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.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
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 noticeboards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
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)
This talk page has previously been semi-protected due to disruption. Comments made by non-confirmed editors during that period can be found at Talk:Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments.
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, 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
"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 content of Panchakarma was merged into Ayurveda. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The content of Ama (ayurveda) was merged into Ayurveda on 17 November 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. 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.
Latest comment: 5 days ago10 comments6 people in discussion
I am concerned that the wording "...contain toxic levels of lead and mercury" may be somewhat misleading. While technically true (and we should add arsenic to that list per the sources), Ayurveda practitioners typically don't give people drugs that cause them to immediately drop dead or even immediately get very sick. That would be bad for business. While any amount of these elements are bad for you, and compounds as found in Ayurveda are often a lot worse than the pure element, The real problem is that lead, mercury and arsenic build up in the body. This fools the patient into thinking that they tried the Ayurvedic medicine and it didn't seem to harm them. So is there a short way of conveying this? Maybe "...contain toxic levels of lead, mercury and arsenic that build up in the body over time?" or "...cause long term toxicity from lead, mercury and arsenic"? Those aren't great. Can somebody come up with better wording? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Quickly responding: How do the sources present it? Do we have an article to link that explains the toxicity of heavy metals? --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
In correct preparations, the heavy metals are highly treated and also, they are used in low quantities. But only when prepared correctly. Moreover, modern Ayurvedic practices have stopped using heavy metals entirely in accordance with modern standards. SatoruVijnani (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The Ayurveda crowd claims that they can magically transform harmful substances to be non harmful through Shodhana. They are not removing the mercury or lead. they are purifying it, using methods that are thousands of years old (and completely ineffective).
Could someone please explain what "Shodhana is of two types in Rasashastra. Samanya or general purification method and Vishesha shodhana or the Specific methods of purification." means in our Shodhana article? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago10 comments9 people in discussion
there are thousands of articles on pubmed demonstrating the efficacy of ayurveda. Science is a western system and ayurveda is older and more comprehensive. Nonetheless, when subjected to western science, ayurvedic methods prove legitimate.
Modern medicine is also a pseudoscience since it is based in outdated models of human health. Modern western mainstream "science" is an outdated product of left hemisphere dominant thinking proven to be a limited and faulty form of perception and investigation by recent neuroscience. ~2026-19067-54 (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
No. None of Ayurvedic "medicine" stands up to the scientific method and cannot be proven to be an effective cure for any condition.
This has been debated ad nauseum and back. There are not thousands of article that prove ayurveda. There might be articles that claim as such, but these do not stand up to actual, scientific analysis. Wikipedia is an objective source of information. Ayurveda is no more an effective cure than praying for someone cures their cancer. ~2026-28742-04 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is perhaps more accurate to say that any piece of Ayurveda that proves effective in studies has largely already been incorporated into modern medicine. For instance, an Ayurvedic diet really might for instance help to reverse diabetes. But not because of doshas. If it works, it's probably because it involves eating more fruits and vegetables and fewer highly processed foods full of sugar! This helps to explain some of the objections people have. "My mother did Ayurveda and she feels better than ever!". Well, what exactly did she do? Chances are we have studies showing a lot of the things she did are effective but not for the reasons originally described. There are sort of two ways of thinking of traditional medicine. One is to look at how it was practiced at the time and the other is to look at how it is practiced now. The truth is in early medicine the cure was often worse than the disease. Anyone who recommended basic hygiene and a healthy diet could easily have gotten the best results possible at that period. Before we had so much evidence, you could do a lot worse than the stuff your ancestors survived doing, right? But we now have done a lot of studies. And for the most part, the stuff Ayurveda got right is no longer exclusive to Ayurveda, where the stuff it does wrong is more likely to be exclusive to it.
So why does it ever seem to work? First of all, a lot of times stuff just gets better over time. Second of all, sometimes the way modern medicine is actually practiced isn't really consistent with the evidence or even common sense. If the Ayurveda person spends 3 hours with you and the physician 3 minutes, that's not exactly a fair comparison. Another example is this. We know getting enough sleep is extremely important. Well, in most hospitals, there are all kinds of beeping alarms and nurses waking patients up all night long. The fact that anyone gets better in a hospital is really quite remarkable. That's because even a hospital is practicing a combination of evidence based medicine (e.g., the meds in your IV probably work) and dumb things (the beeping monitors). In other words, consider that evidence based medicine practiced in an ideal way is not the same thing as medicine based on cost effectiveness. Someone doing Ayurveda probably wants to help and is good at listening and is calming and that has therapeutic value, but that doesn't mean half the treatments aren't bogus, right? JohnRichardScientist (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
As a scientist, I find it striking how often medical professionals do not follow best practices. Take a look at how blood pressure is meant to be read. When is the last time anyone followed every step? In fact the biggest problem with modern medicine is that it is not sufficiently scientific. That does not mean the quacks are right. It simply means we must do a better job of following the science. JohnRichardScientist (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The promotion of objective knowledge (and, hence, the requirement that the effectiveness of medicines has to be shown objectively) has indeed been born in the West, but it should be stressed that science is the common property of all mankind. So, of course, the scientific way of thinking judges whether medicines work objectively, because that's what science is meant for. That's not colonialism any more than using nuclear reactors is. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ayurveda is indeed not scientific -- not even close -- but the claim "Science is a western system and ayurveda is older and more comprehensive" is just something that User ~2026-19067-54 made up.
We have an entire article (History of science and technology on the Indian subcontinent) that specially lists a large amount of modern science that originated in India. Ayurveda isn't science at all and thus is not science that originated in India. Just as some kinds of pseudoscience originated in the west (Homeopathy came out of Germany and Radionics came out of early 1900's America) Ayurveda is pseudoscience that originated in India, but the works of Brahmagupta (598–668) are a great example of legitimate science that came out of India.
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In modern times, several Indian wellness
brands have integrated Ayurvedic herbal
principles with advanced biotechnological
delivery systems, including nanotechnology,
to enhance the efficacy of traditional
formulations. HealthWriterjeet22 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
When anyone uses the buzzword nanotechnology to refer to "fine powder" you can immediately stop reading. The entire document is a steaming pile of marketing bullshit. Every time. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@Flyingphoenixchips - I see that you added "widely regarded as pseudoscience" in the first sentence with edit summary "as per discussion in talk page". I see talk discussion for "pseudoscience" in March - is that the talk discussion you are referring to?
I tried to read it, but not sure how that talk discussion supports "widely regarded as"? You also do not seem to be have been part of that discussion, so maybe there is another discussion I am missing? Can you explain which talk discussion supports "widely regarded as"?
Also, just want to note that it seems redundant because the lead paragraph already says "The theory and practice of ayurveda are pseudoscientific," - On a site note, this NCCIH has a good science-based summary, including the limited evidence and safety concerns. Asteramellus (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
_name_of_the_God_as_per_the_Vedas.svg){kind=small}
Not done. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)