Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence

The outcome of this RfC is that Ayurveda should continue to be described as a pseudoscience in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence. See #RfC closure explanation below. Sandstein 15:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

References

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

References

  1. ^ "Ayurveda". Oxford University Press.
  2. ^ Meulenbeld, Gerrit Jan (1999). "Introduction". A History of Indian Medical Literature. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ISBN 978-9069801247.
  3. ^ Populorum, Michael Alexander (2008-01-01). Trends und Beschäftigungsfelder im Gesundheits- und Wellness-Tourismus: Berufsentwicklung, Kompetenzprofile und Qualifizierungsbedarf in wellness-bezogenen Freizeit- und Gesundheitsberufen (in German). LIT Verlag Münster. ISBN 9783825813680.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Smith+Wujastyk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "A Closer Look at Ayurvedic Medicine". Focus on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 12 (4). Fall 2005 – Winter 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-12-09.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference psych2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference ACS2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ https://www.nhp.gov.in/ayush_ms
  • 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 [1] 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)
Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/)[2] is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent.[3] Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurveda traditions are a type of alternative medicine,[4][5] and the Ayurvedic therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use.[6] 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.[4][5][7] 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.[8]

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)

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 [10], with an extremely comprehensive syllabus[11][12][13][14]. 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[15]. 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)
But then the comparison with "humorism" would be pretty far-fetched since Ayurveda is much broader. Azuredivay (talk) 23:26, 17 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)

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)

Survey (reopened)

  • All clinical trials in India - including ayurveda are registered in CTRI database[16]. To get official information on clinical trials in Ayurveda and Ayurvedic medicine, do the appropriate search on CTRI - search for trials page[17]

References

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

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-/)[1] is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent.[2] Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurveda traditions are a type of alternative medicine,[3][4] and the Ayurvedic therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use.[5] 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.[3][4][6] 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.[7]

The main classical Ayurveda texts begin with accounts of the transmission of medical knowledge from the Gods to sages, and then to human physicians.[8] 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.[9][10] Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia.[2] 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.[11][12]

Scholars assert that Ayurveda originated in prehistoric times,[13][14] and that some of the concepts of Ayurveda have existed from the time of the Indus Valley Civilization or even earlier.[15] 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.[15] Doṣa balance is emphasized, and suppressing natural urges is considered unhealthy and claimed to lead to illness.[16] 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.[17]

References

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

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

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

My opinion is that this proposal is out-of-process for this RfC, which is asking a specific question. If other questions about the lede are unresolved they can be decided later. But I would not like to see this RfC sink because of lost focus. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think a question of "what should the opening sentence be" (paraphrasing the RfC) is an incomplete discussion without considering the lede as a whole. Taking into account Crossroads' observation about Google results, I think we're compelled to not describe it as a "system of medicine" (I'm personally okay with "system of traditional medicine" as the wikilink provides necessary context, and directly states that traditional medicine conflicts with science), and to flip the "Globalized and modernized..." and "Since the 1960s..." sentences, or otherwise modify so that the word "pseudoscience" appears in the first two sentences. Otherwise I think this is, at least, a very good starting point. But note that more concerns have been raised in new sections below. Ivanvector (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

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.

Wikipedia’s Hate Campaign Against Ayurveda
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)
Very well said, thanks. BirdValiant (talk) 18:42, 19 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:

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.
More