Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere.
Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Ayurveda is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBPS). The current restrictions are:
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures:
Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Please note that due to disruption of this page, if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article, your comment will be removed without reply if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect.
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Ayurveda is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
"Plea Seeks Removal Of 'Defamatory Content' On Ayurveda From Wikipedia". NDTV. 6 May 2022. "The contents of the matter shown on Wikipedia totally malign the natural system of medicine which has a history of more than 3,000 years and is widely respected and accepted the world over, " the petitioner said, pointing out the fact that the incumbent Government of India has also constituted a separate Ministry named AYUSH for Ayurveda and other alternative medicine systems. The petition further stated that the Constitution of a separate ministry is an acknowledgment of this ancient stream of medicine, the petition said.
""You Can Edit Wikipedia Articles" : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Wikipedia Articles Allegedly Defaming Ayurveda". Live Law. 21 October 2022. "The petition referred to the article published on Wikipedia termed Ayurveda as a pseudoscientific and stated that the article written on Wikipedia was unnecessary and written purely with the intent to tarnish Ayurveda. "The matter of concern is that this is utterly absurd, poorly researched and prejudiced article pops up as the first article when Ayurveda is searched on Google", the petition said
The contents of the Panchakarma page were merged into Ayurveda. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Ama (ayurveda) page were merged into Ayurveda on 17 November 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Ayurveda received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
hi @Dāsānudāsa. My edits were intended to make comprehension of the material easier. What in particular did you find biased? Apart from changing the word "some" to "many" medicines (which I feel is justified. 20% of over a hundred medicines is not a small sample), I thought I actually improved the neutrality. I thought it particularly important to include that these toxic metals are deliberately part of the ingredients. The introduction in its current form reads as if this is not the case, and that the use of these metals is due to incompetence, deception (for what reason is anyone's guess), or both. Also (since you reverted 2 of my edits) we are back to building on claims to treating cancer that, as far as I know, have never been made. Was cancer even identified at the time of these scriptures? I await your reply. Aero13792468 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I completely misread your edits. I have no excuse other than that I have cancer and are both foggy-headed from the chemo and extremely super-sensitive about anyone promoting this sort of nonsense as a cancer cure (which clearly you weren't). I will self-revert. Your changes are an improvement. Apologies again; must concentrate more, revert less. Best, Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add that "Recent findings confirmed the nanotherapeutic functionalities of metal derived ayurvedic drugs like jasada basma. The demonstrated experiments,physicochemical and bio-characterization reveal that ayurvedic rasa drugs synthesized and processed through traditional methods are not toxic due to the variation in its structure-property relationship from macro to nano dimensions." please add the following reference for the above edit.https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsomega.2c05391Casira (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone add the section where this treatment is effective like the case with former Kenyan president's daughter who were unable to treat her eye disease, none of the treatment was successful but in the end when she used ayurvedic treatment helped her get her eyesight back.There are several articles about this,you can google it, i can't add links because it's not allowed 2409:40D1:16:36AD:DCD2:F1FF:FE81:2E7F (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done fails WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)