Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The only real division in the discussions below is between stating that the IMA calls all Ayurvedic practitioners quacks or stating that the IMA calls only some Ayurvedic practitioners quacks. This division comes down to the IMA's statement about medical practice. As pointed out by multiple commenters, the IMA's position is informed not only by the way that Ayurveda is practiced in India but also by the Indian legal environment, which affects the clarity of their statement. A simplistic look at the bolded !votes would suggest that this discussion is closely-divided but RfC's are not polls and RfC closes are not closed by counting noses. Reading the actual statements shows that the postions are more nuanced than simple "some" or "all" positions. The discussion actually converges on a consensus which is based on the WP:FRINGE, WP:V and WP:NPOV policies. This discussion can most succinctly be summarized as a consensus that the statement should be: "The IMA calls Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine 'Quacks'". This consensus is close to the prior text in the lede but has is different enough to justify changes. Further refinement of this statement can be pursued through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

---

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

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Indian Medical Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What this RfC is not:

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

Useful search terms (with the quotes) for finding sources on this include:

1. "Indian Medical Association" "Quackery"
2. "Indian Medical Association" "Mixopathy"
3. "Indian Medical Association" "Quacks"
4. "Indian Medical Association" "Strike"
5. "Indian Medical Association" "Ayurveda"

The main positions on this question appear to be:

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

• SOME: The IMA says that only that subset of ayurvedic practitioners who are unqualified are quacks. Ayurvedic training and education are sufficient to make someone qualified to practice medicine, and someone qualified to practice medicine may prescribe ayurvedic remedies.

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

Survey

(Please do not post threaded responses in this section)

• Neither There are two quotes that led me to the conclusion that neither is right. Firstly, "We are not against Indian systems of medicine and pluralism in terms of choice of systems for people, but we are against diluting purity of different systems by mixing them" ref [1] prevents me from saying they are saying "all ayurvedic practitioners are quacks." The IMA is clear that individuals who are trained in "Indian Medicine" purportedly practicing "Modern Medicine" are quacks, per [2] ("Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under : ... Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.") Given that "Modern Medicine," is more commonly known as "medicine," it is perfectly fair, however, to say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery." Notified by automatic bot notification. Hipocrite (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Some I agree completely with Hipocrite, until they declare that medicine = modern medicine. The IMA themselves distinguishes three types of practitioners of medicine, "Register (sic) Medical Practitioner", "Registered Practitioner of Indian Medicine", and "Register (sic) practitioner of Homeopathic Medicine" [3]. Moreover the IMA defines "modern medicine" as that requiring an MBBS i.e. Western allopathic medicine, therefore it is not representative of the source to say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery", but it is representative to say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery."

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

• Some: Please see detailed explaination in diff in the threaded discussion. -Wikihc (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

• Some Other users have already given fairly detailed explanations that I agree with. My main reasons for voting some are as follows: (a) the primary source is very clear on this --- in the relevant point on quackery they state "Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under : ... Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine." (Emphasis mine). There is a clearly a qualification being made in their statement. They are qualifying that only some practitioners of Indian medicine (namely those who are unqualified to practice modern medicine) are quacks. (b) Every secondary source states the same thing, that the IMA is against mixopathy, or allowing ayurveda practitioners to practice under the allopathy medical system without sufficient qualifications (examples of secondary sources: [4], [5], [6], [7]). Note that none of these secondary sources state that all Ayurveda practioners are quacks, or that the IMA has any issue with Ayurveda practitioners who prescribe Ayurvedic medicines. Every secondary source states that practice of modern medicine without relevant qualifications is what should be stopped. Thus, if a doctor is qualified in both Ayurveda and Allopathy, they are free to work under either system without being quacks according to the IMA. Indeed, other users have pointed out that this is true for members of the IMA itself. Thus I support editing of the current sentence in the article to say something along the lines of "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterizes Ayurveda practitioners who practice modern medicine without relevant qualifications in modern medicine as quacks." Chandra.sarthak (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• All This seems to be the best summary of the secondary sources tallied a few sections up; the "some" path is hair-splitting. XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• All per XOR'easter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• All Based on what I've read by clicking through the various links in this section and what I found in a quick google search, it seems quite apparent that the IMA considers anyone not practicing modern medicine a quack, but are hesitant to actually say so as many "Indian medicine" practices are protected and endorsed by local ordinance and court decisions. This is similar to the situation in the US, only worse. This is made obvious by the fact that the IMA never comes out and endorses any "Indian medicine" practices in any of the sources I've looked at, while they've endorsed modern medicine in almost every one. Making this even more clear is the following quote from one of the sources: "There is also complete apathy on the part of Govt. to eradicate quackery and though IMA/MCI have submitted a draft Anti Quackery Bill, the Govt. has not taken any action to place it before parliament." Did that sound bitter to you? It sounds bitter to me, and I don't blame them one bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Other. From what I found - although maybe I did not search thoroughly enough - the IMA does not explicitly say "all ayurvedic practitioners are quacks", but they do not say "only some are quacks" either. Most things they say seem to have legal justifications, with Indian sources, and it looks to me as if they are afraid to use a scientific source or a non-Indian source because that sort of thing will not be accepted as a valid reason by the Hindutva loons who hold the power in India at the moment. The IMA's quasi-hostage status makes me doubt that their statement has any encyclopedic value; it is more strategic than factual. According to Science-Based Medicine, the context is J. P. Nadda's attempt to license quacks as health care providers. That would not only mean they would be allowed to practice real medicine, for which they are not qualified, it would also mean that they are health care providers, which they are not. But arguing that would require reasoning sourced to something other than the Indian legal system, and therefore they do not say it although the obviously think it. So, we should not use this IMA source; it's weak. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• All/no need to rely on Indian government per the sources cited in #What do the sources say about the Indian Medical Association, Ayurveda, and Quackery? and the discussion above. As a summary work, we ought to summarise the sources, and well, while the statements of the IMA are ambiguous, ostensibly due to political pressure, when put together with the other scientific sources, it's pretty clear that this is quackery, so we should describe this as quackery, without relying on one ambiguous government if they are at odds with the existing scientific consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• All for the reasons described by XOR'easter, MjolnirPants, and RandomCanadian, and especially per WP:FRINGE. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Some although I support the current language in the lead or a similar version, as the IMA clearly and unequivocally condemns as quacks all Ayurveda practitioners (I'm going to call them APs for short) who claim to practice medicine. However, I would like to move the IMA's comments deeper into the lead because I agree with RandomCanadian that their comments may be too ambiguous to highlight up top, when we should be making it absolutely unambiguous that all APs are pseudo-scientific quacks. There do not seem to be any clear statements from the IMA that all APs are quacks, leading to my Some vote, but I want to make clear in my !vote that I do not support some of the views espoused in other Some !votes. It is not the case that the IMA approves of APs practicing medicine if they have the appropriate qualifications. The secondary sources cited above make it clear that the IMA has consistently opposed the licensing of APs in medicine since they have foundations in pseudoscience. It is clear also that the IMA is fighting against the use of Ayurvedic "treatments" even when they aren't served up with the pretension of "allopathy" (using the IMA's term); a good example being the IMA letter regarding COVID treatment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Some Based on the classification made by IMA they are only concerned by some of the Ayurvedic practioners. Sea Ane (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• All, per WP:FRINGE and few editors above. Idealigic (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• All as per MjolnirPants. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• All While I appreciate Firefangledfeathers nuanced argument. (Though I'm not sure about their suggestion about moving IMA down.) And while I don't fully agree with how it's phrased above by the OP, what I 100% agree with is that the sentence as it appears in the article is accurate according to the source: "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery." Per WP:SKYBLUE "medicine" means modern medicine. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Other and to a lesser degree Some, as per the primary source cited and the definition of 'Some' in the RfC. The source does not say directly state that all practitioners of Ayurveda are quacks. Their statement is: "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic...[etc])[...] who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine[ come under the category of quacks].". As per this statement, practitioners of Ayurveda who do not claim to be practicing modern medicine, as well as modern medical doctors who also practice Ayurveda (whether such people exist is doubtful, and IMO, irrelevant) but keep the practices separate are not, in the eyes of the IMA, quacks.
  The RfC says that voting for 'Some' means the voter believes the IMA thinks that "Ayurvedic ... education [is] sufficient to make someone qualified to practice medicine, and someone qualified to practice medicine may prescribe ayurvedic remedies." I don't believe this is strictly true. The IMA's statement (as I interpret it) leans closer to:
  "If you have a modern medicine degree, like an MBBS or an MD, (it doesn't matter whether you also have a BAMS/BUMS degree in addition to the other degrees), and you claim to practice modern medicine, you are not a quack.
  If you do not have a modern medicine degree, and only have a BAMS/BUMS degree, and claim to practice modern medicine, you are a quack.
  If you do not have a modern medicine degree, and only have a BAMS/BUMS degree, and do not claim to practice modern medicine, you are not a quack."
  There are no secondary sources (as far as I can find) that explicitly confirm the current statement in the lede. Several secondary sources, such as this article from The Hindu and this one from the Indian Express note that the IMA is against letting modern medical practices (like modern surgery) be a part of the syllabus of Ayurveda courses. With all this in mind, I suggest the statement in the lede say: "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners unqualified to practice modern medicine as quackery.", or, like Wikihc said, make the lede say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery". Aathish S (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Some per above. --Yoonadue (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

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

In their !vote above Morgan Leigh quotes this source:[8], quoting it as follows:

"We are not against Indian systems of medicine and pluralism in terms of choice of systems for people, but we are against diluting purity of different systems by mixing them"

But the entire paragraph tells quite a different story:

"We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy. We are proud of our national heritage and richness but let it coexist with modern medicine. All we demand is not to mix the disciplines. It will also mean the end of pure Ayurveda," he added.

At issue appears to be whether the IMA considers prescribing drugs to be practicing medicine and thus "mixing the disciplines". They have certainly made themselves clear on the question of whether performing surgery is "mixing the disciplines", so clearly the IMA has not expressed a blanket statement approving of all of Ayurveda, which according to ayurvedic practitioners, includes both prescribing drugs and performing surgery. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that actually tells a different story? They are stating that if you mix disciplines, then that would mean the end of pure Ayurveda. How is that a different story? That is completely consistent with the story that the IMA has no issue with individual disciplines, and pleads for people to not mix disciplines. Hence both the primary source and the secondary source both are only stating that the IMA believes that mixing the disciplines, i.e., allowing ayurvedic practitioners to perform "allopathy" without being trained in allopathy is tantamount to quackery. Nothing against ayurvedic practitioners performing under the ayurvedic system of medicine is in the primary or secondary sources. Please do not impose your own biased viewpoint, let's try to examine the sources to see what they have to say for themselves. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

So, do the sources support the idea that the IMA is only against ayurvedic practitioners prescribing modern medicine but is fine with them prescribing ayurvedic medicine?

First off, do we all agree that whatever else they do ayurvedic practitioners prescribe ayurvedic medicine? Is there a single example of one who doesn't?

"Ayurvedic prescriptions are often challenged for their rationality. Excessive use of proprietary medicines, rasa preparations, and samshodhana without any justification and deliverable benefits outweighing the other forms of safer, cheaper and less time consuming therapies is putting the Ayurvedic prescribing trends into question. In Ayurvedic practice, prescriptions are often individualized with substantial variability between the choices of drugs."[9]

And can we agree that Coronil is an ayurvedic medicine?

"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) on Monday demanded an explanation from Union Health Minister Dr Harsh Vardhan for promoting Patanjali's Coronil Ayurvedic medicine."[10]

"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) has reportedly come down hard on Union Health Minister Dr Harsh Vardhan, demanding an explanation for "promoting" CORONIL, untested Ayurvedic medicine from Patanjali Ayurved to treat COVID-19"[11]

So, is the IMA OK with ayurvedic practitioners prescribing Coronil? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This Rfc is not about if the IMA is concerned about Ayurvedic practitioners dispensing drugs. It is not about whether people have googled to see what the IMA might think, or if they sound like they are bitter, or if they are hesitant, that is all conjecture and WP:OR. This Rfc is about if the source that is being used to support a sentence in the article says what it is being used to support. If one thinks the source doesn't say this, the only other thing to consider is if one can find a secondary source that says this exact thing i.e. that the IMA characterizes all Ayurveda as quackery. Also please note this is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for discussion. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

None of the primary or secondary sources provided substantiate the claims that IMA regards ayurveda as quackery or that IMA regards all ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. Instead they buttress what multiple editors have been saying that IMA regards some ayurveda practioners as quacks. Let's go point by point.

1. Is IMA calling Ayurveda Quackery? - No

Guy macon earlier argued that practising ayurveda is not practising medicine. Now Guy macon says that it is medicine. But ima is not calling the practice of Ayurveda by ayurvedic practitioners with relevant BAMS qualification as quackery. See point 2. None of the sources say that. The IMA explictly states a quack 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 diff claiming that IMA calls ayurveda quackery has also been reverted in the past.

In fact a source Guy Macon provided explicitly states the position of IMA with regards to traditional medicine that is "We're not against traditional medicine". Again, the secondary_source by User:Chandra.sarthak also states, We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy. We are proud of our national heritage and richness but let it coexist with modern medicine. All we demand is not to mix the disciplines. It will also mean the end of pure Ayurveda,". This also explicitly states that IMA is not against ayurveda.

Even if Ayurveda were to be quackery, the IMA isn't saying that. No one needs to provide a source that IMA does not state this. Those claiming that IMA calls all ayurveda or all ayurevedic practioners as quackery have to provide a source for their claim. And they have not provided a single reliable primary or secondary source that shows explicitly that and are thus violating WP:OR.

2. Is IMA saying as Guy Macon claims that "Every Ayurvedic practitioner is practicing a system of medicine they are unqualified to practice."? - No.

The IMA source in fact explicitly states the minimum qualification for practising Indian Medicine (Ayurveda, Sidha, Unani & Tibb) is BAMS/BUMS, and for practising modern medicine is MBBS. They state, Even a cursory scrutiny of the chart above, it will be apparent that the Central Medical Acts have laid down separate area of practice for each system of medicine. . And that Power to practice a system of medicine flows from the Central Acts under which one has acquired a qualification and the central or state register where one is registered in. These be quotes from primary source. Now let's look at secondary sources

Another secondary_source provided by Guy macon also states the qualifications of Ayurvedic practitioners as accredited medical degrees: India has over 485000 registered practitioners of ayurveda, siddha, or unani and 241 colleges that offer government accredited medical degrees in these disciplines.

Yet_another_secondary_source provided by Guy macon explicitly segregates quacks from all ayurveda practitioners: Many Indians turn instead to traditional remedies such as Ayurveda – treatments prepared according to recipes from ancient Hindu texts –or to “quacks” who present themselves as doctors but lack any medical qualifications. About 57% of purported Indian doctors are thought to fall into the latter category. That means 43% of the purported Indian' doctors are not in the latter category', even though they may be practising Ayurveda and are in the former category.

Quoting from their referenced_source, It explicitly categorizes the ayurveda practioners are qualified doctors: The study revealed that the density of all doctors — allopathic, ayurvedic, homoeopathic and unani — at the national level was 80 doctors per lakh population compared to 130 in China. Ignoring those who don’t have a medical qualification, the number for India fell to 36 doctors per lakh population.

Ergo it is explictly stated that only some of the ayurveda practioners are quacks.

So those claiming the IMA considers all Ayurveda practitioners as unqualified are violating WP:OR

3. What is IMA protesting against? - Practising modern medicine without appropriate qualifications.

It is calling the bridge course being a half baked qualification. It is protesting against the government allowing ayurvedic practitioners with this underqualification/ half baked qualification to practice conventional medicine/modern medicine.

Here are quotes from a source Guy macon provided:

"Indian doctors have accused the government of seeking to “sanction quackery” by proposing to allow homeopaths and others trained in alternative remedies to practise conventional medicine after taking a bridging course." "A similar law already in place in Madhya Pradesh state licenses traditional healers to dispense and prescribe 72 medicines after taking classes for three months." "The Indian Medical Association has criticised the plan, saying it will “lead to an army of half-baked doctors in the country”, according to the association’s president, KK Aggarwal."

Practising medicine with this underqualification is labelled mixopathy. Another_source Guy macon cited again states the same.

"What is “mixopathy”? It’s a term the protesting doctors have coined by combining the word “mix” and the suffix “pathy,” or disease" "The Indian Medical Association is arguing that Ayurveda practitioners shouldn’t be allowed to carry out complicated surgeries that take years to learn."

As User:Petrarchan47 states, this also does not mean that holding dual degrees in BAMS and MBBS is considered quackery by IMA. IMA also does not regard the undersigned of IMA, and the very person quoted in the source Guy macon provided for IMA protest as a quack i.e. Dr. K._K._Aggarwal_(cardiologist) 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. Krishan champions the cause of medical professionals, fights for human rights, defends medical ethics, and is keenly interested in revamping the medical education in India. He uses alternative medicine - Yoga and Ayurveda - to treat his patients with diabetes and cardiac problems and believes that if we have to stop the Juggernaut of lifestyle disorders, we need to focus on primary prevention., see yet_another_source

So the IMA is saying that half-baked, 3 month course is not a proper qualification.

Any claim that the protest by IMA against bridge courses to become qualified, or the questioning of efficacy of an untested coronil that adulterate Ayurveda against covid-19, or the harmfulness of mercury used in some preparations of Ayurveda is an indication of IMA calling all ayurvedic practitioners as quacks, is a violation of WP:OR

4. What is IMA calling quackery? - Practising modern medicine by those who are who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) . All sources, every single one of them states only this.

Also one_more_source provided by Guy macon segregates the individual qualifications for practising modern medicine and ayurveda and states that having one and practising the other is quackery: An Indian Supreme Court ruling in 1996 defines anyone practising modern medicine without training in the discipline, even if they are trained in alternative systems of medicine such as ayurveda, as quacks or charlatans.

In this_source, it explicitly refers to allopathic medicine in general, any person practising allopathic medicine who does not have a registered medical qualification comes under quackery The same secondary source already stated that the ayurvedic practitioners with relevant degrees have the qualification to practice under their non-allopathic system of medicine.

Please see earlier points above for reference from more of the already quoted sources.

5. What does the IMA source, if we are to quote, say? -

Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.
2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.
3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

This is an explicit quote, not an interpretation.

6. What does the IMA source, if we are to quote, not say? -

Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.
2. Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush , who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.
3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

This is an explicit quote, not an interpretation.

7. Is there any confusion caused by the current phrasing? - Yes.

First is the confusion about whether the practice of medicine in the phrasing means that ayurveda is medicine and IMA is calling practice of ayurveda quackery. Guy macon earlier argued that practising ayurveda is not practising medicine, saying As for the idea that pretending to practicing modern medicine is practicing modern medicine, let me ask you a question: If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have? Think about it before reading the next sentence. The correct answer is four. Just because I call something a leg that doesn't mean it is one.. Now Guy macon says that it is medicine: Every Ayurvedic practitioner is practicing a system of medicine they are unqualified to practice. They are prescribing unsafe drugs containing Mercury. Prescribing drugs to cure disease is practicing medicine.

Then there is confusion is if it can imply that practice of modern medicine itself is quackery. See discussion under Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_19#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)

Hence the current phrasing in the wiki article anyway needs an update.

8. What is the edit request? - To change from "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery" to "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery"

9. Is the edit request in any way saying Ayurveda is not pseudoscience? - A resounding No.

10. Is it consistent with each and every single primary or secondary source that has been provided, and clarifies their position removing potential misinterpretations? - A resounding Yes.

Conclusion: IMA is calling only some practitioners of ayurveda as quacks. The wiki article must be updated to reflect exactly that.

-Wikihc (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, I must be an important person for you to mention me by name thirteen times in one comment. In my opinion you are spending in inordinate amount of effort interpreting the sources you list in order to make them say things that they never explicit say -- otherwise you would be able to quote the sources without the lengthy explanations about what they mean. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The only reason Wikihc has had to mention you thirteen times and spend an inordinate amount of effort is because the singleton {Guy Macon} has been pushing for their biased interpretation of a source, and have been unable to understand the main claim of the secondary sources that they themselves provided. Not because the primary or secondary sources are unclear on this topic. But because you refuse to budge from your own view point and actually understand what the sources say. Hopefully the RfC should make things additionally clearer, but I think Wikihc has pretty exhaustively written what most of the users on this talk page appear to be thinking.Chandra.sarthak (talk)

I totally agree. I also support Wikihc's proposed edit i.e. "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery". Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: and others I suppose. I find it to be rigorously supported by reliable secondary sources that the IMA condemns as quacks all practitioners of Ayurveda who claim to be practicing modern medicine, including practicioners who are qualified medical doctors and are engaging in "integrated medicine" or other euphemisms. So far, I imagine my views to be consisent with an All vote. My hesitancy to submit that vote involves Ayurveda practicioners who do not pretend to be practicing modern medicine. I see clear criticism from the IMA of any treatment that isn't evidence-based, but I have not seen (yet, perhaps) a sign that quackery is applied in cases where there isn't pretension. Am I missing evidence of the label in those situations? Or am I misinterpreting what an All vote would mean exactly? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion the question is not whether every Ayurvedic treatment is quackery. I clearly isn't; neither the IMA or anyone else would call the special diets, meditation, yoga or massage quackery. The question is whether every Ayurvedic practitioner is a quack. No Ayurvedic practitioner limits themselves to diets, meditation, yoga and massage. Every Ayurvedic practitioner prescribes Ayurvedic medicine. They call it an essentail part of Ayurveda. And Ayurvedic medicine contains unsafe levels of mercury.

The IMA is fine with the yoga, massage, and meditation. They are definitely not fine with prescribing a substance that is claimed to treat a disease or disorder but actually causes a disorder Mercury poisoning. Every Ayurvedic practitioner claims that Ayurvedic medicine is safe and effective. Every Ayurvedic practitioner claims that the safety and efficacy of Ayurvedic medicine is evidence based. Every Ayurvedic practitioner claims that a procedure that was developed by a guru 1500 years ago "purifies" the mercury in the every Ayurvedic medicine and makes it safe. They are wrong. See [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]. Yet we still see claims like [18], [19], and [20].

Presribing so called "medicines" that harm the patient is the essence of quackery. So what do we call someone who prescibes some things (massage, meditation) that are acceptable and other things (remedies that contain mercury) that are harmful? We call them quacks.

The idea that the IMA only objects when an Ayurvedic practitioner prescibes western medicine and has no objection to Ayurvedic medicine is not supported by any source, because of course they disprove of giving sick people mercury. So in my opinion, the answer is "all". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If prescribing medicines that harm the patient is quackery then, by your definition, western medicine is clearly quackery as it uses mercury to this day, not to mention that it regularly prescribes cytotoxic chemicals to patients as a part of chemotherapy. Mercury is still used in dental amalgams and mercurochrome is a common antiseptic... Pushing this line about mercury is WP:OR. The IMA may not agree with all the parts of Ayurvedic medicine but its official statement does not support calling all Ayurvedic practitioners quacks, only those who attempt to practice western medicine. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers indeed there is no source for a claim that IMA calls practioners of Ayurveda that don't prescribe modern medicine as quacks. The definition in the RfC is ALL: The IMA says that all ayurvedic practitioners are quacks.. Synthesizing such a claim by combining with sources about harmfulness of mercury is the very definition of WP:OR. -Wikihc (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, apart from the IMA stating that We are not against any sort of pathy be it Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy.[21], the IMA also states We're not against traditional medicine [22], whenever they define quackery. -Wikihc (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Thank you for taking the time to participate in this Rfc. The IMA says clearly on its web site here that there are three kinds of quacks;

1.Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.

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

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

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

Odd how that IMA source keeps being quoted again and again. it's almost as if no secondary source explicitly says that "persons practicing Ayurvedic medicine who have the BAMS/BUMS qualification are not covered under any of the three definitions of quacks. Therefore there are some practitioners of Ayurvedic medicine who are not quacks" and that we need Morgan Leigh and Wikihc to interpret and explain what no independent secondary source explicitly says. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

So, if, as you say above, we can't use this source because its a primary source, then you would support the contention that we should remove the sentence for which it is the only source? Unless you can provide a secondary source that explicitly says "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The primary source doesn't explicitly say what the article currently cites it for i.e that the IMA characterises all practitioners of Ayurveda as quacks. No secondary source that I can find explicitly agrees with or denounces the current statement. Because of this, any conclusions drawn from secondary sources will most probably come under Wikipedia:OR. Again, I want to stress that I believe the current statement in the lede does not accurately reflect the views of the source it cites. Guy Macon demands (for lack of a better word) that a secondary source should explicitly denounce the contentious statement if the contentious statement should be modified. I agree with Morgan Leigh that if denouncing the contentious statement requires a secondary source, then so does affirming it. If the community agrees on this, the statement will most probably have to be removed entirely, since, as has been mentioned previously, no secondary source explicitly affirms or denounces the current statement in the lede. If the community is satisfied with having just a primary source, then IMO the statement in the lede should definitely be changed, for the reasons mentioned by several people in the RfC, most notably by Morgan Leigh, Wikihc, and Chandra.sarthak. Aathish S (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

POV fork

There's a POV fork at History of Ayurveda. It's yet in the WP:NPP queue but will have to be dealt with eventually. The topic has merit, obviously. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Quacks

Indian medical practitioners do not call Indian medicinal practitioners as quacks. It calls any traditional practitioner practicing modern allopathy medicine as quack! This is an example of vandalism by the author against the Indian government health policies on implementing Ayurveda as a part of primary health care system Ifidont (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific

WHO is implementing indigenous medicine such as Ayurveda as a part and parcel of health system policies when authors are referring to certain books where someone believes Ayurveda is pseudoscientific without proper established fat sheet. It’s time to allow rectifications and correct mistakes when large scale differences in NPOV prevail. Ifidont (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Ifidont: Please read this talk page and its archives for previous discussions on the subject. --McSly (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific

Needs to be removed since it is scientific! Indian flap surgery in rhinoplasty is the primary version of current para median forehead flap surgery. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3743909/ This is to state as a sample to what such medical system’s depth of knowledge is. If you persist to overlook such scientific areas, any author can call angioplasty as tooth fairy as well! Ifidont (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Please try reading the FAQ at the top of the page, and the relevant links there, before posting again. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

National Policy on Ayurveda etc.

I would appreciate assistance from any talk-page watchers here in updating the page National Policy on AYUSH, where AYUSH stands for Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy. This is a page about an Indian government policy on alternative medicine, which is somewhat outside my wheelhouse. I'm posting here in the absence of other logical places; the talk page for WikiProject Alternative Medicine does not seem terribly active. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Close of previous RfC

I've tentatively edited the contentious statement to better reflect the consensus that was achieved in the RfC that was closed a few hours ago.

I really do hope this is fine. Aathish S | talk | contribs 02:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The closing statement of the RfC does not accurately reflect the balance of the comments. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The RfC closure does not reflect the comments in the discussion accurately, nor does it have sufficient explanation for the drawn conclusion from the nuanced positions. Additionally,the new text replaced replacement proposed by the closer was not proposed by anyone in the discussion, nor does it reflect consensus. Instead it has a completely different meaning. Furthermore the closure does not take into account core wikipedia policy problems that were presented in the discussion with the prior text (eg. Wikipedia:No_original_research). I ask the closer to elaborate -Wikihc (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikihc, just as clarification: the closer did not edit the article. The edit to the sentence was made by me and changed the previously present sentence to "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) labels Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine without relevant qualifications as quacks." to reflect the statement in the RfC closure. This was later edited by Girth Summit to be "The Indian Medical Association labels Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks.". I discussed the presence of the phrase "without relevant qualifications" with Girth and they suggested I ask the closer about this informally on their talk page which I've done. Thanks. Aathish S | talk | contribs 13:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware the closer did not edit the article. But they proposed the replaced text. I have edited my comment above to be clear. -Wikihc (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wikihc, Aathish S, and Morgan Leigh:, The answer is pretty simple: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments...The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. In this case, the relevant arguments, as previously mentioned, agreed that the IMA calls some portion of Ayurvedic practitioners "quacks". The only question was what the proportion of those practitioners were quacks and if there was any way that the quack portion was qualified. The point of agreement between the statements of both the "Some" and "All" camps was a claim to practice medicine. There was disagreement about whether that claim needed to be devoid of qualifications, what qualifications would be relevant, and whether "medicine" meant only allopathic medicine or encompassed any form of "effective" medicine. As a result, the closing statement does not mention those points.

With regard to the WP:NOR policy, we return to the prior reference: If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. While there were comments about NOR, WP:FRINGE and related policies were mentioned far more. Instead of selecting the better policy, I am constrained to respect those voices.

With regard to drafting an "original" statement, I did not. The bolded !votes referring to the choices presented in the RfC question are, well, not actually votes: ...it is not the vote that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. The reasoning was greatly focused on whether the IMA qualified there label and how, as previously explained. Discussion participants are not limited to only expressing support for options presented by the RfC question writer and the closer needs to reflect what the discussion participants said. What they said most closely reflects the closing statement. I hope that answers the questions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn, thank you for your excellent close. If I am understanding your reading of consensus correctly, you are stating that there was consensus for the line The IMA calls Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice [qualifier?] medicine 'Quacks', and that you noted that there will have to be continuing discussion about what to put, if anything, in place of [qualifier?]. Am I reading you right? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the previous discussion in the archived talk pages (Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_19), The RfC was started at the same state where you have closed the RfC. Ergo there was no consensus reached yet. To quote you, The point of agreement between the statements of both the "Some" and "All" camps was a claim to practice medicine. This was there even prior to the RfC. Then you say, There was disagreement about whether that claim needed to be devoid of qualifications, what qualifications would be relevant, and whether "medicine" meant only allopathic medicine or encompassed any form of "effective" medicine. As a result, the closing statement does not mention those points. These disagreements was the very reason the RfC was started. And as you have written, no consensus was reached on the very points of disagreement, namely the qualifications and the scope of the word "medicine". It appears you were not aware of this significant portion of the discussion and context of the RfC, or have not taken it into account. The RfC is now closed at the very state of disagreement for which it began.

As for the policy, you say that you chose WP:FRINGE over WP:NOR based on the number of times it was mentioned in the discussion. However as I count, WP:FRINGE was mentioned by Idealigic and Crossroads without any explanation to how it applies (you have not provided it either). WP:OR was also mentioned by MorganLeigh and me. That is two for each. Please correct if I am missing anyone. Additionally, Guy Macon also emphasized that the RfC is about removing any WP:OR. So I don't see where that predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting one policy over others come from. As for the application of WP:FRINGE itself, there are three issues.

First, whether WP:FRINGE even applies here. WP:FRINGE is a content guideline which prohibits unwarranted promotion of theories which are not supported by mainstream scholarship and science in the theory's field. Issues unrelated to scholarship and science, then, cannot be fringe despite being minor viewpoints or widely opposed. In those cases, WP:UNDUE in the appropriate policy. As you can read in the RfC, the issue is not about whether ayurveda practioners are quacks or not (in which case it would have been an issue of science and scholarship), but it is about the opinion of an association, namely the IMA. This isn't an RfC on the general topic of Ayurveda or the IMA. It is only about what the IMA says about Ayurveda. .

Secondly, as WP:FRINGE states, The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately.. Additionally it states what should be done when the guideline of WP:FRINGE conflicts with the core policies like WP:NOR, Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.. So in any case WP:NOR takes precedence over WP:FRINGE as per WP:FRINGE page itself.

Thirdly, if at all, a conclusion based on such a policy guideline should have been to remove the IMA source or move it down the page as multiple editors had expressed (who did not cite that policy guideline. Those who cited the policy guideline did not expand upon how it applies).

While you repeat that your proposed statement is accurate reflection of the discussion, you have not provided the very explanation for the same. As you say, The reasoning was greatly focused on whether the IMA qualified there label and how, but you also say that There was disagreement about whether that claim needed to be devoid of qualifications, what qualifications would be relevant. Thus, it is unclear why you closed the RfC and how you derived your proposed statement from the discussion. -Wikihc (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I for one am glad that somebody finally closed the RfC, and I think that the closer did a good job at it. Walls of text and alphabet soup may be impressive to some, but I think it's just sad. We could've been on Mars by now, but no, we're spending our time debating the finer points on a statement made by a medical organization in the context of state-sponsored Hindutva, on a question which ultimately boils down to whether tradition trumps the rational examination of physical evidence when it comes to human health. The relevant point is that, from my assessment at least, people are very tired of this whole thing, and the last thing that people want to see is whatever you just wrote there. BirdValiant (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wikihc:, it borders on abuse of AGF to expect other editors to wade through WP:WALLS such as the above to find what the actual objection is. If you could please post a succinct, specific objection that keeps in mind WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I will be happy to respond. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Most of my comment is actually quoting your comments and the wiki guidelines and policies. But here is the boiled down version of the multiple objections.

Before the RfC even began there was already an agreement that this relates to practice of medicine. RfC began because there was no consensus about the qualifications to the statement and the scope of the word medicine. You state there is still no consensus on that. It appears you were not aware of the significant portion of the discussion and context of the RfC, or have not taken it into account.

WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR have been mentioned same number of times in the discussion. One is not predominant. Those who mentioned WP:FRINGE did not reason how it applies. Because it does not apply as the discussion is about - what is an association saying. If it were to be applied anyway, it would have been to remove the fringe source or move it down. Also WP:FRINGE guideline itself states that WP:NOR policy should be prioritized over it.

While you repeat that your proposed statement is an accurate reflection of the discussion, you have not explained how. You state The reasoning was greatly focused on whether the IMA qualified there label and how but also state that there was no consensus on that. So it is unclear how your proposed statement derives from it. -Wikihc (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I too would like to know where you got this "has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it" from. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I apologize that Real Life^tm has delayed a response. After re-reading the above, a response does not, however, seem actually necessary and not likely to actually satisfy anyone. Although I would prefer to leave the matter there I predict this would result in further fulminations so I'll take one last stab at it. First of all, how many objections a particular editor has or how strenuously they express them serves little purpose except, perhaps, to signal an intent for further tendentious editing. The first objection is, quite frankly, worthless. “The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument,” should self-evidently indicate the particular argument contained by the RfC. Opinions expressed previously, elsewhere, implied, or even not stated but which the closer “should have known about” as "context" are not part of the argument. The objection about not explaining my reasoning is of similar worth. I've expended a great deal time and over 500 words explaining the summary of the discussion. The only way that this objection makes any sense at all is that I did not engage in a point-by-point refutation of your voluminous argumentation. That is not required by any reasonable meaning of the word “summary”. Summarizing the discussion means summarizing the viewpoints expressed, not the raw length of text. The claim that I did not explain how some policies applied is also similar. Summarizing the discussion does not mean explaining the opinions expressed by participating editors. The only one of your “multiple objections” that has any validity is the point about WP:FRINGE vs. WP:NOR. That is, “validity” only in the most simplistic sense of counting. Such a count misstates the actual conversation as it developed. We do not treat these as magic words and do not require an editor to use shibbolethic invocations. The statements by MjolnirPants, Hob Gadling, and RandomCanadian, for example, clearly reference the substance of WP:FRINGE's goal: to downgrade unsubstantiated non-mainstream points of view. I have now addressed your objections. Please follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for any followup you feel is necessary.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here

I dont normally read the poorly spelled "the Skceptic" magazine, but somebody called Ernzt made some interesting points yesterday regarding current discussions between Boris' Government and the Indian one, in The UK’s plan to please India by promoting Ayurvedic medicine puts politics ahead of science, and I thought of page watchers here.

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

I myself am still not watching this page, but wish you all good cheer! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if "somebody called Ernzt" was a joke, but of course, as expected, the author is Edzard Ernst. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not able to reply, as I'm not watching this page. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh right. I am sorry that you did not see my contribution, but I guess it was not important anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder to refresh yourselves with WP:TALK which reminds us that article talk pages are only for discussing actual edits and not one's own speculations or opinions: "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

May I remind you of the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

In return I shall remind you of Proverbs 16:18.

Oh look, a reply that still is not about an edit. How odd when there are still questions relating to the article that are waiting for answers, like, 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? What are your thoughts? Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

From the reference you gave I can tell that the source is an ancient work of fiction that is totally unreliable, and has very little to say about Ayush etc. Check WP:RS and more importantly for this article, WP:MEDRS. This should help you understand our sourcing requirements. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible you are seriously imagining that I was suggesting that we cite the bible in an article about Ayurveda? I didn't imagine for a moment that you were suggesting we cite Arkell v Pressdram, which also has absolutely not a single thing to say about Ayurveda. Perhaps you should have reminded yourself to read WP:MEDRS? Surely it is not yet another way to avoid answering a direct question about an actual source cited in the article?

Just to make it abundantly clear to you, the source to which I refer is [23] which is cited in the article. I will ask you again. Do you think this source is a primary source and should it instead be replaced with secondary sources? Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Just passing, thought I'd answer. It is a good source for the fact that the IMA regard non medics as quacks. Nuff said. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Citation of IMA

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

---

The sentence in the introduction reads, "The Indian Medical Association labels Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks." This is not what the quoted reference says, it seems to be distorted to fit the editor's POV.

The actual quote from the IMA website is : "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."

Their claim is about those practising a modality that they are not trained in ("allopathy"), not "those who claim to practice medicine" as Wikipedia says. This distorted quote does not help in defining Ayurveda in any way, nor does it accurately reflect the reference, and should be removed from the introduction. Puck42 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This exact point has already been brought up approximately a billion times already. Please check out the archives at the top of the page to find out the consensus which has developed about this. BirdValiant (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"Allopathy" is simply a weasel word, originally coined by a homoeopath, for medicine. You can see why the IMA have used it, as lots of people in India consider unscientifically proven, often dangerous, alternative treatments to also be "medicine", but that doesn't make it the case. From the article: "Allopathic medicine, or allopathy, is an archaic term used to define science-based, modern medicine." Seems pretty clear-cut. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Note that according to the closer there is no consensus on whether "medicine" meant only allopathic medicine or encompassed any form of "effective" medicine. As a result, the closing statement does not mention those points. Even if some may not like it, the source clearly differentiates modern and traditional medicine. As for speculating why it does that, Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Wikihc (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikihc's reference to "the closer" evokes this now-archived RfC about the IMA statement in the lead. I don't feel any improper analysis/interpretation is happening here. "Medicine" is the most NPOV term we can use to describe what the IMA calls allopathy. Policy does not require use to use non-neutral terminology used in sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Policy does require that sources are not misrepresented in the purview of their statements. Just as IMA, Medicine also uses the terms modern and traditional to differentiate. Wikihc (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

We agree on policy proscribing misrepresenting sources. I don't feel the WP:OTHERCONTENT argument about Medicine is valid. Even if it were, that article quickly begins to use the unmodified medicine to refer to actual medicine, not traditional/alternative/complementary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

My example was merely in reference to the already quoted wiki article above which you found proper, that links to Medicine, and uses modern medicine as also [24],[25] [26] etc. Anyway, per prior consensus, Ayurveda itself already uses medicine when referring to Ayurveda throughout the article, and modern medicine when contrasting. Several WP:MEDRS that use neutral phrase modern medicine can be easily found (eg. [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] etc.). Thus, 'Modern medicine' is the most neutral and complete term to accurately represent the source. Wikihc (talk)

The IMA Citation is not objecting to Ayurveda practitioners practicing Ayurvedic medicine or healing people, but those that are prescribing non-Ayurvedic cures which they are not trained in. As such, IMA's opinion about Ayurvedic practitioners pursuing non-Ayurvedic medicine has nothing to do with defining or understanding Ayurveda and using that quote is POV-pushing. Suggest we tag article with WP:NPOV issues. Puck42 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The exact quote from the IMA is above, and is reproduced in the article, but with the word "medicine" replacing "Modern Medicine (Allopathy)", which is the same thing. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion and violates WP:NOR. It is neither said nor implied by the text of the citation which is distinguishing Ayurvedic medicine from Allopathy (as stated) and does not have a problem with the former. Puck42 (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

While modern medicine is medicine, all medicine is not modern. Also the exact quote from IMA includes who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine, which is missing from the article. Alternate phrasing that uses only medicine while alluding to the above lack of qualification has also been proposed. Wikihc (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wikihc: You say, "all medicine is not modern." I reject this assertion entirely.

Just because the term "alternative medicine" has the word "medicine" in it, that does not imply that alternative medicine is medicine, or that "medicine" as a category constitutes a set which includes "alternative medicine" within it. To say otherwise is comparable to saying that because there is a term jellyfish, that means that jellyfish are a kind of fish. Nowadays, the term "fish" both in common and professional/scientific use definitionally excludes other organisms such as jellyfish. While jellyfish may have been considered to be within the set of "fish" in the past, they are not anymore. Similarly, both in common and professional/scientific use, the word "medicine" is synonymous with "modern medicine". As a Venn diagram, "medicine" and "modern medicine" are the same size and they overlap completely; "medicine" is not larger than "modern medicine" nor is there room for it to contain "alternative medicine". So, as the way we use words has changed along with our understanding of the world through the passage of time, the category "medicine" no longer constitutes a set which includes "alternative medicine", if such a thing was ever the case. BirdValiant (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and is not the point of discussion. WP:STICKTOSOURCE It is neither said nor implied by the text of the citation which is distinguishing Ayurvedic medicine from Allopathy (as stated) and only labels quacks those Ayurvedic practitioners who are practising Allopathy. Puck42 (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt to set the record straight with your interpretation contesting the IMA which refers to all (incl. ayurveda) as distinct system of medicine Meanwhile, "all medicine is not modern" referred to its use in not just the source but also its existing use in the article (written for a general global audience) in context of ayurveda, per prior consensus. Modern medicine is a neutral, WP:MEDRS term, explicitly used by the source, and even recommended by WP:MEDMOS in this situation. We should avail this exact phrasing to accurately represent IMA's statement. Wikihc (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

In fact, even if we replaced it with "modern medicine" the citation is irrelevant as a summary of Ayurveda. IMA's statement is about Ayurvedic practitioners not being allowed to practice allopathic medicine, which they are not trained in. Forcing the citation is POV pushing to label all of Ayurveda as "quacks" when that is not the purport of the reference. It adds no value and should be dropped. Puck42 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Puck42 There were people in the RfC who did consider IMA source as less than useful and wanted it removed, and as per the closer there was consensus on it. We could indeed downgrade the statement by removing it from the lede or the article. Wikihc (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

6000BCE?

I have removed the claim of 6000BCE. No matter how many {cite books}, claiming such extraordinary antiquity is like turning the world upside down. There will be a thousand books that claim tens of thousands of years of age for Ayurveda. There is so far NO scholarly consensus for any Indian texts dating to 6000BCE. Except for passing references in books on alternative medicine, no historical evidence exists for Ayurveda being 8000years old. Not every form of traditional Medicine is Ayurveda. Ayurveda has some fundamental features that defines it as Ayurveda. Ayurveda is a post-Vedic and it follows many facets derived from Vedas— which itself are not older than 4000 years old. Some unknown person drilling teeth using flint-stone cant be called Ayurveda.

None of the three references given there (which I removed and was later reverted by Abhishek0831996) are books on history of medicine or history of Ayurveda. Two of them are books on pseudoscientific alternative medicine and the third makes only passing references of “8000” year old claim without citing any further sources or evidence whatsoever.

1. Ayurveda is post-Vedic as suggested by most scholars. Even the Indigenous Aryanists and historical revisionists don’t give dates older than 4000BCE for Vedas. Then how can Ayurveda itself be 6000BCE
2. Whatever medicine practiced in Indus Valley, that cant be called Ayurveda as the Indus script is still undeciphered. ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996 and ChandlerMinh: I agree with this sentiment. Frankly, I think that a book with the title "Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Older Adults: A Guide to Holistic Approaches to Healthy Aging" prima facie disqualifies it from being a reliable or neutral source for claims of historical age. BirdValiant (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: I think you are misunderstanding my edit as per your edit summary. I didn't restore the "6000 BCE" dating, but only removed outdated tags from 2018 (since all sources are third party) and only mentioned that some concepts of Ayurveda are traced back to 4th millennium BCE Indus Valley Civilization which is supported by the sources including the ones not mentioned here.[37][38] The already mentioned (and removed by you) were Springer and Oxford, they are reliable sources. Editorkamran (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: To provide citation for the claim that "Some of the concepts of Ayurveda have existed since the times of 4th millenium BCE" (note: specifically Ayurveda) the supplied quote is from the citation you restored is "Ayurveda is attributed to Lord Brahma (considered as creator of the universe in Hindu mythology) and can be traced back about 8000 years." As User:ChandlerMinh pointed out, that's a vague statement with no further evidence provided. How exactly can it be traced back? Just because people have been using bandages since time immemorial, does that mean that modern medicine traces its history back to time immemorial because modern medicine also uses bandages? It's empty.

As for the other books you provided, the first seems to present a point of view in favor of the efficacy of Ayurveda, and the linked page seems to do with cosmetics or something, so I'm going to go ahead and disregard it. As for the second, the quote is "dates to the Bronze Age and the Indus Valley Civilization (3300-1300 BCE)." A narrow reading of that quote is that, as an oral tradition, Ayurveda can be traced back to the Indus Valley Civilization, which extended from 3300-1300 BCE. It does not assert that the oral tradition itself extends back to the beginnings of the IVC listed as 3300 BCE, and so the quote cannot be used to support the claim of "fourth millenium BCE" as was previously asserted in this wiki article. BirdValiant (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: 3300 BCE was 4th millennium. Anyway, since you have already read the source can you paraphrase the sentence now? Editorkamran (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: Yes, 3300 BCE is in the 4th millenium BCE. But I just wrote a moment ago, "[that second book source you provided] does not assert that the oral tradition itself extends back to the beginnings of the IVC listed as 3300 BCE". The source does not specify how far back during the duration of the IVC (which it lists from 3300-1300 BCE) that the oral tradition can be traced. For example, if the oral tradition could be traced back as far as 1400 BCE, one could say that the oral tradition was traced back to the IVC (which itself went from 3300-1300 BCE), but the 4th millennium attribution for the oral tradition cannot be supported. BirdValiant (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: No issue I have with ommitting the "4th millennium" but the rest can be be rewritten with the mention of oral tradition. Editorkamran (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: @Editorkamran: the whole point is that not every form of Indian traditional medicine are Ayurveda. Ayurveda has a very specific definitions based on post-vedic texts. Just because some ancient person had treated someone in Indian subcontinent doesn’t mean that they were following Ayurveda. If you had ever read some texts on Ayurveda you can see plenty of superstition directly derived from Vedic texts, especially the Atharvaveda. There are various forms of traditional medicines within India with each different tribe having its own different practices. All of them are not Ayurveda. ChandlerMinh (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to read WP:OR i.e. your own views do not qualify. Indian medicals date back even older and nobody other than you is confusing Indian medicine and Ayurveda with each other. You are talking about the establishment in written form and ignoring the origins of that very form. But as apparently agreed by BirdValiant and Editorkamran, this source can be used. Here is an excellent source, work by Jonathan M. Kenoyer who is an archaeologist and historian specializing in Indian history. He dates Ayurveda to '5000 years' and adds on p.118 that "Ayurvedic doctors passed down their traditions orally for thousands of years before anyone wrote them down". This can be used as well. Azuredivay (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

How does he know that? If he doesn't have empirical evidence to that extent, it is garbage in, garbage out. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

In his earlier publication "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization" he writes about the discoveries of Indus Valley Civilization that "... Bronze razors, pins and pincers must have been the tools of a barber or a physician, two frequently overlapping professions. Ritual specialists must have worked with healing herbs and incantations..." His conclusions on a later publication are obviously based on research he did for years. Another qualified archaeologist and historian is Gregory Possehl who is also of the same view about the origins of Ayurveda dating back to this period. Possehl writes: "In Ayurvedic medicine powered cuttle is used in the treatment of various conditions of the eye, ear, throat and skin. Its use as tooth powder is also recorded. Cuttle fish bones are a useful commodity and it is intriguing to realize that this was known to the Early Harappan peoples of the Sindh Kohistan."[39] Azuredivay (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Azuredivay: I didn't make any comment about the Himalaya encyclopedia being used; my remark was that in a narrow reading, the source says that, as an oral tradition, Ayurveda dates back to the time of the Indus Valley Civilization, which itself existed between 3300-1300 BCE. That would put the age of the oral tradition of Ayurveda anywhere between 3300 and 5300 years old, with the source making no claim as to where in the range it actually lies. When it comes to that source, maybe it dates to the 2nd millenium BCE, maybe to the 4th. Who knows? 🤷 I'm not even suggesting that we should use the source when it comes to the age of Ayurveda, since the source mentions the age only in passing, and gives no citation for it. BirdValiant (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: Sure, we can ignore inclusion of the exact dating but only mention that some concepts of Ayurveda have existing since the times of Indus Civilization as also supported by archeological sources provided by Azure. Are you fine with this compromise? Editorkamran (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Editorkamran:@BirdValiant:@Azuredivay:

1. this source is a book written by two authors not just by Kenoyer. The word Ayurveda is mentioned five time here but only in a single chapter i.e, chapter 17 which has barely anything to do with Archaeology but rather a chapter on Science titled “Nothing but a zero: Science and Technology”. It is still a passing reference in a chapter dealing with science of later times such as Aryabhatiyan maths and all; no reference of IVC there. I doubt whether the chapter has anything to do with Kenoyer since it has zero mentions about archaeology. (Prove otherwise)
2. In this source about cuttle bones he is not even drawing a parallel or making claims that Ayurveda dates back to IVC. According to Possehl whole cuttle bones were found at Sindh; not powdered cuttlebones as used in Ayurveda. Why shouldn’t cuttle bones be found at a place in Sindh which is near the sea. Harappans were definitely not vegetarians. They obviously went to sea fishing and caught some cuttlefish for dinner. The book also says that those bones are also used for other purposes such as “as natural sand paper for finishing wood and polishing surfaces”. The book nowhere claims that those bones found at IVC sites were powdered or used by IVC people as a medicine. You just cherry-picked the powdered one for Ayurveda. ChandlerMinh (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting sources. It is not a passing mention but at least 3 pages have been dedicated to Ayurveda by Kenoyer. "Sindh"? Source say "Kohistan, Sindh" which is not near sea but way too far from that.[40] Kohistan Sindh was also a Indus Civilization site and that's why Possehl is even talking about it on the page. Can you cite reliable sources disputing there researches instead of depending on your own personal views? Editorkamran (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@ChandlerMinh: You seem to have ignored my comment above about WP:OR and I am going to just say this time that while you are allowed to question sources based on their information if they contradict similarly reliable source or their information is directly disputed, but misrepresenting the high quality sources by throwing your own poor understanding of the subject is not allowed. To claim that Gregory Possehl is not talking about Sindh-Kohistan in context of IVC in the book and chapter that is strongly dedicated to the subject of IVC is frankly WP:DE. I also find issues with your problematic claim that just because the word "Ayurveda" was mentioned 5 times, the source becomes insignificant. You must also read WP:RS and modify your approach here. Azuredivay (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: By passing reference, what I meant is that it doesn’t talk about the age of Ayurveda with any clear evidence. And that book is only co-authored by Kenoyer, the other part being by Kimberley Burton Heuston. If that particular chapter was written by Kenoyer, it would be full of archaeological information (Kenoyer being an archaeologist)

Still wrong because Kimberly Heuston has no prior history of writing about Ayurveda, but Kenoyer has who has also researched on medicals in IVC. The publisher is Oxford University Press as such your objections fall flat. Azuredivay (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Azuredivay: Oh really? On what basis are you telling it is written by Kenoyer. Where does Kenoyer have a prior history of writing about medical in IVC? You are missing the whole point that the chapter is not even about IVC but later times. The chapter-17 titled Nothing but a zero: Science and Technology doesn’t even mentions the word Indus Valley or Harappa. Instead all it talks about is post vedic scientific advancement Such as Aryabhata, discovery of zero as a place marker in decimal system, and also Ayurveda. “5000 year old Ayurveda” is just a popular tradition in India. @Editorkamran: Now coming to Possehl, according to him

Cuttlebones, internal shells of fish of the family cephalopod were found at the site of Othmanjo-Buthi in Sindh

. Othmanjo-Budhi is in Karachi district in Sindh province, which is nearby Arabian Sea. You are shifting goal posts, even if cuttlebones were found at far away places from ocean, how does that prove cuttlebones were used for Ayurvedic purpose given that they are also used as natural sandpaper, as additive in flour and also as cosmetic? Cuttle fish is an edible marine animal. How hard is it for people to understand that remains of a fish doesn’t necessarily mean they were used for Ayurevedic practice?

Yes he wrote in "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization". As for the chapter itself, he indeed talks about Aryabhata but also describes in length that Ayurveda has been around for 5000 years which corresponds to the times of Indus Valley Civilization. Azuredivay (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Kenoyer is a distinguished archaeologist and IVC specialist, while Kimberly Heuston is an experienced author of books for children. In this collaboration for a teen market, one can be confident that the factual statements come from Kenoyer, while Heuston got the prose right for the demographic and worked up the modest fictional elements. You probably want to make a very cautious statement like "there is some evidence that certain elements of Ayurveda may date back to the IVC". This will be the later, urban, periods of that, after say 2500 BC. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

firstly, your Azuredivay’s argument is solely based on the claim that this particular chapter (#17) is written by Kenoyer himself while there are two different authors for the book. The title of the chapter doesn’t mention anyone’s name per se. The “5000 year old” is just a popular trope among Indians and some foreign admirers of Ayurvedaa. If the chapter was written by Kenoyer, doesn’t commonsense suggest that he will list out archaeological evidence to back his claim. Secondly if he has written about medicine of IVC and also points out that it was indeed Ayurveda, then there is no need for a debate here. Just cite what he has wrote in his Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Thirdly, cuttlebone argument barely stands here as Possehl himself lists out multiple use for it other than medicinal. But people want to cherry-pick the Ayurvedic use only- that too when the Ayurveda talks about powdered cuttle and not whole cuttle remains which were found at IVC sites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChandlerMinh (talk • contribs)

Again, your personal view does not matter. You firstly misrepresented the location of Kohistan Sindh, and claimed it is near sea when it is far from it. I still don't see if you cite reliable sources disputing there researches. If you consider well known date to be a "trope" then that is your own personal observation. Editorkamran (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: I find the "haha you messed up! you said near the sea!" thing to be incredibly petty, and you can do better than that. Besides, it misses the point, which is that one would need to specifically show that the cuttlefish bones were used for a medicinal purpose which is in essence Ayurvedic. BirdValiant (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Editorkamran Sir, I didn’t even talk about Kohistan Sindh. The Possehl source at page 227says this: “Cuttlebones, internal shells of fish of the family cephalopod were found at the site of Othmanjo-Buthi in Sindh”. Othmanjo-Buthi is in Karachi district in Sindh province, which is nearby Arabian Sea. I am gonna repeat my point as long as you chose to deliberately ignore it. There is no well known date for Ayurveda. All samhitas were composed only in the last 3000 years- or even much lesser . 5000 year old is a trope. There are people who with a bigger voice than me claiming Ayurveda is 10000 years old? Should Wikipedia take them seriously too? Since you are not able prove what those cuttlebones were actually used for so you shifted the goalpost towards trying to prove my ignorance about location. Also: Neither Possehl nor Kenoyer makes any inference that Ayurveda was practiced in IVC. What exactly are you trying to prove by saying it is my personal opinion?

My conclusion:

1. Ayurveda is clearly post vedic. The relations between Vedic and Harappan civilization is still under debate and the script is still undeciphered.
2. There might be some influence of Harappan civilisation on Ayurveda(as it does with Hinduism) But there is no definitive evidence whatsoever to call both with the same name
3. Use of cuttlebones is not necessarily medicinal. Even it were medicinal, it doesn’t mean that the medicine practiced in Harappan culture is Ayurveda itself.
4. Therefore I would suggest to use the term ‘traditional medicine’ for whatever medicine practiced at IVC. And that the present statement “Some of the concepts of traditional Indian medicine have existed since the times of the Indus Valley Civilization” be maintained. ChandlerMinh (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing new with what you are saying. I would suggest you to stop repeating yourself since your personal views don't even matter. Editorkamran (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @ChandlerMinh:'s assessment here. I would like to see some reliable secondary source say and provide evidence for, in a way which addresses the matter specifically and not in passing, the idea that a medicine which is essentially Ayurvedic was practiced in the IVC. This would allow us to say something beyond "there is some evidence that certain elements of Ayurveda may date back to the IVC" which is @Johnbod:'s cogent suggestion, by the way, a suggestion which was totally ignored. Beyond that, since we don't yet have a reliable source to claim that an essentially Ayurvedic traditional medicine was being practiced in the IVC, we should probably err on the side of caution and use something like the phrase "traditional medicine" for that stage of antiquity.

As for saying anything like "fourth millennium", 5000 years old, 4000 BC, etc., I would additionally like to see some reliably secondary source specifically discuss the exact date, and not just make some vague in-passing remark, which seems to be the rule here. BirdValiant (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I am actually in support of implementing the sentence provided by Johnbod. I also agree with your suggestion about sources for dating. Editorkamran (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense

It is ahistorical to claim that Ayurveda can be traced to IVC in any form or manner - no historian of Indian Medicine makes these claims. The above discussion makes it obvious that the sentence has no consensus, in favor. See David Hardiman (2009) on such claims. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What's with the section header? People claiming that the origins of Ayurveda lay in Mehrgarh I/II? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

We are not having any dearth of peer-reviewed scholarship to bend over backwards and use middle-school texts. (cc:ChandlerMinh) TrangaBellam (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ayurvedic treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis

@Roxy the dog:, I had cited the original article (https://www.oarsijournal.com/article/S1063-4584(18)30082-7/fulltext ) that I had found from PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29426006/). It has also been published by Elsevier on ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063458418300827). Do any of these count as WP:MEDRS? — Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Afraid not. It is a RCT, and therefore a Primary source and not allowed for medical claims as per WP:MEDRS. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The Choosing sources section of WP:MEDRS has a sub-section, List of core journals. It mentions that the Abridged Index Medicus provides a list of 114 selected "core clinical journals". One of those journals is BMJ (Clinical research ed.), where I found the same article : https://ard.bmj.com/content/76/Suppl_2/960.2. I'm assuming this would suffice, @Roxy the dog:?

References

— Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It is the paper itself that is unnacceptable, not the publisher or repositories. It is a Randomised Controlled Trial, hence a primary source. MEDRS says "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" (bold in source.). In my opinion it is also a very in-bubble source in terms of authorship, but hey. -Roxy the dog. wooF 21:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see a secondary source or review, not a single primary study which was funded by the government of India via AYUSH. Otherwise this is basically the same as picking out a single study "disproving" climate change, when that study was funded by fossil-fuel corporations. I'm just not interested in things like that. BirdValiant (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

How do you know that study was funded by AYUSH, GoI? —Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yuyutsu Ho: If you scroll down the article and go to the Funding section, it says right there: "Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India." BirdValiant (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• And let's look at where many of the writers of the paper work...

• Immanuel Hospital Berlin, Department for Complementary Medicine, Königstr. 63, 14109 Berlin, Germany
• Ministry of AYUSH, AYUSH Bhawan, B Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi 110023, India
• Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhavan, No.61-65, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058, India
• All India Institute of Ayurveda, Mathura Road, Gautampuri, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 110076, India
• University of Witten Herdecke, Department of Psychology and Psychotherapy, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, Witten, Germany
• European Academy of Ayurveda, Forsthausstr. 6, 63633 Birstein, Germany
• Department of Kaya Cikitsa, J.S. Ayurveda College & P.D. Patel Ayurveda Hospital, College Road, Nadiad 387001, India
• Ayurvedic Point, School of Ayurvedic Medicine, Corso Sempione 63, 20149 Milan, Italy
• University of Frankfurt, Department of Religious Sciences, Grüneburgplatz 1, 60323 Frankfurt, Germany
• Institute of Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital and University of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
• University of Maryland School of Medicine, Center for Integrative Medicine, 520 W. Lombard Street, East Hall, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA

• Enough said, I think. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

Modern medicine is a redirect to medicine. They mean the same thing. What ayurvedists call "allopathy" the rest of just call medicine. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If they mean the exact same thing, then Wikipedia's Medicine article needs a major edit. Medicine has been practiced since prehistoric times, during most of which it was an art (an area of skill and knowledge) frequently having connections to the religious and philosophical beliefs of local culture ... Prescientific forms of medicine are now known as traditional medicine or folk medicine, which remains commonly used in the absence of scientific medicine ... Contemporary medicine applies biomedical sciences, biomedical research, genetics, and medical technology... Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kareena.agni.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Add to see also section

can we add a portal or section on a list of herbs/plants of Ayurveda medicine? Things such as [Bacopa monnieri]], Centella asiatica, Tulsi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.177.218 (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If someone is making this list, please to add Cannabis Sativa as it is considered the Penicillin of Ayurveda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShellPandey (talk • contribs)

References

Why would we add a list of medications that don't work? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 14:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Ayurveda is not pseudoscience

It has its own protocol in treatment with particular data You can refer to ccim and ccras websites Bkbngharavalli (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Not done. CCIM and CCRAS are obviously not reliable sources as they are both associated with the Ministry of Ayush. Please read (a) the top of this page, and (b) many previous discussions on this subject. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what "obvious" means? You use it a lot in several times in the talk page. What is your justification for what a reliable source is? I don't know what Ministry of Ayush is. But who cares if the source is associated with it? Why does that mean it's not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.9.212 (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Citing the Ministry of Ayush as proof Ayurveda 'works' is like quoting the Flat Earth Society to prove the Earth isn't round. Surely you can see a primary source which advocates on behalf of this pseudoscience is not independent and reliable. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. So a publication of Moderna on their covid-19 vaccine would not be reputable, but an independent review would be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.9.212 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:INDENT. You made it look as if the following contribution starting with "Here is link" were a response to you. I corrected that.

Yes, that sounds about right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is link for Science journal Look at it. Here is scientifically proven that Ayurved is not pseudo science https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaim.2020.07.001 Vaidyanishant (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

no, I'm sorry, that is not scientific proof, it is just handwaving. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I nearly stopped reading when the abstract referred to “clinical trials undertaken adoring those applied to pharmaceuticals”. I actually stopped reading when the article said that “Medicinal plants based products are made using those plants which find a reference to the history of usage in granthas qualify as Ayurvedic medicines.” This really isn’t an indication that Ayurveda is scientific. Brunton (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific. Basic texts described its own research methodology. Reference:https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A%C2%A0narrative%20review%20of%20research%20in%20Ayurveda&publication_year=2013&author=P.%20Ram%20Manohar#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DMXmrL2OCuO0J

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975947618308957#bib2 Anand Londhe (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Not reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers 18:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If scientific articles are not reliable source, reference books are not reliable source, then what is exact reliable source? Wikipedia? Anand Londhe (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Those aren't scientific articles. Te first is written by a member of this organisation and the second was published in the Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine. So, no, they're obviously not reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to understand what Wikipedia considers a 'reliable' source when discussing a system of medicine that comes from the East? Wikipedia is exhibiting bias by refusing to acknowledge validity or the "ancient science" of Ayurveda by denying the validity of any source that represents it, (govt departments or professional body) is an authority on it, (Indian or western qualified doctors/practitioners) or published journals (JACM) AYUSH is the Indian govt department of Ayurveda and states "These systems are based on definite medical philosophies and represent a way of healthy living with established concepts on prevention of diseases and promotion of health." Some people commenting in this thread "stop reading" scientific papers because of slight grammatical 'errors' made by non-native speakers. This is openly racist and insulting. Ayurveda is a system of medicine which pre-dates modern science. Modern science cannot accommodate it because Ayurveda is founded in principles that far outreach the modern definition of medicine and science, and Wikipedia and its editors are doing a gross disservice to their readers by refusing to allow a counter-case to the "pseudoscience" definition that is published on the site. Step up and stop the bias Wikipedia editors.

D4dotty37 (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• See all the previous discussions on this. However, our sourcing requirements per WP:MEDRS are not going to change, and documents published by organisations such as the Dept. of AYUSH are primary sources anyway. We can absolutely make a differentiation between "modern science" (i.e. science) and "ancient science" (whatever that might be). Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Who exactly are you referring to when you say "our sourcing requirements"? Because I have been a donor to WP for 4 years. If WP are not willing to change with the times, and demonstrate inclusivity and non-bias then stop claiming it belongs to everyone. D4dotty37 (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't claim it belongs to everyone. The infrastructure belongs to the WMF, and the content (or rather the copyright to it) belongs to the individual contributors responsible for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If you want to suggest changes to the medical sourcing guidelines then, as with anything here, you are quite welcome to start a discussion at WT:MEDRS. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Science of Ayurveda reported in reputable Nature Journal. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15786 Done by neutral leading scientific institute CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology. Again science is now starting to figure out the validation of ancient traditional practice with modern techniques. This does not mean it is pseudoscience.

Sriramk750 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A) this is a primary source - Wikipedia prefers secondary sources.

B) It states in the article that this is a preliminary study.

C) Two of the three places which carried out this research are closely linked with supporting Ayurveda, so possible conflict of interest.

Hence I don't think that this single preliminary article adds much to the psuedo-science argument. Murray Langton (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Two of the three places which carried out this research are closely linked with supporting Ayurveda, so possible conflict of interest. Can we start applying that to pharmaceutical firms carrying out research? Really, if a well-designed study has rigorous standards & is peer-reviewed by non-involved third-parties, this statement would be inapplicable. Let's wait for the review of the literature before we start casting aspersions. Peaceray (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if we grant the point that Prakriti are real, it still does not follow that Ayurveda is effective. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, this Scientific Reports (not Nature, but a publication-fee-funded mega journal from same parent) article is 5 years old. The theory being peddled in this study, "Ayurgenomics", is older and has been junked for longer. See this overview (from Science (journal)). Note that institutes criticised there are the prominent ones involved in this study as well). hemantha (brief) 03:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nature has the highest impact factor of any journal publishing basic scientific research. It has more than 70 research papers related to Ayurveda which increasing every year. Check here https://www.nature.com/search?q=Ayurveda&journal= Sriramk750 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

So request to remove the phrase “pseudoscience” from the article . Sriramk750 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you read any of the articles you showed us in your link above? -Roxy the dog. wooF 19:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup, even if Prakriti do really exist, that still does not prove that Ayurveda is effective against any disease. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Assume_good_faith 97.113.178.228 (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ayurvedic approaches are effective for some conditions and it may not effective for some. Same is true for modern medicine. But the main point of this discussion is whether Ayurveda is pseudoscience or not.

Set of beliefs or activities is said to be pseudoscience, if it lacks three basic features of scientific approach - Systematic Empiricism, Empirical Questions and Public Knowledge. (https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/understanding-science/ )

i)Systematic Empiricism - learning based on observation. Scientists learn about the natural world systematically, by carefully planning, making, recording, and analyzing observations of it.

Ancient Indian physician like sushruta (Father of Surgery) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushruta ) have observed the effect of different types of plants with different kinds of people with various genetic disposition (Prakriti). After many set of experiments, these results are handed to the future generations in terms of manuscripts like Sushruta Samhita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushruta_Samhita) which is world's first treatise on surgery. (https://artsandculture.google.com/exhibit/susruta-samhita-ancient-indian-surgical-knowledge-national-council-of-science-museums/8wKyx4LRDmyVKA?hl=en )

ii)Empirical Questions- questions about the way the world actually is and can be answered through systematic empiricism. These are questions which are raised about the experiment and method which are used to cure the disease.

Charakacharya, who wrote major treatise of Ayurveda, Caraka Samhita has mentioned three different means of gaining knowledge (Trividha gyanopaya) of science as –Adhyayana(learning), Adhyapana(teaching) and third means of gaining knowledge is known as Tadvidya-Sambhasha. It is a method of debate between two knowledgeable physicians in the presence of viewers. Ref:- https://www.ayurlog.com/index.php/ayurlog/article/view/61/54

iii)Public Knowledge- After asking their empirical questions, making their systematic observations, and drawing their conclusions, scientists publish their work. Equivalent to modern day seminars, Ancient Indian scholars have gathered in groups and discussed their treatise in presence of their king before publishing their work. There is proof that different seminars(sangams) happened in India around 2000 BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Sangams) This is happening now in terms of the scientific journal publications (like in Nature mentioned above).

If you see, Ayurveda meets all the three aspects of scientific approach.

Request to change the sentence. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. -> The theory and practice of Ayurveda is based on aspects of science.

No. Those are not WP:RS reliable sources. There is nothing scientific about Ayurveda. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

We are having healthy debate here. what is the source for “ there is nothing scientific about Ayurveda “? Sriramk750 (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK and learn how to indent your responses on Talk pages. As this is a talk page, we do not do citations. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Going forward with change unless there is valid statement to deny it. Sriramk750 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide valid reason for revert in talk before making the change. Sriramk750

reverts are happening without any discussion in this page. whether this is valid way of reverting? Sriramk750 (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A review of Encyclopedia Britannica's summary of Ayurveda highlights the discrepancy with this Wikipedia article which immediately invalidates Ayurveda as pseudoscience whereas Britannica neither mentions pseudoscience nor does it proclaim that the entirety of Ayurveda's theory and practice is quackery. The existing quackery primary source to IMA has issues (spelling errors, and the need to repeat an identical sentence ten times in the text on the webpage). OK, very well, two allopathic doctors with the Indian Medical Association authored an article with this view but in addition to attribution, clarification is needed as to the specifics on what this document summarizes. The Guardian both offered some insight into the battle between the government of India seeking to back Ayurvedic practitioners (in light of a shortage of care providers in general) and the allopathic doctors who object to "quackery" when other types of practitioners cross over. The contemporary opposition should be contextualized and placed farther into the article where things are broken down by country. Overall, Wikipedia seems to be painting the whole of Ayurveda with a rather broad brush. Britannica states "Ayurveda has both preventive and curative aspects" . . . are we Wikipedia readers to believe that the sum total of both Ayurveda's preventative and curative practices are to be considered total rubbish and quackery? Who argues with the established scientific understanding that eating well, exercising, yoga, and meditation are beneficial to health and well being?

Britannica does a much better job providing a brief overview of what Ayurveda is along with its general history. This article could use a major refresh with better quality, recent, academic sources w/ urls for verification. Cedar777 (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

See here for all the other times when the Britannica red herring has been waved and refuted on this very Talk page.

If you have reliable sources that say what you want the article to say, bring them. Otherwise, shut up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, my main page edit did add several articles from RS to The Guardian[41] and The Indian Express[42] prior to another editor removing those references. Did you bother to review my main page edit and these sources before dispensing your uncivil advice to “shut up”? Perhaps it is not entirely reasonable to expect editors to review a lengthy and problematic article, then read dozens of the existing sources, and then read pages upon pages of talk page archives before weighing in in any capacity. Cedar777 (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with this.

1. You added those links to your contribution after it had been responded to. That is deeply dishonest because it makes it look as if I ignored those links. Never do that.
2. Please have a look at the Main page. You did not edit it.
3. I responded to your contribution on the Talk page, not to everything you ever did. You are essentially demanding that I go through all your recent edits. That is not how discussions work. In a discussion, you respond to what a person says, not to the person as a whole.
4. I just had a look at your edit [43]. It contains deletions and other changes; I don't see any connection between it and your Britannica rant. It looks as if you are just using the fact that you had recently found some papers saying anything at all about Ayurveda, to pretend we can use them to say it is not total rubbish and quackery.
5. After I told you you should have have a look at the archives and search for Britannica, did you? If not, why should anybody listen to you when you don't listen to us? Again, not how discussions work.
6. Of course, you will need WP:MEDRS sources, not the popular press, if you want to change the way the article handles Ayurveda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for incivility and condescension. Out of respect for WP:CIVILITY, than I ask that you strike through your earlier comment.

An article and its respective talk page go onto the watchlist at the same time; editors routinely read both, presumably by closely watching the edits to the more publicly visible main article page as a matter of priority. My initial bold edit to the main Ayurveda article page (vs. the secondary talk page) included a note to see the talk page for more info in the edit summary. My talk page comment was added approx 30 min later. For whatever reason, you read and responded to the talk page comment first.

It is an assumption on your part that my adding links to my talk page comment after your reply was a matter of intentional "dishonesty". In actuality, they were added to provide quick access to the content via a direct link. Better that than forcing readers to leave the talk page to go hunt on the main Ayurveda page to find and click on references within the body, particularly cumbersome for those who edit on mobile devices. Direct links to content are a courtesy that is substantially more convenient for everyone.

Which brings me to your 5th point - yes, I did click on the links to the archive search for Britannica. That link brings up a page with small snippets of info (insufficient to gauge even the basic content & its relevance). The individual links bring a reader only to a general archive page (2, 3, 16, 13, 14, & 17) instead of being taken to the location on each of those pages where the specific topic at hand (Britannica) is discussed. Your links generated 6 archive pages in their entirety to read with most of the content not relevant to Britannica. If your goal was helping another editor understand the talk page discussion history with Britannica, why not simply provide a brief summary of those discussions, the recurring issues and any conclusions? As in, "Wikipedia editors generally discredited the Britannica content for reasons x, y, and z" before giving the 6 pages of general archive reading?

Finally, when speaking for a plurality by using the terms "us" and "we" please clarify and name exactly who you are speaking on behalf of. Is it an organized group of editors interested in a certain topic? One generally expects an individual to only speak on their own behalf, unless they disclose who else they are speaking for. Cedar777 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I just deleted your later insertion. If you really cared about honesty, you would have done that yourself after I pointed it out. I see no reason to strike what I wrote.

Aww, you only got a link that led you to those pages, instead of the pages themselves. Poor you, you had to click once more and then even think for yourself and get the idea to search the linked pages for the word "Britannica". I am sorry for overestimating you.

Everything you wrote here is irrelevant. The point is that you will need WP:MEDRS sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

And, yes, pharmaceutical companies do have problems, but none of those arise from taking ancient superstition at face value. E.g. Western pharmaceutical companies do not think that the Bible promotes accurate medical advice (i.e. taking the Bible claims at face value as medical advice). Christian MDs and scientists do not claim that the Bible is an accurate medical handbook. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Fraud exists across the board, i.e. it is not the exclusive domain of alternative medicine. The wording and placement in the lede of the IMA primary source implies that all practitioners of all forms of Ayurveda are “quacks” and this is before we are even given the most basic information on the what, who, where, when, why, how of the subject. Cedar777 (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

In alternative medicine fraud is the rule rather than the exception. And that's the problem: according to modern medical science, Ayurveda is bogus, superstition and as a rule fraudulent. It only exists for the sake of medieval-thinking people. It lacks any foundation according to evidence based medicine. Ayurveda lacks epistemic warrant. It is therefore quackery beginning from its own definition. That is highly unlikely to change for the reality-based community, so it cannot change inside Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

For given “according to …” statements, please provide valid references, so that it could be incorporated in the article. Wikipedia maintains neutral point of view, Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Sriramk750 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It makes no sense to beat a dead horse, so it makes no sense to remove "pseudoscience" and "quackery" from the article. You have already lost this fight, since this is Wikipedia. Go home and find something better to do with your time. You can't prevail here, and the idea that you can prevail here is itself risible. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No need to remove pseudoscience and quackery. We should provide valid statements with reliable references supporting the both sides of the story to make the article neutral. Currently it is one sided and any additional information on other side of story get reverted. This should be stopped. Sriramk750 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

To make the article neutral, I feel two changes have to be made. 1) sentence in intro should be changed as “ The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.” -> “ Some claim that theory and practice of Ayurveda is Pseudoscientific “ 2) “The Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks.” -> “ The Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice allopathic medicine as quacks.” Sriramk750 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

As there clearly is no consensus to make your unsupported changes, they will not be made. -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM. You don't understand something: modern science works like the Juggernaut for Ayurveda. The world now has modern science, there is no turning back to the status quo ante. Your mythical golden age is gone, gone forever, gone with the wind. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

How many of you agree with 2 changes to make the article neutral. We can have elaborate sub-sections for both pseudoscientific and scientific aspects of Ayurveda. Sriramk750 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not a vote, read WP:Consensus -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot choose to "disobey" mainstream science or mainstream medicine. I am not without compassion: I know that Western-style MDs education costs a lot, that Western-style medicines and hospitals cost a lot, that in many respects India is still a very poor country. So I understand that there are economic reasons why practicing Western-style medicine is infeasible now in India. But Wikipedia cannot condone pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Short description

Seeing that the article Short description was far too long, I changed it from Pseudoscientific alternative medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent ⇒ Alternative medicine with roots in India.
That change was reverted with the instruction Please get a consensus for this change on the talk page.
I understand that this article has had an "interesting" history and I have no view about Ayurveda itself, so here I am.

1. The Short description needs to be shortened — per WP:SDSHORT. The original was 86 characters, which is far too long. The new version would have been exactly 40 characters long.
2. The Short description should be neutral and without judgemental adjectives — per WP:SDNOTDEF. Removing "Pseudoscientific" seemed in accordance. The article, not the Short description, is the correct place to use and explain such judgements.

Alternative Short descriptions might be:

• Historic medicine in the Indian subcontinent — 44 characters, but avoiding "Alternative" as a judgement
• Traditional medicine from India — 31 characters, but perhaps implying it is the only traditional medicine
• System of medicine with roots in India — 38 characters and perhaps too plain

I propose Alternative medicine with roots in India as short and sufficient for a Short description — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement - the old one was far too long. I would strongly oppose any of the alternatives you put forth: 'historic' would be inaccurate, since it's still widely used; 'traditional' fails to get across the fact that folk conduct 'research' into it (that's why it's pseudoscientific - it purports to be scientific); 'system of medicine' fails to make it clear that it is woo. 'Alternative medicine' seems fine. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, too. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted it, but on reflection it does seem appropriate and in line with policy. BilledMammal (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

Ayurveda or Ayurvedashastra is an Indian medical system. Ayurveda is the scripture in which knowledge of life and disease is imparted. Ayu is the name of the union of body, senses and sattva (mind) and soul. In modern words it is the same life. The life-giving body is said to be alive.

The relationship between age and body is eternal. This subject has been considered in Ayurveda. As a result, it is also eternal. The system through which knowledge of all kinds of cognitive facts related to life can be obtained or by following which longevity is attained is called Ayurveda. Ayurveda is considered to be a sub-veda of Atharva Veda.

It shows the way of survival of human beings as well as the means of their complete development. So Ayurveda, like any other medical system, is not only a medical system, but the knowledge of the whole life. In Ayurveda, it is called Ayushya Hit (Pathya Ahar Vihar), Ahit (Apathya Ahar Vihar), Diagnosis of Disease and Treatment of Disease.

Consumption of diet as well as abstinence from unhealthy diet can help a person to stay completely healthy. According to Ayurveda, only a healthy person can achieve the ultimate goal of life, Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha. The body is the main means of attaining Purushartha Chatushtayam. Therefore, paying special attention to the protection of the body, Ayurveda says that the body is the main means of attaining Dharma Artha, Kama, Moksha. The body should be specially protected in all ways.

Bhav Prakash, the famous scripture of Ayurveda says that the knowledge of life through Shastra, knowledge of interest and non-harmful diet, knowledge of Vyadhi Diagnosis and knowledge of Shaman, the name of this Shastra is Ayurveda. Raj ladani (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2022 (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. Cannolis (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2022

In this page there is wrong definition of Ayurveda and said ayurveda as alternative medicine system. It's a clearly wrong and without reference sentence. So I want to edit this. Raj ladani (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2022

There are thousands of research papers validating Ayurvedic medicines and treatment. Many research papers have been published under Ministry of Ayush, Govt of India and also by Patanjali Ayurveda & Acharya Balkrishna of Patanjali in India. So, the statements that Ayurveda is a pseudo science and that There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease.[23] are totally false. Please remove these misleading and false statements from your Wikipedia page on Ayurveda. 223.233.73.111 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no reference of that foolish sentence. And they have no rights to say 'pseudoscience' to our Indian medical science (Ayurveda). Even they don't know what is ayurveda then how can they write this much about ayurveda without knowledge. Raj ladani (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

'They'? 'Our?' We are all Wikipedians, there should be no them and us - unless you are here for reasons other than to build a reliable, evidence-based encyclopedia using the most reliable sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Cinnamon

So, a quibble, but cinnamon is made from the inner bark of a tree, and not a seed. I mean, of course that tree was once a seed, but the way the sentence is written it is either redundant or misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:69B0:0:0:0:2229 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it looked like a case of poor wording after incremental editing, so I changed it so that it no longer appears to suggest that cinnamon is a seed. BirdValiant (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Dead link

In the further reading section, the last link to "Use Caution With Ayurvedic Products - US Food and Drug Administration" is no longer active. It needs to be either removed or repaired. Cedar777 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Redundant wiki links in lede

The last paragraph of the lede repeats the wiki links to lead, arsenic, and mercury. At minimum, this paragraph would be improved by single wiki links. Better yet to have the two sentences combined to cover both points, eliminating the need to repeat the terms lead, arsenic, and mercury twice in succession. And perhaps a stronger source is available for this content than a UK Charity? Cedar777 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)