Talk:Ayurveda

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

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

Article policies

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

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

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience

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

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

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The article Ayurveda is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBPS). The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
This talk page has previously been semi-protected due to disruption. Comments made by non-confirmed editors during that period can be found at Talk:Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the Wikipedia policies on canvassing and neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

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

Alternative medicine

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

Alternative views Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dietary Supplements High‑importance

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

Hinduism High‑importance

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

India High‑importance

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

Medicine Low‑importance

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

Religion High‑importance

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

Skepticism Top‑importance

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

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Ayurveda.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Other talk page banners

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"Plea Seeks Removal Of 'Defamatory Content' On Ayurveda From Wikipedia". NDTV. 6 May 2022. "The contents of the matter shown on Wikipedia totally malign the natural system of medicine which has a history of more than 3,000 years and is widely respected and accepted the world over, " the petitioner said, pointing out the fact that the incumbent Government of India has also constituted a separate Ministry named AYUSH for Ayurveda and other alternative medicine systems. The petition further stated that the Constitution of a separate ministry is an acknowledgment of this ancient stream of medicine, the petition said.
""You Can Edit Wikipedia Articles" : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Wikipedia Articles Allegedly Defaming Ayurveda". Live Law. 21 October 2022. "The petition referred to the article published on Wikipedia termed Ayurveda as a pseudoscientific and stated that the article written on Wikipedia was unnecessary and written purely with the intent to tarnish Ayurveda. "The matter of concern is that this is utterly absurd, poorly researched and prejudiced article pops up as the first article when Ayurveda is searched on Google", the petition said
"SC Refuses to Entertain PIL Against Wikipedia Entry Describing Ayurveda as 'Pseudoscientific'". The Wire (India). 21 October 2022. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) submitted that the Wikipedia entry described Ayurveda as "pseudoscientific" and, calling the article unnecessary, alleged that it had been written with the sole intention of tarnishing the image of Ayurveda.
Catherine Davison (4 November 2022). "Modi wants to export traditional Indian medicine to the world, but doctors warn against pseudoscience and quack cures". Coda Media. The second sentence in the Wikipedia entry for Ayurveda declares that the "theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific."

The content of Panchakarma was merged into Ayurveda. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The content of Ama (ayurveda) was merged into Ayurveda on 17 November 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

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

Proposal to update ‘Pseudoscience’ classification section with balanced evidence

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Proposed Edit for the Ayurveda Article Section: Introduction / Scientific status

Change Requested: Expand the classification discussion of Ayurveda as pseudoscience with balanced, up-to-date scientific references.

Suggested New Text: While Ayurveda is often categorized as a pseudoscience due to the lack of large-scale, standardized clinical trials and issues related to product quality and methodological rigor, emerging evidence suggests certain Ayurvedic interventions may offer measurable health benefits. A 2021 meta-analysis found that Ayurvedic herbal preparations demonstrated statistically significant reductions in total cholesterol and LDL levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Systematic reviews have also indicated moderate improvements in pain and functional outcomes in osteoarthritis patients treated with Ayurvedic therapies. The WHO's 2022 establishment of the Global Centre for Traditional Medicine in India reflects a growing global interest in developing scientifically rigorous assessments of traditional medical systems, including Ayurveda. However, concerns remain regarding standardization, trial design, and the presence of contaminants in some herbal formulations. As of 2023, India has registered over 200 clinical trials involving Ayurvedic treatments, but relatively few have reached the quality thresholds required for international scientific acceptance. Efforts are underway to align Ayurvedic clinical reporting with CONSORT guidelines and to adapt personalized RCT models to evaluate complex traditional therapies.

References: Gogtay, N., et al. (2021). Ayurvedic herbal preparations for hypercholesterolemia: A meta-analysis. MDPI, https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/6/546

Fisher, P., & Ward, A. (2012). Ayurveda for osteoarthritis: A systematic review. PubMed, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25062981

Patwardhan, B., et al. (2011). Clinical trials in Ayurveda: Need for evolving design and methodology. NCBI, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149393

WHO Bulletin (2022). The Global Centre for Traditional Medicine. https://www.who.int/news/item/19-04-2022-who-global-centre-for-traditional-medicine

F1000 Research (2023). Critical review on herbal product quality and safety in Ayurveda. https://f1000research.com/articles/14-62

Summary:

This edit aims to provide a balanced, scientifically grounded summary of Ayurveda’s current research status — acknowledging both the criticisms and the growing body of emerging evidence, aligned with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. 2402:8100:391F:F236:1CF7:1C24:4E96:AD0F (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sources (apart from the 4th one, which returns a 404 error) are written by authors working for Ayurvedic or "complementary medicine" providers. Hardly "balanced". Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The studies speak for themselves, independent of who ran the study. 76.191.159.77 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With a Royal quack amongst the authors there, I don't hold out too much hope of reliability. I saw a video (on Youtube?? - it's too petty to search for) and watched him lie to a Parliamentary inquiry/evidence giving session about ALTMED. Walter Ego 00:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might think so, we don't. We have very stringent WP:RULES for making medical claims, see WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AI wrote "...current research status — acknowledging both the criticisms and the growing body of emerging evidence...", which leads me to believe that you may have prompted it to say both good things and bad things about Ayurveda. There exists no "growing body of emerging evidence". None. All we have is a bunch of people making huge amounts of cash who have spent enough money and amassed enough followers to get the Indian government to create a government ministry dedicated to promoting their pseudoscience and suppressing real medicine prescribed by actual doctors. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using a bullshitter-bot to promote pseudoscience? How utterly unsurprising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claims

In the section Ayurveda#Research:

"In India, research in ayurveda is undertaken by the Ministry of AYUSH through a national network of research institutes"

Sourced only to a press release from the Ministry of AYUSH)

"In Nepal, the National Ayurvedic Training and Research Centre (NATRC) researches medicinal herbs in the country"

Sourced to what looks like a press release, but I can't be sure.

"In Sri Lanka, the Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine looks after the research in ayurveda through various national research institutes"

Sourced to a Government Notification in The Gazette of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Extraordinary

That suspected press release doesn't just say they are doing research. It says

"The centre will play a positive role in promotion and utilisation of Ayurveda in the country, by conducting research on medicinal herbs available here.

Promotion.

What appears to have happened is that practitioners of Ayurveda have managed to get several governments to promote their pseudoscience and suppress any attempt to replace it with modern medicine. I am inclined to go through the article and replace statements like

"The state-sponsored Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) is designed to do research on ayurveda"

with

"The state-sponsored Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) promotes ayurveda"

The citation to that one[1] says

"Ayurveda, Siddha and Sowa-Rigpa (Amchi) The timeless science of healing through natural herbs is finally here, right on your desktop. This web site is a treasure chest filled with valuable information on Ayurveda, Sidhha and Sowa-Rigpa (Amchi)... The urbanisation of lifestyles has had its impact on most of us. According to the principles of Ayurveda, this increases the quantity of disease causing substances called Malas. Experienced scientists, past and present, have dedicated their lives to the cure of diseases in mankind."

That's not research. That's promotion. We should not characterize it as research. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are correct. Walter Ego 18:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So i did something. Walter Ego 18:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]