Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ayurveda: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:09, 2 August 2021 editRoxy the dog (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,207 edits →I'll just leave this here: rTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:43, 12 December 2024 edit undoBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,203 edits →Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience.: see Talk page noticeTag: Manual revert 
(875 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Notice|{{find}}}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{Trolling}}
{{controversial}}
{{tmbox {{tmbox
|image=] |image=]
Line 16: Line 21:


<big><br>'''Please note''' that due to disruption of this page, '''if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article''', your comment <u>will be removed without reply</u> if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect.<br><br> Please read ], ], ] and ] before posting here.</big> <big><br>'''Please note''' that due to disruption of this page, '''if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article''', your comment <u>will be removed without reply</u> if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect.<br><br> Please read ], ], ] and ] before posting here.</big>
}}
{{tmbox
|image=]
|text=<big>'''NOTICE FOR NON-CONFIRMED AND IP EDITORS'''</big><br> This talk page is currently protected due to disruptive editing. If you wish to make a comment or a request, there is a separate page for you to do so at ''']'''. That page is monitored by administrators and other editors who will move your comments to this page <u>if they are constructive</u>.
}} }}
{{ds/talk notice|ipa|brief}} {{Contentious topics/talk notice|ipa|brief}}
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}
{{Talk header}}
{{connected contributor|User1=Editswikifornepali|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes|User2=Arunjithp |U2-EH=yes |U2-declared=yes}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Biology|class=C}}

{{Notice|{{find}}}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{Recruiting}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{Old peer review|archive=1}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=c}} {{WikiProject Dietary Supplements|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Dietary Supplements | class=C | importance=low }} {{WikiProject Hinduism|importance =high}}
{{WikiProject Hinduism|class=c|importance =high}} {{WikiProject India|importance=high|past-collaboration=week of 3 July 2006}}
{{WikiProject India|class=c|importance=high|past-collaboration=week of 3 July 2006}} {{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=C|importance=LOW}} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|class=c|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Top|attention=yes}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=c|importance =low}}
{{WikiProject South Asia|class=C|importance=LOW}}
}} }}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{Other banners|collapsed=yes|
{{Press
| subject = article
| author =
| title = Plea Seeks Removal Of 'Defamatory Content' On Ayurveda From Misplaced Pages
| org = ]
| url = https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/plea-seeks-removal-of-defamatory-content-on-ayurveda-from-wikipedia-2950295
| date = 6 May 2022
| quote = "The contents of the matter shown on Misplaced Pages totally malign the natural system of medicine which has a history of more than 3,000 years and is widely respected and accepted the world over, " the petitioner said, pointing out the fact that the incumbent Government of India has also constituted a separate Ministry named ] for Ayurveda and other alternative medicine systems. The petition further stated that the Constitution of a separate ministry is an acknowledgment of this ancient stream of medicine, the petition said.
| subject2 = article
| author2 =
| title2 = "You Can Edit Misplaced Pages Articles" : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Misplaced Pages Articles Allegedly Defaming Ayurveda
| org2 = Live Law
| url2 = https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/you-can-edit-wikipedia-articles-supreme-court-refuses-to-entertain-plea-against-wikipedia-articles-allegedly-defaming-ayurveda-212241
| date2 = 21 October 2022
| quote2 = "The petition referred to the article published on Misplaced Pages termed Ayurveda as a pseudoscientific and stated that the article written on Misplaced Pages was unnecessary and written purely with the intent to tarnish Ayurveda. "The matter of concern is that this is utterly absurd, poorly researched and prejudiced article pops up as the first article when Ayurveda is searched on Google", the petition said
| subject3 = article
| author3 =
| title3 = SC Refuses to Entertain PIL Against Misplaced Pages Entry Describing Ayurveda as 'Pseudoscientific'
| org3 = ]
| url3 = https://m.thewire.in/article/law/sc-refuses-to-entertain-ayurveda-pil/amp
| date3 = 21 October 2022
| quote3 = The ] (PIL) submitted that the Misplaced Pages entry described Ayurveda as “pseudoscientific” and, calling the article unnecessary, alleged that it had been written with the sole intention of tarnishing the image of Ayurveda.

| subject4 = article
| author4 = Catherine Davison
| title4 = Modi wants to export traditional Indian medicine to the world, but doctors warn against pseudoscience and quack cures
| org4 = ]
| url4 = https://www.codastory.com/waronscience/india-traditional-medicine/
| date4 = 4 November 2022
| quote4 = The second sentence in the Misplaced Pages entry for Ayurveda declares that the “theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.”}}
{{mergedfrom|Panchakarma}} {{mergedfrom|Panchakarma}}
{{mergedfrom|Ama (ayurveda)|date=17 November 2018}} {{mergedfrom|Ama (ayurveda)|date=17 November 2018}}
{{Old peer review|archive=1}}
{{connected contributor|User1=Editswikifornepali|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes|User2=Arunjithp |U2-EH=yes |U2-declared=yes}}
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 19 |counter = 22
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(120d)
|archive = Talk:Ayurveda/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Ayurveda/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
__TOC__


== Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2024 ==
==If you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article==
<!-- ] 03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC) -->

Due to disruption of this page, if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article, your comment will be removed without reply if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect.

Please read ], ], ] and ] before posting here. --] (]) 14:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

:Quackery means practice of medicine without support of law. In this case indian Government and law allows qualified Ayurveda practitioners to practice in India. So you should change quackery. Indian medical association have no rights to act against Indian government and if so its against Indian government so you should remove the term quackery according to Indian medical association ] (]) 13:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
::Your private definition of ] is not relevant here. You cannot turn quacks into doctors by voting believers in quackery into the government. Did not work in the US, did not work in Brazil, did not work in India. --] (]) 14:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

== RfC: What is the Indian Medical Association's position on Ayurveda? ==

<!-- ] 22:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1625004091}}

How should Misplaced Pages report the position of the Indian Medical Association on Ayurveda?

--] (]) 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

* {{pagelinks|Ayurveda}}
* {{pagelinks|Indian Medical Association}}

What this RfC is not:
* This isn't an RfC on the general topic of Ayurveda or the IMA. It is ''only'' about what the IMA says about Ayurveda.
* This is not an invitation for Misplaced Pages editors to perform ] by interpreting statements by the IMA. The only thing we need to evaluate is how reliable secondary sources report what the IMA says about Ayurveda.
* Responses that only reference primary sources or which cite no sources at all are likely to be not counted by the person who closes this RfC.
* "Practicing medicine" means prescribing remedies and performing procedures that are meant to restore someone with a disease or other medical condition to health.
* Do not reply to a comment in the survey section. All discussion must be in the threaded discussion section. Any editor who sees a reply in the survey section is free to move the reply to the threaded discussion section.

Useful search terms (with the quotes) for finding sources on this include:
# "Indian Medical Association" "Quackery"
# "Indian Medical Association" "Mixopathy"
# "Indian Medical Association" "Quacks"
# "Indian Medical Association" "Strike"
# "Indian Medical Association" "Ayurveda"

The main positions on this question appear to be:

* '''ALL:''' The IMA says that all ayurvedic practitioners are quacks. An ayurvedic practitioner can get a medical degree, become an M.D., and switch to modern medicine, but any M.D who prescribes ayurvedic remedies is guilty of malpractice. Ayurvedic training does not qualify anyone to practice medicine in India. Only the usual training that an M.D. receives and the usual medical license is sufficient to practice medicine.
* '''SOME:''' The IMA says that only that subset of ayurvedic practitioners who are unqualified are quacks. Ayurvedic training and education are sufficient to make someone qualified to practice medicine, and someone qualified to practice medicine may prescribe ayurvedic remedies.

* '''OTHER:''' This is for responses that conclude that neither of the above is the IMA's position. Please be specific as to what you think the IMA's position is and how it differs from the above.

===Survey===
<small>(Please do not post threaded responses in this section)</small><br>
* '''Neither''' There are two quotes that led me to the conclusion that neither is right. Firstly, "We are not against Indian systems of medicine and pluralism in terms of choice of systems for people, but we are against diluting purity of different systems by mixing them" ref prevents me from saying they are saying "all ayurvedic practitioners are quacks." The IMA is clear that individuals who are trained in "Indian Medicine" purportedly practicing "Modern Medicine" are quacks, per ("Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under : ... Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.") Given that "Modern Medicine," is more commonly known as "medicine," it is perfectly fair, however, to say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery." Notified by automatic bot notification. ] (]) 23:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

* '''Some''' I agree completely with Hipocrite, until they declare that medicine = modern medicine. The IMA themselves distinguishes three types of practitioners of medicine, "Register (sic) Medical Practitioner", "Registered Practitioner of Indian Medicine", and "Register (sic) practitioner of Homeopathic Medicine" . Moreover the IMA defines "modern medicine" as that requiring an MBBS i.e. Western allopathic medicine, therefore it is not representative of the source to say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery", but it is representative to say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery."

:Lest someone declare that the IMA is a primary source, I note this secondary source wherein a representative of the IMA is quoted as saying, "We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy. We are proud of our national heritage and richness but let it coexist with modern medicine. All we demand is not to mix the disciplines". This reiterates their position as stated on their site and makes their position i.e. quackery is about lack of appropriate qualifications, quite clear. ] | ] 03:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

* '''Some''': Please see detailed explaination in in the threaded discussion. -] (]) 09:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

* '''Some''' Sources clearly state that IMA is speaking of Ayurveda practitioners that represent themselves as doctors of modern medicine, rather than all Ayurveda practitioners, and have problems with creating quack doctors by making it easier for alternative medical practitioners to bridge into modern medicine. This is backed up by what the primary source, IMA itself, says in their open letter. We need to qualify that the Ayurveda practitioners they say are quacks are the ones using their alternative medical training or licensing to represent themselves as actual doctors. ] (]) 11:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

*'''Some''' Other users have already given fairly detailed explanations that I agree with. My main reasons for voting some are as follows: (a) the primary source is very clear on this --- in the relevant point on quackery they state "Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under : ... Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, '''who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.'''" (Emphasis mine). There is a clearly a qualification being made in their statement. They are qualifying that only '''some''' practitioners of Indian medicine (namely those who are unqualified to practice modern medicine) are quacks. (b) Every secondary source states the same thing, that the IMA is against mixopathy, or allowing ayurveda practitioners to practice under the allopathy medical system without sufficient qualifications (examples of secondary sources: , , , ). Note that none of these secondary sources state that all Ayurveda practioners are quacks, or that the IMA has any issue with Ayurveda practitioners who prescribe Ayurvedic medicines. Every secondary source states that practice of modern medicine without relevant qualifications is what should be stopped. Thus, if a doctor is qualified in both Ayurveda and Allopathy, they are free to work under either system without being quacks according to the IMA. Indeed, other users have pointed out that this is true for members of the IMA itself. Thus I support editing of the current sentence in the article to say something along the lines of "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterizes Ayurveda practitioners who practice modern medicine without relevant qualifications in modern medicine as quacks." ] (]) 15:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''All''' This seems to be the best summary of the secondary sources tallied a few sections up; the "some" path is hair-splitting. ] (]) 20:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''All''' per XOR'easter. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''All''' Based on what I've read by clicking through the various links in this section and what I found in a quick google search, it seems quite apparent that the IMA considers anyone not practicing modern medicine a quack, but are hesitant to actually say so as many "Indian medicine" practices are protected and endorsed by local ordinance and court decisions. This is similar to the situation in the US, only worse. This is made obvious by the fact that the IMA never comes out and endorses any "Indian medicine" practices in any of the sources I've looked at, while they've endorsed modern medicine in almost every one. Making this even more clear is the following quote from one of the sources: ''"There is also complete apathy on the part of Govt. to eradicate quackery and though IMA/MCI have submitted a draft Anti Quackery Bill, the Govt. has not taken any action to place it before parliament."'' Did that sound bitter to you? It sounds bitter to me, and I don't blame them one bit. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 14:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Other'''. From what I found - although maybe I did not search thoroughly enough - the IMA does not explicitly say "all ayurvedic practitioners are quacks", but they do not say "only some are quacks" either. Most things they say seem to have legal justifications, with Indian sources, and it looks to me as if they are afraid to use a scientific source or a non-Indian source because that sort of thing will not be accepted as a valid reason by the Hindutva loons who hold the power in India at the moment. The IMA's quasi-hostage status makes me doubt that their statement has any encyclopedic value; it is more strategic than factual. According to , the context is ]'s attempt to license quacks as health care providers. That would not only mean they would be allowed to practice real medicine, for which they are not qualified, it would also mean that they are health care providers, which they are not. But arguing that would require reasoning sourced to something other than the Indian legal system, and therefore they do not say it although the obviously think it. So, we should not use this IMA source; it's weak. --] (]) 15:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''All/no need to rely on Indian government''' per the sources cited in ] and the discussion above. As a summary work, we ought to summarise the sources, and well, while the statements of the IMA are ambiguous, ostensibly due to political pressure, when put together with the other scientific sources, it's pretty clear that this is quackery, so we should describe this as quackery, without relying on one ambiguous government if they are at odds with the existing scientific consensus. ] (] / ]) 19:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''All''' for the reasons described by XOR'easter, MjolnirPants, and RandomCanadian, and especially per ]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Some''' although I support the current language in the lead or a similar version, as the IMA clearly and unequivocally condemns as quacks all Ayurveda practitioners (I'm going to call them APs for short) who claim to practice medicine. However, I would like to move the IMA's comments deeper into the lead because I agree with RandomCanadian that their comments may be too ambiguous to highlight up top, when we should be making it absolutely unambiguous that all APs are pseudo-scientific quacks. There do not seem to be any clear statements from the IMA that all APs are quacks, leading to my Some vote, but I want to make clear in my !vote that I do not support some of the views espoused in other Some !votes. It is not the case that the IMA approves of APs practicing medicine if they have the appropriate qualifications. The secondary sources cited above make it clear that the IMA has consistently opposed the licensing of APs in medicine since they have foundations in pseudoscience. It is clear also that the IMA is fighting against the use of Ayurvedic "treatments" even when they aren't served up with the pretension of "allopathy" (using the IMA's term); a good example being the IMA letter regarding COVID treatment. ] (]) 03:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Some''' Based on the classification made by IMA they are only concerned by some of the Ayurvedic practioners. ] (]) 20:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
*'''All''', per ] and few editors above. ] (]) 06:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
*'''All''' as per MjolnirPants. ] (]) 11:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
*'''All''' While I appreciate ] nuanced argument. (Though I'm not sure about their suggestion about moving IMA down.) And while I don't fully agree with how it's phrased above by the OP, what I 100% agree with is that the sentence as it appears in the article is accurate according to the source: "The ] (IMA) characterises the practice of ] by Ayurvedic practitioners as ]." Per ] "medicine" means modern medicine. ] (]) 15:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
*'''Other''' and to a lesser degree '''Some''', as per and the definition of 'Some' in the RfC. ''The source does not say directly state that all practitioners of Ayurveda are quacks''. Their statement is: "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic...) who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.". As per this statement, practitioners of Ayurveda who do not claim to be practicing modern medicine, as well as modern medical doctors who also practice Ayurveda (whether such people exist is doubtful, and IMO, irrelevant) but keep the practices separate are not, in the eyes of the IMA, quacks.</br>The RfC says that voting for 'Some' means the voter believes the IMA thinks that "Ayurvedic ... education sufficient to make someone qualified to practice medicine, and someone qualified to practice medicine may prescribe ayurvedic remedies." I don't believe this is strictly true. The IMA's statement (as I interpret it) leans closer to:</br>"If you have a modern medicine degree, like an MBBS or an MD, (it doesn't matter whether you also have a BAMS/BUMS degree in addition to the other degrees), and you claim to practice modern medicine, you are not a quack.</br>If you do not have a modern medicine degree, and only have a BAMS/BUMS degree, and claim to practice modern medicine, you are a quack.</br>If you do not have a modern medicine degree, and only have a BAMS/BUMS degree, and do not claim to practice modern medicine, you are not a quack."</br>There are no secondary sources (as far as I can find) that explicitly confirm the current statement in the lede. Several secondary sources, such as and note that the IMA is against letting modern medical practices (like modern surgery) be a part of the syllabus of Ayurveda courses. With all this in mind, I suggest the statement in the lede say: "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners unqualified to practice modern medicine as quackery.", or, like ] said, make the lede say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery". ] (]) 06:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Some''' per above. --] (]) 13:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

===Threaded discussion===
<small>(Please use ":" and not "*" in this section)</small><br>
Those portions of Morgan Leigh's !vote and Hipocrite's !vote that failed to follow the instructions above and the violate Misplaced Pages's policies on ] and ] ("'''Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.'''") should be disregarded by the closer. I encourage both editors to delete that portion of their !vote that violates Misplaced Pages's policies and to focus on providing reliable secondary sources. Nobody cares what my interpretation or your interpretation of the primary sources is. The only thing that matters is how independent secondary sources interpret the primary sources.

Also, please place your !votes in the survey section and and responses in the threaded discussion section. Experience has shown that conducting a contentious RfC in this way avoids some editors ] the survey section. --] (]) 04:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

:In their !vote above Morgan Leigh quotes this source:, quoting it as follows:
::"We are not against Indian systems of medicine and pluralism in terms of choice of systems for people, but we are against diluting purity of different systems by mixing them"
:But the entire paragraph tells quite a different story:
::"We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy. We are proud of our national heritage and richness but let it coexist with modern medicine. All we demand is not to mix the disciplines. '''It will also mean the end of pure Ayurveda'''," he added.
:At issue appears to be whether the IMA considers prescribing drugs to be practicing medicine and thus "mixing the disciplines". They have certainly made themselves clear on the question of whether performing surgery is "mixing the disciplines", so clearly the IMA has not expressed a blanket statement approving of all of Ayurveda, which according to ayurvedic practitioners, includes both prescribing drugs and performing surgery. --] (]) 04:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
:: I'm not sure that actually tells a different story? They are stating that if you mix disciplines, then that would mean the end of pure Ayurveda. How is that a different story? That is completely consistent with the story that the IMA has no issue with individual disciplines, and pleads for people to not mix disciplines. Hence both the primary source and the secondary source both are only stating that the IMA believes that mixing the disciplines, i.e., allowing ayurvedic practitioners to perform "allopathy" without being trained in allopathy is tantamount to quackery. Nothing against ayurvedic practitioners performing under the ayurvedic system of medicine is in the primary or secondary sources. Please do not impose your own biased viewpoint, let's try to examine the sources to see what they have to say for themselves. ] (]) 05:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
:::So, do the sources support the idea that the IMA is only against ayurvedic practitioners prescribing ''modern'' medicine but is fine with them prescribing ''ayurvedic'' medicine?
:::First off, do we all agree that whatever else they do ayurvedic practitioners prescribe ayurvedic medicine? Is there a single example of one who doesn't?
::::"Ayurvedic prescriptions are often challenged for their rationality. Excessive use of proprietary medicines, rasa preparations, and samshodhana without any justification and deliverable benefits outweighing the other forms of safer, cheaper and less time consuming therapies is putting the Ayurvedic prescribing trends into question. In Ayurvedic practice, prescriptions are often individualized with substantial variability between the choices of drugs."
:::And can we agree that ] is an ayurvedic medicine?
::::"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) on Monday demanded an explanation from Union Health Minister Dr Harsh Vardhan for promoting Patanjali's Coronil Ayurvedic medicine."
::::"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) has reportedly come down hard on Union Health Minister Dr Harsh Vardhan, demanding an explanation for "promoting" CORONIL, untested Ayurvedic medicine from Patanjali Ayurved to treat COVID-19"
:::So, is the IMA OK with ayurvedic practitioners prescribing Coronil? --] (]) 06:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
::::This Rfc is not about if the IMA is concerned about Ayurvedic practitioners dispensing drugs. It is not about whether people have googled to see what the IMA might think, or if they sound like they are bitter, or if they are hesitant, that is all conjecture and ]. This Rfc is about if the source that is being used to support a sentence in the article says what it is being used to support. If one thinks the source doesn't say this, the only other thing to consider is if one can find a secondary source that says this exact thing i.e. that the IMA characterizes all Ayurveda as quackery. Also please note this is not a democracy and ]. ] | ] 06:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

: None of the primary or secondary sources provided substantiate the claims that IMA regards ayurveda as quackery or that IMA regards all ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. Instead they buttress what multiple editors have been saying that IMA regards '''some''' ayurveda practioners as quacks. Let's go point by point.
: '''1'''. ''Is IMA calling Ayurveda Quackery?'' - '''No'''
:: Guy macon earlier argued that practising ayurveda is not practising medicine. Now Guy macon says that it is medicine. But ima is not calling the practice of Ayurveda by ayurvedic practitioners with relevant {{tq|BAMS}} qualification as quackery. See point 2. None of the sources say that. The IMA explictly states a quack as: {{tq|Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are '''not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine'''.}}. This claiming that IMA calls ayurveda quackery has also been reverted in the past.
::In fact a Guy Macon provided explicitly states the position of IMA with regards to traditional medicine that is {{tq|"We're not against traditional medicine"}}. Again, the by ] also states, {{tq| We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy. We are proud of our national heritage and richness but let it coexist with modern medicine. All we demand is not to mix the disciplines. It will also mean the end of pure Ayurveda,"}}. This also explicitly states that IMA is not against ayurveda.
::Even if Ayurveda were to be quackery, the ''IMA isn't saying that''. No one needs to provide a source that IMA does not state this. Those claiming that ''IMA calls all ayurveda or all ayurevedic practioners as quackery'' have to provide a source for their claim. And they have not provided a single reliable primary or secondary source that shows explicitly that and are thus violating ].
: '''2'''. ''Is IMA saying as Guy Macon claims that "Every Ayurvedic practitioner is practicing a system of medicine they are unqualified to practice."?'' - '''No.'''
:: The in fact explicitly states the minimum qualification for practising {{tq| Indian Medicine (Ayurveda, Sidha, Unani & Tibb)}} is {{tq|BAMS/BUMS}}, and for practising {{tq| modern medicine}} is {{tq| MBBS}}. They state, {{tq| Even a cursory scrutiny of the chart above, it will be apparent that the Central Medical Acts have laid down separate area of practice for each system of medicine. }} . And that {{tq | Power to practice a system of medicine flows from the Central Acts under which one has '''acquired a qualification''' and the central or state register where one is registered in. }} These be quotes from primary source. Now let's look at secondary sources
::Another provided by Guy macon also states the qualifications of Ayurvedic practitioners as accredited medical degrees: {{tq | India has over 485000 registered practitioners of ayurveda, siddha, or unani and 241 colleges that offer government '''accredited medical degrees''' in these disciplines.}}
:: provided by Guy macon '''explicitly segregates''' quacks from all ayurveda practitioners: {{tq |Many Indians turn instead to traditional remedies such as Ayurveda – treatments prepared according to recipes from ancient Hindu texts –'''or''' to “quacks” who present themselves as doctors but lack any medical qualifications. About 57% of purported Indian doctors are thought to fall into the '''latter category'''. }} That means '''43%''' of the '''purported''' Indian' doctors are '''not in the latter category'''', even though they may be practising '''Ayurveda''' and are in the '''former category'''.
:: Quoting from their , It explicitly categorizes the ayurveda practioners are '''qualified doctors''': {{tq | The study revealed that the density of '''all doctors — allopathic, ayurvedic''', homoeopathic and unani — at the national level was 80 doctors per lakh population compared to 130 in China. '''Ignoring those who don’t have a medical qualification''', the number for India '''fell to 36''' doctors per lakh population. }}
:: Ergo '''it is explictly stated that only some of the ayurveda practioners are quacks.'''
::So those claiming the IMA considers all Ayurveda practitioners as '''unqualified''' are violating ]
: '''3'''. ''What is IMA protesting against?'' - Practising modern medicine '''without appropriate qualifications.'''
:: It is calling the {{tq| bridge course}} being a {{tq|half baked}} qualification. It is protesting against the government allowing ayurvedic practitioners with this '''underqualification'''/ {{tq|half baked}} qualification to practice {{tq|conventional medicine}}/{{tq|modern medicine}}.
:: Here are quotes from a Guy macon provided:
:: {{tq| "Indian doctors have accused the government of seeking to “sanction quackery” by proposing to allow homeopaths and others '''trained in alternative remedies''' to practise '''conventional medicine''' after taking a bridging course." "A similar law already in place in Madhya Pradesh state licenses traditional healers to dispense and prescribe 72 medicines after taking '''classes for three months.'''" "The Indian Medical Association has criticised the plan, saying it will “lead to an army of half-baked doctors in the country”, according to the association’s president, KK Aggarwal."}}
:: Practising medicine with this underqualification is labelled mixopathy. Guy macon cited again states the same.
:: {{tq| "What is “mixopathy”? It’s a term the protesting doctors have coined by combining the word “mix” and the suffix “pathy,” or disease" "The Indian Medical Association is arguing that Ayurveda practitioners '''shouldn’t be allowed to carry out complicated surgeries''' that take '''years to learn.'''"}}
::As ] , this also does not mean that holding dual degrees in ] and ] is considered quackery by IMA. IMA also does not regard the undersigned of IMA, and the very person quoted in the Guy macon provided for IMA protest as a quack i.e. Dr. ] who was President of the Confederation of Medical Association of Asia and Oceania (CMAAO) President of the Heart Care Foundation of India, and the former National President of IMA; A qualified doctor of modern medicine, . {{tq | Krishan champions the cause of medical professionals, fights for human rights, defends medical ethics, and is keenly interested in revamping the medical education in India. He uses alternative medicine - Yoga and Ayurveda - to treat his patients with diabetes and cardiac problems and believes that if we have to stop the Juggernaut of lifestyle disorders, we need to focus on primary prevention.}}, see
:: So the IMA is saying that half-baked, 3 month course is not a proper qualification.
:: Any claim that the protest by IMA against bridge courses to become qualified, or the questioning of efficacy of an {{tq| }} coronil that {{tq| }} against covid-19, or the harmfulness of mercury used in some preparations of Ayurveda is {{tq| an indication}} of IMA calling all ayurvedic practitioners as quacks, is a violation of ]
: '''4'''. ''What is IMA calling quackery?'' - {{tq| Practising '''modern medicine''}} by those who are {{tq|who are '''not qualified to practice '''Modern Medicine (Allopathy)'''}} . '''All''' sources, every single one of them states only this.
:: Also provided by Guy macon segregates the individual qualifications for practising {{tq|modern medicine}} and {{tq| ayurveda}} and states that having one and practising '''the other''' is quackery: {{tq | An Indian Supreme Court ruling in 1996 defines anyone '''practising modern medicine without training''' in the discipline, even if they are '''trained in''' alternative systems of medicine such as '''ayurveda''', as quacks or charlatans}}.
:: In , it explicitly refers to '''allopathic''' medicine {{tq| in general, any person practising '''allopathic medicine''' who does not have a registered medical qualification comes under quackery}} The same secondary source already stated that the ayurvedic practitioners with relevant degrees have the qualification to practice under their non-allopathic system of medicine.
:: Please see earlier points above for reference from more of the already quoted sources.
: '''5'''.'' What does the IMA source, if we are to quote, say? '' -
:: {{tq2 |Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under : <br> 1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever. <br> 2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine. <br> 3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act. }} This is an explicit quote, not an interpretation.
: '''6'''. '' What does the IMA source, if we are to quote, '''not''' say? '' -
::{{tq2 |Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :<br>1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever. <br>2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush <s>, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.</s> <br>3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act. }} This is an explicit quote, not an interpretation.
: '''7'''. ''Is there any confusion caused by the current phrasing?'' - Yes.
::First is the confusion about whether the practice of ] in the phrasing means that ayurveda is ] and IMA is calling practice of ayurveda quackery. Guy macon earlier argued that practising ayurveda is not practising medicine, saying {{tq | As for the idea that pretending to practicing modern medicine is practicing modern medicine, let me ask you a question: If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? Think about it before reading the next sentence. The correct answer is four. Just because I call something a leg that doesn't mean it is one.}}. Now Guy macon says that it is ]: {{tq| Every Ayurvedic practitioner is practicing a system of medicine they are unqualified to practice. They are prescribing unsafe drugs containing Mercury. Prescribing drugs to cure disease is practicing medicine.}}
::Then there is confusion is if it can imply that practice of {{tq| modern}} medicine itself is quackery. See discussion under ]
::{{tq2| "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery." How can the practice of modern medicine be quackery? Or is it only quackery when done by Ayurvedic practitioners? Achar Sva (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)<br> It is quackery when done by people not qualified to do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)}}
:: Hence the current phrasing in the wiki article anyway needs an update.
: '''8'''. '' What is the edit request?'' - To change from "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery" to "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners '''without relevant qualifications''' as quackery"
: '''9'''. ''Is the edit request in any way saying Ayurveda is not pseudoscience''? - A resounding '''No'''.
: '''10'''. ''Is it consistent with '''each and every single primary or secondary source ''' that has been provided, and clarifies their position removing potential misinterpretations?'' - A resounding '''Yes'''.
: '''Conclusion''': IMA is calling only '''some''' practitioners of ayurveda as quacks. The wiki article must be updated to reflect exactly that.
: -] (]) 09:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
::Gosh, I must be an important person for you to mention me by name thirteen times in one comment. In my opinion you are spending in inordinate amount of effort interpreting the sources you list in order to make them say things that they never explicit say -- otherwise you would be able to quote the sources without the lengthy explanations about what they mean. --] (]) 04:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
::: The only reason {{u|Wikihc}} has had to mention you thirteen times and spend an inordinate amount of effort is because the singleton {Guy Macon} has been pushing for their biased interpretation of a source, and have been unable to understand the main claim of the secondary sources that they themselves provided. Not because the primary or secondary sources are unclear on this topic. But because you refuse to budge from your own view point and actually understand what the sources say. Hopefully the RfC should make things additionally clearer, but I think Wikihc has pretty exhaustively written what most of the users on this talk page appear to be thinking.] (])
:::I totally agree. I also support Wikihc's proposed edit i.e. "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery". ] | ] 03:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
:{{yo|Guy Macon}} and others I suppose. I find it to be rigorously supported by reliable secondary sources that the IMA condemns as quacks all practitioners of Ayurveda who claim to be practicing modern medicine, including practicioners who are qualified medical doctors and are engaging in "integrated medicine" or other euphemisms. So far, I imagine my views to be consisent with an ''All'' vote. My hesitancy to submit that vote involves Ayurveda practicioners who do not pretend to be practicing modern medicine. I see clear criticism from the IMA of any treatment that isn't evidence-based, but I have not seen (yet, perhaps) a sign that ''quackery'' is applied in cases where there isn't pretension. Am I missing evidence of the label in those situations? Or am I misinterpreting what an ''All'' vote would mean exactly? ] (]) 03:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
::In my opinion the question is not whether every Ayurvedic treatment is quackery. I clearly isn't; neither the IMA or anyone else would call the special diets, meditation, yoga or massage quackery. The question is whether every Ayurvedic practitioner is a quack. No Ayurvedic practitioner limits themselves to diets, meditation, yoga and massage. Every Ayurvedic practitioner prescribes Ayurvedic medicine. They call it an essentail part of Ayurveda. And Ayurvedic medicine contains unsafe levels of mercury.
::The IMA is fine with the yoga, massage, and meditation. They are definitely ''not'' fine with prescribing a substance that is claimed to treat a disease or disorder but actually causes a disorder ]. Every Ayurvedic practitioner claims that Ayurvedic medicine is safe and effective. Every Ayurvedic practitioner claims that the safety and efficacy of Ayurvedic medicine is evidence based. Every Ayurvedic practitioner claims that a procedure that was developed by a guru 1500 years ago "purifies" the mercury in the every Ayurvedic medicine and makes it safe. They are wrong. See , , , , , and . Yet we still see claims like , , and .
::Presribing so called "medicines" that harm the patient is the essence of quackery. So what do we call someone who prescibes some things (massage, meditation) that are acceptable and other things (remedies that contain mercury) that are harmful? We call them quacks.
::The idea that the IMA only objects when an Ayurvedic practitioner prescibes western medicine and has no objection to Ayurvedic medicine is not supported by any source, because ''of course'' they disprove of giving sick people mercury. So in my opinion, the answer is "all". --] (]) 04:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
:::If prescribing medicines that harm the patient is quackery then, by your definition, western medicine is clearly quackery as it uses mercury to this day, not to mention that it regularly prescribes cytotoxic chemicals to patients as a part of chemotherapy. Mercury is still used in dental amalgams and mercurochrome is a common antiseptic... Pushing this line about mercury is ]. The IMA may not agree with all the parts of Ayurvedic medicine but its official statement does not support calling all Ayurvedic practitioners quacks, only those who attempt to practice western medicine. ] | ] 09:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
:: ] indeed there is no source for a claim that '''IMA calls''' practioners of Ayurveda that don't prescribe modern medicine as quacks. The definition in the RfC is {{tq|ALL: The '''IMA says''' that all ayurvedic practitioners are quacks. }}. Synthesizing such a claim by combining with sources about harmfulness of mercury is the very definition of ]. -] (]) 05:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
:: Also, apart from the IMA stating that {{tq| We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy.}}, the IMA also states {{tq|We're not against traditional medicine}} , whenever they define quackery. -] (]) 06:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
::] Thank you for taking the time to participate in this Rfc. The IMA says clearly on its web site that there are three kinds of quacks;
::1.Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.

::2.Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.

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

::On the same page it says that to be a registered practitioner of Ayurvedic medicine one must have the BAMS/BUMS qualification. Therefore persons practicing Ayurvedic medicine who have the BAMS/BUMS qualification are not covered under any of the three definitions of quacks. Therefore there are some practitioners of Ayurvedic medicine who are not quacks. This being true, "All" is not a valid option. ] | ] 10:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

:::Odd how that IMA source keeps being quoted again and again. it's almost as if no secondary source explicitly says that "persons practicing Ayurvedic medicine who have the BAMS/BUMS qualification are not covered under any of the three definitions of quacks. Therefore there are some practitioners of Ayurvedic medicine who are not quacks" and that we need Morgan Leigh and Wikihc to interpret and explain what no independent secondary source explicitly says. I'm just saying. --] (]) 11:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
:::: So, if, as you say above, we can't use this source because its a primary source, then you would support the contention that we should remove the sentence for which it is the only source? Unless you can provide a secondary source that explicitly says "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery? ] | ] 05:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
:::: The primary source doesn't explicitly say what the article currently cites it for i.e that the IMA characterises all practitioners of Ayurveda as quacks. No secondary source that I can find explicitly agrees with or denounces the current statement. Because of this, any conclusions drawn from secondary sources will most probably come under ]. Again, I want to stress that I believe the current statement in the lede does not accurately reflect the views of the source it cites. ] demands (for lack of a better word) that a secondary source should explicitly denounce the contentious statement if the contentious statement should be modified. I agree with ] that if denouncing the contentious statement requires a secondary source, then so does affirming it. If the community agrees on this, the statement will most probably have to be removed entirely, since, as has been mentioned previously, no secondary source explicitly affirms or denounces the current statement in the lede. If the community is satisfied with having just a primary source, then IMO the statement in the lede should definitely be changed, for the reasons mentioned by several people in the RfC, most notably by Morgan Leigh, {{u|Wikihc}}, and {{u|Chandra.sarthak}}. ] (]) 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It must be noted that MjolnirPants explicitly acknowledges that IMA <b>does not</b> {{tq | actually say}} anyone who is not practicing modern medicine is a quack. Inferring based on how their statements <i>sound</i> or hypothesizing why they do so is a violation of ].
Random Canadian labels IMA's stance as {{tq|ambiguous}} and instead asks to {{tq| put together}} with other sources which is again violating ].
{{tq | I encourage both editors to delete that portion of their !vote that violates Misplaced Pages's policies and to focus on providing reliable secondary sources.}} -] (]) 15:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021 ==


{{edit semi-protected|Ayurveda|answered=yes}} {{edit semi-protected|Ayurveda|answered=yes}}
Please add that "Recent findings confirmed the nanotherapeutic functionalities of metal derived ayurvedic drugs like jasada basma. The demonstrated experiments,physicochemical and bio-characterization reveal that ayurvedic rasa drugs synthesized and processed through traditional methods are not toxic due to the variation in its structure-property relationship from macro to nano dimensions." please add the following reference for the above edit.https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsomega.2c05391 ] (]) 12:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 12:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery.
:{{notdone}} fails ]. ] (]) 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a private medical association and have nor Rights to decide quackery. Ayurveda is an approved medical system in India for practice as per indian constitution and supported by law and parliament
:{{not done}} Please review the history of this talk page. ]] 12:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

== Clarity on the IMA's stance on Ayurveda and its practitioners. ==

The lede used to state that "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery." and cites to back up that statement.

The statement in the lede was ambiguous, as "medicine" could refer to alternative medicine (such as Ayurveda and ]), or to modern medicine (practiced by doctors who have ]s or ]s from universities that offer them.)

The page from the IMA's website currently cited states, word-for-word, that:

"Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine ."

To avoid ambiguity in the article's lede, and to better reflect the official statement made by the IMA I have changed the sentence:

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

to:

"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners unqualified to practice modern medicine as quackery."

Please let me know if this is alright.

] (]) 11:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|Aathish S}}, I have changed it back. There have been numerous discussions of the wording of that section on this talk page. Please review them and, if you wish to pursue this, gain consensus for your change. I'm going to put some important messages on your talk page now; please also notice the ] restrictions which apply to this page. Best ]] 11:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
:: I gave a cursory read through the one RfC started by {{u|Guy Macon}} before making my edit and at your request I just read the whole thing. It looks like it's wound up as a deadlock with the discussion just fizzling out after the 29th of May. The discussion between {{u|Morgan Leigh}} and Guy Macon ended with a question from Morgan Leigh that has yet to be answered by Guy_Macon, and their answer isn't likely to come since they've stated on their talk page that they've retired from editing Misplaced Pages. No official consensus was ever reached on Guy Macon's RfC, and IMO it's unlikely to be reached since they've retired from editing.<br/>So ], do you recommend I start a new RfC and maybe archive the old one? Or should I comment on the old RfC? I'm relatively new to editing here, and don't want to do too many actions that'll end up getting reverted ;) ] (]) 12:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Aathish S}}, there's more history on the issue in this talk page's archives. The RfC above does appear to have fizzled out somewhat, but it has not been formally closed, so you are welcome to express your view in the 'survey' section. Best ]] 14:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
::::I have undone your revert Girth as there isn't a consensus for it. Let's try again to achieve a consensus before editing the article. I support Aathish's edit 100% as it is fully supported by the source cited and I invite other editors to comment. However we absolutely need an answer to the question I asked Guy i.e. If, as Guy said above, we can't use this source because its a primary source, then surely we should remove the sentence for which it is the only source. Unless someone can provide a secondary source that explicitly says "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery". ] | ] 00:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::I have reinstated it as it certainly does. Please do not insert your own opinion instead of the consensus that has been reached above. ] ] ] 01:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Eggishorn}}, The contentious statement was introduced in {{u|Guy Macon}} with consensus obtained ] '''only''' for describing Ayurveda as pseudoscience. '''No consensus (as far as I can tell) was obtained for the contentious statement about the IMA's stance at all.''' The only RfC about it is the one in the current talk page by Guy Macon, and, like both {{u|Morgan Leigh}} and I have mentioned, no consensus has been reached. ] (]) 06:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::Please show me where a consensus to support this statement was reached. ] | ] 01:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Eggishorn}} You haven't shown us where a consensus was reached as you claimed, unless you can I am going to reinstate the edit you reverted on the basis of this unsubstantiated claim. ] | ] 22:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Morgan Leigh}}, there's ] so demanding proof a mere day later or you'll reinstate is a bit rushed. In point of fact, there was a thunderstorm here shortly after I posted and I've been either doing Real Life<sup>TM</sup> stuff or working on another complicated NAC. I had been working on a close for the RfC but I suppose that you will now call me involved even though I didn't participate in that discussion. In any event, as {{u|Girth Summit}} correctly points out, changing article text that is under discussion is disruptive editing. It was under that principle that I reverted and I don't have any other view about the topic. I hope that helps. ] ] ] 22:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Making claims of disruptive editing does nothing to progress the discussion. And, by this rationale, Aathish'a edit is disruptive editing, as is Girth Summit's reversion, and likewise your reversion. So instead of making such a claim I ask that you instead either verify your claim by answering the question as to where consensus was established, or accept that there is no consensus on the sentence in question and work with us to try to come to one. With that in mind, and in agreement with Aathish, I ask you one of the two key questions. Is the IMA source a primary source? ] | ] 01:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::It is really not that difficult. Changing the text of the article away from the version it had when the RfC started is disruptive editing. That applies to and , but Aatish did not know about the RfC and has been humble about it. Reverting those two changes is not disruptive. Since you are the only one who really did something wrong, you should behave <small>] (]) 05:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)]</small> more like someone who is sorry for making a mistake. --] (]) 06:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::: Please take a moment to read ]. Instead of this kind of reply perhaps addressing the issue of the source would be more productive. ] | ] 00:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::You have now started to bother me on my user talk, and I stand by most of what I said there. But I decided to give you another chance to do the right thing by removing the words you used to avoid the matter at hand. Your turn. My guess is that you will find another excuse to avoid admitting that you were the only experienced editor who did any disruptive editing. --] (]) 05:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Morgan Leigh}}, you can request closure for the RfC above. The point is that the article stays in the status quo ante until that happens. ]] 06:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::], I follow that the article should not be changed until the discussion is ongoing. My question is on related edits that were made without obtaining consensus. ] had proposed to edit the current statement based on what the ] stated prior to these edits: ,. This was also stated in the archived discussion. {{tq2| The Unani page treats this much better, by having such a statement a little later in the article, and explicitly stating that such mixopathy is quackery. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)}}
::::::::{{tq2|I see that Guy Macon has gone ahead and changed the Unani page as well, claiming it better reflects the source. You could not be more incorrect, because the previous statement was completely in line with the source and every single secondary source you have cited here. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)}} My understanding is that changing the Unani page was also not warranted while the discussion was going on and no consensus was obtained. I ask that those changes be reverted until a consensus is reached. -] (]) 16:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Wikihc}}, I don't quite follow what you're asking here,but I think you're talking about making changes on a different article. Surely the talk page over there is the right place to do that? ]] 16:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Girth Summit}}, I don't think closing the RfC right now would be very constructive. I get that ] and all that, but I count 8 votes in favour of "All", 7 or 6 in favour of "Some" and a small minority in favour of "Other". That's hardly consensus being reached. The contentious statement was introduced in by {{u|Guy Macon}}, but with consensus obtained ] only for describing Ayurveda as pseudoscience. No consensus was obtained for the contentious statement referencing the IMA. The only RfC about it is the one in ''this'' talk page by Guy Macon, and like I said before, no consensus has been reached.</br>FWIW, I think this may just be a language problem. Colloquially, at least in India, "medicine" is sort of an umbrella term encompassing both traditional medicine and modern medicine, which is why the IMA is pretty clear about mentioning "modern medicine" in the source currently cited as opposed to just medicine. ] (]) 06:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Please stop pinging me. I have stopped editing Misplaced Pages articles. In fact, you really should stop pinging anyone who is already actively participating in a discussion as well as those who you know have purposely left the discussion. The repeated pings are really annoying. We all have watchlists and seldom need to be pinged. --] (]) 12:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::: Duly noted. I'm sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. ] &#124; ] &#124; ] 13:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Girth Summit}} Why should the article stay in a state that was contentious enough to see an Rfc started? Especially when, as {{u|Aathish S}} has pointed out, there was never any consensus for the addition of this material by Guy in the first place. I know of no Misplaced Pages policy to this effect. If there is one I would be most obliged if you could please direct me to it. Aathish made a good faith edit after reading the Rfc and I see no reason we should revert to the previous contentious state without addressing the issue. What is your opinion on the question as to whether the source is a primary source? ] | ] 07:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Morgan Leigh}}, I also believe that the edit was imade n good faith - I have not said otherwise, and tgat is not why I reverted it. There is an open RfC on the matter - the text in question should be changed when that RfC is closed, not beforehand. I have not participated in the RfC, or read the question that you refer to. ]] 12:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::Please answer the question of why the article shouldn't be edited until the Rfc is closed. If there is policy to support this please point us to it or otherwise I see no reason we can't edit the article if we can come to a consensus. You seem to be saying you didn't read the question that I just asked you about whether it is a primary source or not. Which is odd as you have evidently read the rest of my last comment as you are replying to it. You are advocating against an edit so I am asking your opinion on an important question about the edit you are opposing. Is the source supporting the edit you are advocating against a primary source? ] | ] 22:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::To ''what'' should it be changed? To the option you personally prefer? That's not the right approach. To an option you don't prefer? That's probably not what you want. The default option is to keep it as it is, everything else needs the RFC. It's disruptive if everyone changes the article to their favorite version, without any clear guidance which one to keep. --] (]) 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{u|Morgan Leigh}}, please read, understand, and follow ], especially ]: {{tq|Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. ...Do not continue edit warring; once sustained discussion begins, productively participating in it is a priority. Uninvolved editors who are invited to join a dispute will likely be confused and alarmed if there are large numbers of reverts or edits made while discussion is ongoing.}}. I believe that answers your question. ] ] ] 20:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Edit warring?? I made one, single revert. I am negotiating. i.e. should we remove the source if it is indeed a primary source and replace it with secondary sources seeing there isn't agreement on the content of the existing source? I am talking to you. I asked you a direct question about the source and instead of answering it you have instead chosen to focus on chiding me. ] | ] 00:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I find Eggishorn’s comment to be a direct answer to your question. It’s an explanation of why the in-discussion part of the article shouldn’t be edited until the RFC is concluded. I didn’t read the quote as chiding or an accusation against you. ] (]) 01:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

== I'll just leave this here ==

I dont normally read the poorly spelled "the S<s>k</s>ceptic" magazine, but somebody called Ernzt made some interesting points yesterday regarding current discussions between Boris' Government and the Indian one, in , and I thought of page watchers here.


== Effectiveness ==
It seems we are going to "''Explore cooperation on research into Ayurveda and promote yoga in the UK. Increase opportunities for generic medicine supply from India to the UK by seeking access for Indian pharma products to the NHS and recognition of Indian generic and Ayurvedic medicines that meet UK regulatory standards.''" This is a win/win situation for Boris and the Modi Government. Modi can say "look, Boris is going to look at Ayurveda", and Boris ought to say "No ayurvedic medicine meets UK regulatory standards" but he probably wont.


Can anyone add the section where this treatment is effective like the case with former Kenyan president's daughter who were unable to treat her eye disease, none of the treatment was successful but in the end when she used ayurvedic treatment helped her get her eyesight back.There are several articles about this,you can google it, i can't add links because it's not allowed ] (]) 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I myself am still not watching this page, but wish you all good cheer! -] ] 14:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
:Not sure if "somebody called Ernzt" was a joke, but of course, as expected, the author is ]. --] (]) 15:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
::I'm not able to reply, as I'm not watching this page. -] ] 15:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
:::Oh right. I am sorry that you did not see my contribution, but I guess it was not important anyway. --] (]) 06:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


:{{notdone}}. Discussions of effectiveness need ] sourcing as a basis. ] (]) 15:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Just a reminder to refresh yourselves with ] which reminds us that article talk pages are only for discussing actual edits and not one's own speculations or opinions: "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." ] | ] 03:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
:May I remind you of the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram. -] ] 05:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC) :Well one source would have been nice, even if it did fail medrs .] (]) 15:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::https://m.economictimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/will-take-ayurveda-to-africa-ex-kenya-pm-raila-odinga-after-daughters-eyesight-recovery/amp_videoshow/89549503.cms ] (]) 08:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Fails ] and even if it did not it would need attribution "Raila Odinga claimed". ] (]) 09:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Ok, so you mean former prime minister of Kenya is lying, even if I add that 'he claimed' would you still not revert my edits? ] (]) 10:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::No I am saying he is not a medical expert. ] (]) 10:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10#Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 16:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:43, 12 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayurveda article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: 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.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Commons-emblem-issue.svgWARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The article Ayurveda is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBPS). The current restrictions are:
  • Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures:
  • Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
  • Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Please note that due to disruption of this page, if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article, your comment will be removed without reply if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect.

Please read WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE before posting here.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconAlternative views Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDietary Supplements High‑importance
WikiProject iconAyurveda is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHinduism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Ayurveda.
          Other talk page banners
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
The contents of the Panchakarma page were merged into Ayurveda. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Ama (ayurveda) page were merged into Ayurveda on 17 November 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Ayurveda received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add that "Recent findings confirmed the nanotherapeutic functionalities of metal derived ayurvedic drugs like jasada basma. The demonstrated experiments,physicochemical and bio-characterization reveal that ayurvedic rasa drugs synthesized and processed through traditional methods are not toxic due to the variation in its structure-property relationship from macro to nano dimensions." please add the following reference for the above edit.https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsomega.2c05391 Casira (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done fails WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Effectiveness

Can anyone add the section where this treatment is effective like the case with former Kenyan president's daughter who were unable to treat her eye disease, none of the treatment was successful but in the end when she used ayurvedic treatment helped her get her eyesight back.There are several articles about this,you can google it, i can't add links because it's not allowed 2409:40D1:16:36AD:DCD2:F1FF:FE81:2E7F (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Discussions of effectiveness need WP:MEDRS sourcing as a basis. Bon courage (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Well one source would have been nice, even if it did fail medrs .Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
https://m.economictimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/will-take-ayurveda-to-africa-ex-kenya-pm-raila-odinga-after-daughters-eyesight-recovery/amp_videoshow/89549503.cms 2409:40D1:1015:B2FC:DCB2:D8FF:FE5D:8F17 (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Fails wp:medrs and even if it did not it would need attribution "Raila Odinga claimed". Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so you mean former prime minister of Kenya is lying, even if I add that 'he claimed' would you still not revert my edits? 2409:40D1:1005:F809:D0C2:A8FF:FE62:BD48 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No I am saying he is not a medical expert. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10 § Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom 16:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: