Talk:Ayurveda

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

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

Please read WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE before posting here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Quackery means practice of medicine without support of law. In this case indian Government and law allows qualified Ayurveda practitioners to practice in India. So you should change quackery. Indian medical association have no rights to act against Indian government and if so its against Indian government so you should remove the term quackery according to Indian medical association Samsonc2000 (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your private definition of quackery is not relevant here. You cannot turn quacks into doctors by voting believers in quackery into the government. Did not work in the US, did not work in Brazil, did not work in India. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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)

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#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)

Concern regarding the content and four references

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

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

This is a private medical association and have nor Rights to decide quackery. Ayurveda is an approved medical system in India for practice as per indian constitution and supported by law and parliament

 Not done Please review the history of this talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to:

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

Please let me know if this is alright.

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

Aathish S, I have changed it back. There have been numerous discussions of the wording of that section on this talk page. Please review them and, if you wish to pursue this, gain consensus for your change. I'm going to put some important messages on your talk page now; please also notice the WP:1RR restrictions which apply to this page. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 11:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I gave a cursory read through the one RfC started by Guy Macon before making my edit and at your request I just read the whole thing. It looks like it's wound up as a deadlock with the discussion just fizzling out after the 29th of May. The discussion between Morgan Leigh and Guy Macon ended with a question from Morgan Leigh that has yet to be answered by Guy_Macon, and their answer isn't likely to come since they've stated on their talk page that they've retired from editing Wikipedia. No official consensus was ever reached on Guy Macon's RfC, and IMO it's unlikely to be reached since they've retired from editing.
So User:Girth Summit, do you recommend I start a new RfC and maybe archive the old one? Or should I comment on the old RfC? I'm relatively new to editing here, and don't want to do too many actions that'll end up getting reverted ;) Aathish S (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Aathish S, there's more history on the issue in this talk page's archives. The RfC above does appear to have fizzled out somewhat, but it has not been formally closed, so you are welcome to express your view in the 'survey' section. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 14:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have undone your revert Girth as there isn't a consensus for it. Let's try again to achieve a consensus before editing the article. I support Aathish's edit 100% as it is fully supported by the source cited and I invite other editors to comment. However we absolutely need an answer to the question I asked Guy i.e. If, as Guy said above, we can't use this source because its a primary source, then surely we should remove the sentence for which it is the only source. Unless someone can provide a secondary source that explicitly says "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery". Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reinstated it as it certainly does. Please do not insert your own opinion instead of the consensus that has been reached above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn, The contentious statement was introduced in this edit in August 2020 by Guy Macon with consensus obtained here only for describing Ayurveda as pseudoscience. No consensus (as far as I can tell) was obtained for the contentious statement about the IMA's stance at all. The only RfC about it is the one in the current talk page by Guy Macon, and, like both Morgan Leigh and I have mentioned, no consensus has been reached. Aathish S (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Eggishorn You haven't shown us where a consensus was reached as you claimed, unless you can I am going to reinstate the edit you reverted on the basis of this unsubstantiated claim. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, there's WP:NODEADLINE so demanding proof a mere day later or you'll reinstate is a bit rushed. In point of fact, there was a thunderstorm here shortly after I posted and I've been either doing Real Life^TM stuff or working on another complicated NAC. I had been working on a close for the RfC but I suppose that you will now call me involved even though I didn't participate in that discussion. In any event, as Girth Summit correctly points out, changing article text that is under discussion is disruptive editing. It was under that principle that I reverted and I don't have any other view about the topic. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Making claims of disruptive editing does nothing to progress the discussion. And, by this rationale, Aathish'a edit is disruptive editing, as is Girth Summit's reversion, and likewise your reversion. So instead of making such a claim I ask that you instead either verify your claim by answering the question as to where consensus was established, or accept that there is no consensus on the sentence in question and work with us to try to come to one. With that in mind, and in agreement with Aathish, I ask you one of the two key questions. Is the IMA source a primary source? Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It is really not that difficult. Changing the text of the article away from the version it had when the RfC started is disruptive editing. That applies to this edit by Aatish S and this edit by you, but Aatish did not know about the RfC and has been humble about it. Reverting those two changes is not disruptive. Since you are the only one who really did something wrong, you should behave less like an aggressive, pushy loudmouth and more like someone who is sorry for making a mistake. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, you can request closure for the RfC above. The point is that the article stays in the status quo ante until that happens. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I don't think closing the RfC right now would be very constructive. I get that polling isn't a substitute for discussion and all that, but I count 8 votes in favour of "All", 7 or 6 in favour of "Some" and a small minority in favour of "Other". That's hardly consensus being reached. The contentious statement was introduced in this edit in August 2020 by Guy Macon, but with consensus obtained here only for describing Ayurveda as pseudoscience. No consensus was obtained for the contentious statement referencing the IMA. The only RfC about it is the one in this talk page by Guy Macon, and like I said before, no consensus has been reached.
FWIW, I think this may just be a language problem. Colloquially, at least in India, "medicine" is sort of an umbrella term encompassing both traditional medicine and modern medicine, which is why the IMA is pretty clear about mentioning "modern medicine" in the source currently cited as opposed to just medicine. Aathish S (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. I have stopped editing Wikipedia articles. In fact, you really should stop pinging anyone who is already actively participating in a discussion as well as those who you know have purposely left the discussion. The repeated pings are really annoying. We all have watchlists and seldom need to be pinged. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Girth Summit Why should the article stay in a state that was contentious enough to see an Rfc started? Especially when, as Aathish S has pointed out, there was never any consensus for the addition of this material by Guy in the first place. I know of no Wikipedia policy to this effect. If there is one I would be most obliged if you could please direct me to it. Aathish made a good faith edit after reading the Rfc and I see no reason we should revert to the previous contentious state without addressing the issue. What is your opinion on the question as to whether the source is a primary source? Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh, I also believe that the edit was imade n good faith - I have not said otherwise, and tgat is not why I reverted it. There is an open RfC on the matter - the text in question should be changed when that RfC is closed, not beforehand. I have not participated in the RfC, or read the question that you refer to. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please answer the question of why the article shouldn't be edited until the Rfc is closed. If there is policy to support this please point us to it or otherwise I see no reason we can't edit the article if we can come to a consensus. You seem to be saying you didn't read the question that I just asked you about whether it is a primary source or not. Which is odd as you have evidently read the rest of my last comment as you are replying to it. You are advocating against an edit so I am asking your opinion on an important question about the edit you are opposing. Is the source supporting the edit you are advocating against a primary source? Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)