Talk:Ayurveda

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes ~~~~. Note that this article is under a number of editing restrictions per discretionary sanctions. You must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article. Editors violating these restrictions may be blocked.

IPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

When I restored the new edits, my impression was that the lead is not WP:LEAD compliant (is very long and includes too much material, some not necessarily a summary of the article's material) and that making it shorter would be a good idea. I thought that the new edits were an improvement in that direction. I then assessed the article contents and noticed that these edits alone would not have been enough however, as at least some of the important material moved out of the lead should then be replaced by a summary in the lead, of course. Also, Anmolbhat's edit summary was missing; one was provided at the second revert but still suboptimal: Restore long-standing WP:LEAD, removed without discussion; it's understood only means that you prefer the existing lead, without any detail. Per WP:BRD, I invite Zetret to discuss here and attempt to form consensus before restoring their edits. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead should cover the entire article. See talk page archives and also the hidden note on lead. Current lead is a work of many editors over years and seems stable for years as well. Traditional Chinese medicine also did the same. We can't just let some editor unilaterally change it and the same editor who still doesn't understand what is WP:LEADCITE or WP:VANDALISM.[1][2] Capitals00 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ayurveda is more than just modern applications, that's why there is no reason in trimming the lead and moving or removing the content about history already covered in the section. I am also concerned with the recent "trim" of lead done by Zefr, which seemed nothing more than cherrypicked removals of important contents. And without gaining consensus. Anmolbhat (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PaleoNeonate, user Zetret here, The edits done by "AnmolBhat" should not be accepted and here is why; 1) The line "Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances used in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments" is added by someone to mislead the public, that conclusion can NOT be drawn from the citation - please review. That is why I removed it. 2) The paragraphs 2 and 4 in the LEAD are bizarre and provide no coherent information for someone trying to get an understanding of what Ayurveda is. I strongly suggest moving those to the "History" section. They are too long. 3) The last line of the first paragraph "In countries beyond India, Ayurveda therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use." is completely incorrect. The citation suggests a GERMAN book and contains nothing to verify what's been written. 4) Paragraph 3 talks about modern day implications, BUT is nestled between paragraphs 2 and 4 which are historical information about some ancient texts and speculation of how this practice MAY have come about. I suspect this is to intentionally trick people into not reading the paragraph where we clearly identify this as a "pseudo-science".

A lot of people are losing their LIVES by going to these fake clinics of Ayurveda, so the least we could do is to have a coherent LEAD for this topic, and to mention how there is no EVIDENCE for the efficacy of these practices.

Based on these four incorrect instances in the LEAD alone, I, I with considerable knowledge on this subject, can guarantee that you have been subject to a form of vandalism. My edits were to simply make this a better read. Thanks, Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You have no valid reason to remove content from the stable lead. With this POV pushing you have reduced the remaining chances of getting your edits accepted. Source clearly support what has been written and this is not Modern Ayurveda like Anmolbhat wrote as well. As for rest of your comment, Wikipedia is not for your WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. Also stop deliberately calling constructive edits a vandalism. Capitals00 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

With this POV pushing you have reduced the remaining chances of getting your edits accepted that "POV" is mainstream science/medicine POV, so it would technically be NPOV... —PaleoNeonate – 17:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources exactly supporting his narrowed POV? By the way, we are talking about lead here. Capitals00 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The lede was certainly verbose with far too much history and baseless justification for Ayurveda as a valid medical discipline, as it is a pseudoscience and folk medicine practice. This edit removed over-discussion of history, some of which was retained for the History section where it belongs; it is not lede material. Weak or non-English sources covered by other references were removed. Having taken a fresh look at this article, the lede sufficiently introduces what the topic is and its general practices, acknowledging its history. This should be a sufficient introduction to the article. --Zefr (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead already said its pseudo-science and there is no substantial evidence of its effects. WP:IDONTLIKEIT won't help, because content is sourced and long standing. Also with the cherry picked removals from lead as well as replacing the terms from entire article without explanation or getting consensus here also shows weakness of your argument. Again, this is not Modern Ayurveda, nor our aim is to remove any details about positive researches or significance on Ayurveda. Even if the article's aim had to be such, your edits are just contrary to NPOV. Capitals00 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Capitals00, Zefr and PaleoNeonate - I PLEAD you to please read my four points again. I am a doctor by profession and these harmful practices are not a joking matter. I don't see any changes in the current version of the article. Paragraphs 2 and 4 have no necessity being in the lead. And there are false claims in paragraphs 1 and 3. I have very clearly mentioned the reasons above. At LEAST, consider moving paragraph 3 to paragraph 2 so it is not nestled between some incoherent statements about history of Ayurveda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret (talk • contribs)

The article is C-class (lowly) rated (top of this page) because it is poorly written, relies only on pseudoscientific sources, and leads a non-scientific reader to believe it is a valid medical practice. It is a pseudoscience within alternative medicine and does not adhere to WP:MEDRS sourcing. We can learn lessons for revising the lede based on this discussion for the Alternative medicine article. The argument by Zetret about "people losing their lives", although possibly true, is moot and WP:UNDUE because the encyclopedia does not discuss personal or fringe (extreme) views per WP:OR. Other points on lede content made by Zetret are valid. We can employ the well-vetted Alternative medicine article to rewrite this one. Concerning the lede: 1) state that it is a pseudoscience and folk medicine, generally similar to the herbalism article, because there are no WP:MEDSCI sources demonstrating it as a science-based medical practice; 2) remove specific historical content and quotes from ancient sources as laborious and off-topic to introduce the topic; 3) unless valuable for history, remove sources and related content older than 5 years per WP:MEDDATE. These points were the basis for my edit abbreviating the lede here. --Zefr (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This sounds very reasonable to me. —PaleoNeonate – 17:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PaleoNeonate and Zefr. That's a good start. As this is my first time, who will be making these changes? (I didn't include "losing their lives" in my four points, and was simply to illustrate that. I do have sources (citations) regarding deaths caused by Ayurvedic practices, and hopefully will add them in the future in the respective section, once the lead looks good). Hope that is allowed. It is not a fringe view, just factual occurrences. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You are just providing incorrect understanding of this subject and mispresenting guidelines. It is not "generally similar to the herbalism", but far broader. It is not a newly invented practice that's why it is also called protoscience on lead. Unless there is a policy that would support your one one-sided fringe views and override years of consensus, I would think about it, but right now this is nothing more than POV pushing and attempt to get rid of material that you really don't like. You are citing guidelines where you believe they would suit, WP:MEDDATE speaks of replacing sources, not removing them and content about history is unrelated to that whole guideline page. Using the article's class as excuse for your POV edits is not going to help either because you are only degrading its class with such edits. Article is also a part of Hinduism and Category:Hindu philosophical concepts not just modern medicines. Though your edits are contrary to NPOV even if it was all about Ayurveda as a modern medicine only. Capitals00 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As the discussion above by PaleoNeonate, Zetret, myself, and other editors in article history indicates consensus for lede revision, I am taking recent edits and applicable historical edits to create a new version. Please bring discussion here for changes rather than engaging in edit wars. --Zefr (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Three editors don't make consensus, and not at all when you lack the understanding of the subject and have only misrepresented the guidelines, while Zetret is out there to right great wrongs. You are just edit warring and your version is problematic.[3] See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Ayurveda. Capitals00 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00, three of us have already stated this isn't POV pushing or WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, but basic medical (objective) facts. Can you tell me why the third paragraph in the lead can't be the second paragraph? I am not asking about removing content for now. Paragraphs 2 and 4 talk about historical Ayurveda, but paragraph 3 is about how it is pseudoscience. It is incoherent. What rule are we violating by re-ordering the paragraphs (for now). I genuinely want to understand your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetret (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Zetret (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to support such a problematic overview? This is not just a "medical" article, but also Hinduism and other Indian philosophical concepts. There is violation of WP:LEAD, policy says that you have to cover all major aspects of the article but you and Zefr are making attempts to change it, so that readers would conceive your POV before anything else on the article, in place of giving them the correct knowledge about Ayurveda. Though you are not misrepresenting sources like Zefr,[4] your comments qualify WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. You need to read how scholarly sources describe Ayurveda, such as [5][6][7][8][9], our lead is already far more critical of Ayurveda than mainstream analysis of Ayurveda by scholars. If you want to make the lead more contrary, then I would suggest you to better write your own blog and read WP:NOT. Capitals00 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00 What do you mean? You haven't answered the question, "Can you tell me why the third paragraph in the lead can't be the second paragraph?". I never asked you advise about why I should write a blog and I am very much aware of WP:NOT. Although I can't prove it, you sound like one of those psuedoscience believing nut jobs which is probably why three of us already disagree with how you've been bullying people for no reason. Zetret (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why I had asked you to provide sources that support your problematic overview and you have failed. 2nd paragraph deals with history and origins of Ayurveda, 3rd one deals with modern research, which one is more significant in context of its entire history? I had also provided 5 mainstream sources that supported my comment. Surprisingly, you still have to ask "what do you mean?". Also read Traditional Chinese medicine, that has been written similarly. I can't do anything about your incompetence and WP:IDHT, I can only tell you the guidelines that you claim to have read but still you are acting contrary after saying that you "can't prove", and such incompetence is too apparent which is why you have to brag this "three of us" often, since you are also sure that you can't take responsibility of your problematic edits. I go by mainstream scholarly view, not your lowly believed or personal thoughts. Capitals00 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

edit warring

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

I disagree with Roxy the dog. There have been many significant changes in last few months and even few hours before edit war started[10], but if you are going to change lead without getting consensus and make factually incorrect edits by relying on your trivial argument, then you would obviously get reverted per WP:BRD, just like any other article. Similar sensible sanctions are currently installed on all Kashmir conflict-related articles as well, just for avoiding disruption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zefr, your proposed edits are only going to degrade the quality of the article and you seem to be still not agreeing with that. You can't accuse others of ignoring good faith when you are edit warring and making unqualified changes. Your edits were misrepresenting sources and you changed/removed terms without explanation and duplicated information in a section.[11] Each information has to be supported by your source, not by what you are thinking per WP:OR. Your claim that everyone has distorted the lead and article to this day is also unhelpful just like repeating yourself. I don't see any reason why we should keep a lead that completely distracts from the actual status of Ayurveda. Capitals00 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft lede

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

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

• That would be very typical for a 100% modern medicinal subject, but this is not just a medical article but also about pre-history, Hinduism and other Indian philosophies. There are no "errors or ambiguity" in present lead. Ayurveda lead contains 393 words, while Traditional Chinese Medicine has 485 words. You can propose here what type of lead you really want, but I would recommend you to propose something much better than your last edit. Lead is an introduction, and we need to introduce Ayurveda the way scholars do,[12][13][14][15][16] even if it is going to reduce some undue criticism found in the present lead. But that's if you are really planning to re-write lead, otherwise there is no need. Capitals00 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think books like The Complete Idiot's Guide to Food Allergies really count as very scholarly. There is obviously a historical aspect to this topic, but if you look at, say, Researchgate result[17] the heavy preponderance of sources treat Ayurveda in the context of active, contemporary medical discussion. For neutrality, Wikipedia must be aligned with real-world sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dubious claims made in the history section

I felt that I had to bring this up here because the change that I made by removing a dubious and non-factual claim has been reversed twice. There is a statement in the History of Ayurveda section which claims that the "origins of Ayuveda has been traced to 5000 BCE". This claim is false because even the Vedas in India, which are considered the earliest Sanskrit literature are dated to only 1800 BCE at the earliest. Even the Indus Valley Civilization did not exist in 5000 BCE. How can it be justified to include this obviously false and misleading statement in the History section? None of the sources cited have the actual references (with statement and page no.) and even if the sources do state this, they likely refer to some popular tradition within Ayurveda which dates it to 5000 BCE. Passing off such folk traditions and popular beliefs as history is in violation of Wikipedia policy of excluding fringe theories WP:FRINGE and that exceptional claims require exception sources.

Please exclude this sentence or rephrase it to say that traditions within Ayurveda hold its origin to be in 5000 BCE but it is not a viable belief for the reasons stated above. (Chetan vit (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC))

At the moment, the statement appears to persist by virtue of an avalanche of dubious sources. Well, the sources themselves may not be dubious, but using them as a reliable source for ancient history certainly is. We have Handbook of Chemicals and Safety, Safe Use of Chemicals: A Practical Guide, Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Older Adults: A Guide to Holistic Approaches to Healthy Aging, Issues in Pharmaceuticals by Disease, Disorder, or Organ System: 2011 Edition, Challenges of Healthcare in India: Economics and Administration, and Ayurveda: The Food Balancing Act - not one of them constitutes reasonable support for the "5000 BCE" claim. In fact, the Issues in Pharmaceuticals... doesn't even claim 5000 BCE, saying "Ayurveda dates back to the period of the Indus Valley civilization (about 3000 B.C.) and has been passed on through generations of oral tradition." Anyway, I've tried rewriting the history introduction. --21:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• So far, in these 5 years Chetan is the first person to object this. What you are doing is called WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources. Vedas are a writing, Indus Valley Civilization was a period. Actually, 5,000 BCE seems to be a under-estimation if we look more. There are many older civilizations in India such as Lahuradewa, Jhusi, etc. than Indus Valley Civilization. Dentistry alone shows its origins to be 7,000 BCE in India.[18] WP:FRINGE doesn't apply when the information is backed by reliable sources and you have no clear rebuttal. As for your claim that none of the source support information, then you are just misrepresenting sources. "Scholars have traced origins of Ayurveda as far back as 5000 BC".[19] (page 12). And Tronvillian, stop edit warring when you started off by misrepresenting sources by using a misleading edit summary [20] Your explanation and removal of sourced content is described by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because you found one out of rest of other sources not supporting the content, doesnt means you are allowed to remove entire sentences and edit war by misrepresenting sources. Be careful with what you say here and read the page sanctions. You are not allowed to remove or add anything if you have been reverted already, unless information is obviously wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's just inaccurate. What I'm doing isn't original research, it's looking at what the credible sources actually say. There are multiple high quality sources (ones that are already in the article) saying that Ayurveda has its roots in the Vedas, multiple high quality sources giving age ranges for the Vedas, and multiple high quality sources dating the actual Ayurvedic texts more recently than that. The existing sources parroting the 5000 BCE claim are laughable: Handbook of Chemicals and Safety, Safe Use of Chemicals: A Practical Guide, Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Older Adults: A Guide to Holistic Approaches to Healthy Aging, Issues in Pharmaceuticals by Disease, Disorder, or Organ System: 2011 Edition, Challenges of Healthcare in India: Economics and Administration, and Ayurveda: The Food Balancing Act. Those are not credible sources for a historical claim, and absolutely do not establish that "Scholars have traced origins of Ayurveda as far back as 5000 BC." Where are these supposed scholars, and why aren't they in the article instead of Handbook of Chemicals and Safety? If there's an explanation other than attempting to shore up a widespread pseudohistorical claim, I'd like to hear it.

That "There are many older civilizations in India such as Lahuradewa, Jhusi, etc. than Indus Valley Civilization" is completely irrelevant to the age of Ayurvedic concepts. It's amazing, and while those civilizations must have had some kind of medical practices, no apparent evidence exists that they were in any sense accurately described as Ayurvedic. Even the evidence for Ayurveda in the Indus Valley Civilization appears to be essentially nonexistent. As one of the sources already in the article (Ayurveda: Life, Health and Longevity) says, "With such attention to sanitation, they almost surely possessed a system of medicine, though no firm evidence yet exists to support this conjecture except for the discovery in Harappan remains of substances such as deer antler and bitumen, which are used in classical Ayurveda" and From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge." And that's the references currently being used for the statement "Some scholars assert that Ayurveda originated in prehistoric times."--tronvillain (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the page accordingly, lets see what happens. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)