Talk:Ayurveda#rfc 2F4F578

I suggest adding recent WHO guidelines on Ayurvedic practices (source: [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240042674]). DrkAnalyst (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:We do not have a "Safety and Regulation" Section, nor do I see what this says we need to add (to any section). Care to elaborate? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Proposal: Adding a Section on Safety and Regulation

::Sir,

::I propose adding a section on safety and regulation based on WHO guidelines to improve the article’s accuracy and completeness. Thoughts?

::Thanks DrkAnalyst (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors,

I am writing with concern about the current framing of the Ayurveda article, specifically regarding tone, balance, and source selection. I recognize this is a contentious topic and submit this request in alignment with Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality (WP:NPOV), reliable sources (WP:RS and WP:MEDRS), and coverage of fringe topics (WP:FRINGE).

1. Overemphasis on toxicity

The article gives undue weight to rare cases of heavy metal contamination, which are associated with improperly prepared or unregulated products. This can mislead readers into associating toxicity with the system as a whole. Ayurveda, as practiced under government regulation (e.g., Ministry of AYUSH in India), follows strict safety protocols. Peer-reviewed studies and WHO guidance support this nuance, which is currently missing.

2. Missing integration of reliable Ayurvedic and integrative sources

The article leans heavily on Western biomedical critiques and omits peer-reviewed literature from Ayurvedic institutions and integrative medicine journals. Ayurveda is taught in accredited universities, recognised by national healthcare systems in several countries, and has WHO-endorsed training benchmarks. These facts and sources should be proportionally represented.

3. Framing concerns and need for institutional context

The article risks portraying Ayurveda as lacking legitimacy, without acknowledging its inclusion in formal medical education and global healthcare frameworks. A 2021 peer-reviewed article from the Journal of Integrative Medicine offers this perspective:

Dismissing Ayurveda... undermines a rich and evolving medical tradition with growing scientific backing.

— [PMC8185965](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8185965/)

I respectfully request that:

- Secondary sources from Ayurvedic and integrative medicine journals be incorporated.

- The framing around safety concerns be clarified.

- Institutional, educational, and clinical contexts be included to reflect a fuller picture.

I’m happy to help identify reliable sources or draft edits if invited.

Thank you for your time and care. 2A0A:EF40:10C8:1F01:4D15:F3A8:6794:5E3 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Follow-up: Reliable Sources and Framing Concerns

::Thank you for the reply. I want to clarify that I’ve already cited a peer-reviewed source published in the Journal of Integrative Medicine and indexed in the U.S. National Library of Medicine ([PMC8185965](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8185965/)), which meets Wikipedia’s WP:MEDRS standard for secondary sources. This source directly supports the need for more balanced institutional and clinical framing of Ayurveda.

::In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) — one of the most trusted and policy-setting medical bodies globally — has published formal guidance on Ayurveda, making its inclusion in this article essential. Two specific documents:

::1. WHO Benchmarks for Training in Ayurveda (2010):

:: This report establishes global safety and training standards for Ayurveda. It affirms that regulated practice of Ayurveda is recognized internationally.

:: [https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44352](https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44352)

::2. WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2014–2023:

:: This outlines WHO’s global strategy to integrate traditional systems like Ayurveda into public health frameworks.

:: [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506096](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506096)

::To dismiss Ayurveda in the opening paragraphs by focusing on rare cases of heavy metal contamination, without mentioning these sources or the vast body of regulated, evidence-based, and institutionally endorsed Ayurvedic practice, is not neutral. It violates Wikipedia’s principle of undue weight and frames the entire system in a misleading way.

::To draw a comparison: the Yoga article does not open with injury statistics, lawsuits, or cult associations — even though these issues exist. Because that would clearly be biased framing. Ayurveda deserves the same editorial balance.

::Requested Edits:

::- Include WHO benchmarks and global strategy documents in the article.

::- Move the toxicity concerns to a more appropriate section, not the lede.

::- Include mention of formal education programs (e.g., Ministry of AYUSH, university degrees), WHO-endorsed frameworks, and integrative medicine findings to reflect Ayurveda’s global relevance.

::Happy to help draft edits or source more reliable material if needed. I hope we can move this discussion forward in line with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability. 62.49.235.226 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::1, Unsure what this WHOm pamphlet tells us, that they mean at least a minimum level of training? May violate wp:undue.

:::2, Ditto, again why does this tell us?

:::The lede is a summary; as such, the material on toxicity is ready elsewhere.

:::We already mention that degrees in it are available. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Journal of Integrative Medicine is a pro-alternative-medicine journal, and one of the authors of that paper is from the "Ayurvidye Trust, Bangalore". Also, most of this request appears to be written by AI. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)