Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Moving recently added section here for discussion

I think the following recent addition to the article doesn't comply with Wikipedia guidelines:

Ayurveda is the most scientific, organised and effective as a system for restoration of health. Kerala is most sought after Ayurvedic destination in the world as Ayurveda has been preserved in its flawless sanctity. Kerala have a long lineage of traditional practitioners of Ayurveda and keeps more than five centuries old tradition. Kerala is famous for its spices and herbs from ancient times. These spices and herbs are the base of Ayurvedic medicines directed towards strengthening the immune system, preventing and curing diseases without any side effects. The Kottakkal Arya Vaidya Sala, Thaikkatt Mooss E.T.M Oushadhasala (INDIA) LTD etc. are some of the premier ayurvedic establishments. Kerala, God’s own country pioneers in spreading the concept of Ayurvedic medical tourism to the world. Ayurveda helps to stay healthy and restore the health of the diseased. Ayurveda deals elaborately with herbal preparations directed towards strengthening the immune system, preventing and curing diseases without any side effects.

Claims such as Ayurveda being the most scientific and effective would need to be sourced. Statements such as Kerala being the most sought-after destination seem promotional and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Language such as "God's own country" doesn't accord with the neutral tone of an encyclopedia. TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. No part of that paragraph is NPOV.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vegetable Drug

I believe the use of this word is inappropriate. Drug has a specific meaning; "any chemical substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function". For the word drug to be appropriate in this article it would have to be shown (with reliable sources) that the examples listed, at the very least, alter bodily function. The stimulation of "digestive enzymes that break down polymeric macromolecules in the Human body", which cinnamon and cardamom are purported to do, is not sufficient to classify these substances as drugs. Digestive enzymes are released when virtually any substance is ingested, including substances consumed for purely nutritional purposes, with no known medical effects. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's odd. I suppose one should look at the source to see what it says. Of course, if it doesn't use this terminology, then definitely revise. If it does, then see what rationale it gives, and at the least, attribute the usage in the article. I doubt that it does, though. TimidGuy (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have seen the term "vegetable drug" before. I see that the reference is the Encyclopedia Britannica. I am tempted to change it to "herbal medicines" or "botanical medicines" or "plant medicines." It is strange, because later on the article uses the more familiar terms "herbs" and "phytotherapy." Any other comments before I change this? --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Veda does not mean science. It means book. -- NOVO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.25.69 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Correlations of tongue, lips and organs

On [1] correlations of tongue and organs are explained by Vasant Lad, and it includes a 'map' as well. In his book Yoga of Herbs he does the same with the lips. It's an interesting thougt, but I can't find this information on Wikipedia. Is there a reason for this? Is this theory widely accepted, and is it connected with the tongue cleaner? Wiki-uk (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ayurveda is a fringe topic and pseudoscientific so it's always tenuous what can be used here. That looks like a self-published webpage, there's no references and could at best be used to reference "some practitioners believe there is a correlation between areas on the tongue and the organs". Extensive discussion would be inappropriate and any claims that the tongue map and/or cleaner can actually help with anything medical would need an appropriate source. Linking the two without a source is also prohibited by our guidelines on original resarch. Finding out if it is widely accepted would require some more research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can some experts tell the difference between....

the term of Vedic medicine and the title of this article, please. If they have the same meaning, please add the synonyms--222.67.208.20 (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Too many images

There are nine images in this article at the current moment. Most of them are minimally relevant and add nothing to the article - nobody needs illustrations of plants or oil. I suggest someone pare it down to two or three at most. 64.206.63.50 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Tiktok

NPOV

This article is very biased, written in a very disparaging manner. Hence I have added a NPOV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.235.153 (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the tag until you can be more specific. That's typically what's needed to determine what needs to be fixed and whether it has been fixed. Yworo (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Body Constitution Questionaire

In order to ensure a proper understanding of Ayurveda we must include a body constitution questionaire. At the heart of understanding Ayurveda is its prespective on the individual. Ayurveda heals in relation to the uniqueness of each individual or to what degree the elements are present in each persons' body constitution. These elements or humors are outlined in the page but it is important to engage the reader to understand how it would apply to him or her. In very practical terms, if you take the questionaire it will show you what humors or elements are present in you and help in furthering each persons' understanding of how Ayurveda actually works. My suggestion is that we provide a link for this questionaire at the bottom of the overview section. This link is as follows:

• Dosha Constitution Quiz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickyrouxy (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not just Ayurveda

Indian traditional medicine is not just Ayurveda. Indian traditional medicine comprises of Ayurveda and Siddha. Siddha is similar to Ayurveda but is an entirely different system of medicine. So it is not proper to just redirect from the 'Indian traditional medicine' page to 'Ayurveda' page.Shaan1616 (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by Septentrionalis. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Āyurveda → Ayurveda — Revert to old name Ayurveda, which is part of the standardized Indian English. [2] Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Google search for Āyurveda gives the same number of results (even around 70.000 more actually :) -- Google search results ). But maybe you're right. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic), the most widespread spelling should be used in article name, unless there are other reasons to use formal transliteration. Exact formal transliteration should, however, be provided in the article... Thanks. NazarK (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you go through those links carefully [3], those links also include links for simple Indian English "Ayurveda" (Google does not differentiate much between Ayurveda and Āyurveda, it seems). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's ok. I don't mind if you rename the page back to the old name. My idea was that an exact transliteration of original spelling would be more appropriate for Encyclopedia (rather than for a popular book or general Internet site). Also, I thought that probably most original classic sources on Āyurveda use the original spelling (not simplified), and for an Encyclopedia such classic sources should be considered to be primary references. But whatever... If the original transliteration is still kept in the article text -- that's good enough too... :) Nazar (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, an encyclopedia should include, and transliterate, the Devanagari. But we should title the article in English, not transliterated Sanskrit. I therefore support the move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Moved, per Nazar's acceptance. Ayurvedic medicine is probably more common still (in English), but is longer. Is it worth the added clumsiness to move there? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Richard Dawkin's" Critique Removed

I've removed the bit about Dawkins criticizing Aurveda, because the reference given besides it points to an article on richarddawkins.net, Dawkin's official website, by someone who goes by the name 'Scientific Indians'. The articles is in no way associated with Dawkins, except in that it's on his website, and is poorly written and riddled with spelling mistakes. Further, although this is not related to the above, I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done on this page. The pages on Homeopathy and even Reiki have a much better section on Scientific Analysis and Criticism, while it seems that these sections have been more or less overlooked in the page on Ayurveda. 75.187.57.84 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)StopWithThePsuedoScience

External Review Comments

Hello, Ayurveda article writers and editors. This article currently a priority article for the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project. The goal of this project to is provide a useful list of suggested revisions to help promote the expansion and improvement of this article before it is translated into other languages.

All suggestions should be discussed here by active editors until a consensus is reached and an editor agrees to make the proposed changes. I will not be making direct edits unless:

• there are missing, inaccurate, or unreliable sources in the reference list or
• there is ‘medical’ information that could be harmful or misleading to the public at large.

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments

This article falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Alternative medicine, though it is not currently listed as a part of that project, and should present a balanced/neutral point of view on the utility of all approaches to medical treatment.

Specificallty, the article be mindful of the following guidelines:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine/Standards of Quality
  • SQG #4-To attribute means to footnote an assertion
  • SQG #6-Sources of information cited must be reliable and not idiosyncratic
  • SQG #11-Complementary treatments are recommended
  • SQG #12-Footnotes are required for health claims of any type.

There has been past discussion about what are the best sources for referencing. Material. As much as possible, sources should be secondary and recognized as the leading sources within their fields that represent the consensus of the field. As one example from this talk page, this would make a peer-reviewed secondary source such as:

• Sharma H, Chandola HM, Singh G, Basisht G. Utilization of Ayurveda in health care: an approach for prevention, health promotion, and treatment of disease. Part 1--Ayurveda, the science of life.J Altern Complement Med. 2007 Nov;13(9):1011-9. Review. PMID 18047449

Stronger than:

• The Encyclopedia Brittanica

Though both are reliable sources. In the area discussing ‘Outside India’ and ‘Scientific evidence’, the sources should conform to the *Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine-related articles) guidelines for choosing sources.

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine-related articles)

"All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources”

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

This sentence: “Over the following centuries, Ayurvedic practitioners have also identified a number of medicinal preparations and surgical procedures for curing various ailments and diseases.” Needs to be rewritten because it is not a balanced POV (Western medicine would say there have been no demonstrated cures, because there have been no completed clinical trials series for the medicines or procedures). Suggested rewrite:

“Over the following centuries, Ayurvedic practitioners developed a number of medicinal preparations and surgical procedures for the treatment of various ailments and diseases.”

Also, in line with *Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine/Standards of Quality Guideline #11, I would recommend rewriting:

• ”Ayurveda is considered to be a form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the western world, where several of its methods, such as the use of herbs, massage, and yoga, are applied on their own as a form of CAM treatment.”

To read:

• In the practice of Western medicine, Ayurveda is defined as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is used to complement, rather than replace, the relationship that exists between a patient and their existing physician.

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Y Suggestions implemented. BSW-RMH (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Overview

I think there should be an introduction of the qualifications of Robert Svoboda before the extensive quotations from his book to establish him as an expert in his field for the non-expert reader. This is assuming that he is indeed recognized as an expert in his field by his peers. The link to his wiki page is not sufficient for this purpose because it is severely under-sourced. Recommendations are welcome of ways to establish this. Possibilities include a speaking engagement with peers, one peer-reviewed publication, his schedule of speaking engagements (self-reported, reliable source issues):

• http://www.Ayurveda-berkeley.com/Ayurvedic_medicine_doctor_robert_svoboda_teacher_background.htm
• Svoboda RE. Ayurveda's role in preventing disease. Indian J Med Sci. 1998 Feb;52(2):70-7. PMID 9770867
• http://www.drsvoboda.com/schedule.htm

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Y I removed this extensive quote because it is not necessary and appears to be there for promotional purposes. BSW-RMH (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dhanvantari

Citations needed. Possible sources:

• Dhanvantari. (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 04, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/160641/Dhanvantari

I did not find a resource for the quoted material, and recommend removing it unless a citation can be found.

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Y I replaced unsourced material with sourced material. As this reduced th ematerial to one sentence, I combined the section into the Overview section. BSW-RMH (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Practices

“Ayurveda stresses the use of vegetable drugs.”- As previously discussed on this page, the wording here is odd. I’d recommend rewriting “vegetable drugs” as “plant-based medicines”, which would be a more accurate description of the samples of cardamom and cinnamon given in the third sentence of this paragraph.

The paragraph following this sentence details many recommended Ayurvedic medicinal components and practices that would be most easily presented as a bulleted list, which also allows for a clear lead in sentence.

“The proper function of channels (shrotas) that transport fluids from one point to another within the body is seen as vital, and the lack of healthy shrotas may lead to disease and insanity.[19] Sushruta identifies that blockages of these channels may lead to rheumatism, epilepsy, paralysis, and convulsions as fluids and channels are diverted from their ideal locations.[19] Sweating is used as a means to open up the channels and dilute the Doshas causing the blockages and harming a patient. A number of ways to take steam bathing and other steam related cures are recommended so that toxins are released.”

Suggested revision to improve clarity and reader comprehension: “Ensuring the proper functions of channels (shrotas) that transport fluids from one point to another is a vital goal of Ayurvedic medicine, because the lack of healthy shrotas is thought to cause rheumatism, epilepsy, paralysis, convulsions, and insanity. Practitioners induce sweating and prescribe steam-based treatments as a means to open up the channels and dilute the Doshas that cause the blockages and lead to disease.”

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Y Suggestions were implemented and this sectionw as organized into subsections to make it easier to read. BSW-RMH (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Current status

Within India

I did not find a reference to support this statement: “Practicing graduates are governed under different state laws.(see Ayurveda Law)[citation needed]”. It should be removed unless an accurate reference can be found.

“In Sri Lanka, the number of traditional Ayurveda practitioners is greater than trained modern medicine professionals.[39][clarification needed]”- Sri Lanka is not within India and this information should be moved to ‘Outside India’. Despite the ‘citation needed tag’, the cited reference does support this statement. The proper format for the citation is:

• Sri Lanka: Health and Welfare. (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 04, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/561906/Sri-Lanka

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Y These unsourced statements were removed. BSW-RMH (talk)

Outside India

This section seems incomplete as it only talks about the ‘Western world’. It should be expanded. The information on Sri Lanka can be included here.

Perhaps rewriting this to focus on several reliable ‘outside India’ intiatives to legitimize the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as CAM:

• WHO policy of traditional medicine practice: http://www.searo.who.int/meeting/rc/rc55/rc55-13.htm
• The US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine: http://nccam.nih.gov/
• The National Ayurvedic Medical Association: http://www.Ayurveda-nama.org/about_nama.php
• Th European Federation for Complementary and Alternative Medicine: http://www.efcam.eu/
• The European Ayurveda Association: http://p121583.mittwaldserver.info/

Y Added BSW-RMH (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The following reference is incomplete, “Kurup, P. N. V. (2003). "Ayurveda – A Potential Global Medical System". Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies. op. cit..”, because it refers to a chapter in this book: Mishra, Lakshmi Chandra. Scientific basis for Ayurvedic therapies. ISBN 084931366X Y Added BSW-RMH (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

“In the United States of America, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) of the National Institutes of Health expends some of its $123 million annual budget on Ayurvedic medicine research.” –This information was uncited and does not give the year for which this was the annual budget. Though it is true that they spend of their annual budget on Ayurvedic medicine research, the figure for the whole budget is not very useful. I found only $1.2 million of the 2009 annual budget was spent on funding Ayurvedic medicine-related research.

• NIH RePORTER, http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter_SearchResults.cfm?icde=4809741

Y Corrected BSW-RMH (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The rest of this paragraph does seem to list a few details that don’t contribute to the goal of overviewing the status of Ayurvedic medicine outside India. I would recommend removing the rest of this paragraph for the following reasons:

” the National Institute of Ayurvedic Medicine, established by Dr. Scott Gerson, is an example of an Ayurveda research institute.” It might be more useful to replace this with links to associations that set assess Ayurvedic medicine institutes/schools by a set of standards, or list institutes by country:

• • The National Ayurvedic Medical Association: http://www.Ayurveda-nama.org/about_nama.php
  • Good source of schools listed by country: http://www.loaj.com/Ayurvedic_schools.html
  • NAMA recognized schools in the USA (http://www.Ayurveda-nama.org/directory_schools.php) as example list by country:
    • Alandi Ashram, Boulder, CO
    • Ayurvedic Institute, Albuquerque, NM
    • California College of Ayurveda, Grass Valley, CA
    • Diamond Way Ayurveda, San Luis Obispo, CA
    • Florida College of Integrative Health, Sarasota, FL
    • Kanyakumari Ayurveda Education, Milwaukee, WI
    • Kerala Ayurveda, Foster City, CA
    • Kripalu School of Ayurveda, Stockbridge, MA
    • Mount Madonna Institute College of Ayurveda, Watsonville, CA
    • New World Ayurveda, Santa Barbara, CA
    • Rocky Mountain Institute of Yoga and Ayurveda, Boulder, CO
    • Sai Ayurvedic College, Miami, FL
    • Wise Earth School of Ayurveda, Ltd., Candler, NC
  • Canadian schools:
    • The Birla Center for Hast Jyotish, Westmount, Quebec

“Gerson has published part of his work on the antifungal activities of certain Ayurvedic plants in academic journals.”- This statement is not supported by the citations, which points to a publication of one abstract presented at a meeting, which is not peer-reviewed. This is not considered publishing one’s work in an academic journal. In addition, single publication by one researcher doesn’t say anything about the status of Ayurvedic medicine outside India. I would recommend a list of articles published in 2009 (167 articles) or 2010 (103 articles as of August 5, 2010) that are indexed in PubMed, the database of citations and abstracts to biomedical and other life science journal literature that is freely accessible to the worldwide scientific community, initiated by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), and developed and managed by NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) in the National Library of Medicine (NLM).Y Removed BSW-RMH (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

“The postulates and history of Ayurveda have also been outlined by foreign scholars such as Dominik Wujastyk.”- Again, this is anecdotal. Is this a recognized authority in the International Ayurveda medical community? What country is he affiliated with? Why choose this example? A representative cross-section of international writers on this subject would be more informative.Y Removed BSW-RMH (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

“Questionable practices in research involving financial gains have resulted in the questioning of some of the research and cases such as the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health have involved litigations.”-I think this idea needs to be expounded upon-due to different laws and medical regulations in the rest of the world, the unregulated practice or commercialization of Ayurvedic medicine has raised ethical and legal issues. In some cases, this damages the reputation of Ayurvedic medicine outside India. Applicable references:

• Skolnick, Andrew A. (1991). "The Maharishi Caper: Or How to Hoodwink Top Medical Journals". ScienceWriters (New York, NY: National Association of Science Writers) Fall. Archived from the original on Jul 16, 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080716041551/http://www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htm. Retrieved July 6, 2010.
• Skolnick, Andrew A. (1991). "Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Guru’s Marketing Scheme Promises the World Eternal 'Perfect Health'!". Journal of the American Medical Association (Chicago, IL: AMA) 266: 1741–1750. doi:10.1001/jama.266.13.1741.
• National Policy on Traditional Medicine and Regulation of Herbal Medicines - Report of a WHO Global Survey, http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s7916e/s7916e.pdf

Y Added BSW-RMH (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Journals

This would best be presented as a bulleted list.

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Y Implemented BSW-RMH (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Patents

The link to this citation is broken: Johnston, Barbara & Webb, Ginger (1997). "Turmeric Patent Overturned in Legal Victory". HerbalGram Fall 1997 (41): 11. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=108&sid=ecc8454b-c5ab-4d0c-9358-e355356593fe%40sessionmgr103. This publication was an online news item form the American Botanical Council. It does not have an ISBN or digital object identifier. It isnot available in the ABC archive or from any other source. Thus I would suggest replacing it with a reliable source such as:

• Kumar, Sanjay. India wins battle with USA over turmeric patent. The Lancet, Volume 350, Issue 9079, Page 724, 6 September 1997. The Lancet, Volume 350, Issue 9079, Page 724, 6 September 1997.

And a more informative quote from this reference: ““This is a significant development of far-reaching consequences for the protection of the traditional knowledge base in the public domain, which has been an emotional issue for not only the people of India but also for the other third world countries”, says R A Mashelkar, director-general of the [Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research,] CSIR.”

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Y Implemented BSW-RMH (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientific evidence and Safety

This statement suffices to sum up the information in the Scientific evidence section: “The scientific consensus is that, in promising preliminary studies, some Ayurvedic medicines and practices may have beneficial health effects. However, there is insufficient data to make a conclusion about their safety and/or efficacy for the treatment of human diseases and conditions.”- and use all reliable citations in the section as references. To give details of each requires very specific language so as not to over/under state the conclusion or mislead the reader. It also tends to give the discussed reviews undue weight when the conclusion is inevitably that a conclusion cannot be made form the available data.

The discussion on safety is important and fairly balanced. However a relevant source is necessary for this statement: “Publication of the levels of contamination found in the products has resulted in some decline of Ayurveda in India and abroad”. I could not find data or reference to data to support this conclusion is the cited reference:

• Dubey, N. K.; Kumar, R.; Tripathi, P. (January 10, 2004). "Global Promotion of Herbal Medicine: India's Opportunity". Current Science 86 (1): 37–41.

BSW-RMH (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Y Implemented and broken citations fixed BSW-RMH (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your detailed review. I was responsible for much of the Scientific evidence and Safety sections (although not the sentence and ref in Safety you identified). I noticed that you later (August 14) replaced much of this section (saying it was misleading and primary, neither of which seems exactly explained or true) with only a broad statement and left the references, although for some unclear reason you left the discussion of the rheumatoid arthritis - possibly because that leans negative. This leaves the article much more vague on some of the actual herbs used and the results thus far of scientific analyses of these herbs - meaning that the article is abstract enough on the science behind the actual practice to say almost nothing about it, except through the description of some images and a long discussion on the dubious use of the metals. I don't think this is right, and I'd appreciate more explanation. I do think the section could be improved by discussing in more detail why these particular substances are mentioned, but I think there still needs to be specific details on herbs, plus yoga. II | (t - c) 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Syntax errors

There is broken syntax for a cardamom image (it appears) at the start of the Hygiene section. Sorry I'm not enough of a syntax expert to fix this myself! Paulmasri (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)PaulMasri

Thanks for catching it. it should be fixed now. --McSly (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ayurveda also focuses on exercise, yoga, meditation and massage

I have modified the above sentence by deleting massage. The reason is though massage is a part of ayurveda, ayurveda does not focusses on it. and it cannot be given the same importance of yoga and meditation. -Abhijeet Safai 18:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Photos used

I would like to see the photos of Indian patients over here in this article as ayurveda mainly belongs to India. Ho about changing the photos? -Abhijeet Safai 18:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)

"Mukherjee & Wahile cite World Health Organization statistics to demonstrate the popularity of traditional medicine as the primary system of health care"

That is a VERY strange way of phrasing it, and possibly misleading, given there's other forms of traditional medicine also popular in India. I've cut it for now, but is there a better source for saying what percentage of Indians use Ayurveda as their primary system of health care? Because that would be well worth mentioning. 86.178.198.57 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Article structure

86.**, your work on the article is quite good. However, just a general observation from the outside -- is the history section a little too light and the practice section a bit too heavy? (e.g. the multitude of massage/face mask images etc). Likewise, could the current status section be trimmed a bit? I can work on some of these once you're done with your clean up. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to respond. The image uses do seem a bit excessive - I haven't seen many other articles with internal galleries. Over to you! 86.181.103.102 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

NOT rasa shastra

The statements given in the lead of the Ayurveda article are for ayurvedic remedies as a whole. While rasa shastra is blamed as a likely source of problems, the 20% dangerous levels of heavy metals figure is not for rasa shastra remedies, that's for the whole sample of ayurvedic medicines; I think one study found 40% for those specifically advertised as Rasa shastra; it's in the Safety section, anyway. The notes about toxic herbs likewise aren't rasa shastra.

It's unfortunate that quality control means that a potentially useful system of herbal medicine has problems, but there are no good sources stating the problem has been fixed as yet. When and if such sources arrive we should, of course update the article to reflect this, but these values remained stable for a couple studies, spaced out over a few years. This should not be removed from the lead until some sign of the industry cleaning itself up becomes apparent, as it's... well, a very major problem, which we have no evidence to show has been fixed. 86.176.74.179 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Safety concerns

I think we should add following matter under the heading of saftey and not at the introduction. Please give your suggestions.

Safety concerns have been raised about Ayurveda: Rasa shastra, the practice of adding metals, minerals or gems to herbs, is a source of toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic, and studies have indicated that around 20% of ayurvedic products available for sale in America contain dangerous levels of these minerals.[8][9][8][10] Likewise, some of the herbs used have toxic components, which are not always detoxified by the methods intended to do so.[11] In India, lack of proper surveillance and the small numbers of laboratories able to do the needed tests mean that the quality control of Ayurvedic products is problematic.

Abhijeet Safai 09:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the article, including all major sections. Hence, that would violate Wikipedia's guidelines, and should not be done. 86.176.74.179 (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Safety concerns are a major issue with Ayurveda. Important enough to mention in the lead. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says summarize not repeat. It is important in the lead, but a whole para is POV pushing. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It was vastly cut down from the section in the article; that's hardly true. 86.176.217.241 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidence of use in India

This study: http://www.sactrc.org/IJEnvH203-415_Dargan%20et%20al.pdf says 80% of Indians use Ayurveda. It also sys a 1990 study found 64% of Ayurvedic products sold in India contain lead or mercury. Since we're light on on India, I propose to add both in, (though with much, much less weight on the latter, as it's quite old). 86.178.194.188 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an important source that can't be ignored in the article. The question of "how many people use Ayurvedic medicine" is slightly complex. The article gives concrete, though quite limited, data about how many people have taken remedies. But because "Ayurvedic medicine" is a large holistic system, most people in India must have a diet influenced in some way by Ayurveda, might meditate or exercise in line with Ayurveda, might follow hygiene practices that have some link with Ayurveda. That's not a problem so long as we make explicit the definitions used in good sources like this. 19:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Itsmejudith (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How shoudl the Indian heavy metal values be worked in? They've likely changed in 20 years, but I can't find more recent values. One possibility might be to work it into the narrative: There's discussion of new Indian regulations; we could briefly mention it before that. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's in. Check I haven't given the 1990 study too much weight. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't see any problem. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Uncited sections

I propose to move these to the talk page if they aren't cited in a week or so. (to avoid uncited material while continuing to allow people to continue to search for sources). There aren't too many of them, and I think that, with a little more cleanup and work, we might be able to get this to GA, but not with uncited stuff. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, broadly speaking these are: a tiny bit of the History section, the desciption of BAMS, and the sections on the US and UK (there's one source for the US section, but it only covers a fairly trivial point). 86.176.222.245 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I set up some automated archiving of sections that have had no new comments in a month, since this page is getting excessively long. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bhasmas and Nanotechnology

I support the removal of recently contributed content about bhasmas and nanotechnology because it was basically a copy and paste from a news article. However, I do not think we can exclude the Times of India as a reliable source for scientific content and I think the work being done on bhasmas should at least be discussed here. The source is http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-02-06/varanasi/28353173_1_bhasmas-herbo-mineral-formulations-rasa-shastra. Jojalozzo 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Like any other publication by the popular press, the Times of India is not a proper outlet for scientific material, as they do not have any special expertise in science, nor exercise the level of fact checking that we require for scentific content. For that, we need peer-reviewed secondary sources. If the content has not been discussed in peer-reviewed secondary sources, it probably should not be mentioned at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed references to Ayurveda being a science

I removed references to Ayurveda as a science since the term has a specific interpretation on Wikipedia related to the scientific method. I don't think this will prevent the inclusion of Ayurveda as a pseudoscience since its advocates persist in calling it a science, but I think we need to be consistent within this project as to what is and is not a science. Jojalozzo 15:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is very difficult to comment whether Ayurveda is a science or not! Ayurveda is (maybe) a science. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Ayurveda does not conform to the scientific method. It is not recognised as a science by any mainstream scientific body. Wikipedia does not rely on the opinions of contributors over such questions - we rely on what the sources tell us. This is non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think one could make the case that, historically, it may have counted as a science; it's carrying on into the present that this becomes an inappropriate term. It's like how if you revived the medical views of Islamic science (c.1000 AD) they'd be rank pseudoscience today, but were highly advanced for their time. However, as this article is mostly NOT on the history of Ayurveda, which included chemistry at the time, it should only be discussed as science very carefully, making a clear historical/present day distinction. 86.** IP (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, I really appreciate the courage of yours to not to call it as Science. Such an amount of courage is not acceptable in the filed of Ayurved. At least I haven't seen such a kind of courage. But I feel that if Ayurveda want to grow, wants to be useful for people, wants the respect, then it must try to find the science in it. Today it is not a science. Yes, one will have to accept it. The best way to solve a problem is to accept the problem. Once we accept it, then one can go ahead, do experiments, be true and find science in it. It gives me immense pain to know that it is not science, or not considered as science by any scientific body, but i will have to accept it if it is true. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jojalozzo Please read http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ayurveda/introduction.htm Take away: National Institutes of Health also studies so called pseudoscience!

About recent edits regarding 'Research in Ayurveda'

I had added a section regarding research in ayurveda but that was removed by 86.** IP. I dont want to go into 'why it was removed' but i strongly feel that there is a need of a section called as research in ayurveda because of following reasons

1. It is need of time so many things will happen about it. it will be easy to find the material on the article if we a section.
2. A lot of research was done or is being done. it will be nice to document it in the section.
3. or should we go for a new article with - research in Ayurveda title?

Thanks Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with 86. You seem to be doing original research and synthesis. If you want to contribute to this article, you must provide reliable sources at the outset. Otherwise you are just wasting your time, and ours. I doubt that a new article would survive very long. We already have material on research in the article. What exactly do you want to add, and which sources do you have to back it up? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea of the section's fine in theory (or would be, if it wasn't redundant; see below), but the sourcing didn't really support the claims. For detail:

[your additions in bold, commentary in italics

There is increasing awareness regarding need of research in Ayurveda for its global acceptance.

The source, [4] does not say this. It says that a single, named person called for more research. There is no mention of global acceptance as the reason, nor does a single incident show "increasing awareness".

Right now there is a big void in the AYUSH systems of traditional medicines. And that is an absence of standardisation

This statement is an exact quote by one person, which isn't credited, meaning it's a copyright violation of http://ibnlive.in.com/news/research-key-to-spread-traditional-remedies/245214-60-120.html - however, even if rephrased, this is the opinion of a single person; it cannot be stated as fact. Further, even as opinion sourced to Vijay, it's misleading, as the full article indicates his view is actually that standardization will lead to a better ability to market AYUSH; and, further, there's no evidence that this view is widely held, making this source insufficient.

Indian Government is supporting initiatives of research in Ayurveda.

Again, too general for the source. The article shows the government supporting one initiative of research; you cannot source one incident, and say there's lots of others you didn't source.

Now, of course, this statement is true. We know this because Ayurveda#India already discusses this, and points to the Indian Governmental body set up for the purpose to prove it. But being true isn't enough to justify including badly-sourced information; Wikipedia is, as the popular quote goes, based on verifiability, not truth. Just being right doesn't excuse you from providing good sources.

Finally, you include a list of institutes:

1. Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences

However, there's only one institute listed, and that this institute exists and funds Ayurvedic research is already discussed in Ayurveda#India.

I hope this helps. What may be useful is to present your sources on the talk page, and let other editors who know a bit more about sourcing requirements for Wikipedia discuss them with you, and work them in.

Personally, though, I'd say what we really need, and rather sooner, is a good, short discussion of basic ayurvedic theory for the lead. That's been tagged for ages. 86.** IP (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Just to be clear: I will agree the sourcing in this article, as it stands, also isn't always the best it could be. But it's not going to be helped by adding more badly-sourced material; what really needs done is improvement of sources, so this could move towards Good Article status. 86.** IP (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt response by both of you and the valid point you have mentioned here. I am very much happy to receive your comments. In future, i will make sure to add material first on talk page. It has been rightly said that if i will keep on editing wrongly, i will be wasting time of everybody. I surely dont want to do that. I am very much interested in contributing to this article. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't worry too much, it's mainly just a matter of getting enough sources together, and good enough quality ones, and making sure the article doesn't end up repeating itself too much. =) 86.** IP (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is really nice to see that there are many who would help you on Wikipedia for a particular interest. It is really nice to know that there are so many who would help you.Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Up to 80% of people in India use either Ayurveda or other traditional medicines

I live in India and I find this information contrary to common sense. There is something teribbly wrong with the reference. When we try to see the referenc, we are directed Here. And this paper says that "In India there are over 12,000 Ayurvedic colleges and hospitals, and up to 80% of the population use Ayurvedic and other traditional medicines, often exclusively (Gogtay et al., 2002)." I was not able to find this book. I would like to know the work done by Gogtay et al., 2002 to come to the conclusion of 80% Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The source cited in P.I. Dargan et al. is Gogtay, N.J., Bhatt, H.A., Dalvi, S.S. and Kshirsagar, N.A. (2002) ‘The use and safety of nonallopathic Indian medicines’, Drug Safety, Vol. 25, pp.1005–1019. The abstract to the article can be found here [5], which states that "The focus on non-allopathic systems of medicine in India can be attributed to various causes including a need to revive a rich tradition, the dependency of 80% of the country’s population on these drugs, their easy availability, increasing worldwide use of these medicines, the lack of focused concerted scientific research and the abuse of these systems by quacks". It appears to have been published in a reputable medical journal. I see nothing wrong with either source, and lacking better grounds than the 'common sense' of a single contributor, see no reason why the figure cannot be cited. On what grounds do you see it as problematic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know if 80% people are using Ayurvedic drugs, then who are they? I dont see them around. How there can be such an amount of discrepancy on paper and in reality? Or maybe we should say that "80% people were reported to use Ayurvedic drugs by one source in 2002"Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source which you have provided. Even this article says that there is need of research in Ayurved for global acceptance.Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny, when I lived in Bombay I found it annoying how often I had to deal with doctors who wanted to give me traditional Indian medicine. It was a few incidents: some Ayurvedic dry rub for psoriasis was one. Most ADD meds are illegal in India (ampetamines, methylphenidate, etc) and it took me two weeks of calling around to finally find a chemist who had methylphenidate and he forced me to give him twice the asking price; the doctor recommended beetlenut (which I already loved and chewed on anyway). Anyway, those are a couple examples but I could think of countless more. When it comes down to it, no one person's experience can be properly representative due to some rules of statistics; check out the article on statistical sampleing. What's important is that the claim is sourced per WP:V and WP:RS. SÆdon^talk 06:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes! That is there, no doubt. I somehow the curiosity to find out this issue to its root. I will try to get the source of Gogtey 2002. I think i will get my answer there. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't really like the source, as it lumps in Ayurveda with every othertype of alternative medicine. For all we know from that figure as cited, only 2% of people use Ayurveda, ans 78% use, I don't know, homeopathy. 86.** IP (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We never know unless and until we do survey. The real question is who came to this figure and how? And there are ways to tally the information and sometimes they are simple one. look at this - "A person who looks fat is generally fat" This is a simple rule by which one can understand the facts quickly. I am not against measurement. In fact measurement is the fact which is lacking in Ayurved and which is why it is not considered as a science. I was planning to conduct a survey where I can find out the real answer. I am in search of Mr. Gogtey 2002, I would like to talk to him. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Till that time, I think the sentence should be changed. Please suggest the changes to be made in the sentence Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting the lead section

The tag says " introduction of this article may need to be rewritten" I think we should discuss here as what needs to be rewritten. We can request them to remove the tag.Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the one point we should rewrite is safety concerns. I think they should be moved in the safety heading instead in the lead section. Please discuss. Thanks Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Journals incomplete

The Journal section is incomplete, and it do not talk about the system of tadvidyasambhasa, which is a primitive form of current system of peer reviewing, without referring to this the section would be incomplete. Misleading information- which says only two PubMed indexed journal exist, there are even more including Ancient Science of Life- the oldest, Ayu and The Journal of Research and Education in Indian Medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujithsubash (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by incomplete. We don't use every single source available on a subject, we give WP:WEIGHT where it is due. SÆdon^talk 04:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Sujithsubash, are these journals (which you have mentioned) pubmed indexed? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai Yes, they are indexed and more important than the already listed for instance Ancient Science of Life is oldest Ayurvedic medical journal and it has 1252 articles (the highest and 10 fold than already listed) among ayurveda journals indexed in PubMed see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Anc%20Sci%20Life%22%5BJournal%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch Pubmed has 1252 articles from this, while International Journal of Ayurveda Research has only 87 articles see- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Int%20J%20Ayurveda%20Res%22%5BJournal%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch and Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine has only 121 articles see- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Int%20J%20Ayurveda%20Res%22%5BJournal%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch

And Tadvidyasambhasha is unique to system of Ayurveda which is earliest form of the present system of publishing a research work in a journal, referring to that is important too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.150.58 (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@SÆdon Incomplete because of following reasons: 1. There is no information how the system of journals existed at a time when this system of medicine was evolving. 2. The section only mentions two journals without mentioning all or even if it is only prominent ones that is been listed, the most important one which has published 10 fold more papers than currently listed is missed out. Is it not incomplete or may even miss-leading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujithsubash (talk • contribs) 06:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Tadvidyasambhasha does not mean a journal. There is fundamental difference in the concept of Tadvidyasambhasha and a journal. Can you come up with any references where there is history of documentation of any journal? There are many historical documents about ayurveda but no reference of journals. A journal is a gift of modern system of medicine. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai (talk) Tadvidyasambhasha does not mean a journal. - I Agree There is fundamental difference in the concept of Tadvidyasambhasha and a journal. I strongly disagree Can you come up with any references where there is history of documentation of any journal? I was referring to tadvidyasambhasha as a system that existed at a period of caraka samhita, which is fundamentally very similar to the process that happens in current practice of publishing an article in a journal, may be it is wrong to say that tadvidyasambhasha is earliest form of journal, but fundamentally it is very similar to the current process of peer reviewing. The term 'tadvidyasambhasha' has now often been used in scientific conferences to refer to a discussion wherein the idea/concept is presented with substantially proving it with adequate references from the classical text itself. There are many historical documents about ayurveda but no reference of journals. A journal is a gift of modern system of medicine. you will never find historical documents about journals as it never existed as a journal. And agree the system of publishing a journal is a gift of modern science necessarily not that of 'modern system of medicine'. But the concept of peer reviewing and dissemination of knowledge was not allien to Ayurveda too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujithsubash (talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a habit to say now a days that "this was there in our science many years back!". The question is if it was there, why we were and are sleeping? The research in ayurveda seems stagnant and in my opinion it is because of rude behavior of some vaidyas where they say that - "Why should i tell my technique to others?" We must give due credit to the person who has worked for it. The concept of journals is very much needed in Ayurveda but it is sad to see very few journals existent. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai (talk) I do not understand what you are trying to convey finally, do you mean to say the current journal section is complete need not be edited and updated? I seriously do not understand what is your take on this!
You said: It is a habit to say now a days that "this was there in our science many years back!". The question is if it was there, why we were and are sleeping? I do not understand who has made this a habit, who are this 'we' whom you refer to. If your intention was to say that Indians have made it a habit and if the 'we' was referring to Indians, i would say 'they' are still sleeping and there is a global community who have recognized it's (Indian sciences) importance and working to understand it better and construct a better world. The fact that Ayurveda (Indian Medicine) has been evolved only through debates and reasoning was not a claim of Indians, but a buch of good scientists from Europe. Read - www.istb.univie.ac.at/caraka/file_download/59
I do not want to take discussion beyond what i was trying to convey here but still, having said 'The research in ayurveda seems stagnant and in my opinion it is because of rude behavior of some vaidyas where they say that - "Why should i tell my technique to others?" We must give due credit to the person who has worked for it. The concept of journals is very much needed in Ayurveda but it is sad to see very few journals existent.' This statement is self contradictory, why do you need more journals when you yourself feel the research in Ayurveda is stagnant? It is not research journals which create more research, it is more good research which would create necessity of more journals. I would say there are too many research journals in Ayurveda compared to kind of good research that happens in Ayurveda, unfortunately the page on Ayurveda here misrepresent and I was concerned with Journal section and every time I update it for some reason it gets removed. (Could be even the way it was framed was not good, if so somebody help me to correct it rather removing the content).(Sujithsubash (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC))

1. Weather Tadwidsambhasha = Journals is debatable.
2. You may add names of other journals. I would support that.

Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Softwares in Ayurveda

I think this is also important information. One of the softwares is Ayusoft. Should we include this in article? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we have a new section as 'Evidence based Ayurveda'

I feel it is necessary as many efforts are taking place in this field. Please discuss. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be an easy matter to list the methods used within Ayurveda, wikilink them, and group them according to whether they are considered evidence-based medicine, or not. The articles would already have to have the MEDRS documentation. It is not the job of this article to do such a thing, but linking to those articles would be appropriate.

A better section title would be "Evidence basis for methods". That allows for listing of methods regardless of status. Then just make three sections: 1. proven methods; 2. unproven; 3. disproven.

How about giving it a try here? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Ayurveda is according to me, that there are some medicines which doctors are using and there are patients who claims that they have results. Now it is very difficult to find out if the drug is really helpful or not because placebo effect may be involved in it. Now to answer these queries, many trials are going on. Some of the trials are even 'randomized controlled trials', which are gold standard. My question here is - should we include such trials in this article? I think you are trying to suggest to have a new article on it and a link given in this article. Is that what you want to say? Please clarify your point if I have misunderstood. Or you start editing the article. I will learn how you are doing it and then would help you. Thank for a quick response to the query. Will you please also respond to other 2 queries? Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Our WP:MEDRS guideline governs such content at Wikipedia. We use reviews of multiple high quality studies, rather than primary sources. Any method which isn't considered well-proven in such reviews automatically ends up in the "unproven" category, or even the "disproven" category. Some methods used in Ayurveda, such as homeopathy, already have articles here, and, based on the content of those articles, can be placed in the appropriate category without having to reproduce all the evidence (i.e. relist all the references) found in those articles. A mere wikilink suffices. For example, homeopathy can be placed in the disproven category without any real controversy. (Any controversy should happen at the method's article, not here.) I suggest you first make a list of the major methods here (forget about listing every single method) and wikilink those which have articles. Then attempt to divide them into the suggested groups. You're the expert on the subject of Ayurveda, while my expertise is about Wikipedia rules and polices, and the quality of medical research. Other editors will no doubt share their skills and opinions, but first we have to have something to work with. You can provide that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am really glad to work with a person who is expert in quality of medical research! People like you are most needed in the field of Ayurveda research. I am trying to understand what you are saying here. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean that for the concept of Prakruti (biotype)in Ayurveda, I will have to prepare a separate article? Is that what you are saying? Like I have done for Reverse Pharmacology? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I know little about the many methods used in Ayurveda, so I don't know what Prakruti is. You're welcome to write such an article, but if you can provide a link to some reviews on the subject that are listed at PubMed, that would be helpful too. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as i know there is no such mention in pubmed till today. I will confirm it. but one interesting thing is - some people were able to find genetic basis for prakruti. prakruti is one of the most important concepts in ayurveda. i am surprised to see that there is no mention of this concept in the article. you can yourself verify it from other people, news, books and many more. one can always claim that it is unproven, but it is important concept and should not be ignored. i feel. thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's that important, it should be mentioned and described. That can be done using regular Ayurveda sources that are considered RS for the opinions of major Ayurveda bodies. Please find such sources and provide them here, together with wording you'd like to use to introduce the subject. Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Concept of prakruti / prakriti

I searched for both these keywords on Pubmed. And I have found 2 articles when I searched with the keyword prakruti and I found 19 articles when I searched with the word prakriti. I am giving the references. 1) Prakruti 2) Prakriti. Now what next? Should I create a new article as Prakriti concept in Ayurveda ? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is an NPOV statement that could form the basis, and reference, for a description:

• "...ahara (diet), vihara (lifestyle), and aushadhi (medication), which are the three pillars of prakriti-based medicine"[6]

We will need all terminology translated into English, so please provide a definition of Prakriti. Brangifer (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As you may already know, the spelling "prakriti" is by far the most used, so you have chosen the best word for the title. Good start! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop the presses! We already have an article!

• Prakṛti

Brangifer (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh... I was really ignorant about it. Now the question is - Should we wikilink it in the Ayurveda article? Thanks Abhijeet Safai (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. You say it's an important concept in Ayurveda. Is it "unique" to Ayurveda? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that its last paragraph links to the Ayurveda article. How would a link the other way be worded and sourced? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The concept of Prakruti is so central and so important in Ayurveda that the total way of treatment changes if prakriti is different. Even on the basis of prakriti, one can predict the kind of diseases he or she will get in future. It is cross sectional evaluation. There are some evidences which claim the possible link between genes and prakruti. In short there can be genetic basis of prakriti. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Now can I add the material as follows? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)