Talk:Ayurveda

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayurveda article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22: 2 months

Template:Vital article

Ayurveda received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Dietary Supplements Low‑importance

	Ayurveda is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hinduism High‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

South Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Editswikifornepali (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes ~~~~. Note that this article is under a number of editing restrictions per discretionary sanctions. You must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article. Editors violating these restrictions may be blocked.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

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

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Taking Ayurveda out of Pseudoscience

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I've spent the summer studying and researching Ayurveda, which is growing in popularity and practice, because it works. There is a citation from 1951 that considers it pseudoscience, which is the basis for my edits to have been reverted. Since we are now in another century and much has changed, respectfully, can we delete this outdated, ancient citation? It no longer qualifies. Victoriasays (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

because it works That requires a WP:MEDRS source if we are to use that opinion as a pov within the article or to otherwise work from.

much has changed While that claim may not require a MEDRS source, it requires a reliable source, and an especially authoritative one it is to be used to guide pov within this article.

See WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article currently cites multiple reliable sources not just confirming that Ayurveda is considered pseudoscience but also explaining why it is considered so. If that assessment has changed, we would indeed need reliable published sources such as medical review articles that show it is no longer considered so. Huon (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Since there are, as you say, multiple sources, can we delete this outdated, ancient citation from 1951? As it no longer realistically qualifies in 2017. (Victoriasays (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC))Reply

What citation is that? Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is not pseudoscience as traditional medicine, discussed only as such in a historical context; it isn't reasonable to apply scientific standards to prescientific notions. Claims for the underlying system today are absolute pseudoscience. Some practices may or may not be safe and effective; this would depend on good evidence to judge. Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ayurveda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

A threatening message received on my talk page from Godric on Leave for editing ayurved related articles and warning me to refrain from editing ayurved related articles

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

user talk page related discussion - Edaham (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is to note and document that I have recently received a message from an editor with a strange name like Godric on Leave warning me to refrain from editing ayurveda related articles. I do not know what interest he has in sending some message like that. Let me tell that messages like these hamper the moral of editors and that is the reason ayurved related articles are not in good shape. I would like to request administrators to take appropriate actions if needed. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Duly noted. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Abhijeet Safai:. The user named @Godric on Leave: was not threatening you. This article and others you created were nominated for deletion for having unresolved notability issues per Wikipedia's biographys of living persons guidelines. The editor requested that you do not seek to renominate, or create similarly named articles before resolving the issues raised at the articles for deletion notice board. Please assume good faith, take the time to review the links I've highlighted and feel free to message the editor who raised the issues on his or her talk page. Godric (or any other editor) will be happy to answer queries related to your submission. Please do not further this discussion on this talk page, which is reserved for discussion related to the improvement of its associated article. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

He has clearly threatened to not to edit ayurved related articles if you see this link. If you also feel the same, then it is fine! I was just sharing the reason why moral of Wikipedia editors is hampered and why articles related to ayurveda are in bad shape. It is perfectly relevant to have this discussion here because he is threatening to refrain from editing ayurved related articles. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Article on Ritucharya redirected

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I can see that the article on Ritucharya has been redirected. But I will not create the article on my own. Interested editors can take up this task. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is a page for discussions about edits on Ayurveda.And this is not the talk page of any wiki-project which may be concerned about these things.Winged Blades^Godric 06:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Adulteration of medcining claiming to contain rare plants with more commonly available sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ayurvedic medicine claiming to contain rare and nearly extinct plants contains look alikes or plants that are similar but don't have those medicinal properties.

Also mentions lead poisoning.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/dna-barcodes-reveal-adulteration-in-traditional-medicines/article19863429.ece

Userbaba (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

In the diagram under "Diagnosis" the almost-certainly-intended word "Depleting" has been typo'd as "Dipleting"

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I cannot edit the diagram.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.129.96 (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2017‎ (UTC)Reply

@71.176.129.96: I have changed it, if there is a problem the old version can be restored by reverting at [1]. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 02:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

IPA

The IPA for Ayurveda should be ɑːjʊrveɪðɑː and not as it is in the introduction. Can someone change that please (it seems to be locked)? Why is it called a pseudoscience?