Talk:Phyllanthus emblica

Ayurvedic Remedy
@Zefr

My edit regarding the mention about the use of Amla as a remedy for loss of appetite, loss of taste, cough, cold, and fever has been reverted by citing the reason as no need to mention or source quackery. I think that the revert is not correctly reasoned because of the following reasons: 1) The reference cited is of a well-known duly published book which is available internationally. The book has about 19 editions. Its 19th edition has ASIN number as B075BC79KP. 2) The author of this book is not alive so there is no question of any professional advertisement or personal benefits. 3) The author 'Appashastri Sathe' was bestowed with various 'padavi' (educational certificates / titles) in the field of Ayurveda from various organizations and colleges in Maharashtra as well as other places like Kashi (Varanasi city) at that time (1905, 1906, 1925). 4) Ayurveda is the oldest and recognized branch of medicine in India. (Please refer english wikipedia - Ayurveda) 5) Ayurvedic medicines like Chyawanprash is well known to everyone in India and is successfully used by various pharmaceuticals. 6) The uses about Amla which have been mentioned are known to common people in India. 7) Appashastri Sathe is well known Ayurvedic Vaidya and because of this a road has been named after him as 'Vaidyatirth Appashastri Sathe Rd' in Girgaon of Mumbai city. 8) The same uses like loss of appetite (पाचन शक्ति में खराबी), cough, cold (श्वास रोग), etc. are mentioned in Hindi language wikipedia of Amla i.e Phyllanthus emblica. 9) I don't have any relation with the author of this book Vaidya Sathe. 10) The author of the book which I have mentioned in the reference was also a Pranaacharya which means Ayurvedic practitioners who had complete knowledge of the texts and were excellent in their practices. (Please refer english wikipedia - Vaidya) 11) I have edited it under the heading of Traditional medicine and not anywhere else.

With the support of all correct information, I have made a small and correct edit but it has been reverted. So, with full respect to the concerned editor, I wish to know what is wrong in my edit and why incorrect reason of quackery is applied to my edit. Please give a satisfactory guidance with reason so that it will enable me to take additional care while editing so that my edition should remain more correct.

Write Right!! MA$HRVA (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the long discussion - that was quite a summary. As the Ayurveda article indicates - and in many other articles on traditional practices - there is no scientific support for the supposed remedies using P. emblica or any other plant or animal product. This is the main English encyclopedia for which users often depend on medical veracity, not the Indian version of the English encyclopedia. We use rigorous WP:MEDRS reviews or mainstream clinical or government guidelines as sources for medical content. Ayurveda is quackery, nothing more, and sources from Ayurveda are unreliable perpetuations of quackery. They are therefore unusable for Wikipedia medical content. See WP:WHYMEDRS. Zefr (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Zefr
 * Thank you for the reply.
 * 1) Please note that I am not going to make any further edits on this topic of herbal Ayurvedic remedies as you have put an objection and I do not have any intention of disruptive editing. Though it may be demotivating for me as an enthusiast editor.
 * 2) I believe that in Wikipedia the truth always triumphs so my further discussion is not for creating any personal comments or for proving any superiority but it is only for finding out the truth for the benefit of the Wikipedia readers.
 * 3) In the article Ayurveda mentioned by you, there is no use of the word 'quackery' for Ayurveda but you have mentioned here the word 'quackery' for Ayurveda without any reference. One strange thing I found here is that the reference accepted for Ayurveda calling it Pseudoscientific (reference [4]) is from the book of psychiatry and not from the book of medicine. Then also such a reference is accepted. The reader can think about it because in my opinion the reference for mathematics should be given from the book of mathematics and not from the book of biology.
 * 4) Ayurveda gives knowledge about the way of living life. How 'way of living good life' can be called a quackery when Wikipedia itself accepts that 80% population of India and Nepal means billions of people on this earth are using Ayurveda for thousands of years and getting benefited from it. A 'quackery' is always harmful and not beneficial to anyone. So, using the word 'quackery' for Ayurveda is completely wrong and seems to be biased without any reason.
 * 5) Using the phrase like 'Indian version of English encyclopedia' is also wrong because in my efforts were to contribute the knowledge for the benefit of the whole world and not for any specific region. I strongly believe in universal unity and everyone's equality. The knowledge can be present in any part of the world and the efforts should be done to use that for the benefit of the whole world without any discrimination.
 * 6) Thousands of years back, the researchers of Ayurveda have gathered this knowledge for humanity with so much of hardwork and efforts which everyone of us should appreciate. They were not having the facility of internet and other technological development present today. The responsibility of gathering evidence is on the people who ask for the scientific evidence when practical and curative evidence already exists. Regarding scientific evidence, the science we have today is itself evolving and changing then on what grounds the evidence should be gathered is not clear to anyone who asks for the evidence. The changes are so fast that even the evidence based medicines become outdated. What about the people who had consumed that (now outdated) medicine at that time for the treatment?
 * 7) Every science like physics, chemistry, mathematics has its own formulae on the basis of which results can be calculated correctly and it is a common expectation that any field if called as a science should have its own formulae. What are the formulae on the basis of which correct and incorrect can be classified in mainstream clinical science? As per my knowledge, the medicines are still being developed by trial and error method doing experimentation through process of research and development on a limited particular data which is fixed as per the rules. In contrast, Ayurveda has proved itself on the data which is endless. Then also, how it can be called as a complete quackery?
 * 8) It is a well settled fact that the person who is educated in a certain field and has become an expert by gathering experience in that particular field has the right to opine on that subject. So, if I have to comment about Ayurveda then I should at least be educated in the field of Ayurveda. The same is also true for other sciences like physics, mathematics, etc.
 * Write Right!! MA$HRVA (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - Please don't write essays of your personal opinions on the talk page, WP:TALKNO, which is intended to discuss ways of improving the article content, as supported by WP:RS sources. For medical content, we follow the sourcing guide, WP:MEDRS, for which Ayurveda doesn't remotely qualify. Zefr (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Seed
In an effort to be more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't the seed be mentioned in the text of this article? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

hair dye?
I came here from the 'Hair coloring' article but don't see any explanation here as to which part of the plant is used on hair (and to achieve which results) - maybe someone can contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3035:E03:74EC:E5CA:9D55:A6B2:5A08 (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)