Talk:Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

pov?

• Adulatory discriptors. No more than a commercial advertisement to "buy the product."

• From the article:

"Maharishi Vedic Medicine is on the forefront of "alternative" medicines"

Isn't "forefront" quite point-of-view? Doesn't sound neutral to me. Any comments? Peter S. 23:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• From the article:

"Maharishi Vedic Medicine is on the forefront of "alternative" medicines"

It's a factual statement with several historical precedents. MMY was the first to introduce many things that were soon picked up on by the general so-called New Age movement.

Can't find "forefront of "alternative" medicines"" remove the POV tag User:PeterKlutz

New templates

I added "main" and "navigation" templates Tanaats 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved Ayurveda-related material from TM talk page to here

Per discussion on the Transcendental Meditation Talk page, I've moved ayurveda material here. Tanaats 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert of claimed copyvio removal

I've reverted the recent removal of the link to the Skolnick article since I see no reason to believe it constitutes a copyright violation. I apologize for the unfortunate edit comment; I had expected that the feature would allow me to set the comment. --Philosophus ^T 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

JAMA owns the copyright. Skolnick had put the article on his web site, and JAMA asked him to remove it. He did remove it, but then someone found it in the Wayback Machine and linked to that. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. TimidGuy 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would expect that you would know my question here is not regarding policy, and linking to it doesn't help. I simply would like something supporting the specific claim, beyond someone's word. --Philosophus ^T 08:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at any article on the JAMA website you'll see a copyright notice at the bottom. If you look at this particular issue of JAMA, you'll see a copyright notice. Here's Skolnick's explanation of why it no longer appears on his website: "The text of my October 2, 1991 JAMA article was available on my web site for several years. Unfortunately, the AMA permissions officer asked me to take it down (I may be the author, but I don't own the copyright)." [1] This is not unusual. In the U.S., when an author is employed by an organization, the organization typically retains the rights to everything written by that author. Hope that answers your question. Sorry I didn't explain more fully the first time. TimidGuy 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Working with two columnes

At the end of a 2-column-text (f.e. "References") the stop code </div> is needed. (Done.)
Greetings from Germany

Some efforts to upgrade the article

Hi all, Today I spent some time adding some references to various points in the article. I also replaced and/or deleted several external web links that were not working. In the future I will be spending some time here in order to continue to elaborate and strengthen this article. I enjoy working in a community of writers and editors. If you have comments or suggestions or criticsms please let me know and we can work together to make the article the best it can be. Thanks! Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised that an experienced editor deleted your contributions without discussion. You look to be a new editor. From what I can tell, you're basically doing a good job. It's possible, but not really self-evident, that the deletions were warranted. But I would think that in every case, deletion of material that cites reliable sources should be discussed on the Talk page. From my experience, that's just standard unless there's an egregious problem, which wasn't apparent to me. But I could certainly be convinced otherwise. I did delete some wording that sounded promotional.

I do think there are two issues we could maybe discuss. One is whether Maharishi Vedic Medicine meets the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is WP:NOTABILITY. One problem is that this article says that Maharishi Vedic Medicine is also known as Maharishi's Consciousness-Based Health Care, Maharishi Ayurveda, and Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, but I don't think I've ever seen a source that says that these various offerings of Maharishi are different names for the same thing (possibly violating WP:NOR). And I suspect that Schneider doesn't use the term Maharishi Vedic Medicine in his book. Since you seem to have the book, could you check that? If this article meets the notability requirement, we might have to rename it to the term that Schneider uses. Anyway, just some thoughts. TimidGuy (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TimidGuy, the primary source that I am using for this article is the book Contemporary Ayurveda, it is part of the Medical Guides to Complimentary and Alternative Medicine series and it is a self described textbook for Health Care Professionals and Students. This book only uses the term Maharishi Ayurveda and Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. I will site references in the article for those. I have other books too, but will need to get them out of storage and check them. But you raise a good point; maybe the MVM title is not 'notably' relevant. I will look in to that further. It may be that Maharishi Ayurveda is the most appropriate article title. I am also in the process of locating further research sources and references to substantiate the content. Your patience is appreciated. As you mentioned I am new to Wiki and trying to learn and be of use to the community. Keithbob--Keithbob (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Regarding the use of web sites as sources. A web site by an organization is considered a self-published source and generally isn't acceptable -- with the notable exception that self-published sources can be used as sources about themselves. See WP:SELFPUB. But there are important restrictions, especially that such sources can't be used to support claims. So, for example, a web site put up by those who offer MVVT could possibly be a source for a description of what it is, but not for a claim regarding its healing ability. Of course, having a third-party source such as Contemporary Ayurveda may be preferable if such sources exist for the various points. I mention this to let you know that you may have been overly aggressive in deleting links you had put it, and some of them could possibly be retained if need be. On another topic, Shoemaker's Holiday deleted two main sections saying they sounded like an ad, and some of it did sound promotional. Even though it's sourced and follows the guidelines, we do want to be cautious and avoid language that sounds promotional, which is why I made a number of deletions. You're doing a good job. Once you get a sense for the best and best-sourced general term, I'll be happy to change the article title. It entails creating a new article with the new name, putting the current content into the new article, and redirecting the old article to the new one. And we could create redirects for the other alternate names as well. TimidGuy (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the info about web sites. I will look at WP:SELFPUB and refine my understanding. I can replace some links if it is determined that they meet the rules ie. referencing a term or description of a unique nature. I also will try to avoid web links that may be seen as SELFPUB. Thanks for removing the promo sounding language, we certainly want to avoid that. I'll get back to you later on the possible article title change. Keithbob --Keithbob (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keith and TG. I took a look at those links as well and I would think that although they are about the topic of the article they are also commercial and so I would think they shouldn't be included and are non compliant per Wikipedia spam links. Probably the best thing to do would be to leave them as deleted and see if there are other references without the commercial information. My thought on it anyway.(olive (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks Olive, I will look for other references as you suggested. Keithbob --Keithbob (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Article Name Change

As mentioned under the discussion heading “Some efforts to upgrade the Article” there has been some discussion that the current title of Maharishi Vedic Medicine may not be the most appropriate as it does not appear to be the most notable topic title. This section is to serve as a discussion board for some proposed changes in this regard. I suggest that the main title of the article be changed to Maharishi Approach to Health because: 1) it appears on numerous web sites that come up in a web search and 2) it is the sub title for two books (which are now referenced in the article) 3) it is the name of a chapter in a third book of the same general topic (also referenced in the article). In addition, I would also like to remove the alternative term “Consciousness Based Medicine” as I cannot find any reference for this term in any of the afore mentioned books or in a web search except one web site which is self promoting. I would like feedback on these proposals and also some assistance, as I have never changed an article title before. Thanks! --Keithbob (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, KB, for doing that research. I agree that it should be changed to Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. It's simply a matter of creating a new article, moving this content to that new article, deleting the content here, and then redirecting this article to the new one. I can take care of that once we have consensus. Maybe go ahead and delete Consciousness Based Health Care. TimidGuy (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Timid, have removed Maharishi Cons Based Medicine and will continue to add references to other terms. I will wait a bit on the new article till other interested parties have a chance to respond. --Keithbob (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Timid Guy and others, I have made some small changes to tighten up the article including grammer changes and the addition of references using the three books I have at my disposal. I also moved 3-4 extraneous sentences from the Main Section and place them in the more appropriate section called Aspects of MVM. This made the Aspects of MVM section rather long so I made three sub sections to clarify the points summarized in the first few sentences of the section. Next I want to flesh out the MVM research section just a little bit. When that is done then I think we will be ready to create the article under the new title of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Please let me know if you agree with the changes I have made and if you have other suggestions. Thanks! --Keithbob (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, KB. Looks good. One thing to consider: it may be odd to have research in two different places -- integrated into the relevant Aspects sections and then also having studies in the Research section. Maybe do one or the other. Or begin the Research section by saying, "In addition to the studies mentioned above . . . " . TimidGuy (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK Timid, Your suggestion is good. Having a seperate section for reserach is overkill given that so much research has been referenced in the article already. For this reason I have deleted the MVM Research section and taken the appropriate sentences from the Research section and incorporated them into the Aspects of MVM section where appropriate. This makes the article more cohesive. The only thing left to do now is to create a new article called Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health and move the content to the new page and delete the content here. Then on the new page the article will need to be edited ie. the words MVM should be replaced by MVAH. I will let you go ahead with moving the article whenever you think there is consensus and the time is right. Thanks for you help with this.--Keithbob (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to get to it today. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is replacing Maharishi Vedic Medicine

Per research and discussion on the talk page of Maharishi Vedic Medicine, that article is being renamed Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, because that's the name most often used in the sources. TimidGuy (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

POV problems

This article seems to have soem major problems - mainstream discussion of Maharishi Ayurveda is nearly non-existent. Pretty much every source is from a journal dedicated to promoting Ayurveda, a promotional pamphlet, or a non-medical journal. The only section on criticism is about a financial/conflict-of-interest scandal. Has no mainstream medical journals or organisations commented on it? And surely some real criticism or descriptions that aren't created by practitioners exists? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are the journals cited so for:

• Journal of Counseling and Development 64: 212–215, 1985
• Journal of Human Stress 5: 24-27, 1979
• The American Journal of Managed Care 3: 135–144, 1997
• Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 11: 13–87, 1994
• Journal of Clinical Psychology 45: 957–974, 1989
• J Aging Health 14 (1): 57–78.
• Acta medica empirca 2:720-729
• Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 2002;8:40-51
• Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 5(3):1-27
• Journal of Research and Education in Indian Medicine 12(4):2-13
• Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, Aug. 21, 2006
• Journal Ethnicity & Disease:I think KeithBob says above that he's working on finding more. TimidGuy (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shoe and Timid, Thanks for your comments and insights. Aside from the scientific journals listed above I am also using as references five books; four by MD's and one by a PhD. The Contemporary Ayurveda book, by the way, is one in a series of “Medical Guides to Complimentary and Alternative Medicine” and is used as a textbook for health practitioners. However, I will also continue to research and strengthen the article with additional scientific references. Thanks again for your input. --Keithbob (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI--Letter of Authentication--29.08.1997 To whom it may concern: It is a great pleasure for me to confirm that Maharishi Ayur-Veda represents the traditions of Ayurveda at their highest level of effectiveness, and completeness as propounded in the classical texts of this science. I have had the opportunity to examine at first hand the enormous contribution made by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in re-enlivening this ancient system of health care and bringing its benefits to the people of the world. Maharishi Ayur-Veda makes available the principles and practice of Ayur-Veda in a complete, systematic and authentic manner, which has rarely been achieved in recent times in India. For example, Maharishi Ayur-Veda includes Yoga (Including Transcendental Meditation and Asanas), Jyotish, Gandharva Veda and other Vedic disciplines which are considered vital for prevention and treatment by the ancient Ayurvedic texts. Maharishi Ayurveda includes the full range of therapies recommended in the ancient texts, which is not universally the case in Ayurveda practised in India today. It has included high standards of quality control using modern technologies. Furthermore, its effectiveness has been proven in extended scientific research carried out in the United States and Europe as well as in India. I would strongly recommend anyone interested in studying Ayurveda to go into Maharishi Ayur-Veda, which offers the full range of this ancient wisdom as originally brought to light by the ancient seers of India. Shiv Karan Sharma ChhanganiPresident, All India Ayurvedic Congress http://www.gerritjangerritsma.nl/congress.html --Keithbob (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, KB. Not sure why you posted this here. I see that you used it as a source in the article. It may not meet Wikipedia's standard for verifiability, since it's a primary source document hosted on a personal website. In general you seem to be doing a good job for a new editor. I appreciate the research and other sources you've added. TimidGuy (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Timid, I thought I had found something useful and didn't realize it was from a personal site. Good call. I have removed the links to that letter from the article. Your vigilance and support are appreciated.--Keithbob (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we include the letter of identification? I thought that under WP:SELFPUB self published web sites were acceptable as long as they are not unduly self serving and there is no reasonable doubt as to the material's authenticity; doesn't the letter satisfy this? Just wondering. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A key point with WP:SELFPUB is that articles may include information, if necessary, that self define. In other words, if this article were about the writer of the letter, and if the information in the letter was to be used in some way to further information about that writer, then we might be able to use it as a source for information. The letter above was suggested as a source or reference to help establish the legitimacy of the Vedic Approach to Health in which case it generally would be considered a nonverifiable or nonreliable reference because it has not been vetted in the "mainstream"; that is published, peer reviewed, or picked and considered notable due to its multiple appearances in the press...among other things. Hope that helps.(olive (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Proposed Changes

I would like to change the second sentence of this article. I don't think "distorted" is a good choice of words, as in the "purity" of system has been "distorted with time." Not sure what word(s) I would use, but just wanted to check first. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about the second to the last sentence in the "Mind" section, stating that the TM techinique is part of Maharishi Ayurveda. First of all this is redundant, as this point was made in the first sentence of the paragraph. Second, it is confusing to bring in the terminology Maharishi Ayurveda, when the consensus has been to use the term Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. I would like to delete that part of the sentence. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see that Maharishi Ayurveda is listed as another name for MVAH. However, I still think it is redundant and confusing. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my first post on the use of the term "distorted" with respect to "purity"....Can anyone give some examples of how Maharishi restored the purity of the Ayurvedic tradition. That would make the articles stronger I think. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Distorted means lacking its original shape or status. If you have a better word go ahead and change it. Maybe look at some books on MVAH and see what word they use. I made some changes in sentence structure to the areas you mentioned in The Mind section. See if you like it better now. By the way, it is nice that you are seeking consensus before adding or deleting part of the article but you may go ahead with minor changes like sentence structure as long as you are not changing the intended meaning. At least that is my opinion. Other editors can chime in if they like.--Kbob (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We could say diluted instead of distorted. eh? --Kbob (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just thought that saying that the "purity" was "distorted" was sort of mixing metaphors. "Diluted" seems better. Do you know exactly what happened? Were the original concepts "watered down" or mixed up with other methods, or did mistakes get made in passing on the tradtion. If we knew more about what happened then we could choose the most appropriate words to describe that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Flower Eagle (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I took the diluted phrase out. The sentence now reads: "Although Ayurveda has been in existence for centuries, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi claims to have restored the purity of some aspects of this ancient system." I think that's good enough, yes? --Kbob (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent!--Little Flower Eagle (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Spot that Needs Work?

I keep puzzling over the last sentence in the second section (Aspects of the MVAH). It says that there are three areas of practical application: mind, body and environment, all of which are "said to have a common source in the body's inner intelligence." How can the environment have its source in the body's inner intelligence? --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. Have a look. --Kbob (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...--Little Flower Eagle (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, your right its a quick fix. Best would be to check the reference that's listed there on Google online book search and verify that my edit is in line with what the ref says. If not you could change the language to be more accurate. --Kbob (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mind Section

At the end of the mind section it says that further research in MVAH is ongoing. However, this paragraph is essentially about Transcendental Meditation and it's benefits. Should that sentence read "Further research on Transcendental Meditation is ongoing."?

Good eye, Little Eagle, I fixed that one too. --Kbob (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception Section

I can't help but notice that the "Reception" section consists almost entirely of negative reports about the marketing of Maharishi Ayurveda products. Is there nothing else to be said about this form of medicine - any studies on its efficacy or lack of efficacy? --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Little Eagle, If you can find reliable and verifiable sources for positive reception of MVAH and the Maharishi Ayurveda herbal products than I don't see why they couldn't be included. Let's us know what your research turns up and thanks for all your help on this article. I did a lot of work on it several months ago and its good to see other editors also taking an interest. Best wishes, --Kbob (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just coming to this article for the first time today, I have to agree with Little Flower above. This section need some work. --BwB (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

Little Olive Oil suggests that a citation is needed for the statement that an expert need not be present for Ghandarva Veda music therapy. Of course, it never hurts to have references. However, I'm pretty sure that the article already stated or implied that before I made the changes. Otherwise, I wouldn't have stated it like that. Is is possible to go back to a version of the article before I made that whole series of edits to see if I inadvertently changed the meaning? I moved several things around because it was a bit disorganized and confusing. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Click on the HISTORY tab at the top of the article and you can see a history of changes and previous versions.--Kbob (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the offending sentence and changed a previous sentence back to the way it was before, i.e. traditional experts must be present for all three sound therapies. My apologies....I drew in incorrect conclusion from something that was stated in the article. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed Tags

I have removed the tags for neutrality and references. The article now has many citations including many second level references. As for the neutrality if someone wil specifically identify what it is about the article that is not neutral, than I am happy to work on fixing it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is "neutrality" is so much of an issue so much as the text seeming to read as a brochure for MAV. I think the material is presented well, but the language is a little stilted, or something. I am happy to participate in the editing. --BwB (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, please remove any language that sounds promotional, we don't want that in the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have spent some time removing POV wording etc. in an attempt to create a more encyclopedic tone to the article. I hope it is an improvement.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

MAPI letter and FDA

Hi Fladriff, thanks for catching that text about FDA. You are correct that it was not accurate. Actually the MAPI letter that is used to source that section cites WHO standards and only says that the FDA contributes to WHO's standards. So I have corrected the text and removed all mention of FDA. The FDA is only mentioned in the MAPI letter as follows:

• The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies a provisional tolerable weekly intake of 25 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. Thus, for an adult weighing 70 kilograms (154 pounds), the daily tolerance would be 250 micrograms per day. This standard has been reviewed and refined repeatedly over many years based on research findings. The review board for these WHO recommendations has included representation from the US Food and Drug Administration.
• In summary, the article by Saper et al., using relatively crude analytical procedures, conveyed the impression that some Ayurvedic herbal food supplements had detectable amounts of heavy metals, particularly lead, and ignored the fact that virtually all plant products and plant-based foods have detectable trace amounts of lead. In this irresponsible way the article created concern about herbal food supplements irrespective of whether they were in fact well within the tolerance levels of the World Health Organization, a repeatedly-reviewed standard to which members of the US Food and Drug Administration have contributed.

Let me know how this works for you. thanks,-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have at least one problem with this letter. I have no idea to whom it was sent, but it is certainly not published in any secondary source. Whether you consider it self-published because it was put on a website, or a primary source, there are questions with using it. And, since it is taking on a publication on a question of science and medicine in a peer-reviewed journal, I don't think it qualifies for inclusion under WP:MEDRS I would think it would be better to rely on a secondary source. The USA Today article, for example, has a sidebar in which MAPI's president says that its products are tested for heavy metals and contaminants. It would be better to use that I think. Apart from that, and unrelated to what goes in this article, trying to take on Saper is tilting with windmills. The FDA banned all of the Aruvedic products identified in his similar 2004 study as containing excessive levels of heavy metals. I would not be suprised if the FDA will does the same with the products indentified in his 2008 study. Fladrif (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I replaced your language with this:

Ted Wallace, president of MAPI, stated that the company tests its products before and after shipment from India to the US, and that its products are examined for purity, heavy metals, residual pesticides, and biological contaminants.

Hi Fladrif, the letter was published on their website but now I can't find it. So in the meantime I think what you have written is fine. Thanks for the coordinated effort.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Dismiss without prejudice

Please don't use this in reference to the JAMA suit. Most readers won't understand what it means and will think that the judge dismissed the suit because it lacked merit. TimidGuy (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And you can look at the judge's order to see that there indeed was a settlement agreement. TimidGuy (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your footnote is not a citation to an order. And, even if it was, it would be a primary source which should not be used in a case like this when there are secondary sources. Second, I have no idea what most readers will or will not understand from the words "dismissed without prejudice" . But I do know that most readers will think, when they read "pursuant to a settlement", that there was some consideration from the Defendants to the Plaintiffs, which there wasn't. And, since you're high on reading orders, you can look at the judge's order on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction dated in which he ruled that there was no substantial likelihood that the Plantiffs could prevail on the merits of their claim...which was the handwriting on the wall and the real reason this case was dismissed within 9 months after filing. And, it is also significant that false claims about a settlement were made to the press, which led to a retraction by Newsweek. Do not change this. Your language is grossly misleading, and it does not require much of a stretch of imagination to conclude that it is deliberately so.Fladrif (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We should use language the general reader understands. What "without prejudice" indicated in this case should be made clear. I'm not sure why there would be problem with spelling this out for the reader.(olive (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Dismissal without prejudice means that the judge did not render a final decision on the merits, and left open the option for the Plaintiffs to refiled their lawsuit if they thought they actually had a case. Since he had ruled, in denying their Motion for Preliminary Injunction that it was highly unlikely that they could prevail on the merits, he had made a preliminary ruling that they didn't have much of a case. They did not refile, probably because they realized that that preliminary ruling was pretty telling about the likely outcome, and the case would have been assigned to the same judge if refiled. The statute of limitations on these claims has long since expired, which means they can't file one now. You really think that this article needs to explain all that? I don't. But, I know what we can do, is put in an appropriate internal link to the Wiki article that does explain the concept of what dismissal with or without prejudice means.Fladrif (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict

It seems there is an effort to tell the reader something specific in terms of this case... to make sure they get some point... could we just clarify what the terms means in reference to this case. Fladrif since you don't seem to like TG's version maybe you could lay out a version. I do think this needs to be spelled out to make sure there are no agendas showing, and the reader is getting the whole and neutral picture. (olive (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

I've read the archives from the TM article talk page, where it appears that TimidGuy originally claimed that saying that the case was dismissed without prejudice might give some readers the idea that the judge ruled against the Plaintiffs. It appears to have been invented out of whole cloth and driven by the suspicion that the defendants were somehow trying to mislead readers for some nefariious PR purpose into thinking that the judge ruled on the merits. I don't think those are legitimate concerns, they are based on nothing more than suspicion and innuendo and they are more than an little disingenuous since the judge had in fact, on a preliminary basis, ruled that the Plaintiffs has no substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the case. There is no reliable, secondary source as to the terms under which the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case, but there is reliable secondary sources that show that Chopra's attorney tried to mislead the press as to those terms. If the talk archives are to be given credence, sources that we can't use on Wikipedia indicates that the deal was that JAMA was going to let the TM-related Plaintiffs submit another article for publication; that a couple of proposed articles were submitted and rejected, but the Plaintiffs didn't refile. Assuming that's true (and even assuming it's not true) you can't attempt to explain the specifics of what actually happened in this case without resorting to sources that don't qualify under WP:RS or WP:V. It is more than enough to use the internal link. I just don't think this is a legitimate argument.Fladrif (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was just referring to the term :"without prejudice" itself... and was probably posting at the same time as you were. I can't say much about the case, so I'll leave that to those who are more knowledgeable at this point. My issue is to just give the facts and not slant things one way or another no matter what appears to be the case (no pun intended).(olive (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

What was incorrect about what I wrote? The dismissal was at the request of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had the option of refiling the suit. There was an agreement related to a settlement, per the judge's order, which we can cite. And it doesn't contradict a secondary source. (By the way, I asked an attorney involved in the case whether what Skolnick said was accurate, and he said it wasn't.) My rational stands: the reader will assume that the court dismissed the case due to lack of merit. (Which it didn't.) And readers do indeed assume that. If you read that archived discussion you saw that Sethie assumed that very thing and was utterly surprised to hear it meant something else. TimidGuy (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong is that you are relying entirely on original research, unsupported by any reliable verifiable source. The Judge's order is not published by any source, and you have never provided anything approaching a proper citation to the order itself. There is no reference to any settlement, other than the one Chopra's lawyer lied about, in any secondary source. On top of it, you are relying on private conversations? Let me turn this around. What is inaccurate about what I wrote, and is it not supported by reliable, secondary sources? No reader who goes to the trouble of clicking on the internal hotlink for "dismissal without prejudice" will think that this was a ruling on the merits, at least not if they have the reading comprehension of a 10 or 12 year old. This argument is absolute nonsense. And, if you insist on this position, I'm going to insist that, consistent with your insistence that digging through the court records qualfies as "reliable sources" and isn't "original research", that the article must also include a statement that, in denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the judge found that there was no substantial liklihood that the Plaintiffs could prevail on the merits of their claims. Nuclear option dude. Now, stop edit warring reliably-sourced and entirely accurate text.Fladrif (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSLEGAL suggests the following:

• Aim to provide an overview to an international lay audience
• Provide some depth and detail worthy of an encyclopedia
• Use plain language

I don't see any wrong doing here. I see two different suggestions for describing the same thing. TG is suggesting plainer language. Fladrif is suggesting the legal terms. Wikipedia supports the use of plain language so I would think that's what we would go with.

There are other concerns with this section though now that I have the time to look at it. Why is a single court case given this kind of emphasis in terms of the article as a whole. I would think it violates undue weight unless it can be summarized. I don't see that Newsweek says that Chopra's laywer lied. Even on a talk page we have to be careful about making this kind of statement... BLP guides apply here too. (olive (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

You raise an excellent point. It appears that the paragraph on this lawsuit was added in an attempt to "balance" the criticisms leveled by the JAMA articles. I have no idea what a voluntarily-dismissed case does to provide any "balance", particularly in light of the adverse rulings the Plaintiffs got on their Motion for Preliminary Injuction. And, while I am mindful of the principles of WP:OTHERSTUFF, there has been a pretty vigorous lobbying effort by certain editors to delete any mention in the TM-related articles of various lawsuits that got settled out of court, an effort that has been successful in some instances, less so in others. I have no problem, consistent with your observation and that pattern, of simply deleting any mention of this lawsuit from this article. Fladrif (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Would we then also remove the Kropinski suit from the TM article? TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

THis isn't a negotiation. But, I have anticipated this question. Kropinski's and the related lawsuits got a lot of coverage in reliable, secondary news sources. So did the murder at MUM. So has the lead poisoning lawsuit mentioned in this article. The SLAPP suit against JAMA did not. Fladrif (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

See if the latest change makes everybody happy. Thought I was logged in for the edit, but I apparently not.Fladrif (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Kropinski case was also voluntarily dismissed. The adverse ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction isn't as meaningful as you think. Such a motion has a very high standard. The judge didn't dismiss this suit for any of the reasons that a judge can, and it could have gone to trial. TimidGuy (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect TG, you are completely out of your element here. Yes, it it hard to get a preliminary injuction, and the motion in that case had zero chance of prevailing for reasons unrelated to the merits of the underlying claims in the case. But, the judge's ruling that the plaintiffs had no substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim, which is only one of the elements to be considered, was extraordinarily meaningful. Not one in 1,000 cases in which a judge has made that ruling is ever going to go to trial, and not one in 100,000 is going to result in a verdict for the plaintiffs. Anybody trying to sell you on the idea that this wasn't an overwhelming blow to the plaintiff's case is just blowing smoke. For all I know, and apparently for all you know, the terms of the "settlement" was that the defendants promised that they wouldn't counter-sue for abuse of process, and they wouldn't seek costs and attorney fees for defending this frivolous lawsuit.Fladrif (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, Thanks for the respect, which is probably more than I deserve. :) It's true that I know almost nothing about legal matters. But I just can't quite believe what you say. In any case, so to speak, regarding the matters at hand: how do you know that the Chopra suit is relevant to the suit named in this article? The Newsweek article talks about a suit by Deepak. The litigants in this case are the Lancaster Foundation and the American Association for Ayur-Vedic Medicine. And it was broader than a defamation suit. You've now deleted all reference to that suit by the two parties that had been named and are only including the information related to Deepak's suit. Please explain. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There was only one lawsuit; Chopra did not file a separate lawsuit.Fladrif (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source? (TimidGuy asks, knowing full well that he himself doesn't yet have all the relevant documents in hand. Hold on, I'm getting 'em.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that Chopra had a separate lawsuit against JAMA? Fladrif (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think it was the same lawsuit? The version of the complaint that I have doesn't mention Chopra. Are you really suggesting that the LA Times article is more reliable than the judge's order itself? TimidGuy (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no knowledge or opinion about this specific issue. But seeing it pop up on my watchlist I'll add a comments on sources. Primary sources are always tricky to use, especially court documents. A complaint only gives one side of an issue, and it may be amended or withdrawn and there'd be no way to tell that by looking at it. In matters like this, primary documents should only be used to support or illustrate what's already found in secondary documents.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

TimidGuy, Chopra never sued JAMA over this. There was only one lawsuit. You will search in vain for a separate complaint by Chopra against JAMA, because there wasn't one. The complaint was originally filed by the Lancaster Foundation and AAA-VM only. That is why you do not find Chopra's name in the complaint that your are looking at. The judge was going to grant summary disposition throwing out the case, in part they had no claim whatsoever that they had been libeled or disparaged. In an effort to avoid having the case thrown out, the plaintiffs had the bright idea of asking to have Chopra added as a plaintiff. Before it ever happened, they decided to walk away from this sure-fire loser. Whether the LA Times is more reliable than a court document is not the question. You simply cannot use an unpublished document as a reference in Wikipedia. It does not matter that the unpublished document is gathering dust in some courthouse. You can't use it here. Period. Itshould be unnecessary for me to point out that your argument here is completely inconsistent with your position on the TM Talk Page archives that an affidavit from the Skolnik Kropinsky case could not be used as a source on Wikipedia. Your inconsistent and contradictory positions make me question whether this argument is being pressed out of principle or mere expediency. Fladrif (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, your sources say that Chopra sued JAMA. The judgment says Lancaster v Skolnick. You are welcome to assume that this is the same case, but Wikipedia doesn't go on assumptions. You may well be right. We won't know until we have the documents in hand. It remains an open question, though, whether this suit should be included in the article. I don't feel completely comfortable citing a case with an equivocal outcome, as here and as with Kropinski in the TM article. Will, I agree that it would be good to rely on secondary sources. Ideally such a source would examine various facets of the case and the resolution. Maybe we could set that as the standard for inclusion. In which case we'd not only exclude this suit but also Kropinski. I've never seen a secondary source that summarizes Kropinski. There were a few news reports of the trial, and there was a news report that the court awarded him $138,000. But no media outlets reported the fact that the appellate court overturned the award. There are no adequate secondary documents for this case. I think we should exclude both. And for that matter, by this standard we would also exclude the lawsuit mentioned regarding the Indian herbs that's included in this article. Basically, all we have is the complaint. Nothing has been decided. TimidGuy (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, TimidGuy, you are completely out of your depth here. It is you who have assumed, wrongly, from the news reports and your original research in a field that you admit to know absolutely nothing about that Chopra had a separate lawsuit against JAMA. Based on that mistaken assumption on your part, you conclude that the news reports about dismissal of the single case somehow don't involve the Lancaster Foundation case. I'm sorry if this sounds like a personal attack, but you have no idea what you are talking about, and it's time you faced up to that. We do not excise material you don't like from articles because you have decided somehow that reliable, secondary sources like respected mainstream newspapers aren't good enough for you. Your claim that you have not seen a secondary source on Kropinski is false - you have discussed Kropinski on the TM talk pages to the point of exhaustion, including discussion of lots and lots of secondary sources on the case. The claim that there was no media coverage of that trial is simply false. The claim that there was no media coverage of the appeals court ruling remanding the case is also false. [2] [3][4]I expect that you know that all of these statements wer false when you made them, and I see no point in continuing to discuss this when you exhibit this level of bad faith yet again in desperately pushing your POV on these TM-related pages.Fladrif (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What seems to have totally escaped you is that Chopra was the founding President of the American Association of Ayur-Vedic Medicine. It was in that capacity that he sued JAMA, not as an individual. So, when the news reports say that Chopra and the two TM-related organizations sued JAMA's editors, or that Chopra was involved in the lawsuit, that's what they meant, not that he was a named plaintiff. Fladrif (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, I couldn't see any sources in the links that you gave that reported the resolution of the Kropinski case beyond the district court award. It would be great if you could link to a specific source. At this point the only assumption about Lancaster v Skolnick that I'm making is that without the court documents in hand, or without a secondary source that describes the various details of the case, including an explanation of who the parties to the suit were, we don't know all the facts. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And let me quote what I said: "There were a few news reports of the trial." And you said, "Your claim that there was no media coverage of that trial is simply false." I believe you misrepresented what I said. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Three people who brought suit claiming the Transcendental Meditation movement falsely promised to teach them how to fly - sans aircraft - have reached an out-of-court settlement, attorneys said Tuesday in Washington.

Terms of the settlements, by stipulation, remained private. The plaintiffs had accused the movement of fraud, saying meditation did not provide the promised benefits such as reduced stress, a reversal of the aging process and the ability to levitate. Instead, they contended, they suffered psychological damage.

Plaintiffs Robert Kropinski of Hockessin, Del.; Jane Greene of Marion, Pa.; and Patrick Ryan of Philadelphia brought suit in U.S. District Court against the World Plan Executive Council-United States and the Maharishi International University at Fairfield, Iowa, where the three studied.

The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, leader of the movement, was dismissed as a defendant because the plaintiffs' lawyers could not find him in India to serve court papers, said the plaintiffs' attorney, Gerald Ragland.

Spokesman Robert Oates said the university stands by its contention that "transcendental meditation is completely beneficial and it is completely natural."

Kropinski had won a $137,890 damage award in U.S. District Court, but it was overturned in 1988 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A fourth lawsuit brought by Diane Hendel of Arlington, Va., was not part of the settlement, Ragland said.

— Guru's School Settles With Former Students; Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: Apr 18, 1991. pg. 26

Is this the case you're talking about?   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, don't think it is, Will. --BwB (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually it is just what we were looking for. We hadn't had a source for the settlement and had had to rely upon the appellate court opinion regarding the resolution. Thanks, Will. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Timid, I thought this discussion was about JAMA< CHopra, MPAI etc., not the Kropinski/TM case? --BwB (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

MAP Ltd of India and MAPI USA

These are two distinct companies as indicated below:

• Maharishi Ayurveda Products Ltd, India [5][6][7]
• Maharishi Ayurveda Products International, USA [8] [9]

Since they have similar names, it's of service to our Wiki readers to indicate this in the article so they are not confused. Don't you agree?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I myself was confused about that. Thanks for pointing it out. TimidGuy (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's sounds very nice, but there is nothing it the secondary sources to support the distinction that you want to make. No reader has any way of confirming whether what you are claiming is true or not. And, to add to the confusion, I have the impression from just a brief googling that there are many more "Maharishi Ayurveda Products" entities besides MAPI and MAP Ltd India, including MAP Ltd UK, nor do I have any idea what the relationship is between the various entities. Added to that, it seems clear that MAPI in the US is importing products manufactured by MAP Ltd India, so the distinction in entities that you are trying to draw, while it may or may not be accurate, would seem to be more likely to mislead than to clarify.Fladrif (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides, the distinction between the entities is really meaningless in the context of the article. The clinic and the manufacturer are all part of the TM-Org and branches of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, the subject of this article. Explaining that Maharishi Vedic Medicine Organizations "A", "B" and "C" claim they wasn't involved, but Maharihsi Vedic Medicine Organization "X", "Y" and "Z" were involved may be an important distinction in the courtroom, but in the context of this article, isn't particularly illuminating.Fladrif (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Fladrif. I think that sometimes you allow your passion for a certain point of view to overshadow your judgement. This is just a common sense suggestion to clarify for the reader who is who in the paragraph. I think sometimes we get so involved as editors and with what we want personally that we forget that our only purpose is to create an encyclopedia that is clear and useful to the reader and it is not about what we want personally. You can have it your way on this thread as its not worth my time to debate such a small point but you may want to consider in future, putting the readers needs further towards the front of your priority list. Be well my friend. -- — Kbob • Talk • 12:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with my point of view. Where is there a verifiable, secondary source to support what you are claiming about the corporate structure here, and what is the point you are trying to make? I have no idea from any of the references you provided whether MAP Ltd is an Indian entity, or a UK entity or some other entity, or what the relationship is between MAP Ltd and MAPI. The website that you provided for the Indian website for MAP Ltd says "visit our website", with a link to MAPI www.mapi.com. So, its pretty clear that MAP Ltd is part of MAPI. Is the point your are trying to make is something along the lines of "we may sell this stuff in India, but we don't in the US", or am I missing something? If that's what the claim is, fine. Let's find an independent verifiable source that says that and put it in the article.

One more thought. The MAP UK website has a table (revised as of Aug 2003)[10] listing the Q/A standards that it claims apply to all products manufactured by MAP Ltd in India and MTC in the Netherlands, including its standards for heavy metals in products. Linking to that chart might be an appropriate thing, that this is what MAPI says is its standards. According to JAMA Rasa Shastra products are supposed to contain heavy metals. But, if these are really the Q/C standards followed by MAP Ltd on all its products, it's hard to understand how Garbhapal Ras could contain 3% lead, which would be 10,000 times the Q/C standard.Fladrif (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's my point, that I am not trying to make any point. Just want to clarify for the reader what companies are associated with what countries as there are two countries several companies and organizations mentioned in this section, some of whom have similar names. My point is lets clarify for the reader which entities originate in what countries. This is for clarity only not for any OR or POV agenda.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but back to the verifiability issue, which is what I raised at the very outset of this discussion. How am I or anyone else supposed to verify this? I have no idea whether MAP Ltd is an Indian company or not from any of the sources you've cited or any I've seen myself. From the sources, it appears that MAP Ltd manufacturers products in India for MAPI; it also appears to be a part of MAPI, as do a lot of other companies around the globe with similar names. MAPI appears to operate in many countries, not just the US. Other than that, I have no idea from the sources who sells or does what in what country. I don't have any real problem in concept with setting out in excruciating detail the corporate structure of MAPI, its subsiaries and affiliates, what they do and where they operate, but we need a source for it, and, with all due respect, I have yet to see one, not even on MAPI's own websites, and I've looked.Fladrif (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In my original post at the top of this thread I provided links from the respective companies web sites which gives their official address. Is this sufficient? PS-- I have just now added some more from secondary sources. Is it OK now?-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

These additional sources still don't tell me much of anything. But, I think that from all the available sources, the way to address this is to say that the product was manufactured by MAP Ltd in India. If you think it is important, I think that we can go on to say that, according to MAPI, products imported from MAP Ltd to the US are reinspected and retested in the US before bottling and sale there[11], and according to Ayurveda Ltd, products imported from MAP Ltd to the UK are reinspected and retested in the UK before bottling and sale there per the following Q/A standards.[12] There does not appear to be a similar statement about reinspection and retesting on the English language version of the MAP Europe B.V website, the MAP NZ website or the MAP Australia website.Fladrif (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we are getting way too detailed here. Probably what Kbobb is trying to do is to simple distinguish one MAPI company for another for simplicity, but we do not need to spend vast amount of text on the subject. The article, I feel presents the issue of heavy metal in some AV products fairly and show that only 2 products were from MAPI and we have a statement form the Pres of MAPI. What more do we need? --BwB (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Fladriff thanks for the changes indicating that MAP Ltd is an Indian corporation. I think that at present the paragraph states the information in a simple, neutral and straightforward fashion that is acessible to the reader. Nice work. Thanks for you help with this. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Weight and POV

• "Tests done in April 2007 showed that the plaintiff had a blood lead level of 102 micrograms per deciliter, over 20 times the level considered safe by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She underwent therapy to filter out the lead, but her child was born with an elevated blood lead level of 60 micrograms per deciliter. Tests performed by the Iowa Department of Public Health showed Garbhapal Ras was made up of nearly 3 percent lead."

I think that their inclusion in the section creates undue weight and POV as they represent the plaintiffs case with no mention of the position being taken by the defense in this specific case. Even if there was a source outlining the defendants case and we put it in the Wiki article, it would still create undue weight as too much space would be given to the topic as a whole when it is not of primary relevance to a rather short article. I understand that it is reliably sourced but as Wiki editors we know that we have to use our common sense and good judgment when selecting facts from news articles. Just because the source chose this POV doesn't mean we have to also adopt a POV in the Wiki article. I think it is enough to say the lawsuit was filed and that the companies accused refute it without going into the details or circumstances of the case. -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It accurately reflects what has been widely reported in reliable secondary news sources. The lead and other heavy metals contents of ayurvedic medicines, particularly those imported from India, is a highly sigificant issue that has gotten a lot of press. This is not undue weight whatsoever. Fladrif (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reconsidered a bit, and think this can be shortened. See if the changes make you any happier.Fladrif (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Fladrif, thank you for reconsidering. I think the section is more balanced now. You are a gentlemen and a scholar Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this reads much better now. Thanks to Kbobb abd Flad. --BwB (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Research

It's good that we're giving this article some attention. I think that there are quite a number of studies that could be included. The most important one would be Fields 2002:

Effect of a multimodality natural medicine program on carotid atherosclerosis in older subjects: a pilot trial of Maharishi Vedic Medicine.

American Journal of Cardiology, 2002;89(8):952-8

Fields JZ, Walton KG, Schneider RH, Nidich S, Pomerantz R, Suchdev P, Castillo-Richmond A, Payne K, Clark ET, Rainforth M.

Although the onset and progression of coronary heart disease (CHD) involve multiple risk factors, few intervention studies have attempted to modify these factors simultaneously. This pilot study tested the effect of a multimodality intervention involving dietary, exercise, herbal food supplement, and stress reduction approaches from a traditional system of natural medicine, Maharishi Vedic Medicine (MVM). The primary outcome measure was carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), a noninvasive measure of peripheral atherosclerosis and surrogate measure of coronary atherosclerosis. Comparison groups included modern medicine (conventional dietary, exercise, and multivitamin approaches) and usual care (no added intervention). Of 57 healthy seniors (mean age 74 years) randomized to the 3 treatment groups, 46 completed IMT post-testing. Carotid IMT was determined by B-mode ultrasound before and after 1 year of treatment. IMT decreased in a larger fraction of MVM subjects (16 of 20) than in the modern (5 of 9) and usual care (7 of 14) groups combined (i.e., 12 of 23; odds ratio 3.7, p = 0.05). For subjects with multiple CHD risk factors ("high-risk" subjects, n = 15), IMT decreased more in the MVM (-0.32 +/- 0.23 mm, mean +/- SD) than in the usual care (+0.022 +/- 0.085; p = 0.009) or modern (-0.082 +/- 0.095, p = 0.10) groups. Within-group reductions in IMT were significant for all MVM subjects (-0.15 +/- 0.21, n = 20, p = 0.004) and for high-risk MVM subjects (n = 6, p = 0.01). These results show that this multimodality traditional approach can attenuate atherosclerosis in older subjects, particularly those with marked CHD risk.

This study received a high Jadad score by Ospina Bond, and appeared in a major medical journal.

In addition, if you do a search in Pubmed[13] just on "Amrit Kalash," you'll find 18 studies. There are two studies on Vedic Vibration, including a double blind randomized controlled trial. You can find the abstracts here.[14] I would also think that more detail could be given on some of the studies, such as the 2002 study by Herron and Fagan. I feel like we could have a more substantial research section, though unfortunately I don't have time to work on it. Would be great if someone could. TimidGuy (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that a number of issues need to be addressed about the research claims in this article, but I have neither the time nor inclination to do it. A couple of things jump out, however: The sentence that say that TM is used to treat or prevent ADHD, pain, etc... does not accurately reflect the references. Those talk about claims and studies, not about treatment or prevention, so the text misrepresents the sources.Fladrif (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the text in the article is softer than you describe, it does not say treat or prevent it says: "It may also have an effect on a variety of disorders, including ADHD, pain, diabetes, and congestive heart failure" I think with this kind of qualified wording it is OK.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

TimidGuy revised the language in the article [here] subsequent to my comment. The current language does more closely track the source.Fladrif (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead Link

• were obtained from Maharishi Ayurveda Products International Inc. USA (MAPI)

The link to the JAMA article isn't dead. It works just fine for me. [15]. Maybe this one of those weird problems that crop up for some browsers and not others? Fladrif (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Works for me on my Apple Mac using Firefox. --BwB (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I guess its just my browser. Thanks gents.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

JAMA Letters to the Editor

I'm inclined to think that letters to the editor are not really appropriate sources in a Wikipedia article. Fladrif (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an interesting point for discussion. They are written by primary people but then published by a secondary source with an editing process. This comes up in other instances too where we have books that are compilation of chapters each one written by a different author. So far we have been accepting those too so it would seem the editor letters are also OK.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some of the archived discussions on the topic, and there does not appear to be a clear consensus on Wikipedia one way or the other. Different publications have different standards about what they will or will not publish in letters to the editor. As near as I can figure out, the general approach has been to treat LTE as if they were self-published and then decide if the use falls within the scope of acceptable use of self-published material. I can see arguments either way on this particular material, but I thought I'd raise the question here. I can see how using LTE could get totally out of hand in some articles.Fladrif (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT: Reception section

The reception section is now almost equal in length to the article as a whole, and so, on that as well as on other levels Violates WP:WEIGHT. This would be an obvious concern in any article. The section needs to be pared down.(olive (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Weight isn't a good reason to delete sourced material. Can more other material be added to balance the article?   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding more material increases the ratio of content in this section to the article as a whole. As one remedy, the section can be pared down by summarizing some of the content if needed. Not sure why the Reception section of which only three lines or so is not negative should be equal in length to the rest of the entire article. Is there some neutral and legitimate reason for that? Otherwise we have a lovely case of NPOV on our hands. Because something is sourced doesn't mean it needs to be in an article . Other factors like weight, appropriateness and subsequent NPOV must come into play. Otherwise we could just add content on Cocker Spaniels(olive (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Oh ... You suggest adding more content the article itself. Sorry I misunderstood you .... I think the reception section is still non neutral although your suggestion may be possible remedy for some of the concerns.(olive (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

The weight given different topics should depend largely on the prominence of those issues. If nothing but praise is written about Mother Theresa, then we wouldn't go out of our way to add a fixed percentage of negative material. Likewise, if there is mostly criticism about Charles Manson we wouldn't apply some artificial limit and reduce the negative.   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what I said. Sorry, I don't see how your analogy works on an article like this one. Definitely we don't go out of our way to shift the neutral tone created by the appropriate use significant reliable sources can give. We also don't go into the article with a preconceived notion of what that material is or might be. Your examples are extreme in that there is little debate about the two people you mentioned. At the same time, one must not assume anything about those topics even when looking for sources otherwise valuable information may be missed. The reception section has been loaded with details of a few issues and now the section is longer than the rest of the article, that includes all of the other pertinent information on this topic. That is undue weight and that does shift the emphasis from an article that gives information on a topic to an article that is weighted to create a very substantial POV. Its a waste of your time and mine to discuss this further. Anyone who understands policy and Wikipedia as I'm sure you do and as hopefully the other editors working here do, knows there is a concern. The issue is how to fix it.(olive (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

One obvious way to deal with a section that's too long is to move some material into another section or create a new one. In this case, "regulatory issues" might be an appropriate heading for some of the text.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Another obvious way to deal with the section is to summarize the points rather than giving extended descriptions and/or quotes and grinding a POV axe. Olive is not suggesting the deletion of sourced content but rather an editing process that creates neutrality and balance as is necessary and preferred in a encyclopedic article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of quotes in that section. Describing the work of other editors as "grinding a POV axe" is not helpful to civil discussion, and may lead to folks pointing fingers rather than working together. As for balance, the correct balance is that which depicts the relative weight of various views as they exist.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that this Reception section was created to bring in some controversy not to give a balanced, neutral view of MVAH. There is definite POV in the creation. Now we are asking that rather than have this section be so long and one-sided that it be reduced and summarized. It that OK? --BwB (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not OK to delete sourced material just because you believe it was introduced in order to add controversy. Would it be OK for me to reduce other sections because I think they were just added to give a positive view of the subject? I should hope not.   Will Beback  talk  00:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any constraints on adding positive material to the article as long as it's reliably sourced? TimidGuy (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, no.   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a sorry replay of something we see over and over and over in these articles. You do not get to delete reliably-sourced notable material because you don't like to read criticism of your fringe beliefs and practices. Will's initial point is exactly correct. Weight is no justification whatsoever for deleting or paring down this section. If you have reliably-sourced, relevant material to add on MVAH, add it. It's not my fault this is a bare-bones article largely lifted from the pages of TM-Org websites. I added a paragraph on Jyotish and Yagyas and sourced it. Do the same for the other stuff, and then the "Reception" section won't be relatively so long. TG said earlier that he had some material to be added to other parts of the article on research. Well? Your employers want these pages used as part of their PR campaigns, so what's holding you back? Fladrif (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple suggestion here on how to deal with the situation and all are possible either by themselves or together. That something is reliably sourced is a threshold for inclusion but does not guarantee that the content should either be added or subtracted from an article . If that were the case then Wikipedia would only need one policy. Many other factors come into play when creating articles as is the case when writing anything. I believe there was discussion on removing one or two of the court cases. Is that a possibility? I'll summarize the points made later today. I try to remember Wikipedia is collaborative so we can only benefit from having lots of input and multiple possible solutions for dealing with the issues that come up . There is no single right answer or solution.(olive (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Maybe we could just deal with the article and not slide into ad hominem, and fishy, red herring attacks. The idea that some giant puppet master is behind some editors here is beyond comprehension, actually. Often the editors don't even agree with each other. (olive (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Summary of points made so far: ( So the points don't get lost)

• Add material to rest of the article

• Summarize content in the section

• Create new section and move some material into it

• Move court cases as discussed

Thanks Olive for isolating and summarizing the suggestions made so far. I find that when we talk together in specifics we accomplish a lot more. So I support this kind of post. I also apologize for using the phrase "grinding a POV axe" in my earlier post. That was not appropriate. I retract the statement and hope we can all work together to improve the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5