Template:Vital article

No scientific evidence

The claim that there is no scientific evidence to support the use of any Ayurvedic substance is false. At lease one meta-analysis[1] and two review articles[2][3] from reliable sources find evidence for the effectiveness of one Ayurvedic herb. Additionally, opium is used to treat pain in this tradition. This claim is well verified by science. Some rephrasing is needed. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please quote exactly what in the you believe is false? If it's the third paragraph of the lede, then it seems you're taking it out of context. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ronz: I am referring to the third paragraph of the lede: "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 effective as currently practiced." This statement is untrue, or at least overly strong, because there is scientific evidence to support the use of at least two Ayurvedic substances as currently practiced. The statement needs to be weakened. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If some treatments were effective, wouldn't they become part of mainstream medicine practice? In any case, WP:MEDRS sources would be needed to support the claim that they are effective. —PaleoNeonate – 08:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) The use of morphine is mainstream. The active ingredient in opium is morphine. 2) The sources cited are WP:MEDRS standard. 3) At one time, about a third of drugs on the market were derived from herbs. The herbs themselves are almost never tested in clinical trials because no one will pay for the trials since you can't patent an herb. As a result, herbs are almost never used in mainstream medicine. But it doesn't make much sense that effective medicines could be derived from traditional medicine herbs that don't work, so we might think that many herbs are effective, but untested. Studies run on one such Ayurvedic herb (referenced below) find evidence for it's effectiveness, invalidating the claim that "there is no scientific evidence that any are effective as currently practiced." --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's a significant quantity we could expect opium to have some effect, indeed (maybe not a cure for cancer, other than pain relief). The current claim is general and sourced to an article about ayurveda and cancer. I'm not even sure that the sentence really reflects the source, when looking at it... Since it's in the lead, it could be a proper summary of the 'Classification and efficacy' section, but then I see that it's mostly the same sentence sourced to the same source there. There is room for improvement. —PaleoNeonate – 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I not sure that the Rejuvenation Research source is usable. —PaleoNeonate – 14:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wondered about Rejuvenation Research too, but it is medline indexed. Since this source is corroborated by two other WP:MEDRS sources, I see no reason to be suspicious of it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikiman2718 has a fair point in this. Here is one more good link.[4] HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid I don't see how it's a "good link". It reminds me of creationists' baraminology. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kongkeaw, C; Dilokthornsakul, P; Thanarangsarit, P; Limpeanchob, N; Norman Scholfield, C (2014). "Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on cognitive effects of Bacopa monnieri extract". Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 151 (1): 528–35. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2013.11.008. PMID 24252493.
  2. ^ Neale, Chris; Camfield, David; Reay, Jonathon; Stough, Con; Scholey, Andrew (5 February 2013). "Cognitive effects of two nutraceuticals Ginseng and Bacopa benchmarked against modafinil: a review and comparison of effect sizes". British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 75 (3): 728–737. doi:10.1111/bcp.12002. ISSN 0306-5251. PMC 3575939. PMID 23043278.
  3. ^ Aguiar, Sebastian; Borowski, Thomas (2013). "Neuropharmacological review of the nootropic herb Bacopa monnieri". Rejuvenation Research. 16 (4): 313–326. doi:10.1089/rej.2013.1431. ISSN 1557-8577. PMC 3746283. PMID 23772955.
  4. ^ https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15786 Genome-wide analysis correlates Ayurveda Prakriti, Nature

Irrelevant source.

In the third paragraph of the initial section, it says "Ayurveda medicine is pseudoscientific.[12]" However, the provided source does not say anything about Ayurveda medicine. The claim should either have a ((cn)) tag or be removed

It's not an exact quote, but the source clearly uses Ayruveda as an example of pseudoscience. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calling Ayurveda a pseudoscience on the basis of "biased" source is an unethical practice in Wikipedia. There are sources which calls Ayurveda as the most scientific medical system. And, that would still be a bias. Wikipedia article is not a place for personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.87.205 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a good job that we are not calling Ayurveda pseudoscience on the basis of biased sources then, isn't it. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over the internet you are searching for sources that call Ayurveda as pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is not a established mechanism. Ayurveda can't be called pseudoscience just because a few sources opine. There are other sources that call Ayurveda as the best medical system as well. Would you keep that in the lead? No, right. I call on Wikipedia bureaucrat to resolve this issue. Your arguments are not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.87.205 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is written from what reliable sources say on a subject. Whether we personally agree or not with what those sources say is completely irrelevant. On WP, the admins (I suppose that is what you meant with "bureaucrat") don't have any control over article content, they deal only with user behavior so they wouldn't be able to help you here. Last thing, please sign your posts properly by adding ~~~~. --McSly (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know what Bureaucrats do. I know how some of the people select the sources to prove their bias. There are many editors here who have a presumed bias over Ayurveda. The behavior of some of the editors over here must be checked. 103.10.28.56 (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Ayurveda is completely a old science. But not pseudo science. 2409:4065:11E:8ABD:905A:E2E1:EA82:9CB3 (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not an actual request for anything! -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Pls change pseudo-scientific to vedic. Drvijayhatankar1969 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been previously discussed here. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Please change Ayurveda is Pseudoscientific to Ayurveda is though an ancient but still extremely effective internal medicine 2405:201:1805:276E:14ED:99D3:753C:27A4 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not until you provide reliable sources to support your claim. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir, I am practicing Ayurveda medicine since 25 years and a masters in Ayurvedic medicine. I have many cases which i treated successfully even after other medicine streams could not treat them. I can give many examples. Please tell me the format to submit an example of effectiveness of Ayurveda. Though Ayurveda is Scientific like a maths equation, I am not asking you to call it Scientific, i am just requesting to change Pseudoscientific to Vedic for patients benefit. Calling it a pseudoscientific keeps many patients away from Ayurveda and is an injustice to patients, and not to Ayurveda. Drvijayhatankar1969 (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia goes by published reliable sources, not first-hand knowledge. See WP:MEDRS specifically. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Please change Pseudoscientific to traditional ancient Vedic Medicine Drvijayhatankar1969 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done@Drvijayhatankar1969:, you've been asking the exact same question 5 or 6 times now. Your question has been answered. The Pseudoscientific definition is correct and sourced so there is no reason to change it. It is now time for you to stop. Continuing your behaviour is becoming disruptive and is likely to get you blocker relatively quickly. --McSly (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading Ayurveda as with Pseudoscientific adjective is very painful and disruptive to all Ayurveda practitioners, Indian population and to patients who already have been benefited with Ayurveda science. Its an injustice for all the patients who could be benefited from Ayurveda. Drvijayhatankar1969 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not injustice. This has already been explained to you. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, and has high standards for medical content. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

The adjective Pseudoscientific to Ayurveda Is misguider for patients who believe Wikipedia content for true knowledge. This adjective has been added from a books reference which itself is a first hand experience and also from a book whose authors are not related with Ayurveda. My humble request to change Pseudoscientific to Ancient Indian Vedic science. 🙏 Drvijayhatankar1969 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. We follow a strict evidence-based approach to medical sources on Wikipedia. El_C 14:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd just like to say that if this continues, I shall start giving slightly more bizarre responses each time, while remaing within the bounds of civility of course. Cant have civility warriors all upset now, can we. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just noticed all the other requests above. Drvijayhatankar1969, you need to stop duplicating the same requests over and over again. That is an abuse of process, so you must immediately desist from that. El_C 15:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just got a 'thanks' from Drvijayhatankar1969 for my edit above. Not sure what that means. I hope it means that they will stop repeating this edit request. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Ayurveda ia a traditional system of medicine , more than 5ooo yeears old,which is still prevalent in many parts of the world, esp INDIA. Ayurveda is derived from 2 sanskrit words ,ayur (life) & veda (science or Knowledge). 117.193.188.69 (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a request for anything. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Ayurveda is described in the opening sentence to be "pseudo-scientific", which has a negative connotation for a field of medicine which has cured generations of people since millennia. It is documented information that works such as Rasa-Chikitsa are over a thousand years old.

I am a person of scientific persuation although - an Engineer with a Masters' degree handling scientific data eveeyday as part of my employment......hence well appreciate the limits of what is recognised to be science. I therefore do not insist upon calling it science, for varied nature of processes followed.

A negative connotation however can serve to dissuade one who is not in true understanding of what is "Science" and lead to ill opinion with unfair founding. It serves differently to have a section embedded deeper within the article which speaks of variation from processes recognised to be "scientific" - such as basis, acquisition of statistical data and repeatability.

Despite the above, people in thousands continue to be cured each year, of illnesses in a nature friendly (and body friendly) way.

Calling pseudoscience implies writing off positive experiences of an entire civilization (Indian civilization) since thousands of years. This amounts to soft reinforcing of western supremacism after attempts at erasure and alteration of history by ignorant interpretation for geo-political benefit by colonial powers. Effects of damage done by colonial rule continues by such brandings as pseudoscience in present day. The word not understood by most.....and truly understood only by some.

I therefore would like to request that any reference to pseudo-science be removed at the introductory paragraph. Prdasan (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done The article reflects what relia le sources say. No reliable sources have been presented to suggest that anyone has ever been cured by Ayurvedic medicine. GirthSummit (blether) 06:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. I only contested where the term was mentioned in the article.

2. Would please present the sources you refer to as reliable for fairness. Prdasan (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the second and third references in the article. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed - as Roxy says, there are sources right there after the word, which is an important one and needs to be in the lead for the reader to understand the subject. GirthSummit (blether) 07:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Girth and Roxy,

I have had a look at both references. They are not reliabe research from a University. Now, if I presented you with University done research publications containing basis, statistics and repeatability - would that be sufficient evidence to convince you that it is an established form of real medicine to cure a spectrum of illnesses - however limited that may be in comparison with modern modern medication!

Further if I may, I am eager to know your individual credentials in a field of science and perhaps examples of notable publications by each of yourselves.

Please note again, that I am not looking to convince you that Ayurveda is a Science since I am not researched that the breadth of it is documented using the scientific approach in years since forced westernisation of the Indian civilization - but that the term "pseudoscience" is inappropriate for a proven form of medication which is actively practiced and pursued today with great success in the Indian subcontinent and world-wide, including by highly educated individuals in the modern sense.

Warmest regards, Pat Prdasan (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Remove the first sentence it's misleading Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience it's the ancient traditional science based on its basic principles Pousepoulose (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. Also please see the ArbCom notice on this talk page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Karthiking123 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)ayurvedha is not pseudoscience..it is life science practicing in indian subcontinent for more than 5000 yearsReply[reply]

Thanks Karthiking123 (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseudoscientific?

Hi,

Based on " Kaufman, Allison B.; Kaufman, James C. (12 January 2018). Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science. MIT Press. pp. 291–293. ISBN 9780262037426. Ayurveda is a long-standing system of traditions and beliefs, but its claimed effects have not been scientifically proven." The topic Ayurveda has been deemed Pseudoscientific in the introductory passage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda#cite_note-2

If this book is the definitive guide to describing and defining various Alternative medicines from the world, then please uniformly apply this book's recommendation to Traditional Chinese Medicine, Unani, and Siddha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicineSalilasukumaran (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unani_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddha_medicineReply[reply]

Thank you Salila

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAyurveda&action=edit&section=new

Yes, those should probably be classified as pseudoscience too, though that isn't an argument for or against anything on this page. Since you bring it up, have you considered making additions to those pages yourself? --tronvillain (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The disruptive edit in question was made here by an IP, which I have removed now. Ayurveda isn't some 21st century quakery-based pseudomedicine thus throwing a pointy label on lead is misleading. Siddsg (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's OK now, I have reverted your vandalism. Please dont do it again, it is well sourced. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For one, I am confident that your personal attack by referring my productive change a "vandalism" is disruptive, secondly you are violating the restrictions of this page by restoring problematic content without gaining consensus. @Roxy the dog: Just self-revert yourself, you are 'violating the page-restriction called "consensus required" and "civility"'. @El C: Can you also take a look at this? Siddsg (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Siddsg, Roxy should not self-revert - the term pseudoscientific is clearly justified, it is sourced, and its inclusion on the page is supported by long-standing consensus. You may attempt to gain consensus here to remove it, but I don't think that you are likely to be successful. Roxy the dog, please go easy on the accusations of vandalism - it's not likely to be helpful. GirthSummit (blether) 12:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, the multiple year on year attacks on this page by people who think that Ayurveda is a real valid working system of medicine, rather than the codswallop mish mash of folklore it actually is, are tiresome, and I regard them as vandalising the project. I apologise to User:Siddsg , and who may be editing in good faith and who astonishingly appears to expect me to revert my edit. I will not. Edits such as this will continue to be labelled vandalism by me. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:NOTVAND. Azuredivay (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Girth Summit: Roxy the dog must self-revert because he is violating multiple page-restrictions. Where is the "consensus" for this problematic edit? I see great amount of rejection towards this problem edit in archives. It is also clear that you have never read the source. First source does not describe Ayurveda as pseudoscience and 2nd source has never described Ayurveda as pseudoscience but only made a passing mention. Such sloppy sourcing reeks of POV pushing and it is millions miles far from WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Siddsg (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No way, Jose. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The archives are indeed full of the wishes of random people on the internet to remove the word. But it does not matter how many random people on the internet want it gone, because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on the opinions of random people on the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't matter how you demean the established editors, WP:CON matters. None of those "reliable sources" exists in reality because none we have seen that could meet WP:CONTEXTMATTERS or even slightly describe the subject as pseudoscience. Azuredivay (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Siddsg OK, I see what you are getting at now. The addition of the word 'pseudoscientific' to the first sentence of the lead does appear to be a fairly recent development. The lead has always described Ayurveda as pseudoscientific, but older versions of the page waited until a bit further down before discussing that. We could have a discussion here about whether or not including the word in the first sentence is necessary, but I stand by the assertion that the inclusion of the word in the lead has long-standing consensus, and that it is both accurate and necessary for us to do so; the sources you have quoted explicitly describe it as such. GirthSummit (blether) 15:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But can you exactly quote how this and this source "explicity describe" Ayurveda as pseudoscience? It would take a good ton of sources which "explicity describe" it as pseudoscience than misrepresenting a couple of sources. Yes the lead already mentions "pseudoscience" but what is being done on the very first sentence has no consensus and reads like a blatant POV. Why Wikipedia should tolerate misrepresentation of source and create its own defnition against scholarly consensus on subject should be completely beyond any editor and reader. Azuredivay (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Azuredivay, your first source, in the top half of page 293, applies the word pseudoscience to Ayurveda more than once; it also describes it as "junk science" and "tooth fairy science". Your second source, on page 20, under a subheading literally called "Pseudoscience", lists Ayurveda amongst those pseudoscientific disciplines which "confuse metaphysical and empirical claims". How much more explicit do you want the description to be? GirthSummit (blether) 07:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit indeed has no consensus and it is unlikely to gain given WP:RGW and WP:HISTRS are relevant standards required to be maintained for these articles. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel, hi - sorry to pester you, but can I just ask you to be specific about which edit you're referring to? Do you mean the edit that added the word pseudoscientific, or the edit that removed it? Sorry to bother you, but in discussions about consensus it helps if everyone is clear about what they mean! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer the above query, I am objecting to the inclusion on "pseudoscientific" in first sentence as well. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 01:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, proponents of pseudoscience (such as homeopathy, Reiki, etc.) generally object to it being labelled pseudoscience, but when the reliable evidence is that they're pseudoscience we should make it clearer that it's pseudoscience rather than attempting to remove or make it less noticeable. --tronvillain (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your personal advocacy is irrelevant. Mohanabhil (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it is not a pseudoscience as evidence by the WP:GAMING of system, misrepresention of sources by the proponents of the term. Mohanabhil (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If WP:GAMING is alleged, you need to take your complaint to WP:AIN, as it is disruptive to allege it here. As for sources, I have just re-checked them and can confirm we're good. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vague handwave is not going to be helpful in this case. Show how the source supports the information in a significant manner. Recent revert by Tronvillain is misleading since he falsely claims that the page was "stable for months" despite the mass opposition on this page against the wishy-washy WP:LABEL which makes no sense. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing vague about it, this is a basic matter of respecting the WP:PAGs. We must follow the sources, which tell us that Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. Our WP:PSCI policy then requires us to make this fact prominent in the article. The only thing that can change the situation here are good sources that say Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific. Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why you don't prove how it is supporting the information? WP:PSCI does not say we need to cherrypick insignificant information and misrepresent them in Wikivoice. You need to read WP:RGW, WP:HISTRS as already noted above and also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Again, where is the consensus to include this information on first sentence? Siddsg (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again - the sources already listed in this discussion are clear. In the top half of page 293 of the first one, it applies the word pseudoscience to Ayurveda more than once; it also describes it as "junk science" and "tooth fairy science". The second one, on page 20, under a subheading literally called "Pseudoscience", lists Ayurveda amongst those pseudoscientific disciplines which "confuse metaphysical and empirical claims". Please will you stop telling experienced editors that they need to read WP:SUCHANDSUCH, it's not helpful. GirthSummit (blether) 08:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats what I am talking about when I am saying that the text cherrypicks and misrepresents tidbits in wikivioice. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is what it needs to pass, not "grasping at straws". If you are available to find a few critical sources then you are also able to find many sources which say that Ayurveda is "pioneering", "scientific", etc... Why it is so hard to find qualified sources significantly supporting the information (about it being pseudoscience) especially when subject has been covered by millions of academic sources? Answer: Scholars don't right great wrongs. But WP:RGW applies here as well. Siddsg (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, context matters, so when a top-tier academic book considers the topic of pseudoscience, and categorizes Ayurveda as being an example of it, Wikipedia likes to reflect that valuable knowledge. This is what we call WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Context matters, which means the relevant academic/reliable sources which are significantly describing the information in question than making a dubious passing mention which you are misrepresenting in Wikivoice. What you are doing is called WP:RGW, not WP:NPOV. Siddsg (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're wrong about WP:RGW (maybe look at Psychological projection); the source is not "misrepresented" and nothing about it is "dubious" - it is a well-respected textbook. Alexbrn (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are presenting the source in Wikivoice contrary to the source itself which is not even meeting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS then you are indeed misrepresenting the source. Siddsg (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accusations of cherrypicking must always be accompanied by pointing at non-cherries. Otherwise, they are hollow. So: which reliable sources say Ayurveda is not pseudoscience? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be worth pointing out that the page has been in Category: Pseudoscience for nearly five years, by way of a relatively large RfC concluding "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." Tronvillian --08:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I never removed the category (nor anyone else is removing it), only the wording on first sentence on lead is being objected. Siddsg (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So... you're not disagreeing that it's a pseudoscience, you just object to saying so in the first sentence? --tronvillain (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am only objecting to the first sentence yes. I haven't attempted to remove the category. Siddsg (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Siddsg: Then there is no argument. If you accept Ayurveda is pseudoscientific then look at the relevant policy:

The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.

They you will surely agree there is nothing more "clear" and "prominent" than having this knowledge in the first sentence. I suggest we are done here, and that the WP:PROFRINGE editors are in danger of overstepping the mark into becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included" is decided by reliable sources meeting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, not what you are using so far, so this is not the case here. Siddsg (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Siddsg, I'm sorry, but what you're saying doesn't make any sense to me. These sources aren't cherry picked - when an academic source about pseudoscience explicitly describes Ayurveda as an example of pseudoscience, that seems like exactly the sort of source we should be using to say whether or not it is pseudoscience. If you are happy to accept it being in the pseudoscience category, and having well-sourced content in the article saying that it is pseudoscience, what is your objection with having that mentioned in the first sentence? GirthSummit (blether) 09:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What actually makes that author an expert on Ayurveda? I still don't see if he is describing "Ayurveda" as "pseudoscience" and all your evidence is a mere heading. This is against the millions of sources which is far away from calling Ayurveda a "pseudoscience". Siddsg (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't want "experts on Ayurveda". We want WP:FRIND sources. The sources do not just have a "mere heading". Alexbrn (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, Siddsg, it kind of sounds like you're still arguing that Ayurveda isn't pseudoscience, rather than talking about where best in the article to present that information. You're surely not going to go down that road? GirthSummit (blether) 09:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is already present on later paragraphs on the lead. Where have I removed it? Why do you think that the original wording of the information was ""Modern ayurveda" is considered pseudoscientific"? Because consensus (according to the link provided by Tronvalian above) was that Ayurveda is both a protoscientific and traditional medicine, but the modern claims of efficacy are pseudoscientific. That alone does not make whole Ayurveda a pseudoscience. This is why the word needs to be removed from the first sentence, it can continue to remain in later paragraphs. Siddsg (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say that you'd removed it - just that, by questioning the sources as you were doing above, it sounded like you were making an argument against its being pseudoscience, rather than arguing about where in the lead is best to present that information. Its modern practice is, I would suggest, an important part of what Ayerveda is - it's not purely something that is of historical interest. GirthSummit (blether) 10:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a difference between removing the term from first paragraph and removing it from the whole article. I am also supporting the former and I also think that the original wording about "modern ayurvedic medicine" should be restored as it made more sense. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. WP:STATUSQUO should be maintained. Capitals00 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this edit[3] you've restored text that failed WP:V, gone back to old editions, refs with broken links, and duplicate refs and other markup errors (detailed in all my edit comments). Why did you do that? Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The status quo was the description as pseudoscience [4]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was an undiscussed edit which has been thoroughly rejected above. Any new edits to lead must be discussed here when objection is well established. Azuredivay (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So how do broken links, out-of-date editions, formatting errors and text which misrepresents the source improve the article? (they also largely have nothing to do with the "pseudoscience" question). This looks like pure disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article protected indefinitely

In response to editors participating in the discussion above reverting to their preferred version anyway, a request at WP:RFPP, and the presence of this protection for this article in the past, I have fully-protected this article indefinitely. I will not revert to any revision, do not ask me. This may be lifted in either of the following ways:

  1. When consensus is reached in the above section, draft the desired edit in an ((edit protected)) request immediately below this notice.
  2. If consensus is reached that this protection level should be eased for whatever reason, follow the instructions at WP:RFPP#Current requests for reduction in protection level; you do not need to ask me first.

I'm on vacation starting tomorrow evening so you best get to it. Note that while discretionary sanctions are available for this topic and "consensus required" is already in place here, this action is not intended to be arbitration enforcement; any administrator can modify my protection without consulting me, but I ask you to see the note below.

Admins: please lower protection immediately if either of these two conditions are reached, or on your own discretion; you'll have my thanks either way. I ask only that you restore Favonian's one-year semiprotection (see the logs), and please leave a note on my talk page.

-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What an unhelpful thing to do, threaten Good Faith editors and the SPAs like that Ivan. We have just rid ourselves of the spectre of John and the shade he cast over this page, and you come along and do this. Most unhelpful, please reconsider. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trans-science system in lede

I was in the process of removing "or trans-science system instead" from the lede, when the article was protected. I don't see why it belongs. It seems to violate FRINGE by using a neologism to create false-balance and promote an in-world perspective. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a very true summary of the source. More accurate was what I added earlier (in the body; I agree this is undue in the lede):

Ayurvedic practitioner Ram P Manohar writes that Ayurveda has been alternatively characterized as pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and unscientific, and proposes himself that it should be termed "trans-scientific".[ref]

Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur. Neologisms with unclear meaning or meanings not yet established by widespread use don't belong in the lede. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories