Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015

I request that the follow sentence be modified to effectively reflect the information contained in the source, and moved to a more pertinent section: "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."

The Source (American Cancer Society - Ayurveda) only speaks to the effectiveness of Ayurvedic treatments with respect to cancer, not in general, but the sentence broadens the scope to general effectiveness.

--reference to ginger removed, ultimately non-topical--

Again, I would like to have:

1. The statement modified to effectively represent the resource - possible wording: "Effectiveness of Ayurvedic treatments for the prevention and treatment of cancer have not been scientifically proven."
2. The statement moved to a place where it is more pertinent (for instance, a section on Ayurvedic treatment of cancer, or in the "classification and efficacy section).

Finally, I would appreciate being made allowed to edit the article directly. I am happy to participate in fair discussion on changes to the article.

Thanks, Supaiku (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. It seems the same sentence is also included with the incorrect representation of the resource in Classification and efficacy section. Accordingly I propose that it be removed from the introductory section, and modified to accurately reflect the source in the Classification and efficacy section. Supaiku (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree Ginger being a stomach remedy does not demonstrate any real clinical effectiveness to Ayurveda. Scotch, hot water, honey and lemon juice is a good cold remedy, but I'd still challenge anyone trying to imply that a hot toddy is medicine. Considering the WP:FRINGE implications of Ayurveda, demonstrating medical effectiveness will depend on providing a WP:MEDRS stating that ayurveda has some effectiveness. Wikipedia doesn't require extraordinary proofs that water is wet. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I'll edit my request to remove the ginger reference. Could you please reconsider, as the actual edit request has nothing to with ginger, or proving clinical effectiveness of ayurveda. To be clear, I would like to statement in the article to reflect the statement in the source, or for another source which supports the statement to be found.Supaiku (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree: The source actually discusses uses of ayurvedic medicine for problems ranging from Parkinson's to diarrhea.—Kww(talk) 21:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It does discuss them, but what does it actually say about them?

From the source: "In a controlled clinical trial of cancer patients in India, researchers found an Ayurvedic herb mixture worked as well as a standard laxative for relieving constipation caused by pain relieving drugs. In 2 small controlled clinical trials, an herb used in Ayurveda (mucuna pruriens) was found to reduce symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Many other individual herbs and spices used in Ayurveda are being studied in the laboratory or in animals. Some are already being tested in human clinical trials to find out if they can be used to treat or prevent cancer. These studies use methods of conventional laboratory and clinical research and are intended to find out whether substances used in Ayurveda can be used with conventional cancer treatment. We are not aware of any scientific research addressing the relevance of Ayurvedic concepts, such as cleansing, to cancer treatment. There is no convincing clinical evidence so far to suggest that traditional Ayurvedic treatments can have a substantial impact on the growth and spread of cancer. (For more information, see documents on individual herbs, such as Turmeric, Garlic, Gotu Kola)."

This must be the passage you're talking about as there's only one other mention of diarrhea I found - I would like to point out that the concluding sentence of this paragraph clearly states: "There is no convincing clinical evidence so far to suggest that traditional Ayurvedic treatments can have a substantial impact on the growth and spread of cancer."

By contrast, it does not state: "There is no convincing clinical evidence so far to suggest that traditional Ayurvedic treatments can have a substantial impact on health".

Just because the article mentions a couple of studies of a particular heDAVdroid rb in ayurveda, doesn't entitle the leap to "there are no studies".

Likewise, just because the source clearly states that there's no substantial treatment for cancer, doesn't meant that there's no substantial treatment for any health condition.

Again, I would like to statement about the source to accurately reflect statements made in the source, or for a new source to be linked to the statement. Supaiku (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"The effectiveness of Ayurveda has not been proven in scientific studies, but early research suggests that certain herbs may offer potential therapeutic value." is a blanket statement in the source, not related to cancer.—Kww(talk) 23:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• The key sentence of the paragraph is clearly "There is no convincing clinical evidence so far to suggest that traditional Ayurvedic treatments can have a substantial impact on the growth and spread of cancer" and the other worthy takeaway is "herbs and spices used in Ayurveda are being studied in the laboratory or in animals" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree Exactly, Supaiku. The fact that the article says that there "is no convincing clinical evidence so far to suggest that traditional Ayurvedic treatments can have a substantial impact on the growth and spread of cancer", doesn't mean that Ayurvedic treatments have no impact on any other health conditions as well. By having a quick look, the source mentions at least constipation and Parkinson's disease, but I'd like to have a closer look at the technicals first. For example, drawing conclusions with respect to Ayurveda's efficacy on Parkinson's, some "2 small controlled clinical trials" do not give the best first impression, to be frank. Anyway, I do agree that the the text should be modified to reflect the actual source better, and possibly be relocated to a more suitable section. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

" The effectiveness of Ayurveda has not been proven in scientific studies, but early research suggests that certain herbs may offer potential therapeutic value" is from the overview, and is not in any way limited to the topic of cancer.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The authoring organization has no reliability to make claims outside of the area of cancer. And "early research" making "suggestions" of "potential" should not be presented as anything other than vague hopes. LOTS of potential treatments (in fact most) that have "suggestions" in the early phases prove utterly meaningless and non beneficial WP:CRYSTAL -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we limited medical authorities to such narrow niches. That said, it would be extremely unlikely that any body of alternative medicine that has survived for millenia had completely failed to find even one useful herb. It's those random chance discoveries that keep the hopes of the followers alive.—Kww(talk) 19:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom that the American Cancer Society is not a general medical authority, and thus should not be called upon to speak to issues outside it's specialty when there are better resources available; even that os secondary to the fact that simply stated in the source, it's speaking about cancer alone. And expressly states a contrary opinion that "certain herbs (AKA substances) may offer potential therapeutic (eg. medical) value.

While there may be a case for the inefficacy of Ayurveda in general, and I hope that stance is accurately portrayed here on Wikipedia, the statement as it stands is not only outside the scope of its source, but is also (thank you Kww, for pointing out that statement from the source - "early research suggests that certain herbs may offer potential therapeutic value") expressly contradicted, and this misrepresentation should be corrected.

I am not suggesting any new statements be added, only that this inaccurate representation of the source be corrected by removal or re-framing (to place the statement within the context of cancer). Supaiku (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Expressly contradicted" is a fairly unreasonable interpretation of the summary, Supaiku: "laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments" and "early research suggests that certain herbs may offer potential therapeutic value" go hand-in-hand and certainly do not contradict each other. The source substantiates this with examples of laxatives. I don't think any reasonable person (or source) would argue that each and every herbal remedy use in ayurveda is useless. The problem is that the underlying concepts of ayurveda are nonsense, a statement for which we have adequate sourcing, although they use polite words such as "pseudoscience", "trans-science", and "religion". That means that any herbs from ayurvedic medicine that happen to be effective are effective for reasons unrelated to ayurvedic medicine.—Kww(talk) 21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kww, even though emotions are always present when editing, I hope you learn to keep your emotions to lesser extent, and rely on the sources (WP:STICKTOSOURCES). If a MEDRS compliant source says "A", then we will include "A". Nobody cares a bit about your personal opinions. In fact, it's just slowing the progress done here in the development of the articles. I don't really get the point why you are quoting the sentences from the article where even an idiot anyone would agree that it's not suggesting anything. "It is possible..." or "early reseach suggests", maybe I am totally clueless here but I've never noticed that someone wants to add such wordings to the article? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda being nonsense doesn't cause me any emotional upset. "Laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments" is a direct quote of the language in the current article that Supaiku is objecting to, and "early research suggests that certain herbs may offer potential therapeutic value" is the sentence from the source that Supaiku stated contradicts it. They are not contradictory at all. As to why to include it? Because some people will unfortunately make the unwarranted connection between "there is evidence that an herb used in ayurvedic medicine is useful" and "there is evidence that ayurvedic medicine is useful". The source is differentiating between the two cases and saying that the first is true while the second is not.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kww, I'm a little confused on your stance, could you clarify?

Are you suggesting we include the two sentences you mentioned in the article? I think that would be great, though there may be even better sources on the general effectiveness of ayuerveda than this one.

Just to clarify my own statement, the two sentences you mentioned ("Laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments" and "early research suggests that certain herbs may offer potential therapeutic value" are not contradictory and I didn't not intend to imply that, rather, they seem contradictory to the statement in the article, which is currently "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." What I take issue with is the " there is no evidence that any [substances] are effective in themselves", if instead it read, " there is no evidence that any are effective in themselves ''for the treatment of cancer."

Furthermore, just to be clear, contradictions aside, my issue is that the statement does not WP:STICKTOSOURCES, but makes claims which are beyond the scope of the source (which clearly states that there's no scientifically proven evidence supporting ayurvedic treatments for cancer). However, the source does not make that statement about ayurvedic treatments in general. Rather, other than alluding to need for more research, it makes no clear statement to the existence of concrete evidence to the effectiveness of ayurvedic treatment for non-cancer related ailments.

Again, the request is that the statement be changed to match the statement made in the source.

Also, I want to re-iterate that I love the two sentences you mentioned, and am glad that the one is included and do not hope to change that first clause.Supaiku (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

But it is reasonably clear, and it does extend the scope of its statements beyond cancer, and does make statements about ayurvedic treatments in general. Read the introduction over again. The only discrepancy I can see here is that article claims that some of the substances may form a basis for treatment, and it is a bit of OR to make the claim that they are "not effective in themselves". I'm open to rewording that addresses that issue.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: I admit not following every nuance of the discussion above, but I don't see consensus for this edit yet, so I have disabled the request. Please reactivate when ready. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - it does indeed seem that way. So, given that there's no consensus, what's the process?Supaiku (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You have to try to convince people that you are correct. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda is a science

Ayurveda is a science. Every underlying theories in Ayurveda has scientific basis and proof. If Ayurveda was a pseudoscience, why are universities providing B.Sc. in Ayurveda or B.Sc. in Yoga? In India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, Bachelors in Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery is conferred by institutes which parallely run other medical and paramedical courses. Ayurveda is NOT a pseudoscience. Thanks. Classicintl (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Even if we grant that those are respected institutions (which requires some evidence), respected institutions often offer degrees in non-subjects. And "every underlying theories in Ayurevda has scientific basis and proof" has no accuracy, even in grammar. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically, there's no point in pointing out grammatical errors in Talk Page. Let me put few facts:

1. Middlesex University provides MSc/PGDip Professional Practice in Ayurvedic Herbal Medicine. (http://www.mdx.ac.uk/courses/postgraduate/professional-practice-in-ayurvedic-medicine).

• If Ayurveda was a pseudoscience, Middlesex University would provide Masters of Pseudoscience in Ayurvedic Herbal Medicine. But, the truth is other way around!

2. AIIMS endorses Ayurveda for rheumatoid arthritis (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/46803148.cms)

• Why would India's top medicine institute support Pseudoscience?

3. US court rules in favour of school yoga classes (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/court-rules-favour-teaching-yoga-schools-150404001714944.html)

• Court favoring Pseudoscience?

4. PM Modi Now Has a Minister for Yoga, Ayurveda (http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modi-now-has-a-minister-for-yoga-ayurveda-691435)

• India wouldn't allocate millions of budget for Pseudoscience thing?

5. Arvind Kejriwal to Leave for Bengaluru Today for Naturopathy Treatment (http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/arvind-kejriwal-to-leave-for-bengaluru-today-for-naturopathy-treatment-744074)

• What convinces Delhi Chief Minister?

6. United Nations declares June 21 International Day of Yoga (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/11/us-un-yoga-idUSKBN0JP20V20141211)

• Don't tell UN has pseudoscience advocates?

-) Classicintl (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the UN, Ministers, and Courts sometimes base their opinion on science; but that is not always the case. Hence, it is unreliable to refer to them as "science". It is better to discuss the methodology, how it equates to standards for scientific rigor and list whether proponents of scientific skepticism think it is scientific or not. Timelezz (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Modern" vs. "today"

John, the lead currently states "and today ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific." I propose using the word "modern", rather than "today". This eliminates the possibility of thinking that ancient ayurveda might have been considered pseudoscientific, and makes it clear that it is only the modern context which legitimizes such terminology. Can I make this edit, or do I have to make an edit request? I am not used to working under 0RR restrictions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to remove it under a few hours because there will never be any consensus to call an Iron-Age medical system a pseudoscience. Bringing an unreliable source for making such big claims is righting a great wrong. నిజానికి (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:నిజానికి, you fail to understand this thread. No one is accusing ancient ayurveda of being pseudoscience. It is the modern version which is so accused, and rightly so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no modern or older version of Ayurveda. Avoid OR. నిజానికి (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As an Iron Age medical system, practiced in the Iron Age, you have a point. Someone comes up and wants to inflict it upon you today, it's quite likely that their explanation as to why it works would be classed as "pseudoscientific".—Kww(talk) 14:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What source is నిజానికి questioning the reliability? --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That one of Oxford. It is written by someone who has no expertise in Alternative medicines. నిజానికి (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Expertise in medicine and science is what we look for in a source. Expertise in alternative medicine typically indicates that the source is unreliable.—Kww(talk) 17:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We look for expertise. We cannot use a off-field source where you require credible source. And this source look like a nonamer to me. Can you prove if they have any credibility in this subject? నిజానికి (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that Oxford University isn't a reliable source would take some pretty strong evidence. That Ayurveda has no foundation in reality is well established, so the categorization as being pseudoscientific doesn't require a very strong source: it's not a startling or surprising claim. That some of its proponents attempt to mislabel it as a form of science would reinforce that. I'm not seeing any reasonable challenge to the reliability of the source here.—Kww(talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We cannot right a great wrong and stick to original research only because you say. You speak for that unreliable source(in this area) than it has done itself. And just don't repeat yourself again if you cannot prove the credibility of the source. నిజానికి (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reported your violation of the restrictions to User:John, నిజానికి.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that is is unreliable is a waste of time, but take it to WP:RSN if you like. Until someone does so and gets consensus that it is unreliable, let's not waste any more time here with it. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semple D, Smyth R (2013). Chaper 1: Psychomythology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-19-969388-7. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

నిజానికి, in what way is the source unreliable according to MEDRS? It is in independent high-quality source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw you just copied and pasted the source that I had already analyzed once. I had asked for its credibility, not about the publisher. Now don't re-store it until you gain the consensus or find many other reliable sources for this kind of knowledge. నిజానికి (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

After 5 months we are still arguing about this wiki-made discovery? QuackGuru, please read WP:STICK. Your book reference is not "discussing" Ayurveda. VandVictory (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

I see it mentioned in the reference as an example. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be mentioned only as an example where the examples of pseudoscience have been pointed. Now as it is just a view of a person, see Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view, third point. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really apply, Bladesmulti: that Ayurveda isn't a legitimate form of medicine represents the scientific consensus on the the topic, and there's no reason to believe that only a "tiny minority" would think it met the technical qualifications of being pseudoscience. As I understand your argument, the only reason you oppose the pseudoscience label is because Ayurveda "predates science". So what's your alternative? How would you concisely state in the lead that Ayurveda is founded on nonsense, provides no hope of effective treatment, and runs a substantial risk of injuring its "patients"?—Kww(talk) 12:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• If you are struggling to decide whether this material should be included, you should perhaps seek outside input. I see WP:RSN was mentioned and that is not a bad suggestion. Consider also whether the recent RfC applies to this question. Finally, is there a compromise both "sides" could live with? By the nature of compromises, it is likely not to please anyone but it might allow us to move on here. Certainly reverting back and forth isn't the answer. --John (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

I redacted an unhelpful comment here. I remind all editing here that, as per the restrictions and the editnotice, there should be "no name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations. There should be no reason for anyone to do this either. Any legitimate complaints about editor behaviour can be referred to me or to WP:AN/I, in that order of preference." --John (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't run into this division between "ancient Ayurveda" and "modern Ayurveda" before. Is there perhaps some good source available discussing this classification? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda is the name of a system of medical care that has a long history in South Asia. In pre-modern times what physicans practiced under the name Ayurveda was medicine, since it was the orthodox, learned form of medical understanding and treatement. (India has been medically pluralistic throughout history, as far as we can see from the evidence.) Practitioners of Ayurvedic forms of diagnosis and therapy have never stopped practicing in South Asia, so it isn't an ancient medicine. It is a contemporary medical system that has a history going back to ancient times. As ayurvedic practitioners have moved to countries outside India, the medicine they practice has been subject to adaptation to local conditions. And their practice has been received in varying ways by different communities of consumers and interpreters. To some patients outside India, Ayurvedic medicine is a complementary health system, to others it is a complementary system. To some communities, especially those invested in the worldview of Modern Establishment Medicine it is viewed as quack medicine, or (as anthropologists might call it) counter-hegemonic medicine. In short, practitioners of Ayurvedic medicine are viewed differently and have different roles in different localities and in different periods of history. There's is no need to essentialize it as quack or not quack, etc. Different people view it differently. And I think it is more helpful to talk about Ayurvedic practitioners than to anthropomorphize Ayurveda as if it were a single entity with a single voice. It is and has always been a collection of practices and observations, variously applied and variously received. DomLaguna (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction?

In the chart under Diagnosis, should "dipleting" (Langhana) be "depleting"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnulat (talk • contribs) 03:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of damage to article

The article was heavily damaged this morning by Wujastyk. I restored some of the worst sections to the state before his edit. As for efficacy, I restored the article to the state both before the damage that Wujastyk had caused and before the reintroduction of the pseudoscience material. Not because I disagree with the pseudoscience description, but because I didn't want to be accused of mischief. I suggest that others look over Wujastyk's edits and see which others could be classified as major changes made without discussion.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I decided to take a safer route. I have reverted Wujastyk's edits: they clearly violated the restriction of "Any major changes to the article must be first agreed upon using the article talk page", and it is probably safest for me to not attempt to pick and choose among them.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You have violated 0RR.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

There is not a 0RR restriction in effect.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The log states 0RR restrictions was lifted last year back on 19 November 2014. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to know ... I'll start right in edit warring then.... just kidding! (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

• Rather than block a bunch more people I have protected the article indefinitely. I will probably post some suggestions later for next steps but obviously there needs to be a discussion here towards a compromise. If people need advice on how to do this I can maybe help, but there is no harm in starting immediately. I am happy to unprotect when there is broad (not necessary universal) agreement to respect a consensus here. I quite deliberately did not inspect the details of where the article was when I protected, so I guess this is the chance for whichever "side" feels disadvantaged to accuse me of protecting the m:wrong version. Once we have got past that, let's hear how folks propose to compromise. The "pseudoscience" language seems to be the main current focus for dispute, so maybe that's a good place to start. --John (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We've been discussing a careful and judicious use of the word for days, and, if one weighs the arguments, consensus has been achieved. If one counts noses, it has not and never will be. The latest revert was of a complete rewrite of the article that was undertaken with no discussion at all.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• It has been discussed that the source hasn't discussed Ayurveda or pointed towards Ayurveda for a fringed label. It has rather included it as one example but that is not an analysis. VandVictory (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Kww. As an editor who is strongly in favour of one position over others you are probably not the most neutral person to decide if consensus has been reached. The addition of the content on pseudoscience is only one way of representing the word in the article; others have been discussed here. For example what about context and inline attribution. Further, the source used is weak per the information we want to include. However, before discussion was complete that content was added.

• Three issues (to summarize)

Is there consensus for adding pseudoscience

If there is what is the context for that addition.Should content be inline attributed, for example

And can we add good RSs for that content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

As an editor that only considers what respectable scientific sources say, I'm in a fairly good position. There's no weight in the opposition arguments, and much of the opposition seems to come from editors associated with TM and ayurveda.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kww. No. You're language tells me you are not in a good position. "Opposition arguments" Opposition to what? - The right side (battleground)? Characterizing editors according to what you think their affiliations are. Connecting those affiliations to this article. And finally implied placement of me in the so called opposition camp when I have supported adding the word with caveat. Read the threads. We can leave the word in place perhaps ( I'm only one editor), but let's add better sources, context, and in line attribute.I will be out of town for several days but later may try to add some content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

• @Kww, I'm a bit curious what the heavy damage was that warranted your wholesale revert. I haven't had a chance to review the edits in depth, but the editor seemed to be editing in good faith and was adding sources to citation needed tags. Also, it appears that this editor was specifically invited to edit here based on their academic expertise in the subject matter. [1] It seems to me that of all the people here, this is the kind of person we want editing the article. Just look at his user page and you'll see what I mean. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I also thought the edits were very possible additions although I'd have to look more closely at sources. At the worst they could have been discussed here. I would like to support some new blood on this article, especially an expert in the field.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

Short comment from a phone. History was removed, religious influences removed, ACS source misrepresented, all negative studies removed, heavy metal poisoning removed. What was left presented ayurveda as a form of medical science. Even if any of it was worth keeping, it broke the restrictions to do a major revamp.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The history seems to be there. The article now that I have time to read looks very good.... I haven'y looked at sources yet.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC))

Whether the changes were good or bad is rather immaterial. We edit collaboratively here. Subject experts are appreciated, if they can edit collaboratively. Solo editing is not collaborative editing, no matter how good. If this article weren't protected, we'd be able to calmly discuss, tweak, add, delete, use BRD, etc, to develop a version which enjoyed support from most editors. With the current protection, only discussed and uncontroversial preapproved edits can be made using "Semi-protected edit request"s. Anything else is seen as threatening, simply because other editors are excluded from making any edits. We are scared to touch the article.

Whether we like it or not, any edits not preapproved must be deleted and the article returned to its status quo version, as Kww did. Such a reversion is not disruptive because it is undoing an improper edit. The status quo version must be preserved until the protection is removed. Currently, in an attempt to protect Wikipedia, John owns the article. Until the article is unprotected, it appears that the only edits which can safely be made without risking sanctions are "Semi-protected edit request"s. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you've said. I will look at sources and of course as I would do anyway will discuss them and the content they support here.... The topic and subject area has become contentious so the restrictions on this page are just what should happen anyway. Discuss and get agreement; then add. We have an expert so we can afford to include them and even welcome them as we would any editor. Lots of editors flying solo before the edits today. What's good for the goose....quid pro quo and so on.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC))

As a note to this discussion, this is the total difference. Note the overall shift in tone, with negative material removed from the lead and generally deemphasised or removed throughout the article, and its new focus on the "modernization and globalization of Ayurveda".—Kww(talk) 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks. Wujastyk here. I didn't know about pre-approval for edits. I thought the Ayurveda page was like any other WP page, and could be edited as long as the guidelines for WP editing were understood and adhered to. My bad. I do my very best to reference everything I change. Actually, a lot of what I did was adding references, correcting spelling, and removing bold assertions on major matters that are unreferenced or poorly-referenced. Kww in this section refers to my edits as "damage". Obviously I think what I did added to the accuracy and coherence of the ayurveda entry. These are both points of view. I think we'll all have more success if we don't use loaded words to characterize each-other's work. I do apologize for launching in when discussion was mandated, but I stand by all my edits, which were carefully considered and based on good contemporary scholarship in the field of medical history and the study of ayurveda. DomLaguna (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How did you miss a great big notice like the one at the top of this page when you edited? Why did you demphasise the lack of scientific foundation for ayurveda?—Kww(talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't explain how I missed the big yellow sign; it's pretty clear, isn't it. :-) Maybe my eye skipped it because I'm used to seeing funding requests in that spot (I have a standing monthly bank order to Wikipedia). Moving on to your more interesting and less accusatory second question, I de-emphasized the lack of scientific foundation because I am aware of the huge amount of medical research that goes into ayurvedic medicine, especially at the Indian Government's Central Drug Research Institute in Lucknow, and publications like Ancient Science of Life and the Journal of Ethnobotany and Ethnomedicine and many others. The 2011 paper that I cited -- and you deleted -- by Furst et al. on rheumatoid arthritis was genuinely path-breaking, first because of the positive results for patients, but second for the cleverness of the design of the scientific investigation. Especially interesting was the development of placebo trials for ayurvedic treatments. I visited the laboratories in Coimbatore where the clinical trials were carried out under the direction of Dr P. Ram Manohar, and it was clear that serious, well-conceived work was going on. (Separately, I was most impressed by some forms of ayurvedic surgery that I witnessed.) The Furst et al. article concluded, "In this first-ever, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study comparing Ayurveda, MTX, and their combination, all 3 treatments were approximately equivalent in efficacy, within the limits of a pilot study. Adverse events were numerically fewer in the Ayurveda-only group. This study demonstrates that double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized studies are possible when testing individualized classic Ayurvedic versus allopathic treatment in ways acceptable to western standards and to Ayurvedic physicians. It also justifies the need for larger studies." This NIH-funded research project won internationial prizes. Now, I am fully aware that a mass of theoretical and practical nonsense is peddled under the name "Ayurveda" too. The way forward for us WP authors, in my view, is to stop essentializing Ayurveda, and to get more descriptive and less judgemental. There isn't one "Ayurveda"; there are practitioners who call their practice "Ayurveda" and who dip into a literature that started over two thousand years ago and pull various things out of it and do various things with what they find. Furthermore, Ayurvedic practitioners have very different standings in different countries. In India, Ayurvedic medicine is supported by the Government with colleges, and hospitals, exams and licensing, etc. In historical times, even as recently as a couple of hundred years ago, practitioners of Ayurveda represented the elite physicians of the most scholarly medical system available. Today, in Europe and America, Ayurvedic physicians have entered a plural medical setting where different interest groups pressure each other and promote themselves. With all this -- and more -- in mind, I think it is valuable to stand back, try to be dispassionate, and remain more descriptive than judgemental. It's not our job here in Wikipedia to decide whether practitioners of Ayurveda are quacks or not. It is our job to describe the situation, to say that QuackWatch, for example, presents useful criticisms of selected versions of contemporary Ayurvedic medical practice and theory, but it also grossly misrepresents ayurvedic history and theory, accepting definitions and assertions from poor-quality confessional and promotional literature as historical fact. At the same time, we can also point out that Ayurvedic literature has been a source of drugs for the international pharmaceutical industry since Garcia de Orta and Hendrik van Rheede from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries onwards, and especially after the work of William O'Shaughnessey who introduced many ayurvedic plants into the British pharmacopoeia in the nineteenth century. And Ayurvedic practitioners often offer important healing functions in rural India, and often practice a blend of ayurvedic diagnosis and therapy alongside Modern Establishment Medicine diagnosis and therapy. DomLaguna (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of being dispassionate, but bear in mind that our goal is to present the scientific perspective on scientific and medical issues, and that perspective is that ayurveda is without foundation. The issues you are bringing forward in its favour are, in my eyes, a form of condemnation: evidence that this particular form of mysticism dresses itself in scientific clothing, which is the very definition of pseudoscience. You are conflating two separate issues as well: there's no doubt that some of the herbs used in ayurveda are useful. It would be surprising if any effort to make people feel better has persisted for millennia without discovering some useful things. That some of the herbs work does not make the underlying descriptive system of imaginary forces and channels a valid description of human health.

As for the "award-winning study", please provide a reference for that that is a bit more compelling than a Facebook page.—Kww(talk) 14:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Furst 2011 study, you have made a mistake. I did give you the full reference to the original article, with a helpful click-through to the full text via its DOI. Look again. The Facebook page I referred to only gives a collection of information about the public recognition of the article: if you want more detail on the article's scientific reception, perhaps you can do your own legwork. Please don't use weasel words, scare quotes or sarcasm in this discussion: it doesn't help us forward. DomLaguna (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@KWW - did you mean "our goal is to present the scientific" just up there? ( + + + points up + + + ) I think it is important. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 19:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow ... I must be suffering from heavy metal poisoning just from editing the article.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, our job is not to present the scientific perspective and medical issues. That would be against Wikipedia's policies. At a Wikipedia page about ayurveda, our job is to present a picture of what Ayurveda has been (history) and also what it is today, including varieties of reception and interpretation. This includes describing responses to ayurvedic therapy from Modern Establishment Medicine stakeholders, yes. But that's not the whole picture. We need to present, however briefly, the existence of several points of view, precisely because this is a contested area. This isn't a forum for preaching, it's a descriptive place. And - even if you think ayurvedic theory is wrong, the fact remains that many practitioners and patients find ayurvedic diagnosis and therapy to be of value. So we need to say that. And, hard though it may be, refrain from saying, "and they're all fools." It's inadequate, intellectually, to charge in like a bull saying "this is all nonsense, it's not scientific". I think your distinction between pharmacopoeia and medical theory is a useful one (which is why I suggested it). And it's also worth discussing in the WP article that different aspects of ayurvedic medicine have been received differently when it has entered various alternative cultural settings and relationships outside South Asia. Many MEM doctors in India disapprove of ayurveda strongly, and see it as a paradigm of unreason. Other MEM doctors work together with ayurvedic practitioners, collaboratively. I know sad cases where patients have been killed by the malpractice of ayurvedic doctors. I am also aware that in the UK there are 40,000 deaths per year in hospitals due to medical error. I've published about this. And the figures are proportionally similar for other countries like the USA. So who is damaging more patients, actually? Wellness is a complicated, nuanced thing. Remember Georges Canguilhelm's concept of health as equilibrium with the environment. Some patients on their deathbeds reject chemotherapy and find higher quality of life from aromatherapy. So? Do you just say blah? What about Daniel Moerman's research on the "meaning effect" in medicine? From your reading about ayurvedic clinical practice today, how much use do contemporary ayurvedic physicians actually make of the "forces and channels" concepts when discussing diagnosis with their patients or when prescribing medication? Or take another angle: medical students in my classes who've gone on to general practice have found that many patients in South Asian immigrant communites report their symptoms to their general practitioners using concepts and language that are entirely alien to MEM practitioners. They experience things like heatiness, or are made dizzy by the death of a loved one. Conceptual frameworks can be very different. What I'm saying is that the WP page on ayurveda should be well-informed historically, and should present a picture of ayurveda as it globalizes in the modern world, including the various responses to it coming from patients, physicians, and the medical establishment. DomLaguna (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, one of the things that I changed in my edits that you called damaging was the assertion that there is a one-to-one correspondence between ayurveda and Hinduism. This is not the case, certainly not historically and not even in the contemporary world (e.g., Buddhist Sri Lanka). I cited literature to support this. How do you propose that we engage with this topic so that we can move forward? I raise this because it's likely to be a difficult matter, because contemporary proponents of ayurveda are sometimes unaware of the strong Buddhist influences in its earliest formation, and unwilling to accept the corresponding weak influence of Vedic culture in its early formation DomLaguna (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't that I think ayurveda is wrong that is the issue, it's that the prevailing scientific view is that ayurveda is wrong. As for giving weight to the view that ayurveda is a valid medical system, I refer you to Neutral point of view as applied to science: we do not present pseudoscience as if it is equivalent to the science. As for whether ayurveda is a mythology based on Buddhist influences or Vedic influence isn't a major issue to me, and that's a discussion that I'm not going to weigh in heavily on. I agree that our article on ayurveda should be informed historically and present a sound description of how it came to be. What it should not do is portray it as have a sound scientific foundation or being anything more than a belief system shored up by an industry set on presenting it as being valid. Faith healing works: there's no doubt that placebo-based cures can have a strong effect. That doesn't mean that the stories patients are told about what's going on are true. It is not the role of Wikipedia to participate in fraud.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Call me optimistic, but I detect faint signs of the possibility of the chance of convergence. To busy to write more now. Later. DomLaguna (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The NPOV article on Pseudoscience that you referred to says, "1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy." That sums up my position exactly. You use the expression "prevailing scientific view" as if it were obvious and unproblematic. It's neither. Thousands of scientists in India are engaged in clinical and laboratory research in ayurveda that they would unhesitatingly call scientific. They are part of an educational and training system backed by the government that awards PhDs, runs hospitals, clinics, and legitimizes a whole ayurvedic pharmaceutical industry. This needs to be said in an Ayurvedic article here in WP. It would be much more helpful to describe and document what's happening in and around Ayurveda than attempt to take a purist view about what science says and doesn't say. It's really hard to establish what science says, and even what that would mean. Hence Popper's theory of demarcation between science and metaphysics. And if something in Ayurveda is metaphysical by Popper's criteria, then great, let's say so. An idea that might help us is to consider that Ayurveda may be pseudoscience to some groups (hospital doctors in New York, say) while it is orthodox medicine to others (villagers in rural Karnataka, say). This has to do with reception theory - Ayurveda occupies a quite different cultural position in different places and in different historical periods. 131.130.180.22 (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That quacks call what they are doing "science" does not mean they are actually doing "science" or that the mainstream views their works as "science". There may be enough of a fringe movement that considers it "science" that we say "this tiny group of people considers this science" but WEIGHT is clearly and overwhelmingly against those views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To use the term "quack" prejudges the issues, and is unhelpful in a discussion like the one we're trying to have. And if only "WEIGHT" and "mainstream" were simple critera, but they aren't. Especially where India is concerned, it's always possible to produce staggering figures about the numbers of scientists, practitioners, and so forth. And there are several different "mainstreams." If you start trying to outrank the Indians on statistical grounds (your "weight"), you'll most likely fail. You might think this is a simple issue of empiricism. "Bring me a test-tube full of kapha"! Well, someone will. So then what do you say? This process will go on, until you find yourself epistemologically cornered. If it were easy to say what science is, we wouldn't have philosophers of science like Popper and many others who have struggled with this issue. It's certainly not as easy as shouting "you quack!" and walking away. If only it were!

In serious conversation, the idea of "pseudoscience", turns out to be unexpectedly hard to characterize rigorously because it ends up being tangled up in social matters concerned with interest groups. One can't talk meaningfully about pseudoscience unless one has some clear idea about whose pseudoscience one means. In other words, in the end it's all about who you talk to. One way to get ourselves out of this problem, here and now, might be to consider Ayurveda rather as questionable science, in WP's characterisation. That seems to me to push us less into fruitless discussions about Truth, and rather into the descriptive mode. DomLaguna (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no "prejudging". there is post judging. Published medical and clinical evidence of Ayurveda treatments working on a consistent basis = close enough to zero to make no difference. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your behaviour. We're not having a battle of words here, or trying to score points. We're trying to cooperate in making a better WP article on Ayurveda. Your comments seem aimed at rubbing my nose in some publications that offer clinical evidence against some Ayurvedic therapies. Does this mean you think I'm a thoughtless supporter of Ayurvedic medicine? I assure you, I'm not. But more important than that, I don't think it should matter much what my private beliefs are, nor yours. Because the WP article on Ayurveda should not be promotional - either for or against Ayurveda. Luckily, it's not our job to make judgements on this matter; it's our job (in the WP article) to lay out some account of the history and current position of the multiple forms of medical practices that go under the name of Ayurveda. Do you disagree with this? DomLaguna (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It IS our job to present the subject of the article as the reliable sources present it WP:UNDUE WP:MEDRES -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, a lot of these issues about science, ayurveda, and national recognition of medical systems were thrashed out fifteen years ago in the context of a British public debate that was started by a report of the Science & Technology Committee of the British House of Lords. The British Government's position was subsequently modified after representations from the Indian Government and other specialists (e.g., Simon Mills writing in the British Medical Journal). The final position of the British Government, Government Response to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's Report on Complementary and Alternative Medicine published in 2001, was a much better document, especially about Ayurveda. I have also published on this topic. The Government's final position was, broadly, that the complementary and alternative medical practitioners in the UK should form professional associations, establish ethical guidelines, training syllabuses and licensing systems. In other words, the social aspect of all this was recognised, without the need to appeal to (somebody's) Truth. DomLaguna (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I see your evidence as solidifying the case that ayurveda today is a pseudoscience as opposed to a religion or mystical belief system. That there are quasi-academic institutions devoted to it isn't much different from there being Christian and Muslim universities that teach creationism as if it were some form of science. I'm well aware of the UK's problems with distinguishing medicine from fantasy as well: they went so far down that path they even paid for homeopathy. It is our role to favour science when discussing medical topics, and ayurveda is not science.—Kww(talk) 04:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to help draft an RfC

I think we can all agree that this pseudoscience debate has been getting in the way of regular article editing, and needs to be resolved. To that end, I have created a draft space at User:Adjwilley/Ayurveda where any interested users are invited to participate in drafting a neutrally worded request for comment. Please feel free to edit the page as if it were your own sandbox, but remember that it will be necessary to collaborate with other users as well.

I suggest starting the RfC here in a week, letting it run its course, recruiting an uninvolved admin to close it, and making the result binding for at least a year or two. That way we can hopefully put this debate behind us and focus on actually improving the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting against consensus

Please get new consensus to add pseudoscience to article especially lead per [2]. I'd add that given the RfC and extensive discussion, opening discussion with out some new sources, and adding content without agreement for inclusion might seem tendentious.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

Sorry, but there was no consensus, and none related to applying the term to current practice. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any agreement even now? I see at least 4 users disagreeing to it. It looks like a pseudohistorical revisionism anyway, held by only one author who don't even describe more than a flying mention. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as only one user. While Ayurveda certainly predates science, that doesn't prevent its current use from being a form of pseudoscience. When I look over the previous RFC, I see that distinction brought forth several times and not addressed in the closing.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The number of people in agreement or disagreement doesn't matter, as consensus is not a vote. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote but it indicates the tendencies in a discussion. In a good collaborative situation, editors might hold off on pushing clearly contentious content into an article and rely on discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)at

This is hair splitting, but no problem. The intent to get this article superficially labelled on way or another rather than rely on good old fashioned explanation and content, is clear. I'd add that the syntax on the efficacy section might be tidied up. While westerners might label Ayurveda as pseudoscience many non westerners would not so this blanket statement is not accurate, is western centric, and does not honour other cultures. But again I doubt that matters when editors are determined to label. I won't play revert games with this content. The way to deal with clearly contentious content is to discuss and get agreement not to edit war it into an article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

Please don't focus on the westerners vs. non-westerners canard. We are an encyclopedia, based on science and fact. Ayurveda is clearly not based in fact, and the question as to how to label that is legitimate.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Kww I had said one author, not one user. There should be some basic agreement within the scientific community, then only we may consider. Right now it is just far. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't denigrate the value of an RFC conclusion: painful as it is, abiding by them is a necessary part of making this project stable. The best move would be to start a new RFC focused precisely on the distinction: pseudoscience in history vs. pseudoscience as currently practiced, and then abide by that result.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not painful at all to me at least, to include content that is both sourced and shows the agreement of the editors involved nor is anyone denigrating anything. Further, accuracy per a world population and adding content that is comprehensive and accurate is the job of a world encyclopedia. I agree another RfC with its discussion is useful and my comments above suggest further discussion prior to adding controversial content, but lets not narrow the scope to an already determined position. Ayurveda "as currently practiced" is wide open and carries implied bias. Truth is I don't care what this article says about Ayurveda, but I do care about the manner in which articles are labelled and I do care about accuracy and explanation over those simplistic labels. As I said I will not edit war over this, and again, prefer discussion to determine what is added when that content is so clearly contentious.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

Check the indentation level: my reply was to Ronz. Perhaps if you reread it in that light, you may interpret it differently.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Must admit I was on the fence when this whole ayurveda/pseudoscience fracas started (last year sometime). But on investigation the sources seem pretty solid in favour of so categorizing it, like the source I just came across and added (an OUP textbook) which goes so far as to detail why it's a pseudoscience. This is what the sources say *shrug* not sure why some folk seem to want to deny the article this information. (Add: BTW, demanding "consensus" be confirmed before making an edit is a symptom of ownership, not good. Better for editors to be bold and improve the article.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Asking for discussion and agreement for content that was the subject matter in an an RfC and is highly contentious given the numerous discussions on that word is not ownership. It is an implied request for collaboration. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

The RfC was about the category not about the sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that's why I qualified my statement with "subject matter"and "highly contentious". The bottom line is that I asked for discussion on a highly contentious topic and suggested that a bold edit and edit war is not the best way to approach that. I also clarified my position which is that I prefer explanation in content rather than labels which tell the reader almost nothing about the subject matter. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

So you'll be cool with the way we explain why ayurvedic medicine is pseudoscience in the article body, and merely mention it in the WP:LEDE as we should. This is not contentious at all, it's all perfectly straightforward. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing highly contentious about the topic. There is nothing contentious about explaining what reliable sources say. If you want more details see Talk:Ayurveda#Lost_treasure_found_in_the_archives. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are referring an unreliable source as a reliable source. That's where the story ends before it would even begin. నిజానికి (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What source might that be? Is there consensus it is unreliable, or just the position of a few (perhaps only yourself)? --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What is this, fighting a fish? We have had this discussion already in an RfC some months ago. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am always amazed at how much contention there is among editors of articles on subjects such as this one. I think falling back upon the encyclopaedic principles of relying on tertiary sources to represent the consensus view of the subject is the right thing to do. I don't understand very well how the discussion so far is really doing that. What I see is a lot of argumentation that definitely is NOT coming from a neutral point of view. It is not respecting scholarly traditions, nor is it discussing referenced material. I mean, what does it really mean to have a "consensus" of Wikipedia editors? And why are those particular editors given sway over the content of this article, arbitrarily? Consensus, to my mind, means having the content of the article reflect the consensus view of tertiary sources, not a consensus amongst a small group of individuals -- how many is it? 5? 10? -- as to what the article should or should not say. Granted, getting from the latter to the former seems to be what is at stake here, but it's taking on the feel of a US Senate filibuster, a blocking action to protect a point of view that is otherwise indefensible. JoGusto (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)