Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

In page ayurveda in last paragraph of the introduction there is a line stating that"There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease." But the reference of citation says that ayurveda medicines are not good in treating cancer so please the words "any disease" to "cancer" as it is creating negative image. 2401:4900:5AF9:33EC:0:0:1229:5660 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done If you read further down the page you will see that it says "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer, or any other disease.". Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok but in another website(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5041382/) under head line why ayurved system of medicine lagging behind there it is given that"Undoubtedly, in comparison to allopathic treatment, Ayurvedic treatment is more effective in most of the chronic diseases. " so can you please consider edit Anonypedia31 (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Fails WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu: a quick search on google scholar ("Ayurveda <disease name>") results in several studies in reputed journals that would satisfy WP:MEDRS, I think? After making these searches I am just picking out the first journal that has a decent impact factor and is not a journal specific to ayurveda/alternative medicines. These articles appear to generally either state that Ayurveda is effective, or that larger samples are needed to statistically confirm the efficacy, because pilot studies have been promising. But none of them (after having been peer reviewed and edited in reputed journals with impact factors >2ish) appear to outright state that Ayurveda is complete quackery. Some examples 1, 2, 34 <-- The four articles here are from the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, Pharmacological Research, Cardiology in Review and Journal of Asthma Chandra.sarthak (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree. WP:NPOV means giving a fair representation to views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Above, I have given reliable sources (that are each well respected in the the field of medicine generally and in the context of the particular diseases specifically) on the topic of Ayurveda. To see for yourself that this is not a fringe view in current times, I think you should have a look at the current medical literature as well. A search on google scholar or Scopus for "Ayurveda <disease name>" results in multiple papers from the last decade or so that consider Ayurveda is a positive light that are published in reputable journals. I have linked four random papers above, which I just pulled from the first four disease names I could think of. I am not asking for a middle road between faith and scholarship. That would be completely unscientific, and frankly quite ridiculous. Science and scientific results all the way. Which is why I'm only looking for sources in journals that do not have a vested interest in promoting alternative medicines. These are reputable journals, with published papers that do not dismiss Ayurveda as a method of treatment. I'm not sure what part of this is dubious to you. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS means a higher standard than reputable journal: our preference goes to literature reviews indexed for MEDLINE and authoritative statements by reputable medical organizations, such as the American Medical Association, cancer.org, cancer.gov, and so on, as long as they render the consensus view of medical orthodoxy. You still can find papers that say that homeopathy does work, but in the reality based academia homeopathy became a paragon of pseudoscience, since it has been shown not to work better than placebo and there is no remotely plausible mechanism why homeopathy could work. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

And indeed, in that context I don't think you'd be able to find a reputable journal publishing a paper that is in favor of homeopathy. Ayurveda on the other hand, does have papers published on it in reputable journals, and there are mechanisms via which it might work as well (which can be found in the papers I linked, or in numerous other places as well). Why is a reputable journal held at lower esteem than a reputable medical organization, even going by WP:MEDRS? Isn't this really just a No true Scotsman fallacy, where any source that goes against what you want to hear isn't a reputable enough source? After all, these are peer reviews papers published in journals with editors and reviewers with no vested interests. But sure, here are example of reviews in the literature, and secondary sources from other organizations as well: 1 2, 3, 4, 5. Also note how you're stating that reputable organizations are only ones based in the US or UK, which almost by definition are unlikely to have put in sufficient resources to examine Ayurveda. Why is, say, the Indian AYUSH ministry not sufficient? I hope you can see the potential for bias there. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Chandra.sarthak, homeopathy has no effect. Ayurveda uses plants, which may have an effect, and thus side-effects. The scientific study of herbal remedies is called pharmacognosy. Ayurveda, by contrast, is like historical re-enactment, but by people who still believe it's the middle ages. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

And why do you think that Ayurveda isn't a version of pharmacognosy packaged in a different language? And what does having side-effects have to do with what I'm saying? I'm simply trying to refute the claims being made on this wikipedia page by providing reasonable sources that would fit the criteria of WP:MEDRS. I've given multiple papers, published in well-cited journals, I've shown secondary sources that make similar claims. What's the issue here? Wikipedia is about documenting what sources and secondary sources say about a subject, isn't it? Sources that are peer reviewed, and represent the opinions of people in the field (as is evidenced by the fact that these papers were published in journals with a peer review process and editors)? How are the citations I have given insufficient to refute the claim that Ayurveda is not good for treating anything? Some of the papers I've linked are _in_ pharmacognosy journals itself! Chandra.sarthak (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and Ministry of AYUSH are organizations which by design kowtow to quackery. The reality is that Western-styled medical is prohibitively expensive for most Indians, and the Indian government cannot afford to fund large-scale Western-style medical care without going bankrupt. So, they provide the poor, the gullible and the superstitious with fake medical care. So, that's the reality: Ayurveda, Traditional Chinese Medicine and homeopathy are fake medical care. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I was just pointing out the bias in your choice of "reputable organizations". Sure, I accept that AYUSH was probably a poor example, given all the quackery they do try to spread. But I'm afraid it's quite inaccurate to state that Ayurveda is fake medicinal care --- indeed, several papers published in well-cited journals, plus reviews and multiple secondary sources disagree with you. And they have the data to back it up too. Can you tell me the issue with the sources I've cited above? I'm not even asking you to spend the time going through all the details of the papers, as that is too much to expect of an editor, but just look at the reputability of the sources in your opinion? Is the WHO not good enough? Is the Sutter Hospital Association not good enough? Or are the Journals of Asthma, Journal of Pharmacognosy and Cardiology in Review not reputable enough? Chandra.sarthak (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

As Artemisinin shows, not all TCM cures are fake. But it takes decades of scientific work to identify one working cure from a thousand of purported cures. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Clearly it's not one in a thousand --- as I said, if you actually bother to do a literature search, then Ayurveda followed by almost any disease name in Google scholar will result in multiple peer reviewed papers that are recent, well-cited, and in journals with no vested interests and with decent impact factors. It is trivial to do so yourself. But in any case, that would amount to original research on wikipedia, which isn't what I'm asking for. I'm asking for fair representation of multiple primary and secondary sources. Additionally, even if it were the case that the valuable cures were sparse, then a statement to that effect would really improve the article, as in it's current form the article is taking a hard stance against almost any validity in Ayurveda, and that is precisely the current point of contention. Note how you still are ending up doing a no true scotsman over here --- now that I've shown you WP:MEDRS sources, you now claim that they are not common enough. And note, the sources I mentioned above (which I'm assuming you think are reputable enough, if not, then please do tell me so) aren't talking about a one in a thousand rare valid cure in Ayurveda --- they're talking about it more generally than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandra.sarthak (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually WP:MEDRS is very clear: we need systematic literature reviews indexed for MEDLINE or higher quality sources to make medical claims in the voice of Wikipedia. You might want to read it.

And the logic behind Artemisinin is very clear: it takes a billion dollars to identify and bring a cure into production, while the success rate is somewhere around 0.1% (if not 0.01%). You do the math.

Half-jokingly we may say that it is easier to publish a medical claim in The Lancet than in Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly true for any original research! The Lancet is allowed to publish it, and Wikipedia is not. On the other hand, if it is unoriginal, then Wikipedia is easier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Western science and Western medical care are incredibly effective and incredibly expensive. An Indian peasant who practices subsistence agriculture can pay for neither. What they can afford is cow dung treatment for Covid-19 or cow urine treatment for it. If they would not have the pacifier of Ayurveda, the masses would run amok and the country would collapse into anarchy. So, the political elite plays a cynical game on the backs of Indian peasants. For the political elite hypocrisy is a virtue, while for Wikipedia it's a sin. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In the context of MEDLINE journals --- some of the articles I lined above are in MEDLINE indexed journals. And you can easily find more articles in MEDLINE indexed journals too. Please have a look at the papers etc. that I am citing above before claiming they aren't MEDLINE indexed or not of a high enough standard. If you wish to see more articles, then I think searching for articles on appropriate medline indexed journals is fairly straightforward, let me know if you can't find such articles. I don't want to take the time out to do a literature search if you don't plan to have even a glance at it. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Means a foundation website is more reliable than government website

Many and any no difference Anonypedia31 (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Anonypedia31, I can find papers saying that homeopathy cures diseases, too, but homeopathy is abject nonsense on a stick. True Believers churn out these studies all the time. That's why these forms of quackery are usually stated to engage in pseudoscience. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

First wikipedia says they have neutral point of view and they present a article in such a twisted way that it is more like a biased no matter how many reputable sources you bring but you guys will never accept the edit and force your thinking and ideology Anonypedia31 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Whats use of then five pillars of wikipedia? When you guys have editing power to over rule them and change in manner the admins like Anonypedia31 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

And user tgeorgescu hasnt even bothered to open website just slammed saying that wikipedia doesnt give medical advice Anonypedia31 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEUTRAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It says it gives weight to each source but here you are not even bothering to edit Anonypedia31 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources aren't born equal. #Yes. We are biased.. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Because you people make sources unequal Anonypedia31 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:VERECUNDIAM for details. We just don't trust everybody, since we are not fools.

Jacques Derrida has been smeared with claims that he believed that all opinions are equal. As described by Rick Roderick in a TTC course, the only people who said that all opinions are equal were those permanently committed to the insane asylum. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

In fact we aren't biased. We are strictly bound by policies and guidelines which are appropriate for an encyclopedia rather than a research publication. Wikipedia in terms of research is an over view of the research in any given field. While there may be individual studies that point to value in some areas of health care modalities, the overview in Ayurveda for example, at this point in time, that is, secondary sources-reviews, for example, do not exist, as far as I know. Single studies point only to possibility; it is the replication of those findings which point to a general sense of information which we can use on Wikipedia. Any single study even in the Lancet still points to possibility. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is not a comparable publication to the Lancet since we are not generally in the area of publishing primary biomedical information. By the way, the comments about "peasants" being able to afford nothing more than cow dung is offensive both in how people are described and in the generality about how and why a traditional medicine was created and is used. Disagreeing, even strongly with editors is not reason to be offensive, IMO. Maybe we could dial back that kind of rhetoric. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

References

It's debatable whether the term "peasant" is inherently offensive. It means a village-based traditional farmer, as opposed to modern (i.e., American and other Western farming). On that basis it's simply descriptive. Marxists would find it a term of respect and approval, of course. SO please be careful when deciding arbitrarily what is and is not offensive. Achar Sva (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In fact to describe an entire group of people under one descriptor whatever that is, is relatively offensive. I did not say peasant is a derogatory term but I do suggest that describing an entire group of people as too poor to either have any kind or access to western medicine and to assume Ayurveda was created and is used to placate these people is what I do find offensive. Further, poverty does not equal ignorance. Generalizations don't help us here as we attempt to explain Wikipedia to SOME serious minded editors. We have quite clear policies to steer us toward the right kinds of sources. I'm not convinced that personal forays helps us with that. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. That was a racist remark. -Wikihc (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Reading this thread from the top )why not, it's a slow Sunday afternoon here), I am drawn to the conclusion that discussions of whether the term "peasant" is offensive or approbatory is perhaps off-topic. It began with two edit requests, both on the same day though possibly by two different people (or possibly not). The first asked that the article be edited to reflect aryurvedic medicine's potential in the treatment of everything but cancer: it was knocked back because the source did in fact say that it was useless for everything. Then came the second request, which directed attention to an Indian government website that says aryurveda is indeed good for everything. That was knocked back too, on the grounds that website is not a reliable source. Someone then gave four sources apparently supporting the efficacy of aryurvedic practice (they're pretty technical and I haven't read them). And then ... well, and then the discussion sort of went into the bunker. Those four sources seem never to have been addressed for reliability. Even on a slow Sunday afternoon I can think of more fun ways to pass my time. Achar Sva (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, Ayurveda has the same problems as every other form of woo, when it comes to determining the research status.

1. Studies are almost always conducted by True Believers seeking to justify their faith, rather than in the spirit of honest inquiry.
2. In the "scientific" study of woo, negative results basically don't get published. Indian research is not as bad as Chinese in this regard, but it's not far off.
3. There is an enormous amount of money in this, as well as quasi-religious levels of belief. The True Believers are amplified by obvious grifters.
4. Science doesn't go around proving negatives. "Historical re-enactment of medicine still pointless and dangerous" is obvious, and testing it scientifically is unethical.

One thing that sets Ayurveda apart from homeopathy and acupuncture, is that it has genuine potential to cause actual harm. Herbs do contain active ingredients, many of which occur in completely unpredictable quantities in ayurvedic preparations. Treating Morgellons with homeopathy is harmless. Treating it with an unknown cocktail of pharmacologically active substances, potentially contaminated with heavy metals, is harmful. And treating genuine disease with folk mythology is equally dangerous - on top of the unknown cocktail of pharmacologically active ingredients, and the contaminants, there's the fact that reality-based treatments are not being used.

You can't separate out effects like poverty and sanitation, but the life expectancy of India is ten years less than the US or Europe. And all the professionals I know in India are well aware of this, and go to reality-based doctors, not Ayurvedic shamen.

Of course the True Believers like to point to pharmacognosy as evidence that Ayurveda "works", but that's like saying you can make a carpet fly by weaving in strips of aluminium, because that's what airplanes are made from. Sure, some preparations probably accidentally do work, because the bonkers diagnostic criteria and often mythical diseases must, after several centuries of trial and mostly error, overlap with reality at least minimally. A witch doctor who always kills the patient will get rumbled eventually. But giving unknown quantities of unknown pharmacologically active substances with unknown contamination based on unvalidated diagnostics is not, and never will be, a sound basis for medical practice. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG. I think you misunderstand me. I have only one interest here and that is to identify sources as either reliable or not, per Wikipedia. I don't care very much about what editors think about Ayurveda; I care about the sourcing. What I object to is a sense that because a Wikipedia subject is considered fringe we have the right as editors to post our opinions, sometimes foul. I don't care about opinions, I care about the sources. Since I don't see any reliable sources per Wikipedia the discussion here is over for me at this point. We as human beings are easily distracted by generalities, by pigeon holing, so I understand the kind of opinionated post that either supports or denigrates Ayurveda. I exclude your post since it is/was reasoned- I just don't care about personal opinions. I want to simplify and both deal with the sources if there are any and have us all behave as professionals by keeping this talk page free of vitriol. And I have zero interest in debating the value of Ayurveda on a personal level; that way a huge time-sink comes. It's all about the sources and MEDRS. (I've been following this article a long time including the mess RexxS had to deal with with numerous sock and or meat puppets so seems to me consistent, short pointers back to MEDRS is the only way to deal with this article with out getting bogged down). Just my opinion but that's how I'd deal with this given the kind of support RexxS was given when he asked for outside assistance. It's either here or no where as far as I can tell so keep it short and opinion free- opinion of course. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, and that was the point I was making. The sources are largely written by True Believers, and are accepted by publishers regardless of their objective quality. It's dangerous nonsense, but most of the sources are by people who make money from it and published in journals that will accept anything, so extra care is required. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If we find good MEDRS compliant sources, that is secondary sources, that problem goes away. Right? Littleolive oil (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, not really. We have to evaluate for COI. That's part of the problem: superficially reliable sources publish review studies that support woo based on the volume of primary material. Again, there is a huge amount of money in this, through individual grifters and through True Believers who endow "integrative medicine" departments, where cow pie is integrated with apple pie in the sinbcere belief that this makes the apple pie better. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

When I evaluate a source for MEDRS compliancy I would include potential COI, publication, impact factor and so on. Unless we're dealing with a specific source we can't go much further in terms of assessing compliancy. I haven't seen a MEDRS compliant source for Ayurvedic research so far. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding WP:MEDRS, I was informed above that MEDLINE, for example, was a reasonable standard for WP:MEDRS. Some of the sources above are indeed in MEDLINE indexed journals (for example the paper from the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, and Cardiology in Review). And if you pull up other medline journals and search using keywords related to ayurveda, there are other research articles that pop up too. I have cited secondary sources above too, but I'm really not sure what passes the WP:MEDRS bar with regards to secondary sources outside of journal articles. If you are interested in secondary sources that are journal articles, I have cited some of those above too, can find more too if I need to. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Look at this sentence again: our preference goes to literature reviews indexed for MEDLINE. Maybe because MEDLINE is in capital letters, you mistook it for the only important part of the sentence, but actually, the term "literature reviews" is even more crucial. In WP:MEDRS, the most interesting part is the picture with the colored triangles. Above you link 1 this study, which already tells us in the title that it is a double blind, randomized, and controlled pilot study. That means it is in the blue section in the left triangle and on the green section in the right triangle, and because it is just a pilot study, it is at the very bottom of both those sections. So, it is very obvious that it does not meet MEDRS - for someone who has actually read and understood WP:MEDRS, which you very obviously have not, even now, after you have been told that the studies you linked do not meet it. WP:CIR is another page you should have a look at. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Weird sentence

"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)

It is quackery when done by people not qualified to do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we don't use the wording in the source, as Achar Sva proposed, which is that Ayurvedic practice is quackery. “[M]odern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners" sounds like original research. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Dāsānudāsa, also "modern medicine" is framing language used by proponents of SCAM. We just call it medicine. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

IMA said it about Ayurveda doctor who practice modern science not on Ayurveda so simply just remove that content from page state that ayurveda is quackery Dr Mithilesh rana (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mixopathy

There is an overwhelming consensus against any claim that the Indian Medical Association says that some Ayurveda practitioners are not quacks or that any Ayurverdic treatment is acceptable. The IMA is crystal clear on this; Unless an Ayurveda practitioner completely abandons Ayurveda, becomes an M.D, and only prescribes medicines and procedures that have been shown to be safe and effective in peer-reviewed clinical trials published in recognized medical journals, they are quacks who should not be allowed to practice any sort of medicine, including "Ayurverdic medicine". That is what every reliable secondary source says about the IMAs position. Wikipedia will never allow any edit that is based upon an individual editors interpretation of a primary source when all of the secondary sources have a completely different interpretation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you just point to said secondary sources stating that the IMA says that an ayurveda practitioner is a quack unless the completely abandon Ayurveda? In fact, may I suggest changing the reference in the article to such a reference? The entire argument here is because the page referenced for the sentence being argued over does not say this at all. If there is such a secondary source it should be the reference to that statement instead. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Glad to.

• "Indian doctors strike to save 'modern medicine' from a risky fusion with alternative medicine... 'We stood up for India, lost 700 doctors to Covid. Your turn now to save modern medicine from mixopathy,' a newspaper ad by the IMA said. What is 'mixopathy'? It’s a term the protesting doctors have coined by combining the word 'mix' and the suffix 'pathy,' or disease. The meaning of mixopathy, as used by the doctors, is a critical way to refer to what they see as an effort to integrate different kinds of alternative medicine systems, like homeopathy and Ayurveda, with modern medical science."[1]
• "Mixopathy will be a threat to lives of people: Indian Medical Association: Stating that mixing of different medical practices will be a threat to the lives of the patients, [an] IMA executive explained the dangers of the Centre’s new proposal to [combine] the allopathic practice system with Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Homeo practices... AP delegates have also participated in the relay hunger strike organized by the national executive of IMA in New Delhi in protest against the mixopathy. Addressing the gathering at the hunger strike camp, Dr Nanda Kishore said that India’s reputation as a medical hub of the world would also get damaged with mixopathy system. IMA state working committee member Dr Seva Kumar said that all the medical systems should be practiced in their own methods without allowing one system to get mixed with another. He said that people would surely suffer with such practices. He said that allopathic medicine is the most scientific and advanced mode of healthcare provider and there should not be any compromise on extending benefits of the mode. He said that the Centre should realise the dangers of mixing of other modes with allopathic system at least after seeing that the vaccines to beat the covid-19 pandemic was developed only in allopathic system."[2]
• "The Indian Medical Association on Monday called on all Allopathic doctors to continue their protests against the ‘mixopathy’ plans of the Central government that seek a convergence of traditional medicine such as Ayurveda, Unani and Homoeopathy with Allopathic care. The IMA, which was strongly opposed to these plans from day one, on Monday said one of the reasons that the government gave for promoting mixopathy was shortage of doctors in rural areas and that the organisation was readying to attend to this issue. In a release, the IMA said, 'As the government is repeatedly saying that lack of doctors is the reason for mixopathy, we are preparing a list of junior doctors ready to serve in any part of this country as per the pay scales of the Central government and for that we are preparing and inviting applications for the same from willing junior doctors. We will submit a list of 1,500 IMA doctors, who are willing to work in any part of the India.' The IMA also called on its members to continue their protests, educate people over the dangers of mixopathy and create awareness in the society on this issue. It also said it will fight the menace of mixopathy by all means including any legal battle, political lobbying and massive sustained struggle."[3]
• "Politicians in India are now attempting to replicate Mao’s transformation of medicine in China, and for the same reason. India has a doctor shortage, lacking about half the health care professionals needed to meet the minimum World Health Organization benchmark. To address this shortage some politicians are proposing a bill to license practitioners of Siddha, Ayurvedic, and homeopathic medicine as health care providers in India... the Indian Medical Association (IMA) is opposing the bill vigorously (as they should)"[4]
• "Unqualified practitioners who pose as qualified doctors and administer potentially dangerous treatments to patients—so called quacks—are numerous throughout India"[5]

Your turn. Show me a single reliable source that says that the IMA is OK with integrating alternative medicine such as homeopathy and Ayurveda with modern medical science. Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

None of the above articles seem to be stating that the IMA is saying that Ayurveda practitioners practicing Ayurveda are quacks? Like I genuinely do not see that in these articles? They are all stating that the IMA (and several other organizations) have issues with ayurveda practicioners practicing a system of medicine they are underqualified for. They're quite clear about this. And this does not correspond to the connotation of the line in the current wiki article. These sources say nothing about Ayurveda practitioners performing Ayurveda. I have suggested an alternative wording above that would be consistent with the primary sources, secondary sources and would be satisfactory to most of the parties involved with the discussion on this page. Does that seem like a reasonable path forward for you?

Regarding sources OKing integrating Ayurveda with modern medicine --- The secondary sources are all talking about precisely this integration. The argument being made here by Wikihc and others is _not_ about an integration. But rather about ayurveda practitioners performing medicine accorinding to the ayurvedic system of medicine. And if you want a source for that, the very same IMA page you have linked states the same. I have quoted lines from the page above to clarify matters. Let me know if that helps in understanding things. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So that's a no on you providing a reliable seconary source that says that the IMA is OK with integrating alternative medicine such as homeopathy and Ayurveda with modern medical science. Thought so.

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. Show me a single Ayurvedic practitioner who has abandoned all use of Mercury and lead.

Here are the words of actual Ayurvedic practitioners:

"Metallic preparations occupied a significant place in Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia and are routinely being practiced in different parts of Indian subcontinent since centuries. Parada (Mercury), one such metal is the inseparable part of Ayurveda and is used in the preparation of Rasaushadhies (Herbo-mineral preparations) such us Makaradhwaja, Rasa Sindhura, etc., Classical procedures such us Shodhana (purification), Marana (incineration), etc., make it safe (harmless) and render suitable for therapeutic use. Meticulous guidelines have been laid down in classical texts that one can refer while preparing Rasaushadhies (Herbo-mineral preparations)"[6]

"Contrary to the debate on international regulations to ban trade of mercury owing to its toxicity and adverse impact on the environment, an Ayurveda expert at the Banaras Hindu University has advocated the use of mercurial preparations as medicine to treat acute and chronic diseases. However, he has also cautioned against its free use. 'Mercurial preparations in Ayurveda are not toxic in nature if prepared according to classical parameters with guidelines of good manufacturing practices,' said head of the department of Rasa Shastra Prof Anand Chaudhary." [7]

"Ayurvedahas a special branch called as Rasashastra which deals with the use of metals in treating various illnesses. Formulations prepared using these metals and minerals are called as 'Rasaaushadhis'. Mercury is considered as Nucleus of these Rasaaushadhis as a major percentage of these Rasaaushadhis contains some mercurial compounds. In fact the literal meaning of the word Rasashastra is 'Science of mercury'. All the metals used in Ayurveda formulations undergoes special procedures called as 'Shodhan' and 'Maran'. These procedures are specialty of traditional Indian medicine and are mentioned in books around 1500 yearsold. These procedures aims to detoxify metals and makes compatible for human consumption."[8]

Meanwhile, no actual scientist believes that in 500 BCE a guru discovered a way to make mercury safe. It is, quite literally, bullshit. And scientists are united in saying that any amount of mercury is bad for you. That's why prescribing Rasaaushadhis is illegal in most countries. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting such a dangerous practice. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Secondary" is not enough. Read and understand WP:MEDRS. Really. If you do not understand it, do not pretend you do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Good point. In this case, both the MEDRS-compliant sources and the popular press are in complete agreement as to what the position of the IMA is. Going on a hunger strike against something is an indication that you oppose it that even the dumbest journalist can understand. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The IMA's stance is quite clearly about "mixopathy", i.e., about AYUSH trained doctors performing "allopathy" (word taken from your sources). You are asking me for a source of something they aren't trying to advocate or oppose. They don't explicitly state being against Ayurveda or being for Ayurveda. In fact, I think for legality reasons they are being quite particular in their statements everywhere, by stating that their strikes are against the government allowing AYUSH trained doctors from performing/prescribing non-AYUSH medicines. You said, "Every Ayurvedic practitioner is practicing a system of medicine they are unqualified to practice." This is not the IMA's claim. The IMA's claim, as is on the IMA page, and every single source you cited, is that ayurveda trained doctors should not be allowed to work under a system of medicine they have not trained under. Note that the IMA page distinguishes systems of medicine, and is particularly against mixopathy and crosspathy. That's all the IMA claims. Right now you are bringing in other sources which raise issues with Ayurveda in completely different regards. That is not what I am interested in arguing about here. I am simply stating that the IMA claim needs to be represented appropriately. I don't claim to fully understand WP:MEDRS. But I do have enough reading comprehension to distinguish between what you think the IMA and the secondary sources are saying, and what is actually being claimed. If you wish to argue about Ayurveda independent of the IMA's claims, then please let's pick it up in a separate thread. This is particularly about IMA's issues with mixopathy, and ayurveda trained practitioners from performing "modern medicine". Chandra.sarthak (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, what is the issue with using wording similar to what is on the Unani page? It is an accurate representation of the IMA's stance, is it not? It's more elaborate, and significantly more accurate. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You answered this question yourself in the section above: "I don't claim to fully understand WP:MEDRS. But I do have enough reading comprehension to distinguish between what you think the IMA and the secondary sources are saying, and what is actually being claimed". You need to understand WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS to understand why so many editors are rejecting your suggestions. You need to come up with sources that explicitly support the changes you wish to make. You haven't done that. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The IMA page that you use as a reference is a source that explicitly supports the change I wish to make. Every source you have found is a source that supports the statement that the IMA has issues with ayurveda practitioners practicing other systems of medicine that they are unqualified for. Literally every source you have says that. And the change being suggested is in line with that. I don't need to find a source for the change I wish to make because you've done my job for me. And you've even said that indeed the IMA everywhere has an issue with mixopathy. This is not what the connotation of the line in the current wiki page reads as! Various users above have already explained why the line in the wiki page has the incorrect connotation. Indeed, as I put it earlier, the IMA has issues with professional ayurveda practitioners performing practice in allopathy/modern medicine. If you want to be more precise, in particular the IMA has issues with activites that can usually only be performed by people registered in the State Register of Medical Practitioners or activities under the "Allopathic" medical system. Note that I am taking the phrasing of "modern medicne" and "allopathic medical system" from the very same IMA page itself.

The IMA page does not say that ayurveda practioners should perform no system of medicine. Do you have a single source that states that Ayurveda practioners performing any system of medicine are quacks? Every single source of yours is in the context of the IMA, ayurveda practioners and practicing under the system of modern medicine. And do not claim that the modern medicine system is the only system of medicine, because that is not at all what the IMA page says (it explicitly distinguishes systems of medicine).

I don't need to have a deep understanding of WP:MEDRS to know that if you make a statement X, and cite a page that states Y, then the statement X does not belong in wikipedia. Right now the sentence on the wiki page is literally akin to saying that the academy of long distance runners states that electrical engineers with no training in long distance running should not participate in long distance running and will make a fool of themselves if they do. Nothing about long distance runners doing long distance running, and nothing about electrical engineers doing electrical engineering. I can barely see why the statement even has relevance in the opening paragraph of the article. 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)

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)

Okay, this took me some time to find a source "OKing" ayurveda. It was tough because the IMA has only really been making statements against mixopathy, so it's hard to find a statement OKing something that they are not making poitns for or against. But, after some searching, here is a source where they explicitly state that they are not against other medical systems: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/permitting-ayurveda-doctors-to-conduct-surgery-a-compromise-with-health-ima/articleshow/79679088.cms

The IMA national president "stated that the IMA is not against "any sort of pathy", but the mixing up of disciplines. " Chandra.sarthak (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing

Just to let you know this page is being talked about on social media so you can expect plenty more ‘edit requests’ while the current controversy rages in India.

Search for "Ayurveda Wikipedia" on Twitter, for example, where people are equating belief in scientifically proven "allopathic" medicine with being a 'sepoy' who cringes to their white masters, etc. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't reply when they do this. Just silently delete the disruptive edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If it carries on we'll just semi-protect it again and point editors to Talk:Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments, which was effective last time. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please specify exactly

@Hipal: If you wish to revert an edit for a policy reason e.g. Fringe, please state exactly which part of the policy you are referring to and how it relates to the edit in question so the problem can be addressed accurately. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal:I note you reverted my revert, again, moments after I made it without providing any information on the talk page as to what your revert is about. I further note you asked me to discuss it on the talk page, which I had done, without replying on the talk page yourself. Please provide information here as I can see no reason for your reverts. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, somebody else reverted it. You've now been reverted by two separate editors - what you need to do is make the case for that addition here and get consensus for its inclusion. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

My mistake it was indeed @Crossroads:. @Hipal: reverted it claiming FRINGE and Crossroads claimed GVAL. Neither have explained how these might apply. How can it be fringe when the source is the Indian Medical Association? How can it be GVAL when my edit did not add another source but only clarified an existing source which was cited in a way that didn't tell the whole story? Would you two please clarify?

I contend that it would be WP:CHERRYPICKING to not include the "significant qualifying information" I added from the already existing source. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in a long, drawn-ought discussion with Morgan Leigh because such a discussion was tried and failed at User talk:Morgan Leigh#Yes. We are biased.

The following edit[9] was reverted for good reasons. Morgan Leigh claimed

"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery because persons qualified to practice Ayurvedic medicine are not qualified to practice Western allopathic medicine." (Words in bold added by Morgan Leigh).

But the source cited[10] does not say that. Not even close. What they say is:

"Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under:

• Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.
• 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.
• Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

It's as if you started with a source that says

We here at keep your eyes peeled fruit store sell three kinds of citrus fruit:

Lemons, identifiable by their yellow color.

Limes, identifiable by their green color.

Oranges, identifiable by their orange color.

So, would the above source support the following claim in a Wikipedia article?

"The keep your eyes peeled fruit store characterises limes as fruit"

Yes. it would.

Would the above source support the following modified claim?

"The keep your eyes peeled fruit store characterises limes as fruit because fruit is colored green".

No. The source does not support the claim. Likewise the AMA source does not support the claim made by Morgan Leigh.

As an aside, I am keeping a close eye on User talk:Morgan Leigh#Possible COI?. They of course are not required to answer, but if they do choose to answer I have my suspicions about what the answer will be. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for including the exact quote from the IMA site which I was referring to. "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." I am however at a loss to understand how this is not supporting what I added to the article. i.e. it says clearly that the IMA considers quackery to be the actions of those who are practicing modern medicine when they are not qualified to do so. If the words I added are not included the article would give the erroneous impression that the IMA considers Ayurvedic medicine to be quackery for some other reason.

Moreover the page goes on, at great length to explain the different systems of medicine in India, "Central Medical Acts have laid down separate area of practice for each system of medicine " and how their concern is the "non-entitlement of practitioners of Indian Medicine who are practicing Modern Medicine". The page even cites court judgements that find that "a doctor who has qualification in Ayurvedic, Unani or homeopathic medicine will be liable if he prescribes allopathic treatment...", all of which support the edit I made. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to side with Morgan Leigh on this particular point? The IMA page states (I'm paraphrasing here for simplicity) that practitioners of indian medicine, who are not qualified to practice modern medicine _but_ are practicing modern medicine are quacks. This sentence implies nothing of practitioners of indian medicine who are practicing indian medicine. The sentence currently in the article definitely implies the same thing, but it lends the impression that the IMA classifiers _any_ practice of medicine by the practitioners of indian medicine as quacks. Irrespective of whether Ayurveda is a pseudoscience or not, it would be important to note under what conditions the IMA thinks of ayurveda practitioners as quacks. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon: In that context I would think that maybe the line should be removed entirely. Currently it is akin to saying on a page about astronauts in the article lead, that astronauts who professionally ice-skate without any training in professional ice-skating are bad at ice-skating. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Beyond all of Guy Macon's very good points, how is using "allopathic" not FRINGE? --Hipal (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

"Allopathic medicine" is a term used by quacks to describe what everyone else calls "medicine". This is a lot like the terms "pro-life", "pro-choice" "piracy" and "freedom fighter"; terms that attempt to frame the discussion. One side speaks of "allopathic medicine" and "traditional medicine", trying to get you to assume that both are valid. The other side speaks of "medicine" and "quackery", trying to get you to assume the exact opposite. The IMA tends to use "Modern Medicine (allopathy)" simply because their audience may only know the "allopathy" term, but the word "quackery" is never far away. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I used allopathic because it is the term used in the source. Unlike Guy, I am not privy to the IMA's motivation for using this term. However they use allopathic as a descriptor for modern medicine, indeed it seems the appropriate Act for regulating modern medicine uses this term in it's definitions "Modern Medicine (Allopathic)". Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. It should not be used. --Hipal (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

And adding a quote to the lede is inappropriate, in pretty much any circumstance. It's even more inappropriate to the first paragraph of the lede. In an attempt to restore content already removed twice, it's sanctionable. Please work to gain consensus for a change, or leave it be to avoid sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You previously claimed it was fringe due to the use of the word Allopathic, but then said "Fair enough" when I pointed out it is a direct quote from the source. Why are you asserting it is fringe now?

See WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section which says "direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation" so clearly it is not inappropriate to include a quotation in the lead. I used a quotation because of complaints that I was misusing the source. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I already pointed out that the direct quote is grossly inappropriate and sanctionable, right? --Hipal (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You did make this claim but failed to say why and didn't reply to my pointing out that WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section clearly mentions having quotes in leads. Do you have a reply other than a simple reassertion that you don't like it?Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, the term "allopathic" was invented by Samuel Hahnemann, the man who plucked homeopathy from his arse one day. It refers to what is now termed "heroic medicine", and is irrelevant in modern usage, but it has been adopted by quacks and charlatans as a pejorative for anything that is reality-based.

No, it should not be used. Ever. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearly you are uncomfortable with this term, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the term the Indian Medical Association uses to describe modern medicine and therefore it is proper to use it in this case i.e. a direct quote from the source cited. Please explain exactly why it shouldn't be used in a direct quote from a reliable source?

You seem to be suggesting that the IMA must be quacks and charlatans for using this term. If this is the case then perhaps we should remove the citation by them from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Leigh (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, excellent analysis, and patiently explained. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon already made this point, but the problem basically is that the edit is a classic WP:SYNTH. There is no reason that quackery is indicated because of legal liability. That just is not what the source indicates and it is almost certainly not true. jps (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

jps, how lovely to see you pop up again. I am obviously not synthesizing as the article clearly defines quacks as "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 is exactly what it says in its definition of quacks, which Guy so kindly quoted above earlier. The quote I inserted is from a section on the same anti quackery page, which is an exegesis of exactly why they use this definition of quacks and a description of legal cases against quacks and legal remedies against quacks. Please explain exactly how you think I am synthesizing when I am simply including a direct quote from the anti quackery page of the IMA. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem isn't WP:SYNTH, but redundancy: you keep repeating the same stuff in a single line of text. It's time to acknowledge that even regardless of what IMA stated, Ayurveda is quackery according to WP:PSCI, which is administratively binding upon all editors of English Wikipedia, according to the Terms of Use. The Wikipedic fate of Ayurveda has been sealed since WP:ARBPS, unless you have that arbitration decision overturned, there can be no mercy for Ayurveda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tgeorgescu, I was wondering when you would be along. I do believe you are mistaken as redundancy is saying the same thing over again. What I am doing is clarifying a statement in order to avoid a mischaracterization. If the sentence simply said "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery", as it does now, one would gain the impression that the IMA considered Ayurvedic medicine to be quackery per se, however that is misleading, as the IMA considers it quackery when a doctor with qualifications in Ayurvedic medicine practices modern medicine. Please explain how you feel this clarifying information is an example of redundancy.

It is important to note that I am not trying to insert text to say that Ayurvedic medicine is not quackery, I am indeed adding to a statement supporting that it is quackery by adding the grounds on which the IMA defines it as such. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Grounds which are already stated in our article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"our article"? Perhaps you should refresh yourself with WP:OWN

If you feel the grounds are already stated in the article then clearly we two have a consensus about this point. If the grounds are already mentioned in the article surely that is a great reason to include this information in the lead.

While I don't see this info in the article body, perhaps you are referring to the footnote where it says "The purpose of this compendium of court orders and various rules and regulations is to acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine." This really isn't clear and perhaps this is why the other editors have argued that the article doesn't say that the IMA's concerns about quackery are about appropriate qualifications? Surely a direct quote from the article which clarifies that the IMA finds a doctor is liable for quackery when "a doctor who has qualification in Ayurvedic, Unani or homeopathic medicine will be liable if he prescribes allopathic treatment..." would clarify things.Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how we're going to reach consensus for inclusion on this. I'm stretched to see this as a good faith effort to improve this article following our policies. Make a new and far better case, or I'm afraid you're just wasting everyone's time. --Hipal (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe there is merit in seeing how other wikipedia pages represent similar information? For example, the page on Unani medicine refers to a similar IMA page and states much more reasonably: "Indian Medical Association (IMA) estimated in 2014 that approximately 400,000 practitioners of Indian traditional medicine (Unani, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine) were illicitly practicing modern medicine without having the qualifications to do so; the IMA regards such practices as quackery." Chandra.sarthak (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Enough

Morgan Leigh, you are WP:BLUDGEONING this talk page, and not a single person has been convinced to support the material you wish to have in this article. Enough. It is time to drop the WP:STICK. No, you can't have a pony. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You guys have thrown out a whole bunch of inconsistent, contradictory things that you claim are wrong with my edit, including just plain not liking a word that you have decided is a bad word. You can't even agree with each other. Then there is (once again) an allegation of COI and the posting a bunch of notices on my talk page, all over one little edit that is consistent with a reliable source, (that was not even added by me but was already in the page) but contrary to your ideology. I have patiently and politely responded to you all. You know how bad it looks and so now you have given up any pretense of responding to my valid points and are just trying to shout me down. This is a classic case that illustrates why Wikipedia is losing editors at a rapid rate. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to make allowance for their doubting too. I readily admit losing disputes when others show that I was wrong, but I do not like losing disputes wherein others do not convince me that I was wrong. Anyway, editing Wikipedia is a collective/cooperative process, so you and me have to accept the collective decision, even if we do not like it.

About losing editors: editing Wikipedia has become a highly technical skill, we are volunteers, but we behave as if we were professionally editing it. So, we don't need everybody as an editor, but only those who apply the guiding principles of editing Wikipedia and have the right mindset.

I never said that Wikipedia should strive to represent the views of editors. Rather what I said is that since Wikipedia strives to represent views in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable secondary sources, editors who let their views bleedthrough into their editing are a bigger problem when their views are outside of the mainstream then when their views are within the mainstream. For example if an editor is a Nazi who believes whites are the superior race, when they try to force this view into our articles, this is a significant problem. By comparison, if an editor believes that there is no such thing as a superior race, it's far less of a problem when their editing to articles is biased by this particular view. It's not because there are few Nazis on Wikipedia, and most editors are not Nazis. It's because sources overwhelming reject Nazi idealogy. The fact that our editors also overwhelming do so is great, but was never part of my point. The rest of your commment supports this, so I'm not even sure why you're challenging me. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I mostly align my opinions to the mainstream academia, except for abortion and health effects of salt. But I do not push my own POV in those articles, so the fact that I have non-mainstream opinions thereupon is moot.

Also, I believe in Spinoza's God, which is the faith of a tiny minority, but since I do not seek to promote this opinion, the point that it is non-mainstream is moot.

The gist: I know which of my opinions are wanted and which are unwanted, and I edit accordingly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice deflection instead of commenting on actual edits and sources.Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a deflection: at a certain point you have to accept the collective decision and drop the stick. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting to see these arguments on something that is easily understood. Something that shouldn't really be a point of contention. The qualification that Morgan Leigh refers to, Chandra.sarthak agrees to it and provides an example of how the source is applied in another wiki page. Also, that qualification is explicitly stated in the reference. And this is not without reason. Because it is a logical necessity.

Consider 4 persons.

Person A: Qualified to practice modern medicine. Practices modern medicine. Does not practice ayurveda.
Person B: Qualified to practice modern medicine. Practices modern medicine. Practices ayurveda.
Person C: Not Qualified to practice modern medicine. Practices modern medicine. Does not practice ayurveda.
Person D: Not Qualified to practice modern medicine. Practices modern medicine. Practices ayurveda.

According to IMA's categorization, Person C is a quack under category 1: "Quacks with no qualification whatsoever" ; Person D is a quack under category 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.".

But the IMA categorization does not call person B as a quack. Person B is an ayurvedic practitioner. Person B practices modern medicine. Person B has relevant qualifications to practice modern medicine.

The source also states definition of quacks in another paragraph: "A person who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that system is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or to put it differently a charlatan." , which again does not define Person B as a quack because Person B has knowledge of modern medicine and the qualifications to do so.

To reiterate, the source again and again states, explicitly so, that lack of relevant qualification to practice modern medicine is the key aspect that makes a practitioner a quack.

However, according to the current statement in the Wiki article: "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery.", person B is a quack, a claim that is not supported by the source.

So the wiki article's statement in its current form is making an original thesis. Now that is WP:SYNTH.

Hence, agreeing with Morgan Leigh and Chandra.sarthak, it makes sense to change the sentence. As an example, from, "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery." → "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery." -Wikihc (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Person D does not exist. You either practice modern medicine (actually practicing modern medicine, not some Quack saying what they are doing is practicing modern medicine) or you practice Ayurveda. The two are not remotely compatible. It's like saying "A firefighter is a person who fights fires with a water hose and a person who fights fires with a gasoline hose". You can prescribe only medicines that have been proven to be safe and effective in double blind clinical trials or you can prescribe medicines full of poisonous mercury that some guru a couple of thousand years ago said could be purified by baking it in cow shit. Pick one. Modern medicine is not only defined by what it does but by what it does not do and one of the things it does not do is Ayurveda. --Guy Macon (talk)

Person D is the quack as defined by category 2 of IMA. Person D is the ayurvedic practitioner who is not qualified to practice modern medicine, and yet does so. That is the quackery. Now you want to say they don't exist? Don't let your emotion cloud reading comprehension please.

As for people qualified to practice modern medicine, who pratice modern medicine and ayurveda (a logical subset of the people who practice modern medicine with qualification), the IMA source definitions do not call them quacks. The current version of the wiki article does.

If you believe the source calls people practicing modern medicine with relevant qualifications as well as ayurveda as quacks, I would like you to show that in the source.

As for the rest of your claims, your don't provide any reference for it either. Even if you did, combining two sources to make your thesis would again be WP:SYNTH.

Also, the aggressive racist connotations in your comment are not welcome.

In summary, what the source states and what the current sentence in the wiki article states are not the same. This is resolved by adding three words to the sentence. From, "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery." → "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery." -Wikihc (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You just called me a racist. I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram. Do that again and there will be consequences.

There are two different meanings for the phrase "practicing modern medicine" Let's say I went through medical school, got my M.D. and opened up a practice. I would be "practicing modern medicine", right? Now let's say I went to plumbing school, call myself "Doctor Guy, astrologist/healthologist" and started prescribing hamster poop as a cure for Covid-19. Would that be "practicing modern medicine"? Only if you call pretending to practice modern medicine practicing modern medicine. When they arrested my for practicing medicine without a license that's how they would use the phrase.

Ah, but what if is was an actual qualified M.D. prescribing the hamster poop as a cure for Covid-19? He would certainly be qualified to practice modern medicine and licensed to practice modern medicine, but that does not transform hamster poop as a cure for Covid-19 into being modern medicine. The two are incompatible. Any M.D. who wants to practice modern medicine must abandon prescribing hamster poop. In like manner, the IMA is saying that you can abandon Ayurveda, go to medical school, become an M.D., and be qualified to practice modern medicine. But abandoning Ayurveda isn't an option. It is a requirement.

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. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

First I'd like to remind both of you to avoid ad hominem remarks and legal threats and just discuss the edits.

I agree with Wikihc and Chandra.sarthak that we should edit the sentence in the lead to say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery." This accurately represents the source and is a consensus of three editors. The source itself provides that all the persons mentioned exist and uses their existence to explain its definition of quackery. Moreover the source also provides that a person can be a practitioner of both modern and Ayurvedic medicine if appropriately qualified. The source makes clear that a quack is an unqualified person. Unless you Guy Macon can explain exactly why this edit is not supported by the cited source I say we make the edit. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Please proved a citation to a reliable secondary source that supports your claim the "Moreover the source [The Indian Medical association]] also provides that a person can be a practitioner of both modern and Ayurvedic medicine if appropriately qualified". Not your interpretation of the primary source, which disagrees with my (also not usable) interpretation of the primary source, but a reliable secondary source.

Unless you can provide such a citation, I oppose your suggested wording, which was clearly written to support your claim about what the IMA says. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

That is a "moreover" statement by Morgan Leigh. It does not need to be true for the proposed edit, "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery.", to be valid. Because the IMA source already limits the scope of a quack to those practising modern medicine without qualification. And that is what the edit also does.

As for whether a person can be a practitioner of both modern medicine and something like ayurveda, I have provided a reliable secondary reference to the undersigned of the IMA source to be an example . And one example is sufficient to logically demonstrate the invalidity of your assertion. Additionally, you yourself have provided another secondary reference elsewhere in the page.

"The Supreme Court of India and Indian Medical Association regard unqualified practitioners of Unani, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine as quackery.Practitioners of alternative medicine, including those practicing Unani medicine, are not authorized to practice medicine in India unless trained at a qualified medical institution, registered with the government, and listed as physicians annually in The Gazette of India. Identifying practitioners of Unani medicine, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions" Unani Medicine --Journal of Health and Medical Research(Not a reliable source)

Note the part where it says, "unless trained at a qualified medical institution, registered with the government, and listed as physicians annually in The Gazette of India". Ergo, "a person can be a practitioner of both modern and Ayurvedic medicine if appropriately qualified.". Also note the use of the adjective "unqualified" used in defining a quack.

Again, the proposed edit is anyway valid, as the IMA source (and others) already explicitly limit the scope of the definition of a quack to those practising modern medicine "without qualification". The current version of the article expands this scope as a violation of WP:SYNTH. Hence the proposed edit. -Wikihc (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

References

First of all, I never made a remark on you as an individual, only explicitly on your content, let alone threaten anyone with reference to a legal case as you are doing to me, which is expressly prohibited.

The crux of your comment is that modern medicine and ayurveda are distinct. And this is already established. Practice 1 and Practice 2 being distinct does not however preclude a person from practicing both. There is no evidence to your claim that being a qualified doctor with an M.D. must abandon any practice of ayurveda in the IMA source. The IMA source does not make any such assertions. It is your original claim. Even if you provided another source, combining it with the IMA article would also be original research. Refer: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. Hyperbolic references to poop of any animal does not change that.

However Person B, a person with relevant qualifications to practice modern medicine (such as M.D), also practicing ayurveda exists. And an example is none other than the undersigned of the IMA source, Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, 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, who also sought answers in ayurveda.

So there are two questions here.

1. Is a person qualified to practice modern medicine i.e. having a relevant degree, who practices modern medicine as well as ayurveda, a quack according to the source? If yes, please show where does it say so.

2. How is the proposed sentence, "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery.", inconsistent with the source?

In conclusion, the edit is necessitated by the source and we must make the change. -Wikihc (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You are really reaching here Guy. And you are sidetracking. Wikihc is correct, the edit has nothing to do with the possibility of a person being a qualified practitioner of both systems. It only has to do with what the source defines as a quack, and that is a person who is practicing in a system in which they are unqualified. Unless you can answer the two questions Wikihc has asked above you don't have a valid reason to oppose the edit. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we stop this exegesis please? Both of you Ayurveda fans want to use a literal use of that one sentence, ignoring the gist of the whole source. It is very clear that the source is against the prescientific ideas propagated by the Ministry of Magic. The article will not be improved by you quoting the source out of context. This section is called "Enough", but you two are still pummeling the ex-perissodactyl.

Maybe we should try to find another source which uses a wording less prone to quote mining? This has been the toehold for attacks on the article for months now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I ask you to refrain from making personal assumptions about me and labeling me based on that. See WP:PA. And certainly don't use ad hominems to push for your opinion that violates policy, namely WP:SYNTH. Your personal interpretations of what the source really means to say are irrelevant. Using made up phrases like "Ministry of Magic" doesn't help your argument. All the sources agree upon the scope of the definition of a quack to those that do not have the relevant qualifications to practice modern medicine. -Wikihc (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Not focussing on the one sentence from the source that can be misinterpreted in favor of Ayurveda is not SYNTH. And how did you arrive at the conclusion that you are one of the users I called "Ayurveda fans"? Bit of SYNTH on your part.

The horse you are whipping stays silent and unmoving. What may be the reason? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

All the different sources state that the lack of relevant qualification is what makes any practitioner a quack. And the proposed change to "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery." is not in favor of ayurveda. If it were, so would be all the sources. What it is, is comprehensive and consistent with the sources without any violation of WP:SYNTH. -Wikihc (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again Hob, please refrain from personal comments and stick to the edits. Accusing us of wanting to use the literal meaning of the source might not be the flex you think it is... Likewise with saying you want another source that agrees with your position because the Indian Medical Association doesn't support your position. How about as a compromise we just remove the sentence altogether? Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, please stop sealioning.[11][12] Any personal comments are a direct result of editors who are not Ayurveda fanbois[13] becoming frustrated with your refusal to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. If this continues I am going to have to bring this to WP:AE.--Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The wording in the IMA is confusing whether they are referring to Ayurveda practitioners or Ayurveda practitioners acting as modern medicine practitioners. In context, I think it is more likely the latter.

Their definition of a quack is someone acting in violation of the law. My interpretation of the three examples is:

1. persons without any qualifications practicing medicine.

2. people qualified to practice alternative medicine but pretend to be physicians.

3. people who claim qualifications that are not recognized in law.

If they meant to say that all Ayurveda practitioners were quacks, they would not have added "who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine."

Note that most people in India practicing medicine have no qualifications.

Since practicing Ayurveda is legal and regulated by government, it would be an unusual statement for the IMA to call them quacks.

My guess is that a number of licenced Ayurveda practitioners fraudulently claim to be physicians in order to get higher fees.

TFD (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding the content and four references

With reference to the above mentioned subject, I am highlighting facts about lines "The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery" as highly inaccurate and need to be corrected. Here few points need to be discussed regarding appropriateness of the reference source.
1. At reference number 3, the original author of the book has discussed pseudosciences according to his personal view without presenting evidences. However he too has not directly mentioned pseudoscience to Ayurveda. View of a person towards a science cant be valid reference.
2. At reference number 4, author of the book narrated "These pseudoscientific theories may confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g....Ayurvedic medicine), here please note that "theories" as claimed as pseudo and not the science. Few theories can look impossible in current time but they can be proven after research. Without substantial research proof no theory of a traditional science can be claimed as "Pseudo". Some theories may look non scientific but there is no research done (except literary reviews) to prove them as non scientific. On the other hand there are thousands of research indicating scientific nature of Ayurveda theories.
3. At reference number 5, the author himself narrating that "ordinary members told me how they practice some of these pseudosciences, either privately or as certified doctors themselves, most often Ayurveda." It means someone told the author and he wrote it in his book and later someone took it as reference. "Here practice of a science without having qualification in it" is the intended meaning which actually not matching with the claim. This raises the question of authenticity of the reference. In view of science, such reference is not valid.
4. In view of point no. 1, 2 and 3, It is my humble request to remove the paragraph. Such misleading information from a renowned source is hurting the feelings of thousands of Ayurveda physicians.
5. Reference number 6, IMA is not an Indian government body and Government of India (GOI) has not made any such claim. The GOI has narrated Ayurveda under recognized systems of medicines. Therefore the IMA reference is invalid indicating need of removal of the statement along with the reference. Dhiraj.ayu (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your first four points: references 3, 4, and 5 are all reliable and appropriate sources, from academic publishers, describing Ayurveda as pseudoscience or pseudoscientific. Wikipedia is not censored, and reliably sourced information will not be removed to spare anyone’s feelings. Brunton (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• Government bodies aren't automatically reliable sources (indeed, they're often very unreliable sources). The Government of India is only a reliable source for commentary about itself. It is most certainly not a reliable source on medical issues, especially as it promotes Ayurveda itself. The reliable sourcet would be the Indian Medical Association. Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean has Ayurveda ever cured anyone In 21st century? if not then it's cleary pseudoscientific cite a reliable source please 950CMR (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have a reliable airtcle that says Ayurveda has cured a person then show it to us 950CMR (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That is not how such things work. If a person receives some alleged medicine before getting better, that could easily be a coincidence. Visit WP:MEDRS to find out what would be acceptable evidence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

Samsonc2000 (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. 

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. Girth Summit _(blether) 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 this webpage of the IMA's to back up that statement.

The statement in the lede was ambiguous, as "medicine" could refer to alternative medicine (such as Ayurveda and Unani), or to modern medicine (practiced by doctors who have MDs or MBBSs 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 [come under the category of quacks]."

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.

Aathish S (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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 WP:1RR restrictions which apply to this page. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 11:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I gave a cursory read through the one RfC started by 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 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 Wikipedia. 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.
So User:Girth Summit, 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 ;) Aathish S (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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 Girth Summit _(blether) 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". Morgan Leigh | Talk 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn, The contentious statement was introduced in this edit in August 2020 by Guy Macon with consensus obtained here 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 Morgan Leigh and I have mentioned, no consensus has been reached. Aathish S (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please show me where a consensus to support this statement was reached. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, there's WP:NODEADLINE 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^TM 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 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 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? Morgan Leigh | Talk 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 this edit by Aatish S and this edit by you, 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 [wording removed which gives Morgan Leigh an excuse to ignore the content. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)] more like someone who is sorry for making a mistake. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read WP:NPA. Instead of this kind of reply perhaps addressing the issue of the source would be more productive. Morgan Leigh | Talk 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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, 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. User:Chandra.sarthak had proposed to edit the current statement based on what the Unani_medicine stated prior to these edits: [14],[15]. This was also stated in the archived discussion.

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)

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. -Wikihc (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

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? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I don't think closing the RfC right now would be very constructive. I get that polling isn't a substitute for discussion 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 this edit in August 2020 by Guy Macon, but with consensus obtained here 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.
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. Aathish S (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. I have stopped editing Wikipedia 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Duly noted. I'm sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Aathish S | talk | contribs 13:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Why should the article stay in a state that was contentious enough to see an Rfc started? Especially when, as 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 Wikipedia 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? Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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. Girth Summit _(blether) 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? Morgan Leigh | Talk 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. --mfb (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, please read, understand, and follow WP:DR, especially WP:NEGOTIATE: 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 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. Morgan Leigh | Talk 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. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

I need to tell the importance as I know a lot about ayurveda and I am willing to give more ideas 210.18.128.236 (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article

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. --Guy Macon (talk) 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 Samsonc2000 (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your private definition of quackery 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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)