Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence

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

---

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

Note to closer: please see Wikipedia: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

• • 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 (^Talk/_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

• 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 wikipedia article on ayurveda starts with its roots in India, the presenet status of Ayurveda in India also needs to disclosed. And that status is NOT that of a pseudoscience (in India) --Arunjithp (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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 ^(Talk) 15:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support in lead sentence. It's well-sourced and we should not water it down as "is considered" pseudoscience (by whom? Why are we using WP:In-text attribution?). When you Google Ayurveda, the first result (after ads, of course) is Wikipedia, which as a preview displays only the first two sentences, which currently reads: Ayurveda is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurveda traditions are a type of alternative medicine. Calling it it a "system of medicine" is highly misleading in favor of ayurveda and a violation of WP:MEDRS; having "system of traditional medicine" is only slightly better but still misleading by omission. There is no good reason to shove "pseudoscience" further down so less people see it. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Going to note here that "oppose" !votes which gesture towards WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL, without actually having read them and noting that those pages support use of the term, should be given very little weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, and we must describe it as such clearly in the opening sentence. There is no need to repeat later in the lead (but certainly should be elaborated on in the body, since the lead is supposed to summarize the body). Retimuko (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any mention For first sentence but I am fine with keeping the term in first paragraph in 3rd sentencd if it has been explained the way Ivanvector, Aman Kumar Goel have explained. Otherwise whole lead. There is a lack of WP:RS (which could meet WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) describing Ayurveda as "pseudoscience" and we should not be doing that as well because that would require scholarly consensus among reliable sources. That does not exist in this case. Also see Talk:Ayurveda#Full lead. Azuredivay (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC) (Modified comment per concerns raised validly raised below. 03:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC))
• Support calling it pseudoscience somewhere in the first three sentences. I don't see a compelling reason this has to be in the very first sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for first sentence but support for first paragraph only if the relevance of term has been described like Ivanvector/Azuredivay did in their proposals. There is no need to mention "pseudoscientific" more than once in the lead overall. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for first sentence but support for first paragraph if the reason behind term has been at least identified that why it is being mentioned as proposed by Ivanvector, Aman Kumar, and Azuredivay. Siddsg (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the entire lead now per the conclusive arguments made below. Siddsg (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support in the lede or at least the first three sentences. Quacks weasel in "traditional" and "native" and "ancient" all the time to legitimize pseudoscience; the public by and large does not recognize that such "tradition" is what is left over after any useful properties have been integrated into mainstream science. The features that differentiate Ayurveda from other healing systems are exactly what define it as a pseudoscience, and framing it otherwise just dilutes the import of any subsequent characterization of it as woo. The same should be done with TCM. JoelleJay (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  @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, and is considered pseudoscientific" isn't grammatical (the commercialization of Ayurveda isn't what is pseudoscientific) and should be reworded. And we don't need to soften this with "is considered"--the practice is almost definitionally pseudoscientific. JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any mention in lead. I'm not convinced by the arguments of the supporters who seem to be simply advancing preconceived opinions in place of providing reliable sources to demonstrate the alleged pseudoscientific nature of the subject concerned.
  Some have come up with their understanding of WP:PSCI, but nowhere does it allow editors to engage in original research to label just anything as 'pseudoscience' if it supposedly contradicts some modern scientific narratives. Any mention of "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" in lead would run counter to the scholarly view about the subject which are more inclined towards the scientific basis of Ayurveda. While on one hand there is a glaring lack of sources (satisfying the policies listed at WP:IRS such as WP: CONTEXTMATTERS and WP: EXCEPTIONAL) holding Ayurveda to be a "pseudo-science", there are on the other hand, reliable sources explicitly rejecting the WP:LABEL of pseudo-science vis-à-vis Ayurveda.[2] 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such."" But this requirement was never met for this subject. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  You only quoted part of WP:LABEL. The part you left out says '"Per the content guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources." Prescribing remedies containing lead, mercury, and arsenic is about as Fringe as it gets.

  Here are sources that label Ayurveda as pseudoscience:

  • Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, pg. 23: Ayurveda[3]
  • Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, pg. 293: "Ayurveda research can be classified as 'tooth fairy science,' research that accepts as its premise something not known to exist."[4]
  • "Coronavirus spread not just an epidemic, pseudoscience has made it a ‘misinfo-demic’ too. Although research for a cure is going on at breakneck speed globally, the Modi government is choosing to focus on ayurveda and homoeopathy to prevent coronavirus infection."[5]
  • "Baba Ramdev, a popular guru, told a television channel that Ayurvedic remedies could be deployed... The promotion of nationalist pseudoscience under the BJP has worried Indian scientists and skeptics for years."[6]
  • "Some politicians are proposing a bill to license practitioners of Siddha, Ayurvedic, and homeopathic medicine as health care providers in India... Regardless of the initial reasons given for regulations allowing the practice of pseudoscience in medicine, once the regulations exist they will be presented and interpreted generally as an indication that the pseudoscience is legitimate."[7]
  • "Pseudoscience pretends to be science, but uses theories that are obviously unscientific or bogus... Alternative medicine is any healing practice 'that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine'. In some cases it is based on historical or cultural traditions, and usually not based on unbiased scientific theories... Some of the practices included in CAM are Acupuncture, Ayurveda, Biofeedback, Chiropractic medicine, Herbalism, Homeopathy, Hypnosis, Meditation, Naturopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Yoga."[8]
  • "Fake science label on Ayush tip"[9]
  • "Central to the arguments by the critics of AYUSH [Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Naturopathy, Siddha and Homeopathy] is the lack of a scientific and evidence-based system in the alternative treatments offered. It is for the same reason that the scientific and medical community, by and large, considers homoeopathy to be a pseudoscience, and dismisses it as quackery."[10]
  • "To Tackle a Virus, Indian Officials Peddle Pseudoscience... At an April 2 press conference, Shripad Naik, India’s minister for alternative medicines, declared that the treatment’s supposed success 'validates our age-old practice.' The British government swiftly issued a statement rejecting his claim. 'This information is incorrect. The Prince of Wales followed the medical advice of the National Health Service in the U.K. and nothing more,' a spokesperson said the following day. But this hasn’t deterred Naik’s Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy — or AYUSH for short — from promoting Indian alternative medicines as treatments for Covid-19. Established in 2014, the goal of AYUSH is to develop and popularize these treatments, many of which have their historical roots in India. Ayurveda, for example, has been practiced in India for thousands of years. Now, Naik said, the ministry aims to confirm that Prince Charles was cured using a combination of Ayurveda and the pseudoscience known as homeopathy, which has its roots in Germany, so that the treatment can be rolled out to the masses. This is in stark contrast to the position of mainstream medicine, which has not yet confirmed any evidence-based medicine for Covid-19, and is still highly cautious of giving experimental drugs to patients."[11]

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

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

  Nonsense. We're using reliable sources. There's no SYN. Assertions of what is or is not the "mainstream" viewpoint is OR. DUE material must be presented to meet POV. FRINGE also applies. We're here to write a serious encyclopedia, not act as a soapbox. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I support the explicit mention of pseudoscience in the first sentence of the lede. It's clearly established as such by previous RfC, and burying the obvious identifier further back (or leaving it out entirely) is hard for me to see as anything other than profringe. Clearly, that's not going to be popular with proponents and practitioners, but that shouldn't make any more difference than it does with homeopathy. --tronvillain (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC); edited 16:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Tronvillain, hi, sorry to badger you - the inclusion of pseudoscience in the lead already has long-standing consensus, this RfC is about whether to include it in the first sentence of the lead (or, as a number of people have suggested, requiring that it be early on in the first paragraph, but not necessarily in the first sentence) - just wondered if you'd like to expand on your comment. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

• Oppose mention of the term on lead. I agree with the above comments and Wikipedia is not for WP:OR or personal analysis not supported by the source. This is another such excellent source on the subject, and to quote from the preface of this book: "While there are many books devoted to Ayurveda, very few have any in-depth basis in scientific studies. This book provides a critical evaluation of literature, clinical trials, and biochemical and pharmacological studies on major Ayurvedic therapies that demonstrates how they are supported by scientific data. Providing a natural bridge from Ayurveda to Western medicine, Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies facilitates the integration of these therapies by health care providers." -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think you mean "back cover" rather than preface, and that book is an excellent example of pseudoscience, explicitly trying in the introduction take the five basic "indivisible" elements of earth, water, fire, air, and space as components of the three humors and interpret all of that as established biology. Then there's "The oxidized form of metal and mineral preparations, called bhasma, is also extensively used in Ayurvedic medicine. ... The common metals used in making bhasmas for therapeutic use are gold, silver, iron, zinc, tin, arsenic, gypsum, lime, alum, borzx, silica, diamond, ruby, emerald, saphire, jade, moonstone, sunstone, turqouise, and mica." And then there's "It is interesting to note that many Western-trained physicians question, for example, the scientific underpinning or rationale for the use of Ayurvedic medicine, homeopathy, and traditional Chinese medicine." Putting yourself on par with homeopathy is the biggest red flag imaginable. --tronvillain (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  That is an in-universe pseudoscience source, and and excellent example of why Ayurveda is considered pseudoscientific. If you question that, see whether you can find me positive reviews of the book in proper scientific or medical journals. (I don't mean other in-universe journals - serious academics have better things to do than review obvious nonsense - I expect that the book has been entirely ignored by the field outside of other pseudoscience sources.) GirthSummit _(blether) 17:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

    We don't judge reliability purely on the basis of who published something. You could replace CRC Press with OUP in that sentence and it wouldn't make it true. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any mention of the term in lede. Essentially what Shiv Sahil writes. This realm of reliable scholarly views on Ayurveda indicating its scientific basis and dismissing the applicability of terms such as "pseudo-science" has astonishingly remained an uncharted domain as far as this discussion is concerned. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any mention Term isn't supported by any of the reliable sources so we can't state it in WP:WIKIVOICE. If you can't state something in Wikivoice then it does not belong in lead. As for the AC/DS, this subject falls under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture exclusive for "Complementary and Alternative Medicine", and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, exclusive for anything about India and Pakistan. This means that any WP:SYNTH based on the WP:ARBPS ultimately holds no water. Pratyush (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Term isn't supported by any of the reliable sources" ← very obviously untrue. Alexbrn (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Passing mentions don't count. Siddsg (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support for mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence of this article. A system of medicine that, at its core, depends on a religious and cultural context cannot be reasonably described as "scientific." This is not meant to be a blanket indictment of the field, nor is it meant to dismiss any benefit that a person may yield from it. However, we (I mean humanity) were not exactly doing randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trials in 4000 BCE; whatever this form of medicine was then cannot be called "scientific," despite the interest of its modern adherents in applying modern science to its claims. The same can be said of TCM. If the term is not in the first sentence, I would not want it to be much farther from it.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support using pseudoscientific or pseudoscience in the first sentence.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support in the first sentence. This actually needs to be rammed home. You only have to read a few Indian press headlines to see that the practitioners of this art are outright profiteering and contributing to the death of people. One of the early headlines I saw, now months old, was the one where a group of fundamentalist Hindus were encouraging people to drink cow urine in the street, and stuff since has been both far worse in likely outcomes and far more bizarre. Although arguably not as bizarre or bad as the whimsical suggestion of you know who re: bleach. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  @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 [12] and [13]. So, mentioning it as a pseudoscience in the first line itself will help stress the fact in the reader's mind that it is not a type of medicine worth relying upon. Jasksingh (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked for socking.
  • And those 2 sources don't support the term "pseudoscience". Siddsg (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Jasksingh's comment has been unstruck. That user has only been blocked for one week, meaning they will be back to normal by the time the RfC ends. Do not restrike or you will be taken to WP:ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support in lead sentence - This is a defining trait per sources, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any mention. Entirely depending on a single mention of this book does not justify the classification of the entire subject as "pseudoscience". Per WP:LEAD, lead should be rid of any dubious information because since "pseudoscience" is not justified by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it should not be mentioned on lead altogether. Unless we are also going to refer the methods of Hippocrates, Galen, etc. as "pseudoscientific", I don't see any sense in referring Ayurveda, largely known as "protoscientific",["protoscientific",[14] (WHO) "ancient science",[science",[15][16] should not be misrepresented as "pseudoscience". Capankajsmilyo (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Except that Galen's humorism is now a pseudoscience. Anyone practicing those ancient theories in the modern world is a quack. Since the article explains that Ayurveda is a modern practice, it would be false and misleading to refer to it as an "ancient science", because science adapts to new information. As a modern practice, it is currently pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  Capankajsmilyo, I think you missed the point. People are still publishing sciencey-looking papers making bold but incorrect claims about ayurveda, so it is now a pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 13:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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

• support using pseudoscience in the first sentence--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• support the use of pseudoscience in the first sentence of the lead. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• support the use of pseudoscience in the first sentence of the lead and then expanded in the main article. JenOttawa (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, certainly in the first paragraph / 3 sentences and I am not opposed to including in the first sentence. Wikipedia doesn't do "other ways of knowing". Guy (help!) 13:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The very first top 20 results on Google does not say Ayurveda is a "pseudoscience". Apparently, the above arguments are based WP:OR than anything credible. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  You need to find good sources which consider the question of whether or not Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. That's already been done, and they find it is. The question of this RfC is then how to deal with that fact to satisfy policy best. Alexbrn (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support in lead sentence. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think that this question should also be asked for the Traditional Chinese Medicine article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Shiv Sahil. How come Ancient Greek Medicine does not include this term anywhere on that article but instead reads like a fluff piece? Where do WHO, NIH, NHS call Ayurveda a pseudoscience? They only prefer calling it a traditional or alternative medicine. I don't think Wikipedia should be exploited to change the mainstream view. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  This has been discussed above. If people were still publishing sciencey-looking bogus research about Ancient Greek Medicine, we'd call that pseudoscience too. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (such a heavy tag must be undisputably supported by relevant sources) and such a term is already far from mainstream definition of the subject as noted above. Regards, Field Marshal (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support mention in opening paragraph at least. The lead sentence calls this a system of medicine, not mentioning that it's considered psuedoscience and the lack of rigorous scientific evidence about the effectiveness would be to put a false balance. I think the existing para in the lead (third) should then be slightly trimmed, it's a bit too detailed for the lead. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is important to immediately identify pseudoscientific beliefs as such as it gives the entire article the necessary context. IMO no argument can be made that this is a scientific belief system. PainProf (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: This term is overused on Wikipedia. It's completely unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

  I see it as similar to WP:RACIST. This guideline may not necessarily directly cover this instance (nor do I believe this is a valid medicine), but just because a certain label is true doesn't necessarily mean we should use it for an encyclopedia. A line like "according to [certain scientific papers], no scientific basis exists for this medicine" gets the same point across without the label. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion; the first sentence would be fine, but I'm not convinced that the second or third would be too late. The arguments offered in opposition don't hold water, for reasons already hashed out (If people were still publishing sciencey-looking bogus research about Ancient Greek Medicine, we'd call that pseudoscience too, et cetera). XOR'easter (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The article would read nothing more than a soapbox for misleading POV pushing if "pseudoscience" is how you define a pioneering medical subject. Tessaracter (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose in lead. Mainstream independent sources don't claim this. Arguments based on its prior categorization on WP are also unscientific since categorization dues not require referencing and is frequently incorrect. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Amousey: So if a reputable academic text book from OUP, considering what and why some things are pseudoscientific, is not a "Mainstream independent source", what is? Have you looked at the several sources categorizing Ayurvedic medicine as pseudoscience? Why are you saying they are not "mainstream" or "independent" - this seems extraordinary. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  There is some apparent cherry-picking of sources here - the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience cited above for example states some Ayurveda texts are in use in Indian medical schools, and that the validity is in doubt - but stops well short of suggesting that it's all total nonsense or fringe - this text may have an "editor" but it only appears to have minimal named contributions - all of which are in the preface.

  There are (to my surprise) a very long list of reviews in pubmed, including multiple systematic reviews by Cochrane - one of which has some positive findings in support of specific treatments for diabetes mellitus, for example - although all are 9 or more years old. Cochrane don't review fringe or pseudosciencd. The NCCIH, which I got to from a source in the current lead, is also funding trials abs describes some evidence for specific Ayurveda treatments.

  Evidence found for treatments such as turmeric for pain and inflammation in osteoarthritis is one I noticed (when intentionally avoiding journals for alternative therapies).

  WHO report (2019) describes recognition including regulation, training standards, and prescriptions of Ayurveda medicine in many different countries. Clearly an alternative medicine. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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

• 'Support in the first sentence. There is nothing scientific about it and everything pseudo-scientific. If Ayurveda isn't pseudoscience, what is? We need to reveal this fact to reader without delay. GPinkerton (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose see no reliable sources for the claim, other than mutual agreement between set of contributors, do not believe that a set of beliefs by certain users should be allowed as a claim to be true and completely alter the context of the article WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, also do not see any concrete evidence for the claim by "support" users, could be mass campaign outside wiki to push the POV WP:NPOV Shrikanthv (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is basically required by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, since mainstream reliable sources support the claim. It is surprising that some participants do not consider the Oxford University Press, the MIT Press, or the NIH to be reliable publishers. < Atom (Anomalies) 11:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC). Fixed 3rd link. 21:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 1st link does not describe Ayurveda, 2nd link does not refer Ayurveda as "pseudoscience" and your 3rd link is same as your 1st link. So yes, the participants opposing the term are absolutely correct per on the grounds of WP:NPOV, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which is what "basically required". Siddsg (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  WP:GASLIGHTING is a really bad idea on a topic under discretionary sanctions. The closing admin will be able to see for themselves that the good sources we cite directly and unambiguously declare Ayurvedic medicine to be pseudoscience/pseudoscientific. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  User:Siddsg The 1st link says "These pseudoscientific theories may ... confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki, therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine)". The 2nd link says "someof these 'scholarly' journals devoted to Ayurveda alone, others to Ayurveda and other pseudoscience", "including those devoted to pseudoscience topics such as An International Quarterly Journal of Research in Ayurveda." I pasted the wrong url into the 3rd link - it was supposed to be this link. < Atom (Anomalies) 21:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• General thought not a vote. The first sentence of the lead should be about whatever it is that made the subject of the article notable. Subsequent content in the lead goes on to describe the subject. Is pseudoscience what made the subject notable or is it that this is a traditional health modality? Are there problems with selecting other subjects for Wikipedia just because they are pseudoscience topics or should we be choosing article topics based on other notability. Seems to me these questions underlie how we write articles. And I don't have the answers. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  As has been mentioned, the nub here is WP:PSCI which requires us to make it plain and prominent when something is pseudoscientific. The (very specific) question of this RfC seeks to determine how that should best be done in this case, since Ayurveda is a known pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  I guess my question would be does a fundamental guideline guiding article writing- notability- take a second place to WP:PSCI. I think there are two possibilities: it does or it doesn't. Perhaps, fundamentally, that's what the RFC is about. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  WP:N is not a guide to article writing, it is a guide to whether articles should exist or not. NPOV (of which PSCI is part) is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  and the reason for notability is generally established in the first line. Is pseudoscience the reason for notability or the reason for writing the article, or is the basic information about Ayurveda notable and placed in the first line which means pseudoscience would go later in the lead. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's a made up rule, and evidently not true in many cases. This in no way advances the discussion which about how best to satisify WP:PSCI's requirement to make the pseudoscientific nature of Ayurveda properly plain and prominent. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree with you. And I understood the RfC was about adding pseudoscience to the first sentence. Perhaps the question should be where in the lead do we add pseudoscience to make the term prominent or prominent enough which is quite different. I could go on given WP:MOS but it was not my intent to either derail this nor do I have a definitive position on this which from your comments I assume you think I do. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Striking comments. In most articles I've been involved in notability was expected to be established in the first sentence but on rechecking the guideline there is no explicit statement saying that. There are questions about what prominence means in terms of placement as well as whether to establish the pejorative before notability has been described, although pseudoscience is not necessarily considered a pejorative term by many. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any mention - A statement, claiming that an ancient medical system is "pseudoscientific", itself looks like an engagement in pseudohistory. Unless there is a clear consensus about the term with relation to the subject within actual WP:RS, there shouldn't be any mention of the term at all. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  The question of this RfC is not whether Ayurveda is a pseudoscience (that has already been determined, and there is RS). The question is whether it should be mentioned in the first sentence, or later. Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  If it is not pseudoscience (as clearly determined through enough information above) then there are even fewer chances of providing any mention. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Editors should stop bringing up "ancient" and/or "history". This isn't 300 BCE Wikipedia. This is 2020 CE, and practitioners who willfully ignore up-to-date medical science in favor of Ayurveda are engaging in pseudoscience. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I looked into the sources, and I agree that they don't pass the guideline which say "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Unless WHO agrees that it is pseudoscience, it should be deemed WP:UNDUE. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  The sources that categorise it as pseudoscience do not do so in passing. Nowhere in any policy or guideline does it say that such a categorisation must be made by the WHO. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Some users seem to have raised the objection that not many sources call it a pseudoscience. From a scientific perspective one reason is that most mainstream scientists evaluate only plausible claims. We won't put patients at risk of harm by evaluating treatments that are likely to be unsafe or do not have a plausible claim of efficacy as this is unethical. For this article, the sources found reflect as large a number of sources for the statement as would be possible. Notably, there are no reliable scientific sources taking the opposite view. The premise of this RFC made me curious about what the literature says about the most effective methods of combatting scientific misinformation and whether there was any reliable academic work that might be instructive in the most effective method to address misinformation. Based off the academic work in the field I found that a meta-analysis suggests the most effective method to combat misinformation is to immediately debunk it in detail. I think this should correspond to devoting quite a few sentences to debunking within the first few paragraphs. The research as emphasises that the counterarguments are should be exceptionally well argued. In this light, I would suggest after the briefiest possible basic description we introduce the no medical efficacy and dangerous effects to give them both due weight and prominence. The fourth paragraph's beliefs could also be challenged as "mystical" etc. Based off the academic studies, the detailed debunking of the beliefs should occur as early in the article as possible so the structure could be rearranged so that this is possible. In this case, I interpret due weight on the topic to mean that mainstream science views will be given the most prominence in he article than the views of practitioners. PainProf (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So are you agreeing to the point that each claims have to be debunked , that also means that just labeling or branding the entire approach alien to some region as pseudo in the lead itself is just closing doors of any possibility of debunking a claim, while in the beginning itself you have already assumed answer to be of particular result and then look into possibility for just affirming your stated affirmation ? Shrikanthv (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in the first sentence. Wikipedia should be upfront about this. Oh, and I suggest to the closer that the vote of any editor who claims Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience at all should be ignored on general principle. --Calton | Talk 12:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support in first sentence of the lead - WP:MEDRS is not necessary to apply WP:PSCI, WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL. WP:RS is enough and the body covers it so should the WP:LEAD. It's not always necessary that this be in the first sentence, but if we have the choice, it's even better. —PaleoNeonate – 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

  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 ^-talk- 16:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as egregiously flawed. The sources being used for supporting 'pseudoscience' are in fact not using the term from the first sentence either. Overall the term just does not fit here.  IndyaShri (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no policy or guideline that says that for us to mention something in the first sentence of our lead, our sources must mention it in their first sentence. Such a notion is ridiculous - we are writing fairly short articles about specific subjects, using sources which are often much longer, covering multiple such subjects. (If I write an article about a specific building, drawing on information in architectural guides that cover a whole city, I don't worry about the fact that my particular building isn't mentioned until page 548 when thinking about how to compose my lead.) GirthSummit _(blether) 08:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if one is to consider the above claims that Ayurveda is pseudoscience (which it is not in the sense that it pre-dates science), then still it is nothing more than one of the view than "concise overview of the article's topic" as required by MOS:LEAD. Lead should only reflect the common definition.  Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Who told you that things that predate science cannot be pseudoscience? That would make alchemy, astrology, and creationism "science". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support mentioning pseudoscientific or pseudoscience in the first sentence, considering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Idealigic (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support mention of pseudoscience in at least the opening paragraph. Simply calling it a "system of medicine" inaccurately suggests that the system actually healing in a reliable way, which it demonstrably does not. There are several sources which may be used to support the label of "pseudoscience", such as those suggested by Ivanvector and Guy Macon. BirdValiant (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience" has only 1.9k results on Google, with mostly forum posts and blog comments. Compare it with "Ayurveda is an ancient" (6 million results), "Ayurveda is a traditional" (100k results), "Ayurveda is a medical" (2.5 million results), etc. are clearly much better options. Orientls (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience" = 854 Ghits. "Ayurveda is a pseudoscientific" = 1,590 Ghits. "Ayurveda is an ancient" = 1,040,000 Ghits. "Ayurveda is a traditional" = 364,000 Ghits. "Ayurveda is a medical" = 89,100 Ghits. Your numbers are way out, presumably because you failed to enclose each phrase in quotes. Google hits are not a reliable method of determining the balance of content in reliable sources. "Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience" = 10 Ghits (not one of them a reliable source). --RexxS (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral It can be added as pseudoscience or pseudo scientific in the lead, but the sources have to be attributed if so. For example in the lede, "is a pseudoscience according to ... names of sources. " Editors shouldn't decide the labels the sources should.Manabimasu (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Having it in the first sentence of the lead announces to the reader that Wikipedia has a strong bias and doesn't adhere to NPOV. Ayurveda is a traditional system, and it would be most representative to present it as such.TimidGuy (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:PSCI, part of WP:NPOV, states, The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. NPOV actually backs up "support" comments. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because of obvious factual concerns. Ultimately, in 21st century you can find reliable sources connecting many of the subjects with terms like "dictator", "terrorist", "pseudoscience", "fake", "liar", "crackpot", etc. but what we have to look into is WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS none of which appears to have been satisfied. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose first sentence, but definitely support presence in lede. The prime identity of the topic is as a traditional practice with deep cultural roots, and the lede should start off with that angle. Modern (in)applicability is important but on the second rung. Second or third paragraph seems fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:PSCI, it does not matter what the topic's own identity is. What matters is what reliable objective observers say about it. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not justifiable in the face of the objection above noting near lack of prominent usage of the term and basic violation of WP:LABEL. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:LABEL, 3rd paragraph, specifically states that pseudoscience should be described as pseudoscience: With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support either in the first sentence or in the opening paragraph. The fact that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience is beyond doubt, and is described as such in many reliable sources. The opposing view, that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience, has virtually no presence in reliable sources. The oppose arguments asserting that sources don't refer to Ayurveda as a pseudoscience or as pseudoscientific is simply untrue, and numerous reliable sources have been cited to show that. Because the mainstream view is so well-accepted, it is not as common to see it explicitly expressed in sources as to find it implicitly assumed. As an analogy, we don't find "the Earth is round" in most geographical articles, but that is not an argument supporting a proposition that the Earth is flat. There is little doubt that Ayurveda is an ancient, traditional system used for medical purposes in parts of the world, but that is not an argument against describing it as "pseudoscience" as well. Those considerations should be sufficient to discount oppose !votes attempting to remove all mention from the lead. These are generally from SPAs concerned with promoting Ayurveda.
  The real question that needs to be examined is whether "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience" should be part of: (1) the first sentence; or (2) the opening paragraph; or (3) a later paragraph in the lead. The relevant polices are MOS:BEGIN and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The former gives the following guidance "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view ... It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." and "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." The latter states this: "editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." It is clear that being a pseudoscience is a key defining feature of Ayurveda, particularly for the lay reader. From that, I believe that the pseudoscience description must be in the first paragraph, and is as important a feature as being traditional or ancient, especially for the lay reader. In addition, we should not be presenting readers with just the Ayurva's internal perspective, but we are obliged to ensure that it does not obscure the mainstream view, that of being a pseudoscience. My preference would therefore be to include pseudoscience as part of the definition in the first sentence; placing it further on the opening paragraph would be a second choice. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Given the lack of substantial consensus within academic sources for the term, it would be violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. It is better to leave it as is. Capitals00 (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in the lead, proposed full lead below is also good to go, as it is properly referenced. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion in the first sentence - RexxS above makes a very good point about just how much of truth should be covered as per MOS:BEGIN and how it should be stated. Also withdrawing my support for the lead below: it seems a little bit too apologetic, giving the idea that everything in Ayurveda is well defined and that the "pseudoscience" theory is just a Westerners' concept. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose In view of the sources Shiv Sahil, TheodoreIndiana and some of the other opposers brought up. They make it clear that there exist reliable sources that not only explicitly reject the label of pseudoscience for ayurveda but also lend support to its scientific basis, and this, surely, is something that cannot be disregarded. As it says on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the article should not take sides, but explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias, so as to better serve the reader and help him understand both viewpoints (as also suggested by Manabimasu). Regards, MBlaze Lightning 11:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The two sources they used were already addressed above as being WP:PROFRINGE themselves and not valid. Your suggestion runs afoul of WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note to closer - in the Discussion section, evidence is given that there may have been offsite canvassing for the "oppose" side. Roxy the dog there states he supports a version suggested by Guy Macon, which is also uses "pseudoscience" in the lead sentence. Sunrise notes a previous RfC regarding categorization of pseudoscience and that there was sockpuppetry there in favor of "oppose". Crossroads ^-talk- 17:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose in opening sentence but fine in second sentence or anywhere else in the lead. In terms of format, the opening sentence should establish why we are writing this article, that is, why the subject matter is notable, and what it is we're talking about. The subject is notable because it is a form of traditional health care not because it is pseudoscience. Bringing in pseudoscience in the first sentence is a bit like hammering the reader over the head with the Wikipedia position, a warning siren or red flag. We can describe the mainstream scientific position on Ayurveda once the reader has a sense of what the topic is. I have no problem with the version in place in the article now or the version below. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• 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 [17]. This system of belief (not science) places faith above reason. It remains on the shadowy sidelines of scientific scrutiny. The very limited success which can be attributed to Ayurveda is the herbal prophylaxis, like turmeric or ashwagandha and such, which has very limited application in modern science. Indian government has spent thousands and thousands of crores into this, built a special ministry for it. What are the results? They exempted this field of protoscience from getting scientifically scrutinised. It shows that political pressures and money alone can't guarantee scientific success. Where do the AYUSH ministers go when they need medical attention. To modern medical hospitals[18]. How convenient. Where are the editors who oppose the word pseudoscience that can show us an Ayurvedic medicines that passed an RCT. - hako9 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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

• 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.[19] 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 ^-talk- 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: [20]. 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: [21]. No. EB on the history of medicine in Asia [22] - no. As about Lysenko and Ayurveda, that is definitely WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

  The reputable encyclopedia are tertiary sources. According to our guidelines [23], Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. This is exactly such case. Due weight. Trying to make presentations which are dramatically different from those in reputable encyclopedia is a red flag. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  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: [24] [25], [26], [27], [28]... —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 (!) [29]. Sure, unlike the EB, it assumes by default that Ayurveda belongs is related to the wide area of pseudoscience - simply because it is included in the book. However, does it say anywhere in first paragraphs that "Ayurveda is pseudoscience"? NO. It tells something very different. OK, let's describe it exactly as in Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. This is an argument in my favor. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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

  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 "[Title] is a pseudoscience" or "[Title] is the pseudoscientific belief" or something like that. That doesn't mean it should be repeated over and over, though. Just say it once up front. Lev!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

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

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

My opinion is that this proposal is out-of-process for this RfC, which is asking a specific question. If other questions about the lede are unresolved they can be decided later. But I would not like to see this RfC sink because of lost focus. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think a question of "what should the opening sentence be" (paraphrasing the RfC) is an incomplete discussion without considering the lede as a whole. Taking into account Crossroads' observation about Google results, I think we're compelled to not describe it as a "system of medicine" (I'm personally okay with "system of traditional medicine" as the wikilink provides necessary context, and directly states that traditional medicine conflicts with science), and to flip the "Globalized and modernized..." and "Since the 1960s..." sentences, or otherwise modify so that the word "pseudoscience" appears in the first two sentences. Otherwise I think this is, at least, a very good starting point. But note that more concerns have been raised in new sections below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I really looked into below sections before proposing this version. I agree that the RfC question is incomplete without deciding the whole lead. @Alexbrn: I don't see why we should wait for weeks if we can come to agreement about the version in less time. Azuredivay (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A lede is meant to summarize the body. Per the discussion below the body is likely to change (maybe considerably) not least because of likely problems in the body text, and so the lede will have to change to remain a good summary. An RfC cannot "decide" an entire lede in any meaningful way because it will stymie the normal process of improving the article (with knock-on consequences for the lede). Let's stick to the question asked, and respect the responses already given to that question. Changing the RfC process now will just open it up to gaming attempts IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Azuredivay, nope. It's not a system of medicine, it's an atavistic throwback and a rejection of medicine in favour of folk remedies whose ineffectiveness are the entire reason that medicine developed in the first place. Guy (help!) 12:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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):[30] --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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for several years without challenge. That settles the question of whether ArbCom regards the subject as pseudoscience.
• ArbCom defined "Generally considered pseudoscience" as "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." I believe that is the appropriate classification for Ayurveda.
• The article has been categorised in Category:Pseudoscience (along with astrology) for several years, which reinforces the point above.
• Our guideline at WP:FRINGE/PS states "Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." I believe this and the two points above provide overwhelming evidence that Ayurveda is pseudoscience as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
• Our policy at WP:PSCI states "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." I believe that requires us to state clearly that Ayurveda is pseudoscience.
• The lead of an article "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I believe that the requirement in PSCI to clearly describe the topic as pseudoscience makes it one of the most important content items, and therefore must be included in the lead.
• The opening paragraph of the article "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." I believe that, in conjunction with PSCI, obliges us to establish in the opening paragraph the mainstream view that Ayurveda is pseudoscience.
• The first sentence is described in the MoS over multiple bulletted points, but I believe the relevant ones are "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialized term, provide the context as early as possible" and "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." That leaves me uncertain whether we ought to include in the first sentence the context that Ayurveda is pseudoscience, or whether it can be left later on in the opening paragraph.
• I suggest that the focus of the RfC should be on determining whether the first sentence or later in the opening paragraph should contain the wording about pseudoscience, as I think any other options are excluded by policy. --RexxS (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just came back after looking at both pages to say the same thing. I say we should go ahead and put pseudoscience in the first paragraph of each. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, adding pseudoscience to both of those would be completely reasonable. I imagine TCM might have quite a few proponents opposing any such change though. --tronvillain (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

---

I was looking over all of the pro-fringe !votes, and it got me to wondering whether there has been some off-wiki canvassing. I didn't find anything specifically mentioning this RfC, but there are a couple of websites that may be driving pro-fringe traffic to this page.

• h t t p s : / / www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/wikipedias-hate-campaign-ayurveda/

Wikipedia’s Hate Campaign Against Ayurveda

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

Wikipedia’s Culture of Editorial Chaos and Malice

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

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

• As mentioned above, the previous RfC has already established a consensus that use of the pseudoscience description is appropriate, and in particular the closing statement tells us that we can discard the arguments which claim the term is not supported by RS. Furthermore, at the time the topic was subject to socking in favor of the "Oppose" outcome (see AN discussion and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OccultZone/Archive). Given the number of new accounts this has attracted, I would agree that some form of misconduct is happening this time as well. Sunrise (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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 Wikipedia since its inception. If that starting point is accepted then the policies/guidelines at WP:PSCI and MOS:BEGIN are paramount and those arguments based on them are irrefutable and must be given the strongest weight; if it is rejected, then WP:PSCI is irrelevant. There isn't a "neutral option" on that issue. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: Since you have already come this far by analyzing and closing the AN discussion, can you be the one to close this RfC as well? I don't think if any other admin will bother to touch this discussion even with 100 feet pole. IMO, there are only 2 possible outcomes, one that there is no consensus for anything like MrX's closure noted,[31] and another one is that there is consensus to include the term not in the first sentence but the first paragraph like RexxS[32] Guy Macon,[33] and JzG[34] said. The lead, especially the first paragraph of the article, was changed by 16 August[35] following the discussion on Talk:Ayurveda#A lead paragraph without the whitewashing where the discussion seemed independent of this RfC. Azuredivay (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  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 Wikipedia claims Ayurveda which has well structured syllabus and taught in Universities for 51/2 -8 years,which needs registration from Medical Councils etc to be "Pseudoscience" then please make changes in Yoga, Reiki, Acupuncture and so on Pseudoscience too please. (There are multiple research centres for Ayurveda in India. Please note that it is an indigenous system to India and need funding in huge amount to do more research and is not propagated by multinational Pharma giants to come up with many studies. What is known is, many people are benefitted from the medical system and Wikipedia quoting it as Pseudoscience and quackery and quoting "IMA" which is an independent small organisation of modern medicine docs is disappointing. "IMA" in India has always opposed traditional medical systems, but on the other hand they certify air-conditioners and wall paints that purify air and get rid of bacteria/viruses - that is very SCIENTIFIC. Lol. Veena Hemesh (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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

We have longstanding prior consensuses that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience:

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

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

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

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

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:

	Well-reasoned opinions	Cursory opinions	Total
Support in lead sentence	5	19	40
Support in lead section or paragraph	4	12
Oppose	3	22	25
Neutral	1		1

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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)

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