WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Ayurveda is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBPS). The current restrictions are:
Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don't make the edit.
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
Remedy instructions and exemptions
Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
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.
Does it? Being common in Nepal doesn't establish something as vague as "general wellness applications" in something as broad as "countries beyond India." Even if it did, why would that tiny section merit inclusion in the first paragraph of the lede? --tronvillain (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
So there has been a slow edit war going on over the sentence "Other researchers consider it a protoscience, or trans-science system instead." in the lead. This is summarizing sourced content in the body which says
Today, ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific on account of its confusion between reality and metaphysical concepts. Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a protoscience, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.
The classical text Charaka Samhita defines Ayurveda as knowledge of "Aayu" . Aayu is a combination of four factors (1)Sharira(the body), (2) Indriya ( five senses, karmendriya and manas all totalling eleven indriyas) ,(3)Satva ( similar to the chitta of yoga philosophy), (4)Aatma (the soul) . All four in combination comprise of Aayu and the knowledge and study of aayu is the Ayurveda . Nikhilesh1712 (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
So, is that a suggestion for an addition? It would need to be reliably sourced and added to the body before changing anything in the lede. --tronvillain (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is an addition .the definition enhances the lede It has its source in all the main reference books including the charaka samhita in the first sutra sthan section , chapter 1 Nikhilesh1712 (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
If this is so important and central to the article, with the Charaka Samhita mentioned and cited numerous times, why have we never heard of this? -Roxy, the naughty dog.wooF 11:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The lead has never attempted to define what Ayurveda is supposed to be .This should have been done in the begining of the article This classical definition is found in the charaka samhita. It is a extensional definition that describes the purview of Ayurveda. This puts to rest the solely holistic medicine approach that some people may use for Ayurveda . This definition is included in the charaka in the begining verses of charaka samhita . charaka is considered an authorative text of Ayurvedic literature . Its good that Roxy, and Tronvillian are taking tremendous efforts to make the article more authentic, inspite of not being related to Ayurveda, or not having read the charak samhita . 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nikhilesh1712: Stop edit warring. I think a section called "Etymology" can be created but with reliable sources and not the primary sources that you are using, if others agree. Capitals00 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed - note the discretionary sanctions banner at the top of this talk page. Nikhilesh1712, you've performed 5 reversions over the course of the 36 hours, I'd urge you to tread a lot more carefully. GirthSummit (blether) 18:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
yes I agree with you Capital00, Girth Summit . A section called etymology can be created to put in the classical definitions of Ayurveda in the above article .The article looks incomplete without these authentic defining concepts.The article on Ayurveda needs to be better than a local newspaper article. It should convey at least some correct meaning to the new reader, or medical practitioner .Or this topic of classical definition can be added on the third topic of principles and terminology after the first line , as it would look like a continuation just to save some space . What do the editors suggest .Let me know 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thousands of years of islamic rule and the integrity of scriptures
the article should mention that islam destroyed indian texts and had the intent to manipulate texts and the integrity of the vedas may have been compromised and sections of the vedas edited to mislead the hindu population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
If you have any sources for these claims, post them here so that they can be evaluated and/or incorporated into the article. Otherwise, the article cannot be modified. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The claim that there is no scientific evidence to support the use of any Ayurvedic substance is false. At lease one meta-analysis and two review articles from reliable sources find evidence for the effectiveness of one Ayurvedic herb. Additionally, opium is used to treat pain in this tradition. This claim is well verified by science. Some rephrasing is needed. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Could you please quote exactly what in the you believe is false? If it's the third paragraph of the lede, then it seems you're taking it out of context. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ronz: I am referring to the third paragraph of the lede: "Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances used in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no scientific evidence that any are effective as currently practiced." This statement is untrue, or at least overly strong, because there is scientific evidence to support the use of at least two Ayurvedic substances as currently practiced. The statement needs to be weakened. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If some treatments were effective, wouldn't they become part of mainstream medicine practice? In any case, WP:MEDRS sources would be needed to support the claim that they are effective. —PaleoNeonate – 08:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
1) The use of morphine is mainstream. The active ingredient in opium is morphine. 2) The sources cited are WP:MEDRS standard. 3) At one time, about a third of drugs on the market were derived from herbs. The herbs themselves are almost never tested in clinical trials because no one will pay for the trials since you can't patent an herb. As a result, herbs are almost never used in mainstream medicine. But it doesn't make much sense that effective medicines could be derived from traditional medicine herbs that don't work, so we might think that many herbs are effective, but untested. Studies run on one such Ayurvedic herb (referenced below) find evidence for it's effectiveness, invalidating the claim that "there is no scientific evidence that any are effective as currently practiced." --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
If there's a significant quantity we could expect opium to have some effect, indeed (maybe not a cure for cancer, other than pain relief). The current claim is general and sourced to an article about ayurveda and cancer. I'm not even sure that the sentence really reflects the source, when looking at it... Since it's in the lead, it could be a proper summary of the 'Classification and efficacy' section, but then I see that it's mostly the same sentence sourced to the same source there. There is room for improvement. —PaleoNeonate – 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I not sure that the Rejuvenation Research source is usable. —PaleoNeonate – 14:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I wondered about Rejuvenation Research too, but it is medline indexed. Since this source is corroborated by two other WP:MEDRS sources, I see no reason to be suspicious of it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
^Kongkeaw, C; Dilokthornsakul, P; Thanarangsarit, P; Limpeanchob, N; Norman Scholfield, C (2014). "Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on cognitive effects of Bacopa monnieri extract". Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 151 (1): 528–35. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2013.11.008. PMID24252493.