Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Charaka Samhita

I have updated the page on the Charaka Samhita which is the primary Ayurvedic text when it comes to drugs and diet. (The focus in the Susruta Samhita is on surgery, and the Susruta Samhita defers to the Charaka Samhita on questions regarding diet and drugs. The Susruta Samhita and the Charaka Samhita are really the two fundamental Ayurvedic texts--other Ayurvedic texts frequently defer to these two authorities.) I would like people editing this page to take a look at the current page on the Charaka Samhita. The things i would like to add to this article are: Charaka Samhita (and by implication Ayurveda) endorses consumption of meat (and not just herbal products--this is a common misconception). Further, the Charaka Samhita even endorses the consumption of beef. Also, the Charaka Samhita (and by implication Ayurveda) endorses the consumption of alcohol in moderate quantity and also has certain views regarding sexual activity. Additionally, there is controversy about whether Charaka (of Charaka Samhita fame) should be considered a single person or multiple individuals. It is also foolish to claim Charaka was the writer of Charaka Samhita when the final redactor, Drdbhala, says in the text that he wrote one third of the text by himself since this portion of the text had become extinct in his time; and further that he re-wrote the rest of the text. I have not used multiple sources for this information. I have only used a single text and fortunately this text is available online: Link I believe this is the single best book on the Charaka Samhita in that it is neither hindu apologist, nor does it dismiss the content in the Charaka Samhita as quackery, and at the same time a scientific textual analysis of the text is presented. Soham321 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with your assessment of the importance of Chattopadhyaya's much-respected study. DomLaguna (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ayurveda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121214094513/http://www.ayurveda.gov.lk:80/dept.html to http://www.ayurveda.gov.lk/dept.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Problematic edits/edit-warring

Amruth M D has now twice added biomedical material sourced to a low-quality primary source (and so which fails WP:MEDRS), stating it is published in the journal Nature - it isn't it's in Scientific Reports which just happens to be one of the many publications within the stable of the Nature Publishing Group. This material is thus inaccurate and has now been edit-warred into the article where it now stands. However I shan't be reverting again because of the exceptional DS regime governing these pages (under which Amruth M D will surely now be blocked). Alexbrn (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Restoring primary sources is not good. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Amruth M D has provided Government link ( ) and newspaper links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amruth M D (talk • contribs)

References

... which are not reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

New genome-wide analysis finds correlation with ayurvedic vata, pitta, kapha

This is quite interesting:

The practice of Ayurveda, the traditional medicine of India, is based on the concept of three major constitutional types (Vata, Pitta and Kapha) defined as “Prakriti”. To the best of our knowledge, no study has convincingly correlated genomic variations with the classification of Prakriti. In the present study, we performed genome-wide SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) analysis (Affymetrix, 6.0) of 262 well-classified male individuals (after screening 3416 subjects) belonging to three Prakritis. We found 52 SNPs (p ≤ 1 × 10−5) were significantly different between Prakritis, without any confounding effect of stratification, after 106 permutations. Principal component analysis (PCA) of these SNPs classified 262 individuals into their respective groups (Vata, Pitta and Kapha) irrespective of their ancestry, which represent its power in categorization. We further validated our finding with 297 Indian population samples with known ancestry. Subsequently, we found that PGM1 correlates with phenotype of Pitta as described in the ancient text of Caraka Samhita, suggesting that the phenotypic classification of India’s traditional medicine has a genetic basis; and its Prakriti-based practice in vogue for many centuries resonates with personalized medicine.[1]

This is published in Scientific Reports, an open access journal from the publishers of Nature. The 2014 impact factor is 5.578, which probably puts it at least in the top 20%.

I think this could be used as a source. The text could say: "A 2015 genome analysis suggested that there may be genetic evidence supporting the ayurvedic classification of individuals according to vata, pitta, and kapha constitutions." TimidGuy (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015

Please, could you place this into further reading or Further Reading or Controversy. Thank you!

• [2] Lead Poisoning in Pregnant Women Who Used Ayurvedic Medications from India — New York City, 2011–2012
• [3] Lead Poisoning Associated with Ayurvedic Medications --- Five States, 2000--2003
• [4] Lead Poisoning and Anemia Associated with Use of Ayurvedic Medications Purchased on the Internet — Wisconsin, 2015
• [5] Use Caution With Ayurvedic Products
• [6] WHO Drug Information Vol. 19, No. 3, 2005
• [7] Lead Poisonings in Children Associated With Some Ayurvedic Medications from India
• [8] Ayurvedic herbal medicine and lead poisoning
• [9] Ayurvedic Medicine Use and Lead Poisoning in a Child: A Continued Concern in the United States
• Lead Poisonings in Children Associated With Some Ayurvedic Medications from India
• Ayurvedic herbal medicine and lead poisoning
• Ayurvedic Medicine Use and Lead Poisoning in a Child: A Continued Concern in the United States

Thelosbellos (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• oppose link clutter. If they are reliable sources, they should be used to support content in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  I have deactivated this request as "not done." This seems like a contentious issue and it would be much better if consensus was reached regarding the addition of these links. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

In this edit[10], Prokaryotes removed well-sourced content from Cancer Research UK (with the comment it was a "charity link"), added material sourced to a NIH site which omitted its key finding, and added attribution where (per WP:ASSERT) it is not neccessary - all of which edits have WP:NPOV problems. Also, in my understanding any controversial edit made to this article without prior agreement on the Talk page would attract automatic discretionary sanctions as described in the notice at the head of this page. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (Add) And the edit has just beenin-part repeated.[11] Prokaryotes, I strongly recommend you self-revert. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Are the rather odd editing restrictions imposed on this page still in force? I believe so. Have they been broken? ... -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably, but I don't approve of them so I'm not seeking action. Alexbrn (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert by Alexbrn

In this DIF editor Alexbrn reverts to a version which omits some key infos and with less authoritative sources.

• Replaced infos on effectiveness with the related infos from NIH, which has more authority.
• Added basic info about source American Cancer Society, link is btw down
• Added basic info about source, Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry
• Removed double reference
• Added names per Wikipedia main usage

We can discuss the update in regards to Charity source vs NIH source. Maybe Alexbrn can explain in more detail why he thinks the NIH source is bad and a charity link better? prokaryotes (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice that editor Alexbrn claims now on my talk page i begun an edit war. prokaryotes (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• CRUK is one of the world's most respected medical organizations. (The fact it is a UK charity is neither here nor there, what would you expect it to be, a corporation?) It is about the strongest WP:MEDRS we could possibly use.
• The NIH source is good but if it's to be used its key point should be too, to quote: "there aren’t enough well-controlled clinical trials and systematic research reviews—the gold standard for Western medical research—to prove that the approaches are beneficial" rather than picking bits to run counter to what they say.
• attributing things can make them appear to be more a point of view when in fact there is no dispute. See WP:ASSERT.

Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've used the information about Efficiency, the scope of the section we discuss here, not the NIH lede, you quote above. And hence why i added inconclusive. If you want to add the CRUK source, then i will not contest this, but the NIH stuff certainly belongs there too. prokaryotes (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact you put "many trials have been inconclusive but some had similar effectiveness" [my bold], which isn't really a fair representation of what that source is saying. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

So what exactly you suggest is wrong with above sentence? prokaryotes (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It implies treatment efficacy when the source as a whole explicitly says these things have not been found efficacious. We need to reflect sources faithfully, to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No. The source precisely state "had similar effectiveness" or even states "had greater decreases in pain". What you doing here is to try to remove editors from editing this article, because you think this article is yours. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR Btw. Do you have any conflict of interest when editing these pages?prokaryotes (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is going in a productive direction. Please WP:FOC. If you are saying you think you did faithfully represent the source then sorry, I disagree. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are unable to explain what is wrong with the content then you shouldn't remove it. You added double refs, you removed the NIH, you removed source infos,you follow my other edits and posts not in support, you threaten me with a block on my talk page, and claim i edit war. You managed to do this all within a couple of minutes, while i was still editing the page. Congratulations you have disrupted me.prokaryotes (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

To be clear I didn't threaten you with a block (I'm not an admin) but warned you were risking one because of the sanctions in effect here. I think I've explained my position on the content clearly enough. To move things forward it would probably help to see specific proposals for changes, if there are any. Alexbrn (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC split

The RFC bot can't handle two separate proposals in the same RFC. Only the first gets "asked" on the central listings, and the other gets ignored. I've created a separate RFC tag for the second, so that it will be visible and advertised. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

History

I organised history. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Length of the lede, Tags

Currently the length of the lede is way too long. I suggest to keep the first paragraph and change it slightly and move the rest in a section called background. The basic issue is that Aryuveda is being deemed a working healing method in Asia, especially India and a sort of wellness practice in the western world. I would give it the same credentials (not more but not less as well) as the likes of Sebastian Kneipp back here. Polentarion Talk 14:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's too long, but even the first paragraph has problems, plus reducing it that far would violate WP:LEDE. I think we just have too much detail, especially in-world detail. It needs a rewrite that adheres much more closely to LEDE: introduce the topic, explain why it's notable, be able to stand on its own, and create interest for readers to continue reading the article body. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. One step after the other. Polentarion Talk 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I played with it for a bit, and am convinced that a complete rewrite is the only solution.

The first step is to identify what should be in the lede: A definition, mention of the history, mention of the types of treatments, mention of the current status, mention of the alt med and pseudoscience aspects of current practice. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither me nor the WHO or WTO not the WIPO do care much about the pseudoscience aspects. But they managed to develope a strategy trying to get the best out of the traditional medieine. I would prefer to use complementary instead of alternative. Aryuveda is a complementary health practice AND a sort of wellness hype with quite some success in export and as well the original regions. I cut the lede in two pieces and added the WHO / WTO / WIPO traditional knowledge medicine strategy and other UN papers, all dealing with Aryuveda en detail. Polentarion Talk 18:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This change did not improve the lede. It is not a background section. It is a summary of the body. This is not the way to shorten the lede. The lede is usually 4 paragraphs. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No sweat with the deletion of the background title. I would still prefer to have a summary of the historical aspects, some of them are - from my POV - a way too detailed and historical for a lede. The current WTO/WHO stuff is much more important. Polentarion Talk 19:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not delete the background section. I moved it back to where the text was originally per WP:LEDE.

The WTO/WHO stuff is much more important? I'm not sure what you are proposing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As said, no prob. Normal BRD circle. But the lede currently has 6 paragraphs and is way too long and clumsy. Just read my edits. Polentarion Talk 19:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not normal to shorten the lede to one paragragh and create duplication in the body. You have not explained exactly which text is "clumsy". QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Its about readability. Currently the lede talks about medieval taxonomies of the Sanskrit knowledge systems and prehistoric setups. Point is we should describe Aryuveda from its presence status as a wellness hype and a complementary medicine with various practices in use. Its not about claiming antediluviuan background. I doubt any continuity in that timely range, e.g. ist rather doubtful that Aryuveda found much use during the british Raj. Polentarion Talk 19:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The lede doe not talk about medieval taxonomies. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Good start to move that section in the body. Something like Thus, the Sushruta Samhita narrates how Dhanvantari, "greatest of the mighty celestials," incarnated himself as Divodāsa, a mythical king of Varanasi, who then taught medicine to a group of wise physicians, including Sushruta himself is nothing of a summary. The whole section starting with "Although laboratory experiments suggest"... is a caveat, not a summary. The section with "Concerns were raised when 20% of Ayurvedic U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines" is as well no summary, but a single scandal. A text like "Ayurveda significantly developed during the Vedic period and later some of the non-Vedic systems such as Buddhism and Jainism also developed medical concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurvedic treatises" repeats the fact that it has deveolped, so what. Something like "Humoral balance is emphasized, and suppressing natural urges is considered unhealthy and claimed to lead to illness." could be said about any sort of medicine. The statement about "Ayurveda names three elemental substances, the doshas (called Vata, Pitta and Kapha), and states that a balance of the doshas results in health, while imbalance results in disease. Ayurveda has eight canonical components, which are derived from classical Sanskrit literature. Some of the oldest known Ayurvedic texts include the Suśrutha Saṃhitā and Charaka Saṃhitā, which are written in Sanskrit." is as well no summary but a very impressive show of facts. Sorry, thats not more than humoral balance and it could have been based on European influences. Nothing worth while mentioning in a lede. Polentarion Talk 20:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC) PS.: The claim of "Some scholars assert that Ayurveda originated in prehistoric times,[17] and that some of the concepts of Ayurveda have been discovered since the times of Indus Valley Civilization and earlier." is WP:weasel at its best. Delete or move it.

When there is an issue with the text you don't move it. You can add you specific proposal to each section below. QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

My point is that no sentence like this should ever be found in a lede. We do not try to impress people with a lede, its about informing. Therefore you have to provide a simple summary of the article, not lengthy sentences loaded with (doubtable) historical facts which are not part of the body. The current TOC mentions 6 basic aspects, the current lede is mainly about history.

1. 1Eight components
2. 2Principles and terminology
3. 3Practice
4. 4Current status
5. 5Classification and efficacy
6. 5.1Research
7. 6History

I'm not sure how I can help at this point. What do others think? QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Second paragraph: "Thus, the Sushruta Samhita narrates how Dhanvantari, "greatest of the mighty celestials," incarnated himself as Divodāsa, a mythical king of Varanasi, who then taught medicine to a group of wise physicians, including Sushruta himself.[7][8]" Is there any suggestion to rewrite the text? QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Third paragraph

[Proposals]

Fourth paragraph

[Proposals]

Draft for the lede

V1

Ayurveda (Sanskrit: आयुर्वेद Āyurveda , "life-knowledge"; English pronunciation /ˌaɪ.ərˈveɪdə/[1]) or Ayurvedic medicine is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. Ayurveda emphasizes a wide range of humoral balances. Besides a variety of elemental substances, the doshas, Ayurveda claims eight canonical components and tries to keep them in balance. Some of the oldest known Ayurvedic texts include the Suśrutha Saṃhitā and Charaka Saṃhitā, which are written in Sanskrit. A large variety of medicinal preparations and surgical procedures was developed in the medieval period. Therapies are typically based on complex herbal compounds, and mineral and metal substances (perhaps under the influence of early Indian alchemy or rasaśāstra) and various physical treatments. Ayurvedic treatises also provide surgical techniques, including rhinoplasty, perineal lithotomy, the suturing of wounds, and the extraction of foreign objects.

Ayurveda has received increased interest with the Indian independence movement and starting with the renewed international interest in traditional medicine in the late 1990ies. Today, according to a study by the University of Minnesota, about 90% of Indians use some form of Ayurvedic medicine.[3] Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurvedic traditions recently became a variety of complementary or alternative medicine[4][5], as well in the Western world. Massage techniques and dietary practices have been integrated in general wellness and touristic applications as well.[6]

Thats enough. ;) Polentarion Talk 20:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose drastic haircut. We should have 4 paragraphs for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why and where? The current content in the lede should be moved to the body, as it is nothing useful for an entry. Polentarion Talk 19:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving it to the body created duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If we had any duplication, delete it. But biggest part of the current lede has no base in the body. Its additional facts, which have no place in a lede. Polentarion Talk 19:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

We have 4 paragraphs. I don't think it should be drastically shortened. Do you have a specific proposal for a better summary for any specific paragraph while maintaining 4 paragraphs? QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why 4 paragraphs, any relation to the Karma of the article? Sorry, the lede should be readable and refering to the article body. Thats not the case so far. Therefore the tagging. Polentarion Talk 19:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

For the length of the body 4 is good. If a sentence is not readable then improve it. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Polentarion Talk 15:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

V2

Ayurveda (Sanskrit: आयुर्वेद Āyurveda , "life-knowledge"; English pronunciation /ˌaɪ.ərˈveɪdə/[1]) or Ayurvedic medicine is a system of traditional health practices with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent.[2]

Ayurveda has received increased interest with the Indian independence movement and starting with the renewed international interest in traditional medicine in the late 1990ies. Globalized and modernized practices derived from Ayurvedic traditions are a type of complementary medicine.[3][4] Its well known that Ayurveda does not fullfill basic assumptions of evidence based medicine.[5] Nevertheless, Ayurveda therapies and practices (which are manyfold) have been integrated in general wellness applications and as well in some cases in general medical use in the Western world.[6][5]

Ayurveda emphasizes a wide range of humoral balances. Besides a variety of elemental substances, the doshas, Ayurveda claims eight canonical components and tries to keep them in balance. Some of the oldest known Ayurvedic texts include the Suśrutha Saṃhitā and Charaka Saṃhitā, which are written in Sanskrit. A large variety of medicinal preparations and surgical procedures was developed in the medieval period. Therapies are typically based on complex herbal compounds, and mineral and metal substances (perhaps under the influence of early Indian alchemy or rasaśāstra) and various physical treatments.[7] Ayurvedic treatises also provide surgical techniques, including rhinoplasty, perineal lithotomy, the suturing of wounds, and the extraction of foreign objects.[8]

Various cases of toxic levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic and further poisonous contents in Ayurvedic patent medicines have been reported.[9][10][11]

Polentarion Talk 16:13, December 20, 2015‎ (UTC)

That is way too short. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Poisons

The lede currently states: "Concerns were raised[by whom?] when 20% of Ayurvedic U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines sold through the Internet were found to contain toxic levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic."

This corresponds to a statement in the body of the article: "A 2008 study of more than 230 products found that approximately 20% of remedies (and 40% of rasa shastra medicines) purchased over the Internet from U.S. and Indian suppliers contained lead, mercury or arsenic."

But currently neither part of the article actually addresses any concerns that these are actually poisons. Should not this be clarified? Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The lede should summarize content, not repeat it in a dubious manner. Delete it. Polentarion Talk 15:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is an issue with the wording then reword it. QuackGuru (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. As said, if you want to have something in the lede, prove that it is a summary. Polentarion Talk 14:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What did you do? There were too many changes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My feelings as well. I was going to unravel the change to figure out what was done, but it was reverted before I could do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I added some sources that underlined poison and heavy metal content in much more than American cases. The current wording states some specific (US) facts, it should never be part of the lede, since its not refering to a larger text in the body. Polentarion Talk 20:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources you added were not in the body. That is a lede violation. You also used different sources that come to different conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dimadick, I clarified it in the lede and body. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

Hi. I noticed the lede reads "Ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[12]", however the citation goes to a chapter from a psychology book that never mentions ayurveda. Can someone replace that citation with a "cn" or remove the statement? Thanks! 71.94.63.135 (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You must have misread the ref, so no. Roxy the dog™ woof 07:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, search for Ayurvedic, not Ayurveda in the cited text. Peaceray (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, though searching is not necessary, just read it. Took me all of thirty seconds. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

An article titled "History of Ayurveda" and shifting major contents there?

I saw this article of History of alternative medicine and found large information here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_alternative_medicine#Ayurvedic_medicine And then I was thinking what if a seperate article is dedicated to History of Ayurveda and if we shift lot of focus there. Many people who try to edit the article in positive way generally want to add up to the information they know about. They must have read something somewhere. So it will be a place where they can write. And as long as it is a history, one need not bother how it will affect patients today because automatically people will see it from the point of history and not as a current medical practice. It was just an off thought. Kindly consider if other senior editor here considers that as a right way to go ahead. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

The introduction concludes with the statement "Today, according to a study by the University of Minnesota, about 90% of Indians use some form of Ayurvedic medicine." (end note 21). However, when the reader clicks through, the citation leads to a LiveScience article making the same assertion (90 percent). Clicking through on that hyperlink leads to a newsletter from a University of Minnesota center for alternative medicine, which makes the 90 percent assertion with no reference to a study. I'd argue this line should be removed until the actual study can be found.

Jodicompton (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/ayurvedic-medicine would be reliable enough IMO to keep the section. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I concur, a source to a general information academic site lacking authors and citations is not a suitable source for a medical or science article at Wikipedia. Raise discussion here, there are now two edits in favour of removal, one opposed. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

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.

---

Pseudoscience

There are 2-3 sources which are used for the claim that A is considered pseudoscience. One reference is from the Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry, which is used to suggest that A is per se pseudoscience. The part cited is rather brief and probably more within the scope of psychological aspects, not judging different herbal remedies. Besides that, there is also the mention that A is probably just a protoscience. But based on the Oxford source alone, when reading the article one gets the impression that almost all of India is just sticking to pseudoscience when it comes to medicine, since the protoscience aspect is only twice mentioned. Pseudoscience is mentioned 5 times. The section on research also mentions pseudoscience, but makes clear distinctions between research and methodologies and thus it depends on applied research methods.

The main source for the claim is very poor and we should at least name the source instead of giving readers a wrong impression about A in general.

• Proposed change
• 1. Add to all parts where it is claimed that A is per se a pseudoscience the name of the source for that claim, i.e. According to the Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry. prokaryotes (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose change as proposed. If we start attributing all the mentions of pseudoscience it will have the non-neutral effect of making this seem like a limited opinion, rather than the uncontentious (in RS) view it appears to be. See WP:ASSERT. Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose change as proposed. There are numerous sources that state it is pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Find better sources If this is as widespread a claim as the editors above me contend, then better sources can be found. All mentions of pseudoscience is currently attributed to a Psychiatry handbook; Other sources include a paper which references a blog by a librarian, another paper which does not call Ayurveda a pseudoscience, a book by an ethnologist, and lastly an academic specialising in complementary and alternative medicine, albeit in a commercial book titled Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Only the last is close to a reliable source for such a statement. Do the WHO, NIH, NHS call it pseudoscientific or do they prefer to wrap the term within traditional, complementary, or alternative medicine? Is it considered pseudoscientific by Indian medical organisations?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  We agree that there is a reliable source. Why do we need more? --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  Nope, we would need a mainstream, not just one book. The pseudoscience claim is a) no mainstream b) completely irrelevant (who cares about scientificality in real life?) and c) the term pseudoscience as such (compare the recent Suhrkamp volume on the topic) is far from being acknowledged and not a really useable term. The allegation can be mentioned in the body of the article but is no use neither for the lede nor as a category. Polentarion Talk 16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

One book will suffice if it's reliable and there is no disputing RS (which as far as I know there isn't). So far as I'm aware RS that considers the question of where Ayurveda sits on the spectrum, place it in the "pseudoscience" category. I mean: balancing your energies and so on .. it's kind of an obvious fact. If anybody is asserting this categorization is seriously disputed they need some good RS to back up their argument. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"we would need a mainstream" howso? Such a requirement seems to violate the policies at the foundation of the discretionary sanctions here, especially NPOV and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

We are being asked to provide a mainstream view, not a fringe view. The WHO does not care a bloody dam about the term pseudoscience. As said, the category and the term as such is useless. There is not much use of the term "pseudoscience" besides some sceptical cults, its a fringe view per se and compare a recent study the term as such as not much of a scientific base. Polentarion Talk 16:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your personal view, we have RS that does consider this categorization, and so it is neutral for us to reflect that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What is fringe? If one book calls Aryuveda pseudoscience and WTO and WHO, based on UNO resolutions and a long term strategy call to integrate Aryuveda in standard healthcare world wide do not care a bloody dam about that claim, pseudoscience is fringe. My view is based on actual practices. The term Pseudoscience lacks a solid scientific base. That said, we always have some sources for a certain view, but we have to apply WP:undue weight. .Polentarion Talk 17:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears we have some sources saying it's pseudoscience, and no sources that contradict them. So the weight would seem to tip the balance in favour of inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Which RS are you talking about, btw? There are a number of cited sources in the article that are being passed off as RS which are clearly not. A source that calls Ayurveda pseudoscience should also explain what about it is pseudoscientific (and that should be included in the article). The burden of proof lies on those making the claim. Terms such as "obvious", "widespread" etc. are quite meaningless. And if it's widespread and obvious then there should be a number of RS making the claim.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The RS we are using. The "obviousness" of pseudoscience is pertinent, as "obvious" pseudoscience can be labelled as such, as is explicitly set out in WP:FRINGE. There is nothing in the WP:PAGs that requires sources to "explain themselves", but as it happens our Oxford handbook does say why ayurvedic medicine is pseudoscience, and we faithfully relay that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn points show again that the term pseudoscience as such is fringy and not being used or discussed outside a certain camp. Its neither widespread nor obvious, its not even being discussed seriously. UndueWeight applies. Polentarion Talk 18:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be right that it's not seriously discussed (in RS). That is because (again from RS) it seems a settled view that needs no discussion. Wikipedia shall faithfully reflect such settled views. Again, people opposing this need to show otherwise. So far: nothing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry is far from being a serious study, its a nice popular book about psychatry, refers to Aryuveda with one sentence and has no scientific value at all. Its on a similar level as the For Dummies series. Its nice youre able to doo google book searches, but this entry has no place in the lede nor in the article. As said, the term pseudoscience per se has no scientific value. Polentarion Talk 19:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: an academic medical handbook, now in its 3rd edition, published by a well-respected press, and even highly commended by the BMA.[12] It meets both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. The point is that ayurvedic medicine being pseudoscience is a lightweight, commonplace sort of claim that does not need a heavyweight source. So this (actually quite heavyweight) source is easily more than ample for the purpose of supporting it. We reflect such knowledge here: that is the basic function of constructing an encyclopedia in a neutral way. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Its far from being an academic study about the topice here, it mentions Aryuveda once. As said, the term pseudoscience is a) rubbish and b) of no real world interest with regard to Aryuveda. The actual trend is to globally integrate Aryuveda and other traditional medical health practices in mainstream medicine. Backed by WTO and WHO. Polentarion Talk 19:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It is published by OUP's "Academic" division - that makes it an academic book despite your assertions to the contrary. This, and your other arguments, seem now to be simply personal objections ("rubbish" / "of no interest") which are not grounded in our WP:PAGs. As such, they can be dismissed for the purposes of reaching consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As said, its a one-word mentioned sideshow in a book having no direct connection to the topic of this article. RS should deal with the topic, not mention it once. Polentarion Talk 15:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC) PS.: I would prefer doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1364013 - its clear that Aryuveda - as a complete health system - is not part of evidence based medicine. Pseudoscience is something else. Polentarion Talk 14:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The particular source emphasized in the RfC is a perfectly good academic reference book, which seems to make a passing mention that A is pseudoscience. We have multiple reliable sources which state that it is pseudoscience, and no disagreement that the parts which claim to be science are, in fact, pseudoscience. There does seem to be disagreement as to what parts are claimed to be science. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The suggestion would not improve the article. We don't WP:ASSERT the obvious, and it's not allowable to frame nonsense with a favorable bias. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't do things like that, the source is fine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose One reliable source is enough. The proposed change adds ambiguity when there is none. Jschnur (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support and with alternative, there is one source and probably one more which is not enough. This handbook source has no description or insight that would describe how it is pseudoscientific. Given that Ayurveda is very much researched it is obvious that one author must be unaware of Ayurveda to this extent. It would be better if we remove it from the lead and write on other section by specifically asserting it, with better attribution like, "Like other alternative medicines.." Or give same weight to protoscience label as we did to pseudosceince. Capitals00 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Attribution isn't needed in this case, especially since it can cause issues when dealing with WP:FRINGE subjects like this. WP:FRINGE/PS especially gives guidance on this when it comes to labeling pseudoscience. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should WP:ASSERT these things - attributing them to sources makes them seem subjective. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

NIH Data on Efficacy

The National Institute for Health has a page about A, including the effectiveness of A products.

• Proposed addition
• 1. Add: According to the NIH, many trials have been inconclusive but some tested similar effectiveness, i.e. herbs for rheumatoid arthritis, or turmeric may help with digestive disorders or arthritis. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayurveda&type=revision&diff=695318588&oldid=695318490 prokaryotes (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Proposed Change - The claim that Ayurveda is pseudoscience pretty widespread. Are we going to name all the sources making the claim to all parts where it is claimed that Ayurveda is per se a pseudoscience? I think it's sufficient to make one simple statement in the lede saying something like "Most mainstream academic, professional and scientific authorities do not accept the efficacy of Ayurveda and consider it a pseudoscience". NickCT (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I support such a statement, but do we have a reference for this? The Oxford Handbook clearly has shortcomings for such a broad statement.prokaryotes (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't it would be that hard to find sources. Here's one "(Ayurveda) is largely seen as a pseudoscience" NickCT (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is with medical sources, that we need sources per WP:MEDRS, and btw Alexbrn the editor is one of the big proponents of this guidelines. But somehow on this page here he seems fine with a Handbook and brief unclear mention, talking about double standards. prokaryotes (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS sources are required for WP:BIOMEDICAL information. The question of whether something is pseudoscientific falls more into the realm of philosophy of science, which is not an area that requires MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet, the large majority in India the land of A, uses A as a health remedy. Hence why it falls under MEDRS. From your link: "Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health." prokaryotes (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If we were saying Ayurveda is or is not efficacious/pseudoscience MEDRS might apply. We're not saying that though. We're just saying a certain people set of people consider it pseudoscience. There's a subtle but important difference.... NickCT (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose change as proposed. We already have a CRUK source which says effectively the same thing as NIH/NCCIH (the page is here), and the proposed text rather cherry-picks the NCCIH source to imply Ayurvedic drugs might work, while omitting NCCIH's "key point" that no Ayurvedic remedy is considered efficacious. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, the NIH proposal is based on the NIH section for efficiency, and you ignore the word inconclusive, besides i pointed this out to you earlier already. prokaryotes (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to represent a source faithfully with a short extract, it's a good idea to get its "key points" (aka conclusion) rather than extracting something from the detail which, taken out of context, actually runs against the grain of what those key points say. WP:STICKTOSOURCE - the NCCIH never intended their source to be taken simply as a "hint" the particular ayurvedic remedies might work. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose change as proposed. We don't need to state "According to the NIH". QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No use for the lede. WHO (and WTO) is quite positive about the useability of traditional medicine (including Aryuveda), especially against chronical deaseases and has a whole program ongoing, trying to facilitate the integration of the on or other Aryuveda practice (if and when useable) in general healthcare. That said, you don't need a NHI perspective, there is a sort of acceptance on a global level. Its just better to ignore the likes of CSI and other sceptical movement adherents. Polentarion Talk 16:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Proposed change is irrelevant to the article. A neutral summary of the NIH article would be that, although there is no evidence that A is plausible or accurate, some herbs proposed in (some implementations of) A may be effective. I don't see why the latter part is relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2015 (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.

ayurveda vs ayurvedic.

I know both ayurveda and ayurvedic are employed but I see only one need to imply both meanings those two words give and that is ayurveda. If I somehow want Devanagari ayurvedic ( a nonsense in my mind), I get this आयुर्वेदिच् which makes ayurvedich in sound. The following gives the k sound but is entered as ayurvedik to a translating website to achieve that;आयुर्वेदिक. As no virama formed on k it is ka, so ayurvedika which is ok but I dont see the k or ka spelling making headway at this late stage. A virama could be added and ayurvedik would be the result. So did the k come about through a Germanic common usage which became an English c? In the first place such a word as ayurveda has a very definite meaning expressed by the devanagari आयुर्वेद. This latter symbol has not the convolutions the others have and that is a context of ayurveda also in my mind.Sudaama90 (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Ayurveda" is the noun, and "Ayurvedic" is the corresponding adjective in English. I see that the adjective goes back at least as far as 1933 (see Chopra's Indigenous Drugs Of India), and probably several centuries. In English, the adjective "Ayurvedic" is also much more common than the noun "Ayurveda" (see Google ngrams). As far as I know, the English adjective corresponds to the Hindi phrase आयुर्वेद का. -- 120.19.90.19 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding reference to a paragraph under Principles and Terminology

{edit semi-protected}

Under the section Principles and Terminology, regarding the following paragraph:

"Ayurveda also names three elemental substances, the doshas (called Vata, Pitta and Kapha), and states that a balance of the doshas results in health, while imbalance results in disease. One Ayurvedic view is that the doshas are balanced when they are equal to each other, while another view is that each human possesses a unique combination of the doshas which define this person's temperament and characteristics. In either case, it says that each person should modulate their behavior or environment to increase or decrease the doshas and maintain their natural state."

I have written an article describing the specific details behind this belief in the doshas in this page: http://eupterrafoundation.com/ayurvedic-body-types-diet-recommendations

Would it be helpful to have this linked to the "modulate their behavior or environment" phrase as a link or add reference to this to the paragraph for further information for readers to have?

~EupterraenEupterraen 15:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eupterraen (talk • contribs)

Not reliable. Please be aware of WP:COI, as you appear to be representing an organisation. Alexbrn (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add to the discussion of ayurveda being a pseudoscience: A strong argument against the claim of ayurveda being pseudoscientific would be, for example, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology (a peer-reviewed biomedical research journal), reporting the findings of a double-blind randomised controlled trial of ayurvedic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis compared to methrodextrate (the established biomedical treatment of choice), which found ayurvedic treatment to be just as effective. In my opinion, one cannot claim a medical system to be pseudoscientific, when it has been shown to be effective by the golden standard means of testing in biomedical research (double-blinded RCT). A link to the abstract of the study can be found here: .

This adds to a number of other studies conducted on ayurvedic therapies, according to biomedical research standard, which have found significant effects. So I would strongly argue for an edit to the claim of ayurveda being pseudoscientific - those making that claim are obviously simply not well-informed about the research that has actually been conducted and published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.46.248 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ayurveda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150723225058/http://thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Weeklong+programme+to+observe+Health+Day&NewsID=395245 to http://thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Weeklong+programme+to+observe+Health+Day&NewsID=395245

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cyberbot II, it appears your archive link works. How do I set the parameter to "true"? Eupterraen 15:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eupterraen (talk • contribs)

I checked the three archive.org instances, and all just redirect rather than hold an archived copy of the source. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Public health implications of toxins unknown?

In the subsection "Use of toxic metals" it says, "may include toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic.[15] The public health implications of metals in rasa shastra in India is unknown.[15]

This is referenced to a 2008 paper about some tests the authors conducted on Ayurvedic medicines. This paper includes the statement:

"The public health impact of metals in rasa shastra and contaminated herbal medicines in India is unknown and controversial."23

This is referenced to an article in Frontline (magazine), a magazine published by the publishers of the newspaper The Hindu

23. Ramachandran R. For better regulation. Frontline. 2006. [Accessed April 14, 2008]. http://www.flonnet.com/fl2302/stories/20060210002004500.htm.

The first problem is that this is in a section about efficacy. Secondly, a statement of such magnitude can't just be backed by a primary source citing a general-interest magazine.

WP:MEDRS

Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The source that the source used is irrelevant. The actual source is reliable for this statement, especially considering WP:PARITY. —PermStrump(talk) 06:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS trumps WP:PARITY. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The risk posed by contamination of ayurvedic products is well-known and hardly controversial. For a heavyweight source there was a systematic review on this topic in 2002: PMID 11936709. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Advocates think heavy metals are healthy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The first issue here is whether to remove a sentence because the reference supporting it does not comply with WP:MEDRS. The sentence is: "The public health implications of such metallic contaminants in India are unknown.[15]"

In response to Alexbrn: the source you cite also does not satisfy WP:MEDRS.

Just to put this into context, public health officials and the mainstream medical establishment have been contending with this sort of issue for many years. At one time they tried to educate people about Traditional Medicine (TM), explaining that it was pseudoscience and harmful. This worked up to a point, but then ran into the law of Diminishing returns. In other words, it stopped working and began backfiring.

Today the approach is to accept TM as a traditional cultural practice, more-or-less on a par with organized religion. It is not the task and doctors and scientists to tell people that their culture and religious beliefs are wrong.

As a result, organizations such as the World Health Organization (and many others) try to work with people in TM, to identify beneficial and harmful practices, to promote the beneficial, and to engage in harm reduction through education and regulation.

The paper cited in note [15] illustrates the kind of approach I'm talking about. This chart for example. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The body of the source you just linked (note 15) states "Among the metal-containing products, 95% were sold by US Web sites and 75% claimed Good Manufacturing Practices. All metal-containing products exceeded 1 or more standards for acceptable daily intake of toxic metals." This information is essential for harm reduction. It's not clear to me what change you're proposing to the article. —PermStrump(talk) 05:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zyxwv99: PMID 11936709 is MEDRS (and is also RS of course), unless it's been superseded by a more recent source of equivalent strength. As it happens Ernst has written recently the situation is still bad, here in a blog post, which would be usable per WP:BLOGS. As to your general idea on this topic, remember WP:NOTFORUM Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I initiated this thread to discuss the removal of one sentence: "The public health implications of such metallic contaminants in India are unknown.[15]" My reason is that ref 15 does not satisfy WP:MEDRS for such a broad and sweeping statement. Unfortunately, others have interjected their own proposals here instead of starting threads of their own. I made the mistake of responding to those proposals instead of sticking to the subject. I think we should stick to the original proposal. Any discussion of adding new material to this article should be discussed somewhere else. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Should Ayurvedic medicine or rasa shastra be described as a public health hazard?

I recently started a thread (above) titled "Public health implications of toxins unknown?" The purpose of that thread was to discuss my proposal to remove one sentence from the article: "The public health implications of metals in rasa shastra in India is unknown.[15]" I felt that such a broad statement could not be supported by a primary source, as per WP:MEDRS. The thread turned into a discussion about the harmful effects, as if the sentence I wanted to remove needed to be replaced with a more forceful statement about harmful effects.

Since others here seem determined to include a broad statement about harmful effects, I thought that should be a separate proposal in its own thread. Personally I don't think such a broad statement can be supported by the kind of sources that would be acceptable. In the 1950s, organizations like the FDA or the AMA might have made such statements, but as I pointed out above, public health agencies nowadays tend to shy away from broad condemnations of traditional medicine. Instead, they focus on a harm-reduction model. As a result, even though I personally think that rasa shastra is "scary-dangerous", I think including such a broad statement would not be within the scope of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, as it does not reflect the position of the kind of sources we should be citing. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

We should say the heavy metals and other toxic ingredients of ayurvedic remedies pose a risk to people taking them, using the good Ernst sources discussed in the section above. Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it only the rasa shastra remedies, or other Ayurvedic medicines as well? Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this a continuation of the conversation above or something totally separate? Just making I understand what we're talking about before responding. —PermStrump(talk) 19:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a page number for saying "The heavy metals and other toxic ingredients of ayurvedic remedies pose a risk to people taking them". I have a copy of the Ernst 2002 review (PMID 11936709). QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The last 2 paragraphs of the conclusion (page 895):

It is thus important that doctors are aware of the risks associated with HMPs [4] and include questions about HMP use during the routine taking of a patient’s history [29]. This obviously goes far beyond the possibility of heavy metal contamination, also covering areas like herbal toxicity and herb–drug interactions [29, 30].
In conclusion, some traditional Indian HMPs have been shown to contain dangerously large amounts of heavy metals (particularly lead) resulting in serious intoxication. This knowledge should encourage us to investigate this issue further and, if necessary, find means of minimising the risk of heavy metal poisoning through HMPs in the future.

—PermStrump(talk) 06:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ignore my first (struck out) comment. I missed the top of the OP somehow. Re: The original question, these review articles—Kosalec (2009) and Parasuraman (2014)—are clear that high levels of heavy metals and the related health risks are a pervasive problem across Ayurvedic products due to contamination from where they're grown and/or manufactured, not just rasa shastra, where the metals are intentionally added. WHO has made clear statements on the topic as well: "According to the principles of Ayurvedic medicine, heavy metals may be used because of their reputed therapeutic properties. However, improper manufacturing processes may result in dangerously high levels of heavy metals remaining in the final product. Heavy metals pose a particular health risk because they may accumulate in vital organs..." I haven't seen any reliable sources that attribute this problem exclusively to rasa shastra, so no, I don't think it would be at all appropriate to make that claim in the article. And considering the review articles explicitly address the importance of educating the public about the potential risks, it makes sense for us to clearly articulate them in this article. —PermStrump(talk) 06:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The article on Traditional Chinese medicine#Safety has a substantial subsection entitled "Safety". That seems like a good word, since the FDA uses the phrase "safe and effective when used as directed" to describe approved drugs. Ideally this article should have an entire section on Safety. Here, safety information is buried in a sub-subsection "Use of toxic metals" under subheading "Research" in section "Classification and efficacy." Having an entire section would obviate the need for broad, sweeping statements, since we could say more precisely what the problems are. Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea if there were a draft version that other editors could contribute to before it went live. —PermStrump(talk) 20:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read all of the discussion above, but the title of this section says it all. I think a good metaphor, case, or example is chemotherapy. Chemotherapy drugs are powerful drugs and can have some very serious side effects. However, I don't think the medical system goes around calling it poison or a health hazard; they just say it has side effects etc.. Though obviously people shouldnt take chemotherapy drugs if they dont need them. Also those drugs are obviously regulated prescription etc stuff.

I hope the chemo drugs can and do help at least many of those if that need them. The side effects are dangerous and people don't just take stuff for no reason, healthy people don't take the drugs not just because it would be not allowed since it is regulated by prescription etc but also because a healthy person to take chemo drugs would be bad for them.

I don't know the science on things like heavy metals etc but maybe they have a down side like some other prescription medications though I dont know the science on them though I suppose it is at least possible that they can be they can help some people more than they hurt those people possibly, or maybe not I don't know, but we can use common sense here and along those lines of course people shouldn't take them if they don't need them.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2016

Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no evidence that any are effective as currently proffered.[11] Ayurveda medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[12]

I would suggest removing these lines as the sources provided do not state the same at all. Moreover, many of Ayurveda's have been scientifically tested in laboratories and have helped pharmaceuticals develop new drugs based on such studies.Ayurveda also gives one of the first detailed descriptions of surgery in the world, and this can be verified by referring books such as the Susruta Samhita Ramgopalc24 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

References

The sources seem fine for the content.

Note for medical claims such as what you are arguing, WP:MEDRS sources are required.

I don't understand what descriptions of early surgery has to do with any of it. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as the cited reliable sources back up the existing text, whereas you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

59.184.132.78 (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC) ayurveda's where very historical and devosnal riligion

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. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  The question/comment being stated here is, I think, is what I noticed too i.e.: 

"This article is part of a series on Alternative and pseudo-medicine" There are studies supporting alternative and complementary medicine etc. So to say it is pseudo medicine comes off as dismissive or might rub people the wrong way for various reasons. Thus, the idea I believe is to change the title to be more accurate or not rub people the wrong way. I get that it is good to warn people when modern medicine and other things differ or haven't come together yet so they can make the best health decisions.

    Ayurveda as the article translated it means "life-knowledge." Life transcends medicine, and so as the article also stated "Other researchers consider it a protoscience, or trans-science system instead.[13][14]" 

Thus, while I think a person unfamiliar should be cautious and keep in mind some of the ideas in Ayurveda may not have been studied scientifically or might even differ from modern medicine, there can be knowledge gained from learning about it. I don't think medical treatments or ideas from a couple hundred years ago in the west or before bacteria were discovered, even if they didn't work or didn't work well, arent considered pseudo medicine are they? If the history of western medicine is considered they aren't apparently part of the series, so it is more like the history and philosophies of medicine and more. Part of Ayurveda has some philosophy, though India had pioneered things and was the first to do things like certain surgeries etc. So to dismiss Ayurveda as pseudo science might sound like all Indian contributions to medicine are being spoken of though obviously there There are also things in Ayurveda that didn't get researched with modern academic science and medicine yet though it is being found that there are alternative or complementary medicine therapies worth looking into if one so chooses. Even modern western medicine can have drawbacks, side effects, and other such things, so it isn't perfect yet. If only it were so simple as it is in Star Trek where they can just spend a few seconds and a person heals completely. Also, the article notes that Ayurveda is part of series on Hinduism. If it is, one should make sure to keep the article objective and respectful because it can be offensive possibly to some people since religion and philosophy is part of the topic of life knowledge and thus makes sense. Thus you can also see where that can be offensive... to compare a religion to pseudo science is probably offensive. Religions are religion not science though they may overlap too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:583:706:9E70:7D9E:C118:DBD1:7054 (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010045900/http://medind.nic.in:80/iae/t07/i4/iaet07i4p243.pdf to http://medind.nic.in/iae/t07/i4/iaet07i4p243.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010045900/http://medind.nic.in:80/iae/t07/i4/iaet07i4p243.pdf to http://medind.nic.in/iae/t07/i4/iaet07i4p243.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016

heavy metal content is high in ayurvedic medicines because some medicinal plants used in it(eg. Bacopa moneri) have the capability of absorbing heavy metals from soil ayurveda though it its principle is outdated is a very effective branch of medicine because of countless trial and error experiments carried out over generations Tompyro (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Caesarian section in ayurveda

Dear Crawford88, you just reverted my removal of the assertion that Ayurveda knows of caesarian section. Caesarian section is normally understood as the delivery of a living child through abdominal section of a living mother. There is no such description in any surviving ayurvedic text. Please check for yourself. Also, the reference work History of Indian Medical Literature clarifies this. There does exist a description in Vāgbhaṭa's Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā of the removal of a dead foetus from from the womb of a living mother, and of a living child from the womb of a mother who has died (शारीरस्थान २, गर्भव्यापद्, २.२६-२७, २.५३). But both descriptions speak of removal of the fetus through the uterine passage. Neither description can be used to assert that early Indian ayurveda knew the caesarian section procedure. The Sanskrit text can be read at archive.org. The earlier description of the Suśrutasaṃhitā (चिकित्सास्थान १५ "मूढगर्भ") is similar. A dead fetus is removed through the uterine passage and vagina. Suśruta does not describe removing a living child from a dead mother.

I hope you find these references interesting and that they will convince you that it is incorrect to refer to "cesarian section" being known in early Ayurveda. Please revert your reversion :-)

Wujastyk 21:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

References

It was restored with (Magner, Lois N. (August 13, 2002). A History of the Life Sciences, Revised and Expanded. CRC Press. p. 6. ISBN 9780824708245. Retrieved 26 December 2016.) as a source, which as far as I can tell simply lists caesarean section without explanation. I cannot tell what, if any references from this source might verify the information. It's not in the index. Given the comments above and the medical techniques required for a successful caesarean, I find it highly dubious with this single source. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking into it further, I think the problem is any association with modern medicine or equivalency to modern caesarean procedures. There's a couple of ways we could approach this, qualifying it properly or removing it. I think removal would be better.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/cesarean/part1.html gives a bit more history, emphasizing that historically it was a last resort procedure to save the life of the baby when the mother was dead or dying. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We would need multiple MEDRS sources to indicate this term is an equivalent to the same term and action in modern medicine. We might say that, historically this was an option in Ayurveda but I would suggest we are on tricky ground in allowing the article to set up a false equivalency. So, I'd remove.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC))

I vote for a qualified mention (probably with a footnote). Crawford88 (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you suggest? --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have done some edits with sfn. Plz see. Crawford88 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

I am an Ayurvedic Doctor and i want to remove the pseudoscience reference here. It is not correct for ayurveda. Pseudo science means science which mistakenly taken as scientific. Here ayurveda is having scientific principles and anyone who have the doubt can verify the base. This is an era where modern medicine accepting many ayurvedic solutions as correct.

 Not done and won't be done - This has been discussed repeatedly and the current wording is the consensus. Please see the archives (1-13) in the top yellow box and the latest discussion in the purple box at the top of this page - please also see the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience as summarized in the yellow box above the purple one. - Arjayay (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this request should be considered because I also think this should be considered. There is a way to be accurate and objective without being offensive and dismissive of research progress. Recent science advances are finding a number of things that are known in Ayurveda are actually being confirmed in modern western science. So how can something that is at least in part being scientifically validated be called a pseudo science? There has to be a better way to acknowledge that in some ways we know more now than we did before and that in some ways we know less than we did before. It is the nature of modern science to test everything etc. So things that were tested before and found to be true may be true. It is just that modern academia is trying to confirm it within the modern paradigm and retrying it or even trying it for the first time.

also "Close to 21% of Ayurveda U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines sold through the Internet were found to contain toxic levels of heavy metals, specifically lead, mercury, and arsenic.[15] The public health implications of such metallic contaminants in India are unknown.[15]" there is something wrong with that I think. Another poster mentioned concerns about this too I believe. Ayurveda is not the worldwide supplement industry! Did you know Consumer Reports did testing and found heavy metals in many popular brands of protein powders?? Check their website. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/july/food/protein-drinks/whats-in-your-protein-drink/index.htm lead arsenic cadmium mercury. I mention the protein powders because that is supplement industry stuff. Also, protein suppliments are very popular in the USA. They contain heavy metals a ot of them apparently. The supplement industry and its lack of regulation is a different topic than the topic of Ayurveda. There can be subsection where some supplements had impurities in them if there was heavy metal when there wasn't supposed to be, or there can be discussion of the topic of intentionally using heavy metal as part of some ayurvedic treatments, however these are two different topics. Ayurveda is a body of knowledge not a bottle of nutritional supplements and the subsequent industry that is being bought and sold.

Letting people know that some traditional medicine therapies and perhaps systems should be looked upon with more of a historical or philosophical lens than a medical one is useful, however some of these ancient treatments are actually still good. Just because something gets involved with nutritional supplements doesn't mean that it isn't legit. Vitamin D is available over the counter as a nutritional supplement but it is also available by prescription. Vitamin D is also available for free by getting some sun on your skin. three ways to look at it for example. perhaps the traditional ways might not emphasize ingestion and might suggest getting sun daily for a period of time but that works.

I don't have time to goive more concise and such talk but hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaisgreat (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A preliminary clinical trial in 2011, funded in part by NCCIH, found that conventional and Ayurvedic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis had similar effectiveness. The conventional drug tested was methotrexate and the Ayurvedic treatment included 40 herbal compounds. Knightplex (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Classification and efficacy section

"Although traditional researchers find evidences of the efficacy of Ayurveda in treating various ailments like polycystic ovarian syndrome, [86][87] rheumatoid arthritis, [88][89] osteoarthritis [90] and general health interventions. [91] Traditional researchers and Ayurvdic practitioners believe that there's is a "considerable bias" against Ayurveda in the western medical literatures.[92] They claim that scientists of repute but illiterate in Ayurveda, often confuse herballism and folklore with the organized systems of medicine such as Ayurveda while acknowledging deficiencies in quality control and standardization in the use of herbal medicine.[92]"

It´s unclear who/what traditional researchers/traditional research is. Also, the first sentence ends unexpectedly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

How did that get in? Not a single reliable (WP:MEDRS) source there and otherwise undue. Have removed as it's obviously problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Traditional researcher/research: I guess it was self-explanatory. 'People who are Ayurvedic practitioners. Who understand the text and have undergone training in Ayurveda'. Or in wikipediaic parlance, WP:PRIMARY.
• Unexpected ending of first sentence is alterable. Not a big issue per-se.
• The sources cited are Ayu: International Quaterly Journal of Research in Ayurveda, International Journal of Ayurveda Research, Clinical Rheumatology Journal of the International League of Associations for Rheumatology , The Scientific World Journal and [Current Science, IISC Journal]. All of them are academic journals and publishers of very high repute among Ayurvedic practitioners and thus are WP:RS. Since the efficacy was being questioned from a non-practitioner POV, I thought of adding a primary POV. Crawford88 (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not okay: all claims of treatment efficacy must be sourced to WP:MEDRS; it is WP:PROFRINGE otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

About your first point, so "Traditional researchers and Ayurvdic practitioners" means "Ayurvdic practitioners and Ayurvdic practitioners"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Tell me why the sources cited are not WP:MEDRS. What charecteritics did you deduce of these publications which makes them unreliable? Also, the WP:UNDUE part is not valid, because in the entire article, there is absolutely no space for dissent even if WP:FRINGE.
• No, "Ayurvedic researchers and Ayurvedic Practitioners". Crawford88 (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually read MEDRS? If so you'd know that (taking the first source) PMID 22131680 is about as poor a source as it's possible to have: an old primary source in a low-quality journal. It also fails WP:FRIND and raises a WP:REDFLAG for good measure. Alexbrn (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

More unclear

"The study of the lethal points or marman marma is of special importance.[32]"

It´s unclear what this means, but is it possible that "lethal points" should actually be "vital points"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Two more things:

• The Principles and terminology section has text about doshas, this text has no source.
• The section Panchakarma sucks a bit, so does the main article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

Compare Diagnosis/treatment sections (they´re short) to [13]. Did we copy this guy, or vice versa? Or did we both copy someone else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The sentence "The study of the lethal points or marman marma is of special importance." seems surprisingly popular, whatever that means.[14]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Add.

Add YogiCameron.com to website list under Ayurveda page. Pt0wN973b0iI (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pt0wN973b0iI: See WP:SPAM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source found.

This surely seems to be a reliable source.

A preliminary clinical trial in 2011, funded in part by NCCIH, found that conventional and Ayurvedic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis had similar effectiveness. The conventional drug tested was methotrexate and the Ayurvedic treatment included 40 herbal compounds. Knightplex (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Reliable for what? As the text says "Most clinical trials of Ayurvedic approaches have been small, had problems with research designs, or lacked appropriate control groups, potentially affecting research results." This is one of those crappy trials. Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you know this was a crappy trial? It says it was funded by NCCIH itself. At least this should be mentioned in the main article that a preliminary study was conducted and Ayurveda had similar effectiveness. We don't have to deliberately keep information from people do we? Knightplex (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Because even the source you linked (and NCCIH is not that reputable anyway) said these trials were problematic. We would need good secondary sources to make statements about research outcomes. Alexbrn (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should remove the sentence that says Ayurveda is pseudo-scientific. I'm saying can't this sentence be in the original article? "A preliminary clinical trial in 2011, funded in part by NCCIH, found that conventional and Ayurvedic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis had similar effectiveness. The conventional drug tested was methotrexate and the Ayurvedic treatment included 40 herbal compounds."Knightplex (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No, because it is both undue and not discussed in WP:RS. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Toxicology especially of Heavy Metals in Ayurvedic Medicine (Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017)

Add toxicology or poisoning group(Subtitle). Many people got heavy metal poisoned because of Ayurveda including myself. Adding a poisoning subtitle will make users more aware of this issue.

1 out of 5 ayurvedic medicines contain heavy metals according to a study. Transcript Source(Click the Transcript button): https://nutritionfacts.org/video/amla-and-triphala-tested-for-metals/

Bhasas are purified using Mercury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhasma

Lead, Mercury, and Arsenic in US- and Indian-Manufactured Ayurvedic Medicines Sold via the Internet https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/182460

Even government(American, canadian, etc) websites warn of effects and studies of effects of ayurvedic products. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755247/ Three Cases of Lead Toxicity Associated with Consumption of Ayurvedic Medicines https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001842/

Foreign Product Alert: 11 Baidyanath brand ayurvedic products http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2016/57348a-eng.php Userbaba (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I ruined my life cos of heavy metal poisoning. I'm retarded now. Don't let this happen to other people. Userbaba (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind it seems to already be there. Userbaba (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

article already contains relevant information with better RS. Edaham (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Hi, I am new to editing wikipedia, so please excuse me if I make mistakes. I just wanted to respond to this point. Calling Ayurveda a 'pseudoscience' just because it is an CAM or alternative medicine is not fair in my opinion. In fact Ayurveda is quite scientific, if you read the Charaka Samhita you will be surprised how scientific it is. Yes, it does have a different metaphysics from modern medicine, in that it believes in soul etc but that does not make it unscientific. In terms of classifying diseases, describing symptoms(diagnosis) and treatments one would be surprised how scientific it is. There is a lot of current research into traditional drugs prescribed by Ayurveda for certain conditions, which have found the Ayurvedic drug is just as good, if not better as a modern drug for the same condition. For example Evolvulus alsinoide, known in Ayurveda as a 'Shankapushpi' drug, used to treat mental diseases like dementia, has been clinically demonstrated to have similar potency to the modern drug Piracatem. I would just like to cite one passage from the Charaka Samhita, and you decide yourself whether it is scientific or pseudoscience:

Curable disorders recede by drugs having opposite properties and administered with due consideration of place, dose and time. Treatment of incurable diseases is not advised. [62] (Charaka Samhita, Translated by P.V Sharma) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:9e2f:ff00:4dc8:5c67:cb7d:1159 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's pseudoscience, not that it matters. We report what the sources say. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ayurveda is extremely logical. Pseudo means false and science means knowledge. What evidence is there that Ayurveda knowledge is by any means false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.40.228 (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ayurvedic medicine contains poisonous heavy metals especially bhasmas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhasma

Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Lead, Mercury, and Arsenic in…Ayurvedic Medicines Sold via the Internet.” Once again, one-fifth of the medicines: contaminated. When the Boston study came out, there were calls for mandatory testing of all imported dietary supplements for toxic heavy metals. But this study found that the prevalence of metals in U.S.-manufactured Ayurvedic medicine was the same, if not higher, than those imported from India. They found lead levels violating safety limits in products with names like “Worry Free,” a pediatric preparation. Mercury in products like “Breath of Life.” And arsenic levels exceeding EPA limits in triphala. Mercury in triphala, and lead in triphala. Okay, I guess we can scratch that off the list. That’s why my smoothies have amla, not triphala. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/amla-and-triphala-tested-for-metals/

How is heavy metal poisoning medicine scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userbaba (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028125555/http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005af3_31.pdf to http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005af3_31.pdf

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) 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Addition to Research Section

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Here is my suggested edit to the Research section of this page, to include recent peer-reviewed studies by respected researchers and institutions in the U.S. Please feel free to discuss and then update the Wikipedia page accordingly. It does make sense to include a section on recent and current research being done on Ayurvedic based interventions in the USA. I have included citations to the relevant media articles as well as medical journal references (including from one of the most prestigious scientific journals, Nature).

Suggested inclusion to the Research section of the page:

---

In the U.S.A., researchers Dr. Jim Dahl & Kathy Falk published a peer-reviewed study on "Ayurvedic herbal supplements as an antidote to 9/11 toxicity." Also the Self-Directed Biological Transformation Initiative (SBTI), in collaboration with Harvard University, the University of California San Francisco, Mount Sinai Hospital, Duke University, Scripps Translational Science Institute, Sanford Burnham Medical Research Institute, and the University of California San Diego have undertaken multiple studies on Ayurvedic based interventions such as the effect of Panchakarma on physiological and psychological wellbeing.

References

DrNewYork (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please ensure any WP:Biomedical information is backed by WP:MEDRS. Altmed journals, primary sources and stuff by Deepak Chopra is not reliable in this context. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Alexbrn. I appreciate you linking me to that reference page - that is helpful.. What about this journal reference? I'm assuming because it is featured on Nature.com that it must pass the standards of reliability? DrNewYork (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

References

No (and it's in Scientific Reports, a low-quality offshoot of Nature). It's a primary source, so fails WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you Alexbrn - very helpful. --DrNewYork (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

DrNewYork (talk) — As someone who survived 9-11 toxicity because of Ayurvedic medicine, I think this is a welcome and brilliant addition. Alexbrn For my own Wiki-knowledge base, can you please explain how Deepak Chopra, a world renowned Ayurvedic expert, is not a valid reference? Victoriasays (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Because Deepak Chopra. -Roxy the dog. bark 22:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Taking Ayurveda out of Pseudoscience

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)

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)

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)

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))

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

• 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218132643/http://ccimindia.org/introduction.html to http://ccimindia.org/introduction.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150513230414/http://www.ias.ac.in/academy/dvdocs/ayurvis.pdf to http://www.ias.ac.in/academy/dvdocs/ayurvis.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424031013/http://www.indigenousmedimini.gov.lk/Downloads/Statistics%20Report%20Final%202011.%20November.pdf to http://www.indigenousmedimini.gov.lk/Downloads/Statistics%20Report%20Final%202011.%20November.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140530011813/http://ccras.nic.in/about_ccras/about_research_in_ayurveda.htm to http://ccras.nic.in/about_ccras/about_research_in_ayurveda.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209174803/http://archive.financialexpress.com/news/ayurveda-linked-to-lead-poisoning-in-us-women/992558/0 to http://www.financialexpress.com/news/ayurveda-linked-to-lead-poisoning-in-us-women/992558/0

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)

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

user talk page related discussion - Edaham (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
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) Duly noted. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC) 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) 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)

Article on Ritucharya redirected

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

@71.176.129.96: I have changed it, if there is a problem the old version can be restored by reverting at [15]. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2017

Please fix the footnote following "treating fractures, amputations, cesarean sections". I think it may be as simple as changing {{Sfn}} to {{Efn}}, but I can't know without trying. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:29F4:B5DD:5CC0:1AC9 (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only to fix a footnote template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the previous edit just caused it to vanish, I have changed it as well, I'm still not sure that this is the correct fix without eventually rereading this section. —PaleoNeonate – 15:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the result of that is that half of the lengthy footnote has become a "citation", the ref for that half has become a separate citation, and the second half has become body text, making it even more confusing.

The sentence should read, "...treating fractures, amputations, cesarean sections,^[fn] and stitching of wounds."

The footnote in the middle of that should read "Vagbhata 1939 Vāgbhaṭa's Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā describes a procedure for the removal of a dead foetus from the womb of a living mother, and of a living child from the womb of a mother who has died (शारीरस्थान २, गर्भव्यापद्, २.२६-२७, २.५३).^[132] Both these descriptions speak of removal of the fetus through the uterine passage. It's disputed to assert that early Indian Ayurvedic practitioner knew the caesarian section procedure. The earlier description of the Suśrutasaṃhitā (चिकित्सास्थान १५ "मूढगर्भ") is similar. A dead fetus is removed through the uterine passage and vagina. Although Suśruta does not describe removing a living child from a dead mother.^{[131][disputed – discuss]}"

The citation [132] in the middle of that should read "Vāgbhaṭa. "Ashtanga Hridaya". archive.org. Retrieved 2 January 2017." The citation at the end should read "Magner, Lois N. (August 13, 2002). A History of the Life Sciences, Revised and Expanded. CRC Press. p. 6. ISBN 9780824708245. Retrieved 26 December 2016." None of the above except the first bit should be in the body text.

By the way, this is not an endorsement of the content. Maybe the whole lot should just be deleted or revised, but that is a matter for the regular editors. I am only concerned that the paragraph and the footnote(s) should be readable. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:183:E549:3AE3:EA4A (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I've finally found out how to nest references; it's at WP:REFNEST. I've done the following in the sandbox and it works. First, revert to the original version. Then change "{{Sfn|Vagbhata|1939|p=" to "{{refn|group=Vagbhata|". Finally, create a new "Footnotes" section with {{Reflist|group=Vagbhata}}. Footnotes, refs and "disputed" tags will then all be in the appropriate places. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:183:E549:3AE3:EA4A (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Done ToThAc (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311194713/http://ccras.nic.in/pdf/Guidelinesfortoxicity.doc to http://www.ccras.nic.in/pdf/Guidelinesfortoxicity.doc

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) 06:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.58.108 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2017‎ (UTC)

Is there a reference to support the pronunciation? There are numerous references to indicate quackery and pseudoscience discussed in this section. This is another example. --Zefr (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra is not an Ayurveda but a TM (meditation) practitioner. Good research studies can be seen at http://www.ccras.nic.in and I hope you can incorporate some of the research from there into this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:52AC:88C5:B425:8ABC:E932:6EAD (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The point of the Quackwatch article is the supposed connection of mind and body, which is a component of Ayurveda. Due to inherent bias, the CCRAS source does not meet objectivity for medical evidence or WP:RS, certainly failing the rigorous requirements of valid medical sources explained in WP:MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

So, in short, it means this article is going to remain as it is. Why don't you people emulate the encyclopedia Britannica instead?

Can someone remove the present IPA pronunciation from the lead and use the IPA alphabet from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ayurveda (it is locked for editing)? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.157.194 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017

Ayurved Ke Desi Nuskhe (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2017 (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. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 18:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

IPA

Can someone remove the present IPA pronunciation from the lead and use the IPA alphabet from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ayurveda (it is locked for editing)? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.202.72.171 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The present IPA refers to Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. Why do you think that Oxford dictionary must take priority? Perhaps we should have all versions (Oxford dictionary gives two versions)? Retimuko (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The IPA for Ayurveda according to the pronunciation of the languages of India should be ɑːjʊrveɪðɑː and not as it is in the introduction. The Oxford Dictionary's pronunciation is therefore more accurate. However, if no references need be cited, ɑːjʊrveɪðɑː is what we should have in the introduction. Please do the needful. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5683:1479:39FC:77FF:6AAF:A470 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you are giving your personal opinion that Longman is wrong and Oxford is closer, but is wrong too. May be so, but Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources. Perhaps we could add two versions given in Oxford dictionary, but I don't think we can just dismiss Longman as wrong. Retimuko (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Both are wrong, but I hope you can still add the first of the 2 pronunciations Oxford Dictionary gives. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5189:6AA7:7FD6:36F4:B7E0:D61 (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush, Utcursch, Capitals00, Geunineart, and Ykraps: it looks like this article has the wrong IPA. Can you people please change it to ɑːjʊrveɪðɑː ?-2405:204:578D:FF6B:64A6:80F9:FD24:96FE (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Just bin it. More trouble than it is worth. -Sitush (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I added versions from Oxford dictionary. Please understand that Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources, not on opinions of editors. So you cannot just say that Longman and Oxford dictionaries are wrong and give you own version without citing some other reliable source. Retimuko (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Eh? I haven't given any version. What I am saying is that there appear to be different versions and determining which to use is more trouble than it is worth. We are an encyclopaedia first and foremost, not a dictionary. The latter are known as a source for pronunciations and definitions; the former less so. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for a vague statement on my part. It was addressed to those anonymous editors above who insisted that both dictionaries are wrong and proposed their own versions. Retimuko (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

edit warring

I have resTored to the last stable version per REQUEST ON MY TALK. apparently, any major changes should be discussed beforehand. Thanks. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussed and agreed, yes. If anyone needs help with that let me know. --John (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maybe it would be easier to resolve the impasse about the lead if you were able to have a wider discussion about the overall structure and content of the article? Why, for example, does history come last? Once that has been properly accomplished, surely the lead will be a fair summary of what the rest of the article says? --John (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Or, you could remove the chilling effect your sanctions have had, and the continued chill you continue to promote here. Please think about it. No progress has been made since your sanctions were imposed, and good faith efforts have been crushed. Please withdraw. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Assume I've thought about it. Any response to my suggestion? John (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with Roxy the dog. There have been many significant changes in last few months and even few hours before edit war started[16], but if you are going to change lead without getting consensus and make factually incorrect edits by relying on your trivial argument, then you would obviously get reverted per WP:BRD, just like any other article. Similar sensible sanctions are currently installed on all Kashmir conflict-related articles as well, just for avoiding disruption.

John is right. Lead is correct per WP:LEAD that it should cover important parts of the article and it is already doing it. If people want to change lead, they will have to discuss the content of the sections first, and until now I have not seen any sensible argument for changing lead. Capitals00 (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, Capitals00 is exhibiting WP:OWN. The article is old, stale, and in many instances, exaggerated. It's rated C-class poor across 8 wikiprojects, and is in dire need of fresh editing which is what some of us have been trying to do. Overall, the article is included among "Vital articles - a list of subjects for which Wikipedia should have correspondingly high-quality articles." That alone is justification for new editing. Fyi, from the discussion with Dlohcierekim and Awilley: "I think the DS have outlived their purpose and stated intent. And I agree that the lead could/should be better. It's like DS are being used to protect a poor version."

The long-time 'owners' should step aside temporarily, allow new editing of the lede using WP:5P practices, then participate constructively. Starting with a focus on the lede is what was attempted here and here, and should be permitted to resume in good faith. John, the entire article needs fresh reworking, not just a move of the History. Give neutral editors a 10-day period of unreverted editing to revise the article, then the owners can join in. --Zefr (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So what do you think it needs, besides shifting the history section? If you can make your point(s) without accusing anybody else of malpractice, you're very welcome to do so. --John (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the history section is last because of MOS:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible you might contribute here without the chilling effect? That would be nice. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been so busy lately that I can only now check this page again. I would suggest two things: if some administrator(s) can be considered too WP:INVOLVED to use their tools here, WP:FTN and/or WP:AN may be appropriate to gather the attention of uninvolved administrators. My second suggestion would be working on a lead draft (if necessary, to prevent edit warring on that draft, a user space one). Drafts of course also have their associated talk pages for specific suggestions and are still subject to deletion if inappropriate, but they're a great way to show something and get input... —PaleoNeonate – 04:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Zefr, your proposed edits are only going to degrade the quality of the article and you seem to be still not agreeing with that. You can't accuse others of ignoring good faith when you are edit warring and making unqualified changes. Your edits were misrepresenting sources and you changed/removed terms without explanation and duplicated information in a section.[17] Each information has to be supported by your source, not by what you are thinking per WP:OR. Your claim that everyone has distorted the lead and article to this day is also unhelpful just like repeating yourself. I don't see any reason why we should keep a lead that completely distracts from the actual status of Ayurveda. Capitals00 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft lede

This was a start on Feb 6. The lede should be easy to read; from MOS:MED: "The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity. It is also reasonable to have the lead introduce content in the same order as the body of the text." In 4 paragraphs, the draft lede generally follows the order of topics: 1) paragraph 1 retained the origin/history and provided current perspective based on science and practice; 2) paragraph 2 acknowledged Ayurveda history and current practices; 3) paragraph 3 pointed out safety concerns; 4) paragraph 4 gave perspective on supposed health effects. I agree with the proposal to move the History section higher in the article. --Zefr (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think one additional wrinkle is WP:PSCI - the pseudoscientific nature of ayurveda must be "prominent". Probably in the first para I'd say. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• That would be very typical for a 100% modern medicinal subject, but this is not just a medical article but also about pre-history, Hinduism and other Indian philosophies. There are no "errors or ambiguity" in present lead. Ayurveda lead contains 393 words, while Traditional Chinese Medicine has 485 words. You can propose here what type of lead you really want, but I would recommend you to propose something much better than your last edit. Lead is an introduction, and we need to introduce Ayurveda the way scholars do,[18][19][20][21][22] even if it is going to reduce some undue criticism found in the present lead. But that's if you are really planning to re-write lead, otherwise there is no need. Capitals00 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think books like The Complete Idiot's Guide to Food Allergies really count as very scholarly. There is obviously a historical aspect to this topic, but if you look at, say, Researchgate result[23] the heavy preponderance of sources treat Ayurveda in the context of active, contemporary medical discussion. For neutrality, Wikipedia must be aligned with real-world sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

They are highly reliable and your source further proves my point that how we should actually introduce Ayurveda, we need to base our lead on such sources if we really plan a rewrite. Capitals00 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My source was a search result. You have picked out a cultural/historical article and yes such articles of course exist. My point is that for every one such, there are many more (maybe a 10:1 ratio) texts treating Ayurveda as an active medical topical. That's right isn't it? Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

In the interests of encyclopedic simplicity on a foundation of objectivity, the NCCIH review serves as a guide for the lede. The draft was based on this. --Zefr (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)