Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Concepts in Ayurveda

Prakruti is one of the important concepts in Ayurveda Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Uncited (or largely uncited) stuff

Pulling these from the article until reliable sources can be found. These aren't key claims.

---

From the history section

It has also been proposed that ayurvedic theory and practice owes a great deal to the practices and ideas of the ascetic milieu of the fifth to the third centuries BCE. This would include the early Buddhists, the Ajivikas, the Jains, and the ascetics mentioned in the Upanisads, as well as non-denominational renouncers.

---

This was in the section on Ayurveda in India; it's uncited, and probably a bit excessively long for a general article.

The Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree is the basic five-and-a-half year course of graduation. It includes eighteen different subjects comprising courses on anatomy with cadaver dissections, physiology, pharmacology, pathology, modern clinical medicine & clinical surgery, pediatrics, along with subjects on ayurveda like Charaka Samhita, history and evolution of ayurveda, identification and usage of herbs (dravyaguna), and ayurvedic philosophy in diagnostics and treatment.

---

Only a trivial claim is cited in the following section; all the key claims are uncited, and the trivial claim won't stand on its own..

In the United States

Early contributors to the promotion of Ayurveda in the United States include the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Transcendental Meditation group along with Deepak Chopra. Other important early promoters include David Frawley, Vasant Lad, Robert Svoboda, John Douillard, Sarita Shrestha and Marc Halpern. In 1995, the California College of Ayurveda became the first State-Approved institution for training practitioners of Ayurveda in the United States marking the beginning of the formalization of Ayurvedic education in the United States. In 1997, Marc Halpern and several graduates of the California College of Ayurveda formed the California Association of Ayurvedic Medicine. This association was the first State association promoting the interests of Ayurveda in the United States. In 1998, four individuals founded the National Ayurvedic Medical Association. These four individuals were Marc Halpern, Wynn Werner, Kumar Batra and Cynthia Copple. In 2009, the United States of America National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) of the National Institutes of Health expended $1.2 million of its $123 million annual budget on ayurvedic medicine-related research.

---

This section is entirely uncited

In the United Kingdom

Ayurveda was introduced to UK in the early 1980s. In 2001, Thames Valley University started the first degree qualification in Ayurveda. It was followed by Manipal Ayurvedic University of Europe (BSc in Ayurveda) in 2006 and Middlesex University offering bachelors and masters degree programmes in Ayurveda.

The Secretary of State for Health announced in February 2011 that the Health Professions Council (HPC) has been asked to establish a statutory register for practitioners supplying unlicensed herbal medicines including Ayurveda. A formal consultation exercise was to take place on specific legislative proposals for establishing the register and proposed reforms of medicines legislation later in 2011. Subject to Parliamentary procedures, the Department of Health aimed to have the legislation in place in 2012.

---

The following has its key claim uncited; the rest doesn't work without that claim. It may well be in the final citation, if someone can check?

Patents

In December 1993, the University of Mississippi Medical Center had a patent issued to them by United States Patent and Trademark Office on the use of turmeric for healing. The patent was contested by India's industrial research organization, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), on the grounds that traditional ayurvedic practitioners were already aware of the healing properties of the substance for centuries, and that this prior art made the patent a case of bio-piracy. R A Mashelkar, director-general of the Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, made the following observation:

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.

---

Please do not readd these without reliable sources.

Concept of Prakruti and concept of Ayurgenomics

The concept of Prakruti is one of the fundamental concepts of Ayurveda. Should we include it in the article? It has genetic basis also. At least is is being claimed so. Should we have this information in the article? ThanksAbhijeet Safai (talk) 06:13, 18 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) 07:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Safety concerns

I tried to move this part and then Dominus Vobisdu reverted it. Now also Joshgreene tried to move it and Dominus Vobisdu has reverted it saying that there are no consensus! It would be great if this point can be discussed here as suggested by Dominus Vobisdu. I do understand that safety concerns are valid and hence they need not be removed. But I feel that they should not be there in the lead section. We can surely have a line in lead section and can move the other part of para at proper place. Thanks Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that the introduction of a traditional healing system, or any other health-care system -alternative or otherwise- would focus on introducing the system, its purpose, origin, history, theory etc, given that safety concerns do not deal primarily with the system itself. The two US studies showing that 20% of Ayurvedic treatments contain toxic levels of heavy metals may only indicate that there is some kind of contamination going on which cannot be attributed to the practice of Ayurveda itself. Until those studies receive further confirmation, I would suggest -for the sake of the readers- that the mention of safety concerns in the introduction be omitted indefinitely. Exoticvoid (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I am against the act of omission. I feel that it should be there in the article but it need not be there in lead section more than a line. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If this is a personal issue where you feel that it should be there but you cannot justify it with a logical explanation, then this is not reason enough. You will have to provide a more rational argument if you want to justify your act to include potentially misleading information it in the introduction. Otherwise what is the point in including information that has not yet been fully verified by more studies in the introduction section of the article? Exoticvoid (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing the information also can mislead! Hence, let others also comment over here. I would like to know the opinion of Dominus Vobisdu as he was opposing removal of information. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case, it wont mislead to relegate the text in question to the heading most appropriate to it, or to remove it entirely. The logic is simple. We dont know whether the toxicity levels found in the Ayurvedic substances used in the two US studies are an attribute of the Ayurvedic system itself, or if it simply reflects the quality of substances used in those two studies. We dont even know the sample size for these studies. Until it is clear as to the exact nature of these studies, I would like to ensure that the 'safety concern' is either placed under its appropriate heading or deleted from the introduction, since it cannot be shown to be directly related to the function of the Ayurvedic system. Exoticvoid (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Safety concerns are a major part of the discussion of Ayurveda in independent reliable sources, and is inherent in the practice of Ayurveda itself, since even if used "by the books", it involves the use of toxic plants and heavy metals. It therefore belongs in the lead. It would seriously violate WP:WEIGHT to bury it dlwn in the article in an attempt to whitewash the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm here following a request on WT:PHARM by Dominus Vobisdu, to offer an outside view.

The article contains several reliable sources talking about heavy metals in Ayurvedic medicine (more specifically in Rasa shastra), and at least two of them say they are added intentionally. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" which means that having a line or two in the lead, and the rest in the Safety section, is in order. This is also the current situation of the article. Removing any mention of safety concerns from the lead might be seen as a violation of WP:NPOV in combination of WP:LEAD. As the issue has made it into at least half a dozen scientific articles and one general-audience newspaper (USA Today), I think "prominent controversy" is an appropriate description. If this view is contested, it might be helpful to find out whether more newspapers or magazines reported on the issue. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Journals

Listing journals as though they were scientific peer reviewed journals gives Ayurveda undue legitimacy and thus violates WP:FRINGE and WP:VALID. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just deleted the section entirely, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If an individual journal is of any real significance (as verifiable by third-party sources), it should be mentioned in the appropriate section of text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestion to improve the article?

I am observing this article from last 3-4 months. Some people are doing fantastic job of reverting vandalism and bad edits. But is it all? I think that the article lacks lot of content which should be here at the article. I request everybody here to give their opinions to improve the article. I am interested in contributing for the same. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo regarding head massage

The photo regarding head massage in the article seems irrelevant. There is no mention of head massage anywhere in Ayurvedic literature! Other important photos of external oil application, fomentation, or other Panchakarmaphotos would be relevant. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Needed images

Images of Charaka, Sushruta or Vagbhata would be highly appreciated for this article. Also images of some of the Ayurvedic drugs / preparation process photos would also be suitable for this article. Please add these if someone has these photos. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

References in lead section

The review of the article mentions that the lead section should not have any reference. please see here. We have many references in the lead section of the article. Any suggestions? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hindu Ayurveda & Buddhist Ayurveda

It would be good to include something about similarities and differences between Buddhist Ayurveda and Hindu Ayurveda since this is not clear. There are great deal of similarities as well as some differences (e.g. in philosophy) as it relates to Ayurveda. For example regarding Purusha, Mind etc. There are also varying systems of Ayurveda such as Sri Lanka & India for example. It would be good to have some information about this especially since this would be of interest to many readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.130.201.167 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest to go for 'History of Ayurveda' article for this reason. Buddhist period is considered as golden period of Ayurveda as this is the period when Ayurveda flourished the most. Once we will start writing this period,we can mention the philosophies, techniques developed in this period. Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Need for 'History of Ayurveda' Article

There is a need for History of Ayurveda article. History of Ayurveda was very glorious. It will be interesting to get to know many things in it. I request the community to discuss about the possibility and need for such an Article. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Scientific appraisal

should we have a new article with name 'Scientific appraisal of Ayurvedic drugs'? I am sure that there is lot of material which needs to be put. I think it will be inappropriate to put the material in this article. Hence requesting to create a new article for this information. Please comment. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Develop it as a section first, then if the article becomes much too long we ca break it out into an article. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I shall do it soon. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Neem appears to have beneficial pharmacological properties

This is a statement now under 'scientific appraisal'. I think that this statement is quite vague and think that this needs to be more specific. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

Have removed the reference of chavanprasha from lead section. It can be added under history section of the article. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And I would request to not to put information in lead section without consensus. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Sanskrit books are considered primary sources

Does this mean that ALL the sanskrit books are primary sources? I understand a bit of sanskrit. If I prepare a PDF copy of sanskrit today, will it be considered as a primary source? -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's my opinion. The Vedic literature, as I understand it, was originally an oral tradition dating back thousands of years. This is not a historical record. What we need are secondary sources based on academic scholarship, ideally within the past 50 years and published in academic journals or books. It should be possible to find scholarly sources on the history of Ayurveda. For example, I have a short history of Ayurveda in a book titled Modern and Global Ayurveda, by Wujastyk, published in 2008. This seems like the sort of source that we should be using. TimidGuy (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Park new, unsourced material here for discussion

The following was recently added to the article, but is somewhat problematic because: 1) it's not grammatical, 2) it doesn't cite a source, 3) it makes claims that should be sourced.

Earliest history of ayurveda is found in Vedic litrature in which a herbal paste called Chyawanprash was prepared for Chyavana rishi, who was son of Bhrigu rishi and lived in the Vedic state of 'BRAHMAVARTA' on the Dhosi Hill. This was the period after great floods, 10,000 years ago, beginning of holocene period when Manu and Bhrigu compiled Manusmriti. Not only Chyawanprash was formulated for the feeble and senile rishi, but the processes of Kayakalp were also introduced by the 'Rajya Vaids' the twins, Ashwini Kumar brothers to make him look young and good looking, on the request of his wife Sukanya. The Kayakalp processes involved preparing and applying of herbal skin oimtments and herbal solutioms for mixing with bathing water. Ayurveda's fundamental and applied principles got organized and percolated among common masses later on. Chyavana rishi's ashram at Dhosi Hill, still has rare herbs and Copper water tanks which help in skin toning.

In particular, the material relies on interpretation of a primary sources. Wikipedia authors, per policy, should rely on secondary sources. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Sudhirkbhargava edited the blockquote in my comment above, apparently intending to fix the issues but inadvertently using markup that caused much of the comment to disappear. Here is the edited version, with corrected markup:

Earliest mentions and history of Ayurveda is found in Vedic litrature in which a herbal paste of 64 herbs called Chyawanprash was prepared for Chyavana rishi(Saint), who was son of Bhrigu rishi(saint) and lived in the Vedic state of 'BRAHMAVARTA' on the Dhosi Hill in India. This was the period after great floods, 10,000 years ago,and beginning of holocene period when Manu and Bhrigu compiled the Sanskrit 'Guide book for Vedic people' called Manusmriti. Not only the first ever known herbal paste Chyawanprash was formulated for the feeble and senile rishi Chyavana, but the processes of Kayakalp were also introduced by the 'Rajya Vaids', known as Ashwini Kumar brothers to make Chyavana Rishi look young and good looking. The Kayakalp processes involved preparing and applying of herbal skin oimtments and herbal solutions for applying on body. Chyavana rishi's ashram at Dhosi Hill, still has rare herbs and Copper water tanks which help in skin toning.

Please read the policy linked above that contains a discussion of primary and secondary sources. The Mahabharata is a primary source. We need to find a scholarly secondary source that locates the origin at this time and place. However, it's obviously problematic suggesting that the Mahabharata is a historical record. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't treat it as a reliable source on ancient history and medicine, but if reworded to make the background clear, it could add a bit more depth to the article... bobrayner (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this could add interesting background, but there's a lot of interpretation of a primary source here. Making a connection between this concoction and Ayurveda is an interpretation. Locating the events of this oral epic at a particular historical place and time is an interpretation. Dating the Manusmriti to this particular time is an interpretation. If any scholars have made these connections, it should be easy to find. The original editor could likely find something in Google Books. I agree that it could add more depth to the article. The Vedic tradition is fascinating. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I agree with you about interpretation. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have merely put facts here about great floods, Chyavana Rishi and Ayurvedic preparation Chyawanprash and their time period 10,000 years ago. There are no interpretations involved. Mahabharata may have some inaccuracies, but descriptions about Bhrigu, who has contributions to many ancient Sanskrit books, his son Chyavana, his hermitage at Dhosi Hill and Chyawanprash, which is consumed by millions in many countries are facts. You are right that many scholars have not commented on where Chyawanprash was prepared for the first time and its history, which is mentioned in several ancient Vedic books, probably because there was no need for it. However, I shared this information because Wikipedia encourages to share information.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's take, for example, the date of 10,000 years ago. The The Kurukshetra War, which the Mahabharata narrates, is generally thought to date to anywhere from 6000 BCE to 500 BCE. We would need a source that dates this to 10,000 years ago. The overall idea, as we've noted, may add interesting background. But we need scholarly sources to support the information. TimidGuy (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Mahabharata, the epic in Sanskrit is dated 3000 BCE and has description of Chyavana Rishi for whom the herbal preparation Chyawanprash was formulated for the first time. That time period was 8000 BCE, beginning of holocene period immediately after great floods. The hermitage of Chyavana Rishi was located at Dhosi Hill. I wonder how my postings can be termed as Primary source. The story of preparation of Chyawanprash is, in fact, mentioned in several sanskrit books by ancient authors. If you accept them as reliable authours, I can give citations here.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for 8000 BC? TimidGuy (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

8000 BCE was the time when the North India, or the state of Brahmavarta, where Vedic seers lived, had devastating floods. Bhrigu Rishi and his son Chyavana for whom Chyawanprash was formulated had lived in Brahmavarta. The fact is mentioned in many Sanskrit books describing Vedic Sanskriti, as I have explained above.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please quote and cite the source. I don't see how this can be known. There are no historical records from this period. It's speculative. What is the evidence? TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent carbon datings of several sites in India in Saraswati-Drishadwati confluence area, which formed the Vedic state of Brahmavarta, and satellite images of palaeochannels of these ancient rivers, confirm that these areas had habitations of Vedic seers 10,000 years ago, and they composed Vedic Sanskriti (Culture), carried them verbally for thousands of years. Books like Manusmriti, Rigveda are not dated properly, though they give good description of flood time happenings, because scholars who dated the contents of these books several decades ago did not have the scientific analysis. I have all the recent scientific datings, but they will be considered only primary support. Several editors on Wiki want tertiary sopports, which I cannot provide: that is the problem. Chyawanprash, was first formulated around flood time as per books mentioned above. I do intend to put the scientific evidences shortly on wiki.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that even if there are archaeological remains, there's no way of knowing whether those settlements were associated with Vedic seers. That is simply something that can't be known. There is no historical record. There are only oral traditions. Compounding the uncertainty is that the oral traditions describe a pastoral culture, which isn't congruent with the archaeological remains. Some day these things may be known, but for now we can only go with whatever the scholarly consensus is, and we need high quality secondary sources for that. There still exists the possibility that we could add your point to the article as conjecture, if you can find a high quality source that frames it as such. TimidGuy (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is to be added as conjecture, then mentions of flood period seers Manu, Bhrigu, Chyavana mentioned in Manusmriti and other sanskrit books mentioned above is sufficient enough. However, to add scientific evidences, recent carbon datings and other analysis confirm happenings during flood times and that period. In a respected book published recently written by Upinder Singh, 'A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India:From Stone Age to 12th Century' page 111 says, Pollen studies of salt lakes of Didwana, Lunkaransar and Sambhar lakes, which formed the part of Vedic Saraswati river as per Manusmriti, indicate a marked increase in cereal-type pollen in this area in 7000 BCE. This time period was after the floods and period of Manu, Bhrigu and Chyavana. This along with the discovery of tiny charcoal pieces, may indirectly suggest the clearing of forests and the beginning of agriculture.' The seers mentioned above are Vedic seers and lived in Brahmavarta state located on Saraswati river near the three lakes mentioned above as described in Sanskrit books.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is interesting, and I greatly appreciate your efforts and explanations. But this is getting a bit far from the original assertion. We have to be cautious about violating the policy regarding original research. We can't ourselves make a logical connection. What we need is a secondary source that conjectures about the historical background in the manner of your original text that you added: that the origins of Ayurveda may date back to as early as 10,000 years ago, as alluded to in a description in the Manusmriti of a preparation of an herbal paste referred to as Chyawanprash. If we had a secondary source that said something like that, we could use it in the article. If it's a commonly held notion, then it should be easy to find a source. If it's not a commonly held notion, then it maybe shouldn't be in the article. (Of course it pains me to, in a sense, be the arbiter of this content, because I respect your tradition, and find this fascinating. But at the same time, we have to follow Wikipedia's rules.} TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever I have commented on history and time period of Ayurvedic preparation Chyawanprash is not my original research, it is there in Vedic books. Moreover, I have mentioned 'Manusmriti' only to confirm time period of Manu, Bhrigu and Chyavana seers, which is flood period, 10,000 years ago. I still feel that my version on history of this Ayurvedic preparation deserves place on the page, which was removed by you. Considering the present version of history of Ayurveda on this page, it says "one version is that...", if one version, without any support can be put there, why not my comments which have supports. Also, l may submit, that entire dating of Vedic Culture, Vedas, or Indian ancient history is put wrongly on wiki pages and is based on decades old assumptions like, 'Aryan Invasion Theory' etc. Vedic litrature is considered 'mythological', though, most of the stuff is true and can stand scientific scrutiny. It is a matter of time, that things will be put in right perspective. However, presently I want my addition on history of Chyawanprash put on the page, which is a scientific fact and has mentions in Vedic books.Please do the needfull.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It was nice to see SOME discussion going on here after ages!!! I would like to bring attention of editors to the point which I have made above. We need one article which is - history of Ayurveda. It is very painful to see that there not many scientific inventions going on in Ayurved recently (If they are going on, I would like to know about them. I was not able to find many). So, we have no option left than to keep on writing and fighting about History. And why not to do it properly at proper place? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is a scientific fact, as claimed, then there must exist scientific sources that can be used in the article. The article on Chyawanprash is unfortunately not compliant with WP:MEDRS, which stipulates that health claims must be supported by research reviews. The Sanskrit books are considered primary sources. Any article making medical claims must be supported by research reviews. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

100 Per cent agree.--Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I am not getting involved in the health claims of Chyawanprash, which is used by millions, worldwide since thousands of years. I am trying to give here only the known history of Ayurvedic preparations which is 10,000 years old. It was not only Chyawanprash which was prepared by 'State-Vaids', Ashvini Kumar brothers, for the weak Vedic Rishi Chyavana, but the process of 'KAYAKALP' was also prescribed for the Rishi, in which herbal pastes was prepared for toning of the skin. Rishi was also advised to have bath in a tank with "cupric water". These were Ayurvedic applications on the Rishi at Dhosi Hill as per Vedic books. Abhijeet's quest for a page on 'History of Ayurveda' seems to have been rejected outright as a true sentence on history of Ayurveda on this page has got in to long discussions. I may add here that several pages on religious matters and cultures specially related to Hinduism and Vedic period have no scientific basis and supports at present time. Words like 'It appears', 'It is likely', 'Probably' are used and editors accept the matter, but here on histrocity of a known and popular science 'Ayurveda' I have given several supports, but a few lines are not accepted. I can only say that there is some thing wrong some where.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with Ayurved is there are claims claims and claims. Fact checking is the need of the time. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note, Page 111 of A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India by Upinder Singh does not link pollen studies of salt lakes of Didwana, Lunkaransar and Sambhar lakes to Vedic Saraswati. In fact, neither Saraswati nor Manusmriti find any mention there. Upinder Singh on Page 185 argues against earlier dates for the Rig Veda. I and Sudhirji have been involved in a similar discussion here. IMO, the new material is not supported by multiple reliable historical sources that an extraordinary claim like this would need. However, the content can be included as mythology, contextualized and worded in a way similar to Kerala#Ancient religious texts, referenced by reliable secondary sources. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I also aim at Correct Knowledge. My claims are not extra ordinary. They are simple facts. Before I discuss further, could you think of 5 earliest Vedic seers who contributed to 'Vedic Litrature' and their abode? The senior seers had lived in the Vedic state of 'Brahmavarta' which existed at the confluence of two revered Vedic rivers Saraswati and Drishadwati. The three lakes Didwana, Lunkaransar, Sambhar were part of Saraswati river(there are several references for that, including satellite images of old Vedic Saraswati) and increase in cereal-pollens around these lakes and clearing of forests mentioned by Upinder Singh are dated 7000BCE. This confirms increased habitation in Vedic state of Brahmavarta 9000 years ago. This was post-floods scenario. I am only proving here that Vedic Sanskriti is that old as Manu was a Flood figure as described in Matsaya Puran, Skand Puran,Mahabharata and other books. What is appalling is that most of the pages on Wiki date Vedic period as 1500 BCE, with no references at all. I would like to be enlightened why Vedic period should not start from 10,000 years when Vedic seers like Manu, Bhrigu and his son Chyavana existed at that point in time. Also Manu and Bhrigu had written Manusmriti while Bhrigu had contributed to Rigved along with many other books. If you can put datings of these facts on concerened pages as suggested by you, I would appreciate, as lots of new archaeological supports and datings have come during last 5-7 years, and I can put them on these pages as tertiary supports. Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Most archaic mandalas of the Rig Veda are the Family Books (books II–VII).[1] The Rishis whose family composed these books were: Gritsamada (II), Vishwamitra (III), Vashishtha (VII), Vamadeva (IV), Bharadwaja (VI) and Atri (V). The Vedic hymns were composed in the Punjab and upper Ganga region.[2] The connection between the lakes Didwana, Lunkaransar, Sambhar and the Vedic state Brahmavarta is original research. In her book, Upinder Singh places Vedic culture after the Indus Valley Civilization. So, you've to find a different source for your claims. Matsya Purana is dated between 250–500 CE[3] and is by no means a reliable historical source. I've reviwed other sources you suggested here and IMO, the connection between archaeological evidence and Vedic culture is not yet widely accepted by scholars. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your view that the connection between archeaeological findings and Vedic Culture is not mentioned/discussed/ accepted in books yet. As I mentioned above most of the sites dated 7-8000 BCE in India are recent findings and are talked about in research papers and seminars, some of which I also attended. Up to two decades ago Indian culture had the shadow of 'Aryan Invasion Theory' (AIT), and had considered Harrapan archaeological findings (3000-2200 BCE) as the oldest in India and Aryans as migrants from Central Asia. But during last decade, with the finding of new sites and growing facilities of various types of datings, this theory has become redundant. So lots of what we find in old scholarly books guided by AIT is also not appropriate. Vedic books have described events of the period through environmental happenings, rivers, hills, change in weathers etc. Rivers in Rigved or Mahabharata were confusing earlier. But during last one decade satellite images confirm the route of Vedic Saraswati and another important river Drishadwati. But problem now is how to put this new scientific research on different pages as it is considered Primary and new research.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Anything that can be referenced by reliable sources has a place on Wikipedia. Even sources advocating a Flat Earth find their wikispace. If what you are trying to add is frontier research and isn't accepted by majority of the scholars it might make sense to add it in an article/section where even minority view points can get their space. Peer reviewed articles such as this paper published in the Journal of the Geological Society of India by BK Bhadra, AK Gupta and JR Sharma, who incidentally also presented a paper along with you in a conference in Kurukshetra University, can be used as a reference to present new developments in geological dating of Saraswati in Sarasvati River. Likewise, peer reviewed articles on new developments in dating of Rig Veda can be mentioned in Rig Veda#Dating and historical context. Articles like Ayurveda unfortunately cannot go into the nitty–gritty of Vedic dates and should only present a summary of the viewpoint accepted by majority of the scholars. While adding content to the articles/sections mentioned above please keep WP:DUE and WP:COS (if you are citing yourself) in mind. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! for showing me a way. I'll try on these lines.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Conference presentations are questionable as sources

Regarding this recent addition[4] dating the Rig Veda as 10,000 years old: the source is a conference presentation, which doesn't usually meet Wikipedia's standard for verifiability. An academic source should be published and peer reviewed. Also, a fundamental feature of Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability is that a reader should be able to check the original source to verify that it's being accurately represented in Wikipedia. I've opened a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard regarding this source.[5] TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Original Source of dating of Rigved

Please visit the website of 'INSTITUTE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON VEDAS' DELHI CHAPTER, ( 'I-Serve, Delhi Chapter') to see the details. Dating of Rigved is not based on one presentation. The consensus is based on analysing Rigveda on several parameters scientifically.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Conference presentation as source in article on Ayurveda. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG - that's an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary sources. I've reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(I was informed at my talk page, but, it's my personal independent opinion) yes, I agree information related to date of Rigveda etc need support of best reliable sources. Our Gita discussion might me relevant here! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit War at lead section???

I am finding that there is edit war going on at lead section. Please discuss the issue first and then add the material to it after consensus. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's being discussed. I discussed it above, and it's been discussed at WP:RSN#Conference presentation as source in article on Ayurveda. Claims such as this one need multiple reliable sources, and consensus here can't override policy in any case. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

can people please just treat this for what it is, disruptive editing and an attack on the integrity (such as it is) of our content? This article is riddled with misconceptions. Ayurveda has nothing to do with "the Vedas" if "the Vedas" are (as is commonly the case in English usage) the samhitas. It has everything to do with "the Vedas" if "the Vedas" refers to the medieval concept of Vedas as great and open-ended collections of all sorts of material. To explain this, it is essential to link to upaveda, because that's how ayurveda is grouped. It is grouped with either the Rigveda or the Atharvaveda.

To understand what this means, you need to appreciate that if I wrote a poem about Achilles today, this approach to grouping texts would immediately describe my poem as "Homeric". Even if my poem was not written in Homeric Greek, let alone pretended to date from antiquity. This is what people call "Vedic" in India. In English scholarly usage "Vedic", much like "Homeric" means "dates to the early Iron Age". This double use of the word "Vedic" has cost us an unbelievable amount of trouble. It assures there are plenty of misunderstandings between Indians and Westerners, nb. in both directions. However you want to use the word "Vedic", just make sure you are clear how you are using it, and be aware that some of your sources may use it in a different sense. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right. There is lot of difference in perception of term Vedic in Westren world. Vedic, or Vedic Period as used by knowledgable Indians or Hindus is a vast word which includes or stands for entire Vedic period which started from the beginning of composition of Rigved or the flood timing 10,000 years ago. Rigvedic veteran seers were existing when floods came. A conference of seers had taken place in Vedic State of Brahmavarta located on the banks of Saraswati and Drishadwati rivers on the subject of getting organised and framing rules for organised living. A sermon was given to the congregation of seers by the senior-most seer, Manu and his adopted son Bhrigu in 2785 shaloks, what is now known as Manusmriti. Several other documents/books were composed during that period and they are also known as Vedic litrature. Ayurved was a developed science even at that time. Seer Bhrigu's son Chyavana, who himself was a great knower of Vedas, as described in Puranas and other books, was treated by 'Rajvaidyas' (Seer's Doctors) Ashvinikumar brothers by preparing Chaywanprash for intake, and herbal pastes for him for body application. In the herbal solutions, Copper was used for Skin toning. Chyavana Seer's ashram/hermitage at Dhosi Hill still has rejunivating properties in cupric water which accumulates on the hill top. Copper was also used in cleaning drinking water for making it potable, as it has germicidal properties in it. Copper had multi purpose use for Vedic people. Neolithic tools have already been found in Rajasthan area which are made of stones and Copper. I would say that earliest Vedic people were masters in Copper use. Several scientific supports have already been found on this. Calling Vedic period as 'Iron Age' is not correct.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Pubmed indexed journals in Ayurveda

Dear AndyTheGrump, Good evening! I find it extremely important to bring to attention that PubMed indexed journals are really important for the progress of Ayurved in scientific direction. My motive is to put the names of the journals is to percolate the information. If this information will be put, the reader will get the better idea about the topic of 'Science and Ayurveda'. I really appreciate your concern to remove the material as it may not be suitable at that particular place. But can you suggest me a better place for that information? Maybe an article with title - Pubmed indexed journals in Ayurved? There one can write the history, importance, limitations and current journals in Ayurved which are PubMed indexed. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I very much doubt that an article entitled 'Pubmed indexed journals in Ayurveda' would be acceptable. Wikipedia is not a directory. If individual journals can be shown to be of significance, there may be grounds for discussing them in the Ayurveda article - but this would need evidence from third-party reliable sources. This isn't really the best place to discuss this though - I suggest you discuss article content on Talk:Ayurveda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I will copy this discussion there. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine is one of the indivisual journals. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nadi pariksha

An article, Nadi pariksha has been created. Interested editors can help in editing. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio content

This content (below) is copied directly from the article. Until I can get the article which I am in the process of doing, and rewriting, I'll leave the content here.(olive (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC))

Indian traditional medical systems, such as Ayurveda, have come under heavy criticism for irrational and outdated practices.“The majority of Ayurvedic formulations available on the market are either spurious, adulterated, or misbranded”,

• Please do not edit war copyright violation content. Such content must be deleted immediately. And please look at WP:CV. As soon as I can get the full article I will rewrite and replace the content. (olive (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC))

• References

• This, too, was copied directly from its source, and wasn't NPOV [6]. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise, I've reverted another edit because the sentences were copied directly from the source [7]. Additionally, a reading of the source establishes a different intention than that which was implied by this edit. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Diagnosis in Ayurveda.

If a PubMed indexed Ayurvedic journal says that there is difference of opinions in ayurvedic doctors about diagnostic methods, why the sentence is being removed? It is a fact that many diseases needs to be reclassified! I really did not like that the sentences were removed under the section of diagnosis. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I had put one sentense at diagnosis section. But I have removed it now. I would request other people to comment if that edit should be kept or should be removed. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The material which I want to add is as follows - "There are many challenges related to clinical diagnosis in Ayurveda."

That doesn't tell us much; the gist of the source is that Ayurvedic diagnosis lacks a comprehensive nomenclature, which complicates its interaction with modern clinical practice. That's what I would write instead, but a problem is that the reference being cited is an editorial, and editorials aren't often taken as reliable sources. If the writer can be established as a renowned expert in the field (perhaps he is, but I don't know that), or if the statement can be supported by multiple sources, it may be used. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot."Ayurvedic diagnosis lacks a comprehensive nomenclature, which complicates its interaction with modern clinical practice." This statement is really a better gist. The problem with me is - I know so much about these issues and the issues are so much in number that I dont know from where to start and what to write. It is always good if I get help like yours to make it better. I tried to discuss many issues on the talk page but I found very little help on talk page. One can see the archived pages for amount of efforts I put in to stimulate discussions for making the article better. Anyways. Your sentence is better than mine and I am putting it for the time being. If we will find better sentence or better way of putting it, we can use those sentences and we can use those methods to put. Thanks for the help. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it, but nobody else has commented yet, so no consensus has been reached. Further, it seems the rest of my observation re: the sufficiency of sources was ignored. On Wikipedia, an editor's personal knowledge and enthusiasm are helpful, but not as important as the adherence to WP:RELIABLE. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I shall leave this decision to decide about reliability about this source to the community. If community finds it appropriate, one can go ahead and can put the material and the link in the article. Till that time I shall read more about reliability on wikipedia. Now I can say only one thing that the source is a PubMed indexed journal. So I found this source reliable. I am aware that I may be wrong in this, hence leaving this decision to the community. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Article (GA) or Featured Article (FA)

I would like to work for making this article GA or FA. It is not my primary interest but I would like to help in this process if others would help. Can we discuss about it here? Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

some imp links

These are some of the imp links which can be used further to improve the article. -Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2876924/

Ayurveda: Hoax or Science

• Ayurveda: Hoax or Science? - An article at Openmagzine

This link was removed by Dominus Vobisdu just now. I would like to discuss about this content here. In my opinion, this is an article which is unbiased. I personally have not came across any less biased article than this. This article is mentioning some of the facts.

I will not put the material again at the article as that might lead to edit war which I dont want to get involved in. It the community decides that this link should not be there an article, it should be fine for me. But it would be great if others would comment about it. In my opinion it is really an important link and the article will loose an important source if we allow it to be removed. Thanks. -Abhijeet Safai (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not really important. It's basically just a rehash of how prononents piss and moan about how the medical establishment is so unfair and biased against them. Poor babies. Lots of apologetic claptrap, too, and some silly nationalistic baloney about the Chinese. Plenty of misleading statements aggrandizing Ayurveda. Doesn't really explain much besides that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Nice to see that you took efforts to write your comments. Some of your allegations are true about the article. But again they are your thoughts. I am not sure if they are consensus. I would like others to comment as well. It is difficult to explain, (as you may tend to think that I too am biased about it) but I want to state that I am not biased from any side to best of my knowledge. I am not trying to push any point of view either. I just thought of listing this important least biased article, so that article will progress towards more neutral tone. Anyways. I do understand that only my views are not important and these are collective efforts. I respect your reaction and I can imagine that there are valid reasons for the reaction. I want others to read the article and to decide. I have nothing to loose or gain if anything happens - if it is in the article or it is off the article. But yes I would like to mention that the article is going to get deprived of one important source. (And of course it is my opinion and others have full right to disagree). --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits about disease prevention

Hello, I wanted to add to this wikipedia page, however my addition keeps getting deleted, I was just wondering what I can do to improve my post so that it does not get deleted. Aak1234 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Aak1234 ... some suggestions:

• The source you are using is Raman, Varadaraja V. (2003). "Some Hindu Insights on a Global Ethic in the Context of Diseases and Epidemics". Zygon?. 38: 141. If you insert your ref as <ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1111/1467-9744.00487}}</ref> then Wikipedia's software can automatically backfill the full citation for you.
• The biggest problem as I see it is that your edit was in Wikipedia's voice and making some extraordinary claims. It would be much better to attribute it, especially since the author, Varadaraja V. Raman, has his own article here on Wikipedia, so you can wikilink him. If you start your addition with "Varadaraja V. Raman has argued that ..." it would be much better.
• In general if you find your edits are getting reverted by other editors, it's wise to come to the talk page to discuss; continually re-reverting is called edit warring and doing it is likely to get you blocked from editing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, this edit worked a little better. Thanks for your feedback.Aak1234 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits about disease prevention

Hello, I wanted to add to this wikipedia page, however my addition keeps getting deleted, I was just wondering what I can do to improve my post so that it does not get deleted. Aak1234 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Aak1234 ... some suggestions:

• The source you are using is Raman, Varadaraja V. (2003). "Some Hindu Insights on a Global Ethic in the Context of Diseases and Epidemics". Zygon?. 38: 141. If you insert your ref as <ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1111/1467-9744.00487}}</ref> then Wikipedia's software can automatically backfill the full citation for you.
• The biggest problem as I see it is that your edit was in Wikipedia's voice and making some extraordinary claims. It would be much better to attribute it, especially since the author, Varadaraja V. Raman, has his own article here on Wikipedia, so you can wikilink him. If you start your addition with "Varadaraja V. Raman has argued that ..." it would be much better.
• In general if you find your edits are getting reverted by other editors, it's wise to come to the talk page to discuss; continually re-reverting is called edit warring and doing it is likely to get you blocked from editing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, this edit worked a little better. Thanks for your feedback.Aak1234 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Request of an edit (Honey no better than antibiotics in patients with kidney failure)

After seeing the prior experience with this article, that so many of my edits gets reverted, I have decided now to request edits on the talk page first and then to go ahead to make changes on the page if there are no objections. I would even request other editors to help me to make edits. Thanks in advance.

This time I find following link very important. May I request other editors to express their views about this link? So that it can be used in the article. I herewith request to make appropriate edits with the help of this link in the article.

The link is here. The title is Honey no better than antibiotics in patients with kidney failure. -Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What's this got to do with ayurveda? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The original research can be found here -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Our article says nothing about honey. The articles you have linked say nothing about ayurveda. How can it possibly be 'very important'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Honey is used many a times along with Ayurvedic drugs. It is claimed to have antibiotic properties. Many a times it is advocated that "maybe there are many good things and mainly antibiotic properties hence it is used". --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I leave it to editors to decide about it. And if the article does not mention honey, we can mention it and then use this reference. Importance of honey in Ayurved cannot be judged with the help of 'what appears in the article and what not'. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To know about importance of honey in Ayurveda, kindly follow this link. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that honey is used in Ayurveda. THat doesn't alter the fact that you are engaging in original research when you try to draw conclusions about its effectiveness in Ayurveda from sources about a particular treatment unconnected with Ayurveda. The research tells us precisely nothing about the effectiveness or otherwise of honey in Ayurveda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Fine. As you all senior editors decide. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Request of an edit (Honey no better than antibiotics in patients with kidney failure)

After seeing the prior experience with this article, that so many of my edits gets reverted, I have decided now to request edits on the talk page first and then to go ahead to make changes on the page if there are no objections. I would even request other editors to help me to make edits. Thanks in advance.

This time I find following link very important. May I request other editors to express their views about this link? So that it can be used in the article. I herewith request to make appropriate edits with the help of this link in the article.

The link is here. The title is Honey no better than antibiotics in patients with kidney failure. -Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What's this got to do with ayurveda? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The original research can be found here -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Our article says nothing about honey. The articles you have linked say nothing about ayurveda. How can it possibly be 'very important'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Honey is used many a times along with Ayurvedic drugs. It is claimed to have antibiotic properties. Many a times it is advocated that "maybe there are many good things and mainly antibiotic properties hence it is used". --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I leave it to editors to decide about it. And if the article does not mention honey, we can mention it and then use this reference. Importance of honey in Ayurved cannot be judged with the help of 'what appears in the article and what not'. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To know about importance of honey in Ayurveda, kindly follow this link. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that honey is used in Ayurveda. THat doesn't alter the fact that you are engaging in original research when you try to draw conclusions about its effectiveness in Ayurveda from sources about a particular treatment unconnected with Ayurveda. The research tells us precisely nothing about the effectiveness or otherwise of honey in Ayurveda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Fine. As you all senior editors decide. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Request of an edit (Ayurveda is bad for diabetics, say doctors - DNA)

I found this link. I am not sure if it can be used in the article. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Can this reference be included in the article? I shall do so soon if no objections come. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The source does not comply with WP:MEDRS, and is itself promoting an alternative 'cure': "methi powder and yoga". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Links that can be used in this article

1. http://www.drpelletier.com/TBAM/excerpts/017-Ayurvedic_Medicine.html  self-published
2. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ayurveda  usable
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=medicine%2C%20ayurvedic%5BMajr%5D%20AND %20%22humans%22[MeSH%20Terms]%20AND%20English[lang]%20AND%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial[ptyp]%20AND%20%222008/10/25%22[PDAT]%20%3A%20%222013/10/25%22[PDAT]&cmd=DetailsSearch  we don't use search results as a source
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=medicine%2C%20ayurvedic%5BMajr%5D%20AND%20%28%22humans%22[MeSH%20Terms]%20AND%20%28Meta-Analysis[ptyp]%20OR%20Review[ptyp]%29%20OR%20systematic[sb]%20AND%20English[lang]%20AND%20%222008/10/25%22[PDAT]%20%3A%20%222013/10/25%22[PDAT]%29&cmd=DetailsSearch  we don't use search results as a source
5. http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/030106.htm  usable
6. http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/ayurvedic-medicine/what-happens-visit-ayurvedic-practitioner  usable with care
7. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-83762/How-does-ayurveda-affect-you.html  notoriously bad health source
8. http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/082808.htm  usable
9. http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm050798.htm  usable

While it will depend on what content is sourced precisely, I've marked the above with what I would consider to be "rules of thumb" about their usability. We can't use search results as a source, but some of the individual results may be usable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh great! Thanks a lot! I will try to use the references which are ok in the article soon. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why the article has the box of Hinduism

I mean the golden era of Ayurved is known in Baudha era! So if we want to link it to any ism, then it is Buddhism more than Hinduism. Do we mean to say that Ayurveda=India=Hindu? If that is the logic, then it is fine. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)