crossroads 05:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree, looks like barely-literate POV-pushing as is. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Also agree. "Protoscience" should be reserved for alchemy, ancient Babylonian astrology, etc.: systems or practices that were not scientific, but which had some aspects in common with science (like numerical record-keeping) and which eventually developed into actual science. XOR'easter (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors who've put in your comments above, the intent was to restore edits done by User:Nizil_Shah which was to keep this 'quackery' assertion away from the lead. You were incorrect in calling Ayurveda itself as quackery earlier citing what actually tries to indicate that practice of modern medicine by Ayurveda practitioners is quackery.

Now, while you've put a proposal here to call it ProFringe, I see that User:Guy Macon has already reverted that back. Pray why are you so keen and intent on highlighting the 'quackery' line in the lead? What does that serve other than distracting reader's attention away from what actually should describe Ayurveda? --H P Nadig 11:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Practice of modern medicine by practitioners of Ayurveda in itself is unrelated to the definition of Ayurveda. Yet, you want that on the lead. This does not fit in. --H P Nadig 11:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@HPN: you're wrong. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The purpose of the lead is to introduce the topic and present its key aspects in context. When the IMA states

It is estimated that about 10 lakh quacks are practicing allopathic medicine, out of which 4 lakh belong to practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb and Unani). The health of the gullible people including poor, critically ill, women and children are at stake.

it is making clear the scale of an urgent and dangerous problem in India, namely that 1,000,000 unqualified persons are practising medicine, with 400,000 of those being practitioners of Ayurveda, Sidha, Tibb and Unani. Of course such a problem is a key issue for setting the context of Ayurveda, and of course it deserves mention in the lead. You can make an argument about due weight, whether it belongs in the first paragraph or later in the lead, but trying to remove all mention of such a large problem is comically inept. --RexxS (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree, I feel that there is strong consensus for this material. The source and the Indian governments opinions should be viewed in the light of the world health organisation's report on quack medicine in India as it goes to the impact. Whilst the Indian government has strong objections the WHO indicates that 57% of Indian doctors are quacks - this is a substantial public health concern and so major contributors such as Ayurvedic doctors (per the IMA source) should be prominently identified as such. For instance here. Maybe we should include a major section on this in the article. Given a variety of high quality sources are available. (Edit conflict)PainProf (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• I would agree to keep the quackery sentence but at the end of lede. Not as second sentence.-Nizil (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Agree. Calling it protoscience implies it's on its way to becoming proper science, and we won't know that unless it actually does. (And it's unsourced, which is more to the point.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  I remember using protoscience in reference to Dosha on this page before, although I really meant prescience... —PaleoNeonate – 01:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation for "There is no good evidence that indicates Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease."

The sentence " There is no good evidence that indicates Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease. " is part of the introduction, and about the only sentence that is lacking a reference. I added a request to add a citation, but this was reverted so I'll bring it up here. Retimuko claims it has been sufficiently discussed in the body. I would actually argue that the body does not support this exact sentence: " Few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effective" (it says 'few' rather than 'no') and it does not capture the nuance of "The effectiveness of Ayurveda has not been proven in scientific studies, but early research suggests that certain herbs may offer potential therapeutic value... 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." With that lack of nuance, comes an expectation of a higher degree of reference. I think it would be much better to leave out this sentence from the introduction or provide the nuance it deserves (and receives to a limited degree elsewhere) though. effeietsanders 00:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a proper summary. Just because a substance has (or may have) medical benefits doesn't mean that Ayurveda is effective in the slightest. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest changing that paragraph to:

Ayurvedic preparations have also been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, substances known to be harmful to humans. A 2008 study found that "one-fifth of both US-manufactured and Indian-manufactured Ayurvedic medicines purchased via the Internet contain detectable lead, mercury, or arsenic."

The first sentence of the paragraph as currently written ("There is no good evidence that indicates Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease") is superfluous. The article clearly establishes—in the first sentence of the lede—that Ayurveda is pseudoscientific quackery, and this conclusion is explained in more detail in the body of the article. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

There's been a great deal of concern of whitewashing this article, especially in the lede. I'm afraid that's how this comes across. Pseudoscience, effectiveness, and inclusion of harmful substances are three different things. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, effectiveness, and inclusion of harmful substances are three different things Agreed, —PaleoNeonate – 06:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point Hipal/Ronz. // I copy edited the sentence for grammar/usage, clarity, and conciseness (diff). Revised sentence is: "Ayurveda does not effectively treat any disease." - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The introduction summarizes the body, and if there is no reference in it, it is usually because you can find references further down. For example, there is one for the sentence "Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no evidence that any are effective in themselves." --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned before: the body is much more nuanced than just 'not effective'. You can't just selectively take portions from a source and pretend the nuance doesn't exist and then leave out the citation for convenience. It now cites a Cancer UK summary, but note that it does not actually state what the introduction currently states. There is a big difference between "there is no scientific evidence for A" and "A is false". Especially as it has already been noted that not many scientifically well-designed studies have been reported , you can't use the lack of evidence for stating that it definitely doesn't work. The NIH website actually mentions a few weak pointers that there may be effectiveness, but then goes on to say that the study was not rigorous enough. The fact that they mention it, suggests that it is not total nonsense either. If you want to summarize in a single sentence, something along the line "There is currently no solid scientific evidence that Ayurvedic medicine is effective as treatment for diseases." The NCCIH website would support that, as does the Cancer UK website. As would and . (sidenote: nearly every other sentence in the introduction has a citation for it - I don't think it's an unreasonable request). In general the introduction reads very hostile - which is unnecessary, if you read all the other cited examples, which bring across a similar message, but much more respectful. effeietsanders 06:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It'd also be fine, if more verbose, to say "There is no good evidence that ayurvedic medicine is effective for the treatment of any disease". In EBM, this does equate to "false" since in general the effectiveness of an intervention is not falsifiable, and the default assumption is that an intervention is ineffective in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If the consensus was that sufficient research had been done that effectiveness would have been demonstrated, I would go with that argument that it is equal. From what I read (but I am by no means an expert, so please point out if I'm missing something) the literature constantly seems to emphasize that these studies are lacking. Analogous, a vaccine in trial is also not qualified as 'not effective' but rather 'not proven as effective'. Once the trial is completed, and the result is inconclusive, you could argue to use the term 'not effective'. This argument is hard to make for a whole set of treatments this wide, with several reviews stating that more studies are needed (again: unless I'm missing something).

I do have a problem with 'good' versus 'scientific' though: the 'good' is our interpretation of 'scientific', but finds no foundation in the sources. The reason why I added 'solid' was to do justice to the few studies that were published that did find some evidence, but which was then criticized for not being rigorous enough. The criticism seems valid, but that doesn't make the studies unscientific. There are probably more phrasings that could cover the same nuance. effeietsanders 07:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In general, if something's not proven and is from the realm of pseudoscience (i.e. implausible) we just say it doesn't work to use plain language. Otherwise (and POV-pushers of many sorts have argued for this down the years) we'd merely be saying that all sorts of BS merely "haven't been proven" (or, the POV-pushers' favourite, "not yet proven"). Also, we don't qualify "evidence" with "scientific" since that's implicit in a scientific field such as medicine, and the qualification could imply there are "other sorts of evidence" that apply (again, something that's been pushed for a lot, for example when trying to bring testimonial evidence into play). I'd also add that FRIN is really just a fancy-pants way of saying something doesn't work, but that the researchers would like continued funding; this is why "more research is needed" is a generally prohibited phrase in medical articles here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Which reminds me that when the evidence is inconclusive, tests tend to show disparate results where an improperly done review could pick specific trials ignoring the average. This is similar to making claims that the placebo effect can be used effectively to treat disease (this was not about Ayurveda but about another alternative medicine relying on dubious metaphysical philosophical tenets, Acupressure): Placebo effect. —PaleoNeonate – 08:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Thanks for the constructive approach, I really appreciate it. Just a few nuances: A pseudoscience actually does not imply that it is implausible. It only implies that its methods are not comparible with scientific methods. It suggests that if it is true, it is probably not because of the methods that are claimed to have been used. Given that Ayurveda is such a broad set of applications, some are bound to be effective (which is why I'm a bit hesitant to say nothing works). I can see that the "not yet" is not a desirable statement because it suggests that it's about to be proven. I am aware that 'further research is needed' is common across disciplines, but you wouldn't automatically expect such claims on reviews and overview websites.

As I pointed out, there are several reliable sources that seem to that confirm that there i no reliable evidence to support claims for effective treatment. I have no objection to that claim. I have trouble finding a reliable source that claims that all treatments are ineffective though (which seems to be at least intuitively conflicting with the claims that some herbs are actually the basis for Western medicinal treatments).

All in all, I'd be more comfortable with "There is no evidence that ayurvedic medicine is effective for the treatment of any disease". I would still prefer the 'solid' and 'scientific' as qualifiers in there as well, especially because the introduction needs to resonate with normal people, who may have an understanding of different forms of evidence, but we can't agree on everything :). I think it's better to leave out 'good' (or replace it with solid).

@PaleoNeonate:: if enough studies have been done, a review could indeed combine results and draw more elaborate conclusions than each individual study, I imagine. I'm not sure if anyone has actually done that? I wasn't able to find it, but may not know what terminology to look for. effeietsanders 00:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with folk medicine is that for each of its effective cures there are 999 cures which aren't. And we cannot know in advance which of its cures are effective. Scientists would have to play whack-a-mole with its various cures. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree on that. Which is why a more nuanced version than "is not effective for any disease" is desirable imho. effeietsanders 02:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Effeietsanders, would you prefer "all the evidence that it works is shit and created by people with a vested interest"? I'd be OK with that. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Some herbs are actually the basis for Western medicinal treatments there's no appeal to nature fallacy in proper medicine, for instance. New molecules are discovered in nature because it's a great source of diversity (and the fact that common evolutionary origins allow biological interactions), but only tests and experiments determine when one has practical applications. Those molecules are then used more than the plant itself and may be improved or replaced by better synthetic molecules (often resulting in fewer unwanted side effects for instance). Different forms of evidence the scientific method isn't supposed to dismiss valid sources of evidence. No matter the origin, when an important discovery is made, it'll also gain ground in mainstream medicine. The new latest thread at the bottom appears to be an extension of this one so I'll comment for both here: "good", "reliable", "plausible" , would all be suitable, but not "mainstream", "scientific", "materialist", that suggest there somehow would be intangible valid sources of evidence. —PaleoNeonate – 01:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Copy edits

I made and will possibly make further copy edits with no meaning change to make reading easier, hopefully. This is not an endorsement of any text. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Rather than revert, in the present atmosphere, since these are copy edits, feel free to remove artifacts of old missed edits ( a nice way of saying I missed that) yourself. Not attached to any edits I made, though. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, why do you keep capitalising ayurveda? I don't think it's a proper noun. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda is a proper noun. Ayurvedic is sometimes capitalized sometimes not. I didn't copy edit the whole article just a small part I'd started to read, so will finish capitalizing Ayurveda for consistency. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: I have no idea whether Ayurveda is a proper noun, but its use seems to be regularly capitalised in sources. Britannica is an obvious example. Not that I think it's an important point, so I would usually follow what I read in sources. --RexxS (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, well, since it's quasi-religious that possibly makes sense. Homeopathy isn't, though. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that Ayurveda comes out of the Vedic tradition which is a root tradition for religions like Hinduism and Bhuddism so should be capitalized. Most of the article used a capitalized version of Ayurveda before I came along. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, same thing, really. Quasi-religious. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not willing to describe other peoples' religions as quasi. Many have a much longer history than my western, Christian-based religion upbringing and are no less legitimate. I'm not sure why we have to label anyone's religion here, anyway. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No foo evidence

One point of difference between recent versions is: no good evidence vs. no scientific evidence. The latter is, of course, prime WP:WEASELry. Scientific evidence is good evidence, but quacks portray science and woo as "different ways of knowing". I propose no credible evidence as the best formulation. What do others think? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Credible is fine although like "good" it is a generality open to interpretation. Scientific might be better, but I'm not attached to any of it. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the source I looked at uses the word "cure" not "treat". You can treat disease with cotton candy but you sure can't cure it that way ... as far as I know anyway :O). So "treat" is not really accurate. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• This, by the way, was not my edit as the notification I got indicated. I now see the second edit in the revert was mine. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I replied at an earlier thread above that was still active and about the same, —PaleoNeonate – 01:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Credible" is good with me. Crossroads 03:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be my fluency in English, but credible seems to me to be more associated with the researchers' credentials than with their research design. How would alternatively 'robust' work? That seems to cover a wider range of problems one could have with evidence? effeietsanders 03:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The difference between credible and credentials is a bit similar to that between theory and scientific theory: different things, but when they can be confused (it may be a good point), we can indeed try to improve the sentence. —PaleoNeonate – 01:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I favour plain old "no good evidence": there's a reason why that phrase has become a staple across all tiers of high-quality medical publication; we shouldn't be shy about following suit. Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn.

• "there is no really convincing body of evidence that specific ayurvedic mixtures have specific effects. There is no good evidence that it is beneficial."
• "after 200 years and after more than 200 clinical trials, there is no good evidence that homeopathy works for any condition whatsoever."
• "Still no good evidence that most complementary medicine works"
• "There is no good evidence to support using ashwagandha for COVID-19."
• "No good evidence exists that individually tailored prescriptions of a mixture of herbs are effective"
• "Jane Plant is a geologist who, through her own unfortunate encounter with breast cancer, became obsessed with the idea that a dairy-free diet cured her. Sadly there is no good evidence for that idea."
• "The idea is that Echinacea may promote a stronger immune system. However, an analysis of several studies found no good evidence of benefit. "
• "Parents commonly give infants teas or herbal supplements said to soothe “fussiness,” even though there’s no good evidence that the products work, a U.S. government study finds."
• "Ginkgo biloba, hops, sage leaf, liquorice and valerian root are popular, but there is no good evidence that they have any effect on menopausal symptoms"

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages uses common names and common terminology, and that appears to be "no good evidence", as per Alexbrn and per Guy Macon's examples. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yet Another Comment On Pseudoscience

The following is a heavily-edited version of something user:JzG posted at Arbcom, them later trimmed to stay under the 500-word limit. In am reposting those parts that are relevant to this page, and have cut out those parts that are only relevant to Arbcom. The original idea should be credited to JzG, but any errors introduced by my editing should be credited to me.

The main problem is an endless succession of new single-purpose accounts following a thread on Twitter. These users typically assert that Ayurveda is not pseudoscience because it enjoys a degree of official endorsement in India. This, of course, misses the point: so does homeopathy, after all.

Pseudoscience is not about whether the thing is bullshit or not. It's about using sciencey-sounding language to pretend that it's not bullshit. Papers like this in the oxymoronically-named "Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine" (if it's evidence-based, it isn't alternative - evidence-based is what SCAM is alternative to).

If people want to go to quacks who give them mercury as a miracle cure, I guess that's very much their own funeral, but we're not here to pretend this is legitimate medicine.

This is further complicated here by the prevalence of Ayurveda in India, which has a very specific cultural background. You'll notice that virtually all the parade of commenters on Talk:Ayurveda appear to be from India, and the same is true of those in the Twitter thread that drove it. One of the things I love about India is the culture of acceptance - the dominant religion has so many gods that almost any belief or opinion is accorded respect by default and Hinduism does not teach children that anybody who does not believe exactly as you believe is an infidel and must be converted, in the way that monotheistic religions tend to. Immutable certainties are not part of the Indian cultural mindset.

But this lack of judgment means that homeopathy, Ayurveda and other forms of abject nonsense are treated as quasi-religions, and accorded parity of respect with reality-based medicine. In fact the government body that promotes Ayurveda is the Ministry of AYUSH, which stands for Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy. All of these are quasi-religious belief systems and not forms of medicine, and indeed this ministry is separate from the ministry of medicine.

In 2006, homeopathy was considered thoroughly refuted by informed scientists but it was still actively promoted by national health systems. Since then, Switzerland, the UK, Australia, France, Spain and Russia have been through high level reviews, generally at a government level, and have recommended withdrawal of funding. In 2006 there were several homeopathic hospitals in the UK funded by the NHS. Now, there are none. The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital was renamed in 2007 and no longer funds homeopathy on the NHS. It is likely that the handful of remaining NHS prescriptions for homeopathy will finally be stopped in the near future, as these items are likely to be added to the NHS prescriptions blacklist.

The status of Ayurveda today is not dissimilar from that of homeopathy in 2006. It is widely understood by those who study quackery to be nonsense. Because it uses pharmacologically active substances, it is more resistant to trivial refutation than homeopathy, but the trajectory is similar: it is a pseudomedical system with a growing base of evidence that its fundamental approach is incorrect, and, crucially, it cannot self-correct because any honest test of whether substance A or substance B is better for condition X gives the ideologically unacceptable answer: neither. The reality-based study of herbal preparations is called pharmacognosy. Ayurveda starts from the premise that some herb is always a cure, rather than some cures may be based in chemicals found in herbs.

In short, Ayurveda needs the provisions of discretionary sanctions now for exactly the same reasons that homeopathy did historically, and in 10-15 years' time these too will probably have become superfluous save for rapidly separating the occasional True Believer from the article.

Pseudoscience is the enterprise of producing sciencey-sounding research that is not designed to test whether a thing does work, but to provide marketing support for its sale. Nobody has any trouble seeing that as a problem when it's OxyContin, but when it's acupuncture they get all outraged that one is not supporting the patient's choice (a choice guided, of course, by fraudulent claims, and thus not an informed free choice in any meaningful sense). CAM is not a fad, it is a vast and extremely profitable industry, and it is quite cynically based. TCM is basically a creature of Mao, who did not have enough doctors but wanted to pretend that he had the kind of health coverage that Western nations boasted. Office of Alternative Medicine (and its successors successors leading to NCCIH) have spent several billion dollars attempting to validate alternative therapies, thus far without success.

Hatch and Harkin's DSHEA deliberately tilts the playing field in favour of SCAM by preventing the FDA from even looking at a SCAM product until after it has been shown to be harmful, a reversal of the situation for reality-based medicines. I do not think there is any problem with Misplaced Pages coming down on the side of reality (per Jimbo's "lunatic charlatans" comment if nothing else). You could defend the lies of SCAM if it weren't for the steady stream of people who believe the hype and die of untreated cancer.

The coroner's report in the case of Penelope Dingle is one of the most harrowing things I have ever read. SCAM is not a beneficial enterprise, it is commercial., Like every commercial enterprise it is there to maximise profit and markets. Some states have mandated that naturopaths, who have basically no real medical training, must be allowed to practice as primary care physicians.

Same with chiropractors, who believe that all disease is a result of disturbances in the flow of innate intelligence in the spine. Same with "Lyme literate" doctors who prescribe indefinite courses of powerful antibiotics when there is no evidence of microbial infection. This is not a victimless fraud. In my view we can and should resist the introduction of claims that serve a commercial or quasi-religious agenda, when they are not objectively correct.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) (adapted from an earlier post by JzG)

Also see:

• Death of Penelope Dingle
• Incompetent care led to Dingle's death
• Would better regulation of CAM practitioners have saved Penelope Dingle?
• Record of investigation into the death of Penelope Dingle
• Coroner's Report on the death of Penelope Dingle
• Penelope Dingle's letters to Francine Scrayen

In case anyone want to claim that it is just homeopathy that has this problem...

• Acute renal failure secondary to ingestion of ayurvedic medicine containing mercury

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems like some people there who really should know better are forgetting about the WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI parts of WP:NPOV. And I'm also seeing some people talking about the content of this article over there, which seems inappropriately biasing. Crossroads 19:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Another source supporting the term pseudoscience

Here, in Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, 2018, MIT Press:

Wanted to make sure everyone on this page knew about it. I've already made use of it in the article. Crossroads 19:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Was IMA misquoted in Lede?

This edit fails WP:V. The position of the editor is wrong: The actual claim by the IMA is that, with the sole exception of Ayurveda practitioners who abandon Ayurveda. get a M.D., and start practicing modern medicine only, all Ayurveda practitioners are quacks. Which they clearly are. - Guy Macon

In actuality the MIA says, in full:

Quacks = 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. - IMA

This edit was correct and should be restored. The IMA's position is that anyone (of 3 categories) practicing modern medicine without a license is a "quack". Ayurveda is only tangentially related to this bit of information. Why is it in the Lede paragraph? petrarchan47คุก 23:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It is your version that fails WP:V. It doesn't say that only the Ayurvedic practitioners who are "not licensed to practice modern medicine" are quacks, implying some supposed group of Ayurvedic practitioners with a license for modern medicine are not quacks; it's all of the Ayurvedic practitioners who nevertheless practice modern medicine. And it is highly relevant. See also . Crossroads 02:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, although I realize the IMA document is by our standards a RS, it sounds to me like a Monty Python script. Ministry of Quacks? Are there more articulate ways to describe practitioners with out licenses and how many times can the word quacks be used in one document. However we use it let's not overuse it and perhaps keep it very simple. Just a thought. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The position of the IMA is crystal clear, I did not misquote them. The IMA most definitely does say that anyone who practices Ayurveda is anything other than a quack or that any variation of Ayurveda is anything other than quackery. If you read the angry responses from Ayurveda practitioners it is clear that they understand this perfectly well. The claim that the IMA is only criticizing some small subset of Ayurveda practitioners is just a talking point that was suggested on Twitter as part of the ongoing war against Misplaced Pages being conducted by OpIndia.

The actual claim by the IMA is that, with the sole exception of Ayurveda practitioners who abandon Ayurveda. get a medical degree and start practicing modern medicine only, all Ayurveda practitioners are quacks. Which they clearly are. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

To put it in simpler terms, out of the thousands and thousands of Ayurveda practitioners in India, please name one who still practices Ayurveda, and is not considered to be a quack by the Indian Medical Association. What is this person's name? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy. I'm not sure who you're addressing, but I'll add to my comment. I'm not pushing to remove this source. I'm looking at the way it was written. Quack is name calling. We might argue that we have every reason to call people quacks but it's not a particularly, academically-driven word in terms of writing a document or an article. Had I used the word as many times as is used in this document or at all, in a grad paper, at university, the result for me would not have been pleasant. And to call anything Ministry of Quacks just sounds silly and is so Monty Python. I hope we have sense of humor enough to see that. I'm not advocating for different language to represent the sources; I doubt it would do any good, just noting the obvious. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"Quackery" is a synonym for health fraud. I suppose the IMA mention it a lot because it's a major concern in India, which we should not try to downplay. It's hard to write about quackery without using the word. We use the word in our (Misplaced Pages) article once. Is there an actual edit being proposed here? Remember this is not a forum. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to propose an edit to make a comment about content. I am well aware of what quackery is; it is also a generalization which doesn't discriminate or tell us much. Fraud implies deceit; I doubt very much that Ayurvedic physicians some who have studied for years are being deceitful. At the same time I am aware that there is an implied agreement to use the word which I am not contesting. I believe the document is poorly worded and our description of those who are actually deceitful in our article per this source could be better. But no I'm not proposing a change to something more descriptive because I'm sure it would do no good. And I sure do wish we had a sense of humour. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I would probably propose this kind of sentence in the lead as a summary of the IMA document. "The Indian Medical Association has released a document outlining their concerns with Ayurveda in India." I would only do that if the body of the article had an explicit outline of what was in that IMA document. If Misplaced Pages takes the mainstream approach then the IMA document should carry weight in the article. There is huge divide between a culturally-based, thousands-years-old health care practice and modern medicine which should be expected and possibly explored at least minimally. The article should outline the important aspects of Ayurveda and should have information on the modern reaction to it. This is my position but I have zero attachment to it. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Just read the first sentence of the quackery article: "fraudulent or ignorant medical practices". Therefore it does not necessarily imply deceit. It implies deceit or ignorance. Retimuko (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

My impression is that your proposition would unnecessarily downplay it. We also don't need to use "quackery" more than once, but I don't see the point in censoring it completely... —PaleoNeonate – 23:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Concerning using Quackery more than once. Not what I was suggesting. The lead should summarize the article. The IMA document contains information. The lead of the article should summarize that information while the body of the body should contain a more complete overview of that information. Right now we are using the source in the lead to support a single, cliché-driven word when in fact we should be detailing the extent of a source of this importance, itself. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Replacing quackery, which is name-calling, with more of an explanation is not censorship and may be more encyclopedic. But as I said in other posts there is an implied agreement for its use. I prefer an explanation/summary in the lead with more extensive detailed content in the article body but to be honest this is the response I expected. No worries. I won't pursue this.Littleolive oil (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

IMA: Quacks and their definition

Indian Medical Assn:

Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :

A) Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.

B) Practitioners of , who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.

C) Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

The Lede has:

The characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery.

There are two problems.

1) The Lede ignores the second part of the IMA's qualifications for quackery: (practicing modern medicine) without a license, ie, "unqualified" (see point A for context).

2) Guy M maintains "practitioners who abandon Ayurveda" is included in the IMA's qualifiers for quackery, but this appears to be a total fabrication. If the IMA's position was that practicing Ayurveda was quackery, sans qualifiers, they would have included it in point C, the third category.

The IMA is not referring to those who:

• practice Ayurveda but not modern medicine

• hold dual licenses and are officially qualified to practice both forms of medicine

This failure to properly represent the source and it's weight, summarizing it with disingenuous wording and posting to the very top of the page, is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. The denigrating language in the second and third sentences of this article have only recently been added. Months ago, the top paragraph was entirely neutral. Was this change entirely POV-driven, or was there justification and community consensus behind it? petrarchan47คุก 14:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop stuffing words in my mouth. I never said that "practitioners who abandon Ayurveda is included in the IMA's qualifiers for quackery". I said that if someone abandons Ayurveda, get a medical degree, and starts practicing modern medicine, neither the Indian or American medical associations would call that person a quack.

Here are the basic flaws in your argument:

"Practice Ayurveda but not modern medicine:" The IMA and the AMA both consider all practitioners of Ayurveda who prescribe Ayurvedic medicines or who claim that Ayurveda is a valid treatment for disease as quacks who are practicing medicine -- badly -- without being licensed or qualified. A mythical person who somehow practices Ayurveda without treating disease does not exist, and those who do treat disease (which is all of them) with Ayurveda are quacks.

"Hold dual licenses and are officially qualified to practice both forms of medicine:" Not possible. Anyone who has a medical degree and prescribes Ayurvedic medicines loses their medical license for malpractice. Real doctors are not allowed to poison their patients with heavy metals. Anyone who gets a medical degree and starts practicing modern medicine has to abandon Ayurveda.

IMA Anti Quackery is clear:

"The purpose of this compendium of court orders and various rules and regulations is to acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine. This ready reckoner of provision of Acts and rules and court orders will allow you to decipher whether one is a quack and what actions are required to be taken against him."

Critical Review of Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health is also clear:

"CCIM has used a clause “modern advances” in Section 2(e) of CCIM Act 1970 to interpret that BAMS/BUMS are entitled to practice Modern Medicine and CCIM have issued a notification/declaration accordingly... Though CCIM has been requested to cancel their notification, they have not done it so far on the ground that they are seeking legal advice. Obviously, their ulterior motives appear to be questionable. It is blatant violation of courts order."

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems is trying to summarize a somewhat complex IMA document in one sentence. As it stands now, what we have in the article is accurate as far as it goes and could stand as is. It may not be complete, but discussion seems to indicate adding to that sentence accurately might take some reasoned discussion about exactly what the IMA document is saying and how to word that in our own article. It is confusing, to me at least, when discussion mixes editor opinion and facts from the document.(The document is wordy and not particularly well written so not surprising.) I have not seen that allopathic physicians, in the US at least, would lose their licenses for malpractice if they also practice Ayurveda; I didn't see that in the document either but I could be missing it. I agree, if I understand Guy, that anyone practicing any kind of allopathic medicine with out an allopathic license would be considered an IMA quack. As a note although not important probably, Ayurveda, specifically from what I've read, does not specifically treat disease but instead treats the individual for wellness to prevent disease. This is probably an underlying point of allopathic medicine too although not necessarily explicit. If we want to make the lead read in a more accurate way then we might consider adding to what is there now per the source. I realize there is a bit of battle fatigue over this article so these are thoughts that in the future could lead to a short addition to the lead but I'm not pushing for change right now. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: "I have not seen that allopathic physicians, in the US at least, would lose their licenses for malpractice if they also practice Ayurveda", you are completely wrong. Ayurvedic medicine contains illegal levels of lead and mercury, Ayurveda practitioners routinely prescribe these drugs, but any real doctor who does so is guilty of malpractice and will have his license pulled as soon as the authorities find out. Ayurveda practitioners believe that Samskara (ayurvedic) works. It doesn't, Samskara is pseudoscience, and any doctor who uses the method and gives the resulting "purified" mercury to a patient is guilty of malpractice and will have his license pulled as soon as the authorities find out. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda, specifically from what I've read, does not specifically treat disease but instead treats the individual for wellness to prevent disease. it's what is claimed, like "holism", etc. It's similar to many fad diets and cure-all remedies... The same reason they call mainstream medicine "allopathic", claiming that it only treats symptoms, when it's obviously not necessarily the case (it may be when you just go to the drugstore to get off-counter acetaminophen). —PaleoNeonate – 07:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that's not true. All medicines do not contain lead, all physicians do not prescribe remedies with heavy metals, and all physicians do not prescribe purified mercury remedies. I know of hospitals that hire allopathic physicians who have Ayurveda training as well. The mistake is in thinking that one size fits all. It doesn't with allopathic physicians, some are terrible, some are criminals, and some are "quacks", and it doesn't with Ayurvedic physicians either. I'm not arguing whether Ayurveda works or not I'm saying the assertion you're making is based on generalities and is simply not true Any physician who harms, any physician, could if reported have a license pulled. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

All medicines do not contain lead I agree to that. It doesn't mean that less lethal Ayurvedic remedies work, of course. Anyone who has both access to modern medicine and alternatives but ultimately refuses to obtain proper treatment in favor of something that will not help is an unfortunate victim (i.e. Pseudoscience § Health and education implications)... —PaleoNeonate – 07:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is *mentioned* in RS, nothing more; a note on nuance, NPOV and needed updates

The most that can be said from the totality of the sources meant to support the "Ayurveda is pseudoscience" claim is that a few authors have mentioned "Ayurveda" and "pseudoscience" in the same breath. None of the sources go into any depth whatsoever. These are brief mentions. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary sourcing. The most we can say is "Some have referred to Ayurveda as pseudoscience", and then name them (the list is short).

Some nuance would be helpful and much more encyclopedic, such as Ayurveda has often been labeled a pseudoscience due to a lack of understanding regarding its principles, which are difficult to translate into mainstream medical terminology. Ayurveda: Controversies and the Need for Integration with Mainstream Medicine.

A discussion about difficulties with research should be included, as well as the studies which show some Ayurvedic medicines to be helpful, like this from Oxford (Aug 2020). The NIH has a few as well. Any sources that claim Ayurveda has no value should be removed from the article as outdated by recent evidence. petrarchan47คุก 00:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You are repeating the same point discussed at length above and in archives. Retimuko (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary sourcing. Nice try, but the extraordinary claims are that it's scientific, that it's efficient, etc. You may also want to read my related comment at Talk:Unani, in relation to WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL... —PaleoNeonate – 01:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

And Special:Diff/974951507, —PaleoNeonate – 01:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you should familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS before advocating we adopt your suggestions... But I'll address two of your citations in depth here:

• Citing an opinion piece in a non-indexed student health journal by someone who claims to be an Ayurvedic practitioner and whose only actual qualification is an M.S. in biostats is just spectacularly off the mark. The "difficulty translating Ayurveda into medical terminology" is because it is fundamentally incompatible with science. Modern medicine relies on assumptions that are constantly updating as we gain a better mechanistic understanding of physical and life sciences; Ayurveda approaches scientific questions with certain medieval presuppositions that have no basis in reality and, despite literal centuries of empirical rejection, refuses to update these assumptions.
• The BMJ article on honey has zero mentions of Ayurveda; it is pure WP:SYNTH to claim a meta review on the well-characterized use of medical honey as an antimicrobial has anything to do with Ayurveda. Ayurveda claims madhu (honey) has properties good for mitigating dosha imbalances -- that's as mechanistic as it gets. The properties and effects of honey recorded in Ayurvedic texts were also noticed in every other culture that practiced apiculture -- the difference is that those who followed the scientific method performed centuries of experiments that built upon each other and readily incorporated new information from other fields, eventually leading to a mechanistic understanding that permitted predictable and replicable honey applications. Ayurveda failed to do this: it still clings to the assumption that all ailments are related to one's dosha balance, so despite all the retrofitting of samhita concepts into modern terms, the core distinguishing features of Ayurveda remain utterly pseudoscientific.
• I'm not going to address the reference to an Ayurvedic journal since that's so obviously a biased and unreliable source. The NIH link does not read as supportive of Ayurveda at all -- I'll just paste what they say for clinical evidence of its efficacy here:

  Few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effective.
  
  Results from a 2013 clinical trial compared two Ayurvedic formulations of plant extracts against the natural product glucosamine sulfate and the drug celecoxib in 440 people with knee osteoarthritis. All four products provided similar reductions in pain and improvements in function.
  
  A preliminary and small NCCIH-funded 2011 pilot study with 43 people found that conventional and Ayurvedic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis were similarly effective. The conventional drug tested was methotrexate and the Ayurvedic treatment included 40 herbal compounds.
  
  Outcomes from a small short-term clinical trial with 89 men and women suggested that a formulation of five Ayurvedic herbs may help people with type 2 diabetes. However, other researchers said inadequate study designs haven’t allowed researchers to develop firm conclusions about Ayurveda for diabetes.
  
  Turmeric, an herb often used in Ayurvedic preparations, may help with ulcerative colitis, but the two studies reporting this were small – one, published in 2005 included 10 people while the other, published in 2006, had 89.

  JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I really don't see if anyone has objected to the concern raised by Petrarchan47 that WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sourcing; not passing view from irrelevant authors. "Pseudoscience" isn't backed by qualified references. Lifeisshubh (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly object. The exceptional claim is that a practice that dates back to the vedic period (c. 1500 – c. 500 BCE) is science instead of pseudoscience, since modern science dates back to the early modern period (c. 1500 – c. 1800 CE) -- at least 2000 years later. The exceptional claim is that Rasa shastra actually "purifies" mercury and makes it safe using the methods described at Rasa shastra#Methods. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with this if it were an exceptional claim, or if the description of the existing sources as "passing view from irrelevant authors" were accurate. However, it's not an exceptional claim to assert that an alternative system of medicine is pseudoscientific (it's routine, and accurate, to describe alt med in those terms), and the sources are solid. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. The idea that Ayurveda is not pseudoscience is the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Crossroads 16:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wanted to write exactly that but you were quicker. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I was having a difficult time taking this seriously, and was hoping no would waste our time further with it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that, in all likelihood, we will all be wasting our time with this kind of thing until the day we die. Astrology is still quite popular even in 2020, despite the emergence of the scientific study of astronomy centuries ago. But if people hadn't "wasted their time" over the centuries debunking astrology, we wouldn't have gotten to the present level of knowledge we have attained today. Thus despite the tedious and incredibly repetitive labor, it's worth it in the end. BirdValiant (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I've been misunderstood. I'm here to talk about sourcing. This is not a forum. The point of this thread is: The most that can be said from the totality of the sources meant to support the "Ayurveda is pseudoscience" claim is that a few authors have mentioned "Ayurveda" and "pseudoscience" in the same breath.

Editors mysteriously spent time arguing a point I never made, that Ayurveda is science. I am simply looking at what the article has, and the sourcing behind it. I know WP:MEDRS well, and it requires sources that are <5yrs with rare exceptions. Sources must also be used in context. The 4 sources used to claim that Ayurveda IS pseudoscience do not support the unqualified statement in WP's voice, although some of them could be included with attribution.

This is not to say "Ayurveda is pseudoscience" isn't true, it may well be. But we're claiming that it is an accepted fact, backed by strong sourcing. And by its placement in the Lede, we're claiming the amount/strength of sources discussing this fact in the body is quite large (one would expect, if WP:WEIGHT is applied, discussion of the scientific community's overt acceptance of this term for Ayurveda would constitute about 1/3 of the article). petrarchan47คุก 14:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Something being pseudoscientific is generally briefly stated, just like something being within the field of (say) organic chemistry. Lengthy justifications are seldom necessary - though in this case we do have the unusual luxury of being told why ayurveda is pseudoscientific. What matters then, given this simple fact, is that our policy requires us to be very explicit, here on Misplaced Pages that the pseudoscientific thing is so. This has been discussed to death in the recent RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, you misrepresented the sentence people ascribed to you, "Ayurveda is not pseudoscience", as "Ayurveda is science". Not only did you never argue that point, nobody accused you of making it. It's a straw strawman.

What you did say is, is an extraordinary claim. In the universe where I live, this implies "Ayurveda is not pseudoscience". Or at least, "The commonly accepted view is that Ayurveda is not pseudoscience". That is the logic of extraordinary claims: their negations are accepted as given. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I was responding exclusively to the sources you provided in your initial post to preempt any addition of them to the article as they are highly inappropriate (except for the NIH one). The explanations I gave for each were meant to demonstrate why they fail our sourcing requirements (and then my SYNTH/OR reasoning for why the articles themselves are pseudoscientific); more importantly, though, is that those sources you gave represent the general quality of Ayurveda literature: they fail MEDRS. And if most meta-analyses/discussion papers promoting the discipline of Ayurveda (i.e. not individual isolated compounds) as a science/not a pseudoscience are unacceptable, then there is little to support such a claim in the article. And since the MEDRS-compliant sources that do categorize it as a pseudoscience are therefore virtually unchallenged, we must reflect that characterization according to our pseudoscience policy. JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Here comes the science!

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.

• Toxic metals in ayurvedic preparations from a public health lead poisoning cluster investigation :

"Samples of Ayurvedic formulations were analyzed for metals and metalloids following established US. Environmental Protection Agency methods.

Results:Lead was found in 65% of 252 Ayurvedic medicine samples with mercury and arsenic found in 38 and 32% of samples, respectively.

Almost half of samples containing mercury, 36% of samples containing lead and 39% of samples containing arsenic had concentrations of those metals per pill that exceeded, up to several thousand times, the recommended daily intake values for pharmaceutical impurities.

Conclusions: Lack of regulations regarding manufacturing and content or purity of Ayurvedic and other herbal formulations poses a significant global public health problem."

• Lead, mercury, and arsenic in US- and Indian-manufactured Ayurvedic medicines sold via the Internet :

"Conclusion: One-fifth of both US-manufactured and Indian-manufactured Ayurvedic medicines purchased via the Internet contain detectable lead, mercury, or arsenic.

All metal-containing products exceeded 1 or more standards for acceptable daily intake of toxic metals."

• Heavy metal content of ayurvedic herbal medicine products :

"Conclusions: One of 5 Ayurvedic herbal medicine products produced in South Asia and available in Boston South Asian grocery stores contains potentially harmful levels of lead, mercury, and/or arsenic.

Users of Ayurvedic medicine may be at risk for heavy metal toxicity, and testing of Ayurvedic herbal medicine products for toxic heavy metals should be mandatory. "

• Evaluation of toxic heavy metals in Ayurvedic syruos sold in local markets of Hazura, Pakistan:

"Conclusion: Mercury and Arsenic are present in local Herbal & Ayurvedic liquid preparations far beyond the permissible limits as proposed by the International Regulatory Authorities for health drugs "

• A cluster of lead poisoning among consumers of Ayurvedic medicine:

" Results: Forty-six of 115 participants (40%) had elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) of 10 μg/dl or above, with 9.6% of BLLs at or above 50 μg/dl.

This is the largest cluster of lead and mercury toxicity following use of Ayurvedic supplements described in the literature in the US. Contamination of herbal products is a public health issue of global significance. There are few regulations addressing contamination of "natural" products or supplements. "

• A review of the clinical and toxicological aspects of 'traditional' (herbal) medicines adulterated with heavy metals"

There have recently been an increasing number of case reports being published of heavy metal poisoning after the use of traditional remedies, in particular, Indian Ayurvedic remedies.

This study reviews the data on published cases, along with the history of Ayurvedic medicine in an attempt to provide an insight into why heavy metals, in particular lead, mercury and arsenic are added in such large concentrations to these remedies. "

• Ayurvedic herbal medicine and lead poisoning:

"Although the majority of published cases of lead poisoning come from occupational exposures, some traditional remedies may also contain toxic amounts of lead.

Ayurveda is a system of traditional medicine that is native to India and is used in many parts of world as an alternative to standard treatment regimens.

Here, we report the case of a 58-year-old woman who presented with abdominal pain, anemia, liver function abnormalities, and an elevated blood lead level.

The patient was found to have been taking the Ayurvedic medicine Jambrulin prior to presentation. Chemical analysis of the medication showed high levels of lead.

Following treatment with an oral chelating agent, the patient's symptoms resolved and laboratory abnormalities normalized.

This case highlights the need for increased awareness that some Ayurvedic medicines may contain potentially harmful levels of heavy metals and people who use them are at risk of developing associated toxicities."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Until and unless there are comparable or better regulations on herbal products as those we have on western medicines we will have this kind problem. I have tendency to think this indicates a regulatory problem although treatments that deliberately include heavy metals would seem to be a big concern. Unregulated products, for example, I've been told by an environmental lawyer friend, have been shipped in drums that contained herbicide and pesticide residue. I'm not sure how recent that is. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy, are you suggesting additions to the article? It appears the problem of heavy metals has been well covered already, what do you feel was missed? petrarchan47คุก 14:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am suggesting that you personally, along with all the other editors who have made comments that imply that Ayurveda is anything other than dangerous pseudoscience that poisons patients with heavy metals ("A discussion about difficulties with research should be included, as well as the studies which show some Ayurvedic medicines to be helpful") should read the above with an open mind and think hard about what it is that you are defending. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope you are not confusing efforts to create neutral-reading articles with a perceived bias or defense of anything. A generalization about heavy metals and Ayurveda-a terrible lack of regulations nor some specific treatments do not equal all of the content on Ayurveda. And no I am not defending Ayurveda. I am defending an editor's right to discuss the content. This editor is not one of the many SPA that flooded the talk page. Do we have the right to admonish an editor because they are not overtly defending a preferred position. What we have to watch out for is that we don't confuse attack of the subject with a neutral position, nor efforts to find neutral ground without attacks as support of the information. In such a case the neutral position is skewed. A neutral editor has no apparent position neither for or against. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a good idea as well. Here, read this New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak article. What happened is bad enough but just look at how long and how many deaths it took to finally take action. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this applies to Ayurveda. What am I missing?Littleolive oil (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing: see False equivalence to understand the gambit. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Do sources support labeling Ayurveda "pseudoscience"?

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.

Related: ARCA: Pseudoscience

Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee defines pseudoscience as "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community"

RfC question: Do sources show that Ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, and support: The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific? petrarchan47คุก 17:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Following are the sources currently in use at Ayurveda WRT "pseudoscience", with cited material

Survey (RfC)

• Close as WP:DE. An attempt to re-litigate the last RfC on this is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Close as WP:DE. The last two debates can be found at:
  1. Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_12#Category:Pseudoscience
  2. Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_13#Pseudoscience
• In addition, the RfC above #RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence contained copious examples of sources that answer the question in the affirmative. Indeed, that RfC was closed on 30 August as The outcome of this RfC is that Ayurveda should continue to be described as a pseudoscience in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence. Nothing has changed since then, except for an increase in the disruption caused by an OPindia campaign against Misplaced Pages for Hindu Nationalist reasons. We should deal firmly with disruption on this page. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  RexxS, the ARCA gives no indication this is a settled matter. This is not disruption. Why don't you respond to the RfC question with regard to the sources? I assumed the best sources are in the article at present. If you have good sources that should be added, please include them. petrarchan47คุก 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Petrarchan47: Please observe MOS:INDENTMIX.

  The ARCA assures me that discretionary sanctions are sufficient to deal with your disruption on this page. This page is subject to the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions and I will see that appropriate sanctions are applied to you if you continue with your disruption. Read the three debates I referred you to, and close this section. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy close as WP:DE. Has already been decided very recently and is a total waste of editor time. Crossroads 18:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close as WP:DE. ArbEnf seems a good step at this point. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Close as WP:DE per the above. The matter has already been discussed and decided on recently and on multiple occasions... drop the stick. - Flori4nK 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close as WP:DE Petrarchan47. It's never a great idea to ask someone else to add sources. You are asking the question here by opening an RfC. If you know there are sources that support pseudoscience and in effect are answering your own question then there is no need for a RfC. Arbs generally cannot decide on content and their discussions in the ATCA show many were reluctant to do so. Consensus on this page then, with the sources given, is that pseudoscience will be used in this article; no one has to like it that's just how consensus works. Given this page is under Discretionary Sanctions bowing out when there is consensus and multiple RfCs related to your RfC might be a really, really good idea. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know of any other sources, and have thoroughly researched what could be used. If there are better sources, they should be added to the article. Hiding them in archives, whilst defending the current state of the page, when it's being legitimately challenged, makes no sense. I figured the RfC would reveal sources that have been missed, which is why I invited RexxS to add them to his comment. I am confident it cannot be proven that the general scientific community commonly refers to Ayurveda as pseudoscience, based on currently available RS. There hasn't been much written on it yet, if for no other reason. Of course, the sources on the page do represent the best available, and they are pitiful, taken as a whole, with regard to the claim being made. If RfC's are resulting in such poor content, then halting RfC's is perhaps the wrong way to go. petrarchan47คุก 20:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was hiding sources. Pseudoscience as defined by Misplaced Pages says, "characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods." Ayurveda predates science and as you note there is very little research so, for now, perhaps, Ayurveda should fall under not science- pseudoscience. If the term is used not as a pejorative but as a simple state of where the research is right now then the term is less pejorative sounding. And if there isn't a lot of research and if much of Ayurveda predates modern science then we probably can use the term as a general description even if sources are not outstanding. The other issue is that, like it or not, there is consensus on this. Consensus doesn't mean this is factual or that content couldn't be written in a better way, but it does mean that WP is a collaborative project that relies on editors agreeing even if content doesn't seem right. I've walked away from many articles where I know content was not accurate, but the lesson is, this is collaborative and the many override the one. There is ample proof that the many have voted either implicitly or explicitly to use pseudoscience; you are being encouraged to walk away given this agreement and that there is some reason to use the term. I personally dislike generalizations so a term like pseudoscience rubs me the wrong way and I would wish we could write with out it, but again, there is a long time history of using this word in general on Misplaced Pages, and there is agreement here. There is no place for fighting the flow because this project has been determined to be collaborative and its standards have been created and placed to support that position. I suspect that because of the multiple SPA editors who flooded the article with unhelpful suggestions editors are pretty tired and that's where disruption comes in. If a project is collaborative then the state of its editors matters. Sometimes it's the humane thing to walk away and let things settle most especially when you are fighting consensus.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean this is factual or in this case, both consensus and factual, with policies properly crafted and sources available to reach a decent conclusion. (I just noticed before submitting that this part is in a now-closed discussion, but submitted it anyway). —PaleoNeonate – 07:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy close as completely unnecessary. This article has just been through a lengthy and well-attended RfC where this assertion, and the supporting sources, were extensively reviewed. To start another one so soon does seem extraordinary, and I'm surprised that an editor of Petrarchan47's standing would start one. This doesn't add up for me. I  hesitate to call this DE, but I'm struggling to find a more apt descriptor. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Alternative medicine articles
• C-Class Dietary supplement articles
• Low-importance Dietary supplement articles
• C-Class Hinduism articles
• High-importance Hinduism articles
• C-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of High-importance
• Past Indian collaborations of the month
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class South Asia articles
• Low-importance South Asia articles
• South Asia articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests