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.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Chakra, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga 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.
I can understand the revert of my recent edit  in relation to the POV of the lead. Whilst the lead might treat the subject with a NPOV, I really don't think the rest of the article is quite as good, which is why I added that statement to attempt to balance out what comes later. I'd quite like to re-add my statement, but would like to know what others think first. Pascal (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it's ridiculously inappropriate. Chakras have nothing to do with science, it's not required that the concept should be "approved" scientifically. The lead clearly says that it's a belief in certain religious traditions. If there's a problem with certain sections, then tag or fix those sections. — Jean Calleo(talk) 20:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry. I guess I got confused by the section that says "Chakra is a concept referring to wheel-like vortices which, according to traditional Indian medicine, are believed to exist in the surface of the subtle body of living beings. The Chakras are said to be "force centers" or whorls of energy permeating, from a point on the physical body, the layers of the subtle bodies in an ever-increasing fan-shaped formation." Yeah, nothing about that needs to have ANY scientific backing at all... Pascal (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Please keep the sarcasm, it's not helpful. The article describes the beliefs about chakras in a neutral manner, it doesn't make any factual statements. Or if it does, it's because there's only so many times you can repeat in a single article words like "is said to be", "is described/depicted as", "is believed to be"—without it becoming excessive. Your addition makes us editors look stupid, thinking it's necessary to state the obvious. Look at articles about, say, some mythological creatures — nowhere do they say that the modern scientific community doesn't think they exist. It'd be stating the obvious and it's not necessary unless you think Wikipedia mostly caters to an audience of completely uncultured morons.
Fair enough. This is why I came here instead of just reverting your edit. However, at some point in the near future I'm going to go through the article with a fine tooth comb. Some of the sentences really bug me. Pascal (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
To be fair though, it's a completely different situation when someone searches for mythical creatures. They're generally already known as mythical, whereas pseudoscience/religion/etc often makes factual claims about how the real world works with no evidential basis, so I don't think you can compare the two. I do think it's quite important to mention that scientific understanding has found no evidence of chakras (as is currently mentioned in the article), because otherwise, many people may visit the page looking for not just information about what chakras are from a theoretical/spiritual point of view, but for actual scientific verification of the validity of chakras. I'm not suggesting Wikipedia caters to uncultured morons, but that it caters to a wide variety of people, including those who are easily misled by ideas that are inviting and holistic, but patently untrue. The scientific consensus is absolutely appropriate to mention prominently in such articles IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
People often make claims that Chakras are real, it's worth clarifying the scientific literature on the subject. Wikipedia makes the lack of evidence in homeopathy very explicit. We should do so here. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Science is just one way of knowing things. It's not the end-all and be-all of existence. Art is just as important, unless you want to live in a sterile solution. Chakras are a way, just a way, to understand something about human behavior. Therefore, the study or the topic of the chakras is one of the Humanities. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I just came here from the Crystal Healing page, and I'd like to add my vote for including science on this page. They do on the Crystal healing page, the best they can at least. People do come here for general information. Pages for mythological animals should and would include scientific information about their existence if it were available. No one implied it is necessary that it be "approved", but science should have a say.
I'm all for Pascal going through it with a fine-toothed comb. Have at it.
The Sanskrit pronunciation [ˈtʃəkrə̃] links to the IPA for Sanskrit, but this doesn't include the first couple of symbols used in the word. They do appear in the one for Hindi and Urdu. Can someone knowledgable fix this thanks... 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have completed a series of symbols for the seven primary chakras in vector format. They are now linked in the description pages of the GIF files presently used in this article.Morgan Phoenix (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)