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!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
"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
The contents of the Panchakarma page were merged into Ayurveda. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Ama (ayurveda) page were merged into Ayurveda on 17 November 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; 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 "Safety and Regulation" section: WHO Ayurveda guidelines
I am writing with concern about the current framing of the Ayurveda article, specifically regarding tone, balance, and source selection. I recognize this is a contentious topic and submit this request in alignment with Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality (WP:NPOV), reliable sources (WP:RS and WP:MEDRS), and coverage of fringe topics (WP:FRINGE).
1. Overemphasis on toxicity
The article gives undue weight to rare cases of heavy metal contamination, which are associated with improperly prepared or unregulated products. This can mislead readers into associating toxicity with the system as a whole. Ayurveda, as practiced under government regulation (e.g., Ministry of AYUSH in India), follows strict safety protocols. Peer-reviewed studies and WHO guidance support this nuance, which is currently missing.
2. Missing integration of reliable Ayurvedic and integrative sources
The article leans heavily on Western biomedical critiques and omits peer-reviewed literature from Ayurvedic institutions and integrative medicine journals. Ayurveda is taught in accredited universities, recognised by national healthcare systems in several countries, and has WHO-endorsed training benchmarks. These facts and sources should be proportionally represented.
3. Framing concerns and need for institutional context
The article risks portraying Ayurveda as lacking legitimacy, without acknowledging its inclusion in formal medical education and global healthcare frameworks. A 2021 peer-reviewed article from the Journal of Integrative Medicine offers this perspective:
I respectfully request that:
- Secondary sources from Ayurvedic and integrative medicine journals be incorporated.
- The framing around safety concerns be clarified.
- Institutional, educational, and clinical contexts be included to reflect a fuller picture.
I’m happy to help identify reliable sources or draft edits if invited.
Thank you for the reply. I want to clarify that I’ve already cited a peer-reviewed source published in the Journal of Integrative Medicine and indexed in the U.S. National Library of Medicine ([PMC8185965](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8185965/)), which meets Wikipedia’s WP:MEDRS standard for secondary sources. This source directly supports the need for more balanced institutional and clinical framing of Ayurveda.
In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) — one of the most trusted and policy-setting medical bodies globally — has published formal guidance on Ayurveda, making its inclusion in this article essential. Two specific documents:
1. WHO Benchmarks for Training in Ayurveda (2010):
This report establishes global safety and training standards for Ayurveda. It affirms that regulated practice of Ayurveda is recognized internationally.
To dismiss Ayurveda in the opening paragraphs by focusing on rare cases of heavy metal contamination, without mentioning these sources or the vast body of regulated, evidence-based, and institutionally endorsed Ayurvedic practice, is not neutral. It violates Wikipedia’s principle of undue weight and frames the entire system in a misleading way.
To draw a comparison: the Yoga article does not open with injury statistics, lawsuits, or cult associations — even though these issues exist. Because that would clearly be biased framing. Ayurveda deserves the same editorial balance.
Requested Edits:
- Include WHO benchmarks and global strategy documents in the article.
- Move the toxicity concerns to a more appropriate section, not the lede.
- Include mention of formal education programs (e.g., Ministry of AYUSH, university degrees), WHO-endorsed frameworks, and integrative medicine findings to reflect Ayurveda’s global relevance.
Happy to help draft edits or source more reliable material if needed. I hope we can move this discussion forward in line with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability. 62.49.235.226 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1, Unsure what this WHOm pamphlet tells us, that they mean at least a minimum level of training? May violate wp:undue.
2, Ditto, again why does this tell us?
The lede is a summary; as such, the material on toxicity is ready elsewhere.
The Journal of Integrative Medicine is a pro-alternative-medicine journal, and one of the authors of that paper is from the "Ayurvidye Trust, Bangalore". Also, most of this request appears to be written by AI. Black Kite (talk)15:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
