Talk:Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Two different names

The article inconsistently uses two different names for the same program: "Maharishi Ayur-Veda" and "Maharishi Ayurveda". The correct name seems to be "Maharishi Ayurveda". I recommend that we discuss it here prior to making a global edit in the article. David Spector 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with suggestion for global edit. --BwB (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Both spellings are used. The various organizations associated with MVAH tend to use the hyphen, except for MAPI, which leaves it out. But I'd be fine with standardizing on one or the other. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The hyphen is what allowed the TM Movement to trademark "Ayur-Veda".[3]Fladrif (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-Compliant sources still in this article/entry

It looks like someone has been involved in Disruptive/Tendentious Editing of this article with non-compliant, primary sources again. All the sources below are from TM movement people, affiliates, professors, etc., etc. They should removed. Fagan, John B; Herron, Robert E (September, 2002). Lipophil-mediated reduction of toxicants in humans: an evaluation of an ayurvedic detoxification procedure. 8. pp. 40–51.

Fagan is a College Prof at MUM/MIU. Fields, JZ; Walton, KG; Schneider, RH; Nidich, S; Pomerantz, R; Suchdev, P; Castillo-Richmond, A; Payne, K et al. (April 2002). "Effect of a multimodality natural medicine program on carotid atherosclerosis in older subjects: a pilot trial of Maharishi Vedic Medicine". The American Journal of Cardiology 89 (8): 952–8. doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02245-2. PMID 11950434.

Nidich and Schneider both TM Org related/ MUM related Gelderloos, P; Ahlström, HH; Orme-Johnson, DW; Robinson, DK; Wallace, RK; Glaser, JL (1990). "Influence of a Maharishi Ayur-vedic herbal preparation on age-related visual discrimination". International Journal of Psychosomatics 37 (1-4): 25–9. PMID 2246098.

David O-J and Wallace TM org affiliates. Jayadevappa, Ravishankar; Johnson, Jerry C.; Bloom, Bernard S.; Nidich, Sanford; Desai, Shashank; Chhatre, Sumedha; Raziano, Donna B.; Schneider, Robert H. (2007). "Effectiveness of transcendental meditation on functional capacity and quality of life of African Americans with congestive heart failure: a randomized control study". Ethnicity & Disease 17 (1): 72–7. PMID 17274213. PMC 2048830. "PennMedical Article"

Nidich and Schneider again.

Lonsdorf, Nancy. "The Maharishi Ayurveda Approach to Allergies". www.pointshop.com/. Retrieved November 16, 2009.

Lonsdorf is TMM affiliate/employee.

"Maharishi Amrit Kalash – The Rasayana of Rasayanas". www.maharishi.co.uk. 2009. Retrieved November 18, 2009.

Advertisement. Nader, Tony (2000). Human Physiology; Expression of Veda and Vedic Literature. Maharishi Vedic University. OCLC 34051833.

Nader is a head of the TMM. Nader, TA; Smith, DE; Dillbeck, MC; Schanbacher, V; Dillbeck, SL; Gallois, P; Beall-Rougerie, S; Schneider, RH et al. (April 2001). "A double blind randomized controlled trial of Maharishi Vedic vibration technology in subjects with arthritis". Frontiers in Bioscience 6: H7–H17. PMID 11282569.

More movement "researchers". Nidich, SI; Schneider, RH; Nidich, RJ; Rainforth, M; Salerno, J; Scharf, D; Smith, DE; Dillbeck, MC et al. (April 2001). "Maharishi Vedic vibration technology on chronic disorders and associated quality of life". Frontiers in Bioscience 6: H1–6. PMID 11282570.

More movement people. O'Connell, David F.; Alexander, Charles Nathaniel (1994). Self-recovery : treating addictions using transcendental meditation and Maharishi Ayur-Ved. New York: Harrington Park Press. ISBN 978-1-56024-454-7.

And more. Orme-Johnson, D. W.; Alexander, C. N.; Davies, J. L.; Chandler, H. M.; Larimore, W. E. (1988). "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field". Journal of Conflict Resolution 32: 776. doi:10.1177/0022002788032004009.

Yet more. Orme-Johnson, DW; Herron, RE (January 1997). "An innovative approach to reducing medical care utilization and expenditures". The American Journal of Managed Care 3 (1): 135–44. PMID 10169245.

Even more. Paul-Labrador, M; Polk, D; Dwyer, JH; Velasquez, I; Nidich, S; Rainforth, M; Schneider, R; Merz, CN (June 2006). "Effects of a randomized controlled trial of transcendental meditation on components of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with coronary heart disease". Archives of Internal Medicine 166 (11): 1218–24. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.11.1218. PMID 16772250. "AMA Article"

More. Reddy, Kumuda; Egenes, Linda (2002). Conquering Chronic Disease Through Maharishi Vedic Medicine. Newyork: Lantern Books. pp. 10. ISBN 978-1-930051-55-3.

More movement people. Schneider, Robert H.; Fields, Jeremy Z. (2006). Total heart health : how to prevent and reverse heart disease with the maharishi vedic approach to healt. Laguna Beach, CA: Basic Health Publications. ISBN 978-1-59120-087-1.

Again, more. Schneider, RH; Alexander, CN; Salerno, JW; Robinson Jr, DK; Fields, JZ; Nidich, SI (February 2002). "Disease prevention and health promotion in the aging with a traditional system of natural medicine: Maharishi Vedic Medicine". Journal of Aging and Health 14 (1): 57–78. doi:10.1177/089826430201400104. PMID 11892761.

Again... Sharma, Hari M.; Clark, Christopher (1998). Micozzi, Marc. ed. Contemporary Ayurveda : medicine and research in Maharishi Ayur-Ved. Medical Guides to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Foreword by Gary Kaplan. New York: Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 978-0-443-05594-2.

More Sharma. Sundaram, V; Hanna, AN; Lubow, GP; Koneru, L; Falko, JM; Sharma, HM (November 1997). "Inhibition of low-density lipoprotein oxidation by oral herbal mixtures Maharishi Amrit Kalash-4 and Maharishi Amrit Kalash-5 in hyperlipidemic patients". The American Journal of the Medical Sciences 314 (5): 303–10. doi:10.1097/00000441-199711000-00007. PMID

Sharma again.

Wallace, Robert Keith (1993). The physiology of consciousness. Fairfield, Iowa: Maharishi International University Press. pp. 64–66. ISBN 978-0-923569-02-0.

The former president of MIU makes another cameo. Wallace, RK; Dillbeck, M; Jacobe, E; Harrington, B (February 1982). "The effects of the transcendental meditation and TM-Sidhi program on the aging process". The International Journal of Neuroscience 16 (1): 53–8. doi:10.3109/00207458209147602. PMID 6763007.

More of the same.--Kala Bethere (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the researchers are members of the movement is not, by itself, they key problem. If I understand WP:MEDRS, the main problem is that these studies are old and haven't been replicated or reviewed. Also, there appears to be at least one popular book, which I believe may also be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  18:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And being old isn't, by itself, a problem, according to MEDRS, if it's not an active and dynamically changing field. And MEDRS doesn't require that every primary source be removed. I agree that it would be good to use more secondary sources. You can begin with those I listed in a thread above. And in another thread you can see Colin's direction regarding how to find secondary sources. We could bring some of the secondary sources from the TM article, too. It would behoove a neutral editor to not simply focus on removal but to instead find secondary sources. In my quick searching I found that there are many. Some of the sources are acceptable as is, such as Schneider's Total Heart Health for basic information about Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. The study by Fields, by the way, was rated high quality by AHRQ. And here are some reviews that include it:

• The role of complementary and alternative therapies in cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic evaluation, Arthur, Heather M.; Patterson, Christine; Stone, James A, European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation:, February 2006 - Volume 13 - Issue 1 - pp 3-9[4]
• Integrative Review of Research Related to Meditation, Spirituality, and the Elderly, Geriatric Nursing, Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 372-377 D. Lindberg

Hope that helps. TimidGuy (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do any of the refs. specifically mention Maharishi Ayurveda TimidGuy?

Of course my concern is that Schneider is a diehard TM Org person. He's not even close to being unbiased, non-financially involved and independent. In a way I would suspect he's the emblamatic of the type of source we probably should not be seeking.

Perhaps if Doc James is still around he could find some of the secondary sources you need TimidGuy? He certainly has more resources on medicine than most of us here.

In any event, now's as good a time as any to go through, one by one if need be, and help make this entry more WP compliant.--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is MEDRS says 'respect secondary sources' not use over a dozen biased refs. by members of the TM movement's own professors and/or scientitsts (in some cases former presidents of their university)! Fringe sciences like the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health also have other hurdles they have to deal with by virtue of their fringe status, namely the unwarranted promption of fringe theories like MVAH, tridosha theory, quantum consciousness theories and other issues like a major conflict re: medical acceptance of one of the premier scientific/health organizations, the American Medical Association. That's not say that all alternative medicine is "fringe" or does not have excellent acceptance. The US currently does accredit at least one university for Doctors of Oriental Medicine. There currently is no such mainstream accreditation for MVAH. Maharishi Ayurveda/MVAH actually has more in common with Paracelsianism which was abandoned in the West centuries ago. Giving the entry Undue Weight by using primary sources of people who also often have a financial COI is also really, really pushing it.

If we're going to allow such sources as these, WP should also allow Tobacco Institute research on the benefits or benignity of cigarette smoke and Oil and Coal Company research that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax.--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke, right?

By what stretch of the imagination do these edits make the entry more accurate or more readable? Answer: They don't. These edits are pointless, KBob, though it is nice to see that this time you actually bothered to read the source material before editing, which your edit summaries make clear that you apparently felt was totally unnecessary before rewriting this paragraph last time through. Bad form, and a bad habit you make a point of repeating. It is a recurring bad joke with these TM-related articles for the Fairfield contingent to insist on turning these article into unreadable quotefarms, in the apparent belief that no-one is capable of accurately summarizing what is written on the page.

And why did this take you six edits? Other than artificially upping one's editcount,which you are doing with admirable gusto what is the purpose of consuming all this bandwidth? You do realize that Wikipedia caches every single one of these revisions as separate versions of the same article? Or don't you.

This stopped being amusing a long time ago.Fladrif (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif, when writing on article talk pages please try to focus on the edits rather than the editors. These talk pages are just for discussing article improvements. Problems with editors are best addressed on their user talk pages, through RfCs, or other dispute resolution venues.

Thanks for this comment to Flad, Will. I have made the same point to him several times before with the words "Message, not the messenger". --BwB (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't insert comments in the middle of previously posted comments from other editors. Doing so makes it hard to follow the conversation. See WP:TP.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The comment is inapt and the objection ill-taken. My criticism is specifically directed to the edits, not to the editor.Fladrif (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'm not sure I understand the point of the rewrites. But rather than quibbling over the narrow wording there, it seems like our efforts should be towards summarizing the relevant materials in the book, which devotes considerable space to this topic. It's sources like that book which should form the basis of this article (see discussions above). Does anyone have the book in hand or are we all reading it off Google?   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. KBob went through this paragraph the first time a few days ago and rewrote it, apparently without reading the source material at all. I assume that based on one of his edit summaries:

remove some POV adjectives, if these are the from the source they should be in quotes

IF THESE ARE FROM THE SOURCE???? I can think of nothing more inappropriate than editing text in an article without looking at what the source actually says! Then, we get a whole series of edits (why it takes half a dozen edits each time through instead of just one is a mystery to me) substituting an perfectly readable, neutral and accurate summary of the source material with a plethora of quotation snippets. Why is that an improvement in any sense of the word? I haven't read an answer, only baseless assertions of victimhood and complaints that I'm being mean. Fladrif (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Kbob could explain his edits. Otherwise the earlier version might be restored.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I edited the section for accuracy to the source. I used quotations as suggested by WP:QUOTE. Which says quotes are often useful for contentious text.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the book in hand, or are we all looking at the Google books version?   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What specifically was inaccurate in the version of the text that you edited? How specifically is your preferred version more accurate? What specific aspects of the text are contentious? Fladrif (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these edits were ridiculous. And what is it with the misspelling? David Spector (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words

I am astonished to see the word "However" being labelled as a weasel word. When two conflicting pieces of text are presented to give balance, it is customary in English to separate them with a word such as "but", "however", or "nevertheless". The usual sequence is "A states ones one thing. However B states something else." I'll revert the last edit and hope to see some discussion here. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen "however" listed as a weasel word (and have seen other editors on other articles delete it for that reason), but I can't remember where... The WP:WTA article has changed quite a bit in the last while, even its title has changed so maybe "however" was on that page. "However" is not necessarily a 'toneless' word so I wouldn't consider it neutral, however, :O).. I have no objections to using it. For me its use is more of a technical, copy editing issue. (olive (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure if you're saying the paragraph reads better with or without the word, but I included it for stylistic reasons. A series of statements simply placed one after the other just isn't "engaging prose" (which is what we're aiming for), so my preference is always to break up that sort of sequence wherever possible. Of course, it's no big deal, so if others have a compelling reason to revert my reversion, I won't object further. --RexxS (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it reads better with the word, but one does get used to dealing with "the letter of the law" on these articles ... Its fine either way, as far as I'm concerned. No worries.(olive (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC))

Secondary sources

I'm gathering here some of the secondary sources that I've mentioned in a couple threads above.

• covers MVAH.[5]
• includes research on Amrit Kalash that shows it helps control the side effects of chemotherapy.[6]
• includes research on breast cancer cells.[7]
• book that discusses the Amrit research. [8]
• a review published in a journal put out by the AMA mentions Amrit research on atherosclerosis. Nick H. Mashour, MD; George I. Lin, MD; William H. Frishman, MD, "Herbal Medicine for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Considerations," Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:2225-2234.
• The role of complementary and alternative therapies in cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic evaluation, Arthur, Heather M.; Patterson, Christine; Stone, James A, European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation:, February 2006 - Volume 13 - Issue 1 - pp 3-9[9]
• Integrative Review of Research Related to Meditation, Spirituality, and the Elderly, Geriatric Nursing, Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 372-377 D. Lindberg

Just some possible sources that I found quickly. Will try to find more. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for researching those. The first one:

• "Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Health Promotion with the Transcendental Meditation Program and Maharishi Consciousness-Based Health Care", Robert H. Schneider, MD, Kenneth G. Walton, PhD, John W. Salerno, PhD, and Sanford I. Nidich, EdD. Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention, Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, Iowa

Appears to be written by MUM staff. And for all of them we need to make sure we're using reputable journals. Let's make sure we're using the best sources available.   Will Beback  talk  15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Did we ever find out about Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention? A concern was raised that ti may be an exceptionally obscure journal.   Will Beback  talk  16:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The latter is indexed in PubMed, which would suggest that it's bona fide. TimidGuy (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC) But I certainly agree that we want to make sure we're using the best sources available. TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

PubMed is very good at indexing almost anything that's medicine-related – almost as good as Google that finds everything on the web – so I wouldn't count on the fact that it's indexed by PM as guaranteeing a reliable source. Looking at it, I have no reason to doubt that it's a bona fide journal, but we should be making sure, at least, that it's peer-reviewed and has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. One way of doing that is to see how many secondary sources cite material from it. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's peer reviewed and has an impact factor of 1.1, and the analytics look pretty good.[10] I went ahead and added it to the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't 1.1 a rather low impact factor? How are we judging the analytics at the linked site? For example, the last graph shows that half of the papers it has published have never been cited. Is that a good result? The paper itself doesn't mention any research on MAK, and the source that it does cite is a regional Indian newspaper. Here's all it says about MAK, in its section on "Popular Alternative Cancer Therapies in India":

• An Ayurvedic formulation, Maharishi Amrit Kalash, has proved to be effective in controlling the side-effects of chemotherapy (Kher, 1999).

What kind of review of scientific literature uses a citation like that? It seems pretty casual.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

An impact factor of 1.1 is pretty good. That would typically put a journal in the top 50% in rankings. The journal that published the Canter & Ernst review that's used many times in the TM article had an impact factor of .5 at the time the review was published. Regarding the citation, that's standard style for science journals. You may be unfamiliar with the conventions. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that input on impact factors. Regarding the citation - my issue was that they are citing a local newspaper rather than a scientific journal. For all we know, the news article was based on a press release. As reviews go, that's not as thorough as Ospina, for example.   Will Beback  talk  11:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird. I hadn't noticed that. We shouldn't use this. There are quite a number of studies on Amrit/chemo, including a double-blind RCT, and I assumed it was citing one of these. Thanks for pointing that out. I can find other reviews. TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing and correcting it.   Will Beback  talk  11:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Medical Director at Lancaster clinic?

It seems that the link in the section "Reception" section talking about the Medical Director of a MAV clinic does not support the assertion. We need to find a source that supports the text, or remove the text.

However, the Medical Director at one facility is a licensed medical doctor, also trained in Maharishi Ayurveda. --BwB (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That is apparently outdated. Someone recently changed the article to read:

• The Maharishi Ayurveda Expert at the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center (MAHC) in Lancaster, Massachusetts is Vaidya Jagdish Vaidya.

That doesn't appear to be particularly noteworthy information. The TMM maintains many spas, so there doesn't seem to be much purpose in listing a non-notable expert at one of them. Unless there's a reason to include this fact I'll delete it.   Will Beback  talk  10:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many spas, but the Lancaster and Maharishi Vedic City spas have been the most prominent and successful. They have received the vast majority of the media coverage and have had the largest clientele. (And famous clientele.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The spa in Bad Ems seems quite substantial as well.[11] While I'm sure this person is important to the running of the spa, the spa is not the topic of this article. Is there a reason to list just one of the staff members at just one of the spas? If this is significant, maybe we should list all of the MA experts or all of the senior staff at all of the spas. Or, more simply, maybe we should just delete it.   Will Beback  talk  12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reason information about spa directors was in the article at all was because KBob added a sentence about the Lancaster Center's Medical Director to "balance" the Smith and Wujastyk's statement in Global and Modern Ayurveda that, in contrast to its earlier position that all MAV doctors have Western Medical degrees, in later years MVAH became stridently opposed to Western Medicine, and in 2005, all Western allopathic doctors who had received MAV training were dismissed from their positions, and replaced with Indian ayurvedic practitioners. Other than to make that "balancing" point, there is no reason to be naming senior staff at any of these facilities.Fladrif (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's correct. If so, it means the material is obsolete. If we ever write an article about the spa in Lancaster then it'd be appropriate to include a listing of the senior staff, but it's out of place here. I'm going to delete it.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Links to Skolnick web site

• [12]
• [13]

Are we all OK with these links to a self-published web page? --BwB (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted this question on 20 June. Several weeks have elapsed without comment. I will go ahead and delete the material above tomorrow 13 July, if there are no objections. --BwB (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you planning on deleting all links to David Orme-Johnson's self-published web site, and all other TM Movement self-published web sites in all of the TM Movement articles in which they is linked and cited? Fladrif (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am focusing on the content of this article and asking other editors if they think we should or should not remove the links to Skolnick's blog. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the links worked when I clicked on them. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Timid. I have marked them as "Dead Links" for now. --BwB (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Dead links can often be recovered at the Internet Archive.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think we should not be using these links. No one has give me any strong reasons to keep them. --BwB (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Skolnick is a published expert on the issue, so linking to his website is little different than linking to Orme-Johnson's.   Will Beback  talk  13:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Location of OJ rebuttal

AHRQ had two major components, an assessment of quality and meta-analyses of the results. The rebuttal by David OJ was referring specifically to the quality-assessment component and should be juxtaposed with it. His comment has nothing to do with the meta-analyses. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Then let's present the meta-analysis first so that the rebuttal sentence doesn't appear in the middle of the discussion of the review.   Will Beback  talk  10:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Or we can simply say that OJ wrote a "commentary" addressing the AHRQ, and in particular on the double blind issue. However we do it, I don't think we should interpolate his commentary into the presentation of the AHRQ material. That'd be harder on the reader to follow, among other things, and gives excess weight to a minority view.   Will Beback  talk  10:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As a complete aside, relative to DO-J's rebuttal, Jonathan's Smith's 1975 doctoral dissertation at Michigan State was one of the first double blind, placebo-effect studies of Transcendental Meditation (he found no theraputic effect). Claiming that it's unfair to criticize or mark down on the the Jadad Scale TM research that isn't double-blinded or doesn't use a control group because TM research simply can't be done double blinded with control groups has been an untenable position for 35 years. Clearly it can, and has been done successfully. [14] Fladrif (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, Flad. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Added a POV tag

Added a POV tag as this article contains unfounded health claims such as added here [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the POV tag a POV edit? --BwB (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What kind of a source is this? http://www.mvvt.org/Science%20and%20Vedic%20Sound%20english.htm   Will Beback  talk  08:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two published studies on MVVT, including a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. But per the standard we've set for these articles -- disallowing any individual studies -- then neither of these would be RS. MVVT research probably shouldn't be in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We can say that research has been done without reporting the results or over-emphasizing it. I agree that we can re-work this to comply better with best practices while still keeping a section on this important therapy.   Will Beback  talk  11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK If others feel the source of the research is weak, then we can take it out. No prob. --BwB (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You never answered my question - what is that link you used as a reference?   Will Beback  talk  09:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A web page. --BwB (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you really think that it was an adequate source for the claim you added?   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, if not, then I support having it removed. --BwB (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As an experienced editor who participates in discussions of sources, I'd have expected you to realize on your own that that source isn't good enough for the time of day, much less for making extraordinary claims about expensive medical treatments. I am dismayed. This amounts to advocacy.   Will Beback  talk  12:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The POV tag was added as health claims were being made based on none WP:MEDRS sufficient refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Will, when I added this material to the Tony Nader article, you trimmed it and in the edit comment suggested that the material "belongs in MVVT article anyway".[16] Based on Will's comment, I moved the material here. I have now attributed the text to Steele Belok, MD. Again, if others are not satisfied, please remove the text. --BwB (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How did you manage to read the end of my comment while missing the fist half - "trim outcomes from poor source"? Please remove this. It never should have been added. It's a violation of basic WP policies and the ArbCom's recent decision.   Will Beback  talk  20:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what were you suggesting "belongs in MVVT article"? --BwB (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Things that concern MVVT. Obviously, I didn't mean poorly sourced things. I suggest you read WP:V before editing again.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, Will. --BwB (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

MVVT Research

At the TMM website on MVVT there is a research section [17] that references 2 studies published online at FRONTIERS IN BIOSCIENCE [18] in which Nader is a researcher. Can these studies be referenced in this section on MVVT? --BwB (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. Since this is a medical issue, that's the relevant guideline.   Will Beback  talk  12:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we now remove the POV tag that Doc added as a result of the text I added, and have now removed? --BwB (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you remove all of the text you added, or only part of it?   Will Beback  talk  05:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to re-read WP:V. Did you see the part marked WP:SELFPUB? Just because it's self-published doesn't mean we can use it freely. Nader's status is complicated, but there's no direct evidence that he's connected to the website. We also can't use the website as a source for making self-serving assertions, and we shouldn't base the section on a self-published source either. Lastly, I note that the vedicvibration.com website seems to have undergone a total overhaul recently, so it's not a dependable source either. If we can find something there that's worth including and doesn't violate WP:V then we should archive it for future verifiability.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence about MVVT research. We can add it back in later when an appropriate source is found. Shall we remove the POV tag now?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought since the text was attributed to Belok, a primary source was OK? --BwB (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If Belok said he could spin flax into gold, would we add that to the article?   Will Beback  talk  18:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than make sarcastic remarks that are un-helpful, let's discuss the policy. WP:SELFPUB says that:

• Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  • the material is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

So it would seem that text of Belok saying that Nader did research with favorable outcomes might be considered "self serving" info about a "third party" and could be also construed as not being "directly related to the subject". Also since the text has been objected to, by other editors on this page, citing WP:SELFPUB, I thought it best to remove it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. I just took an extreme example to illustrate the issue. I've asked BwB to pay more attention to the policies, but we're still getting highly promotional claims being added with poor sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, here's the definition of 'sarcasm' from Webster[19]

• 1) a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
• 2) a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem relevant to the discussion here, unless someone is planning to add something about the meaning of sarcasm to the article. This seems more like a distraction from a serious sourcing problem. Do you think BWB was editing appropriate when he added a remarkable medical claim using an unpublished webpage as a source?   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think the thread is finished now that we have reached consensus and the appropriate edits have been made? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So you have no comment on the bad edit? OK. Is this article now fully in compliance with WP:MEDRS?   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Will you're asking if the article is fully in compliance with WP:MEDRS? --BwB (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked, why did BWB think it would be acceptable to add an extraordinary medical claim using a poor source? But I got no response. More recently I asked, is this article now fully in compliance with WP:MEDRS?   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So your asking if this article now fully in compliance with WP:MEDRS? --BwB (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything unclear about my question?   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Text added

Added neutral, sources text with references on the research on MVVT by Nader. --BwB (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where you've addressed my questions about the reliability of the source to describe 3rd party living people.

What is your specific question here? --BwB (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, what is the point of saying that Nader conducted the first research on MVVT? Do we report this information for other technologies?   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nader = head of TMM; 1st research on MVVT - noteworthy withing the subject matter of section. --BwB (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If the first study on MVVT is noteworthy then an independent source will have written about it.   Will Beback  talk  14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolution to Ban Allopathic Medicine

I don't have access to the book, and Google only shows snippets, but MMY's Ideal India includes the text of a resolution by the Maharishi Vedic Medical Council from 1997 which calls on the government of India to ban allopathic medicine and replace it with "Maharishi's Vedic Health-Care System".[20] It seems relevant to this article. Perhaps someone with access to the book (it's apparently in the MUM library) could add a short mention of this proposal.   Will Beback  talk  17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I did a search for it and it doesn't seem to be in the online catalogue, and not in the library collection. Did you get a different result?(olive (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC))

It was kind of you to do that. Worldcat reports that it was published by MUM (NL), and that the library has a copy.[21] I checked the library catalog itself, and it says there are two copies. (It looks like one copy is checked out and three years overdue, with another copy available in the SCI collection.) The call number is JF1358 .I34 2001.   Will Beback  talk  16:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If its in the SCI collection it may be difficult to access since those books are often used by faculty for courses so are checked out for long periods of time, and I believe only faculty can check the books out. The books can be used by others but must be left in the library. I'll see what I can do.

As a note. This kind of statement needs context otherwise it can be misleading. MMY made this kind statement in India where Ayur Veda is the traditional medicine and is well organized. While the statement might be surprising to us its not too surprising in light of India's health care systems.(olive (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC))

That's great. There's no rush, obviously. As for context, that's why I wouldn't add it based just on the snippet view in Google - I can't easily see the complete text. Regarding culture, etc, this is the English-language Wikipedia but it's no the American Wikipedia. There are are more speakers of English in India than in the UK and Canada combined. We should make sure there's enough context so that Indians will understand American customs, and Americans will understand Indian customs.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi Sthapatya Veda

• Maharishi Sthapatyaveda] is the main modality for improving the immediate environment.

This claim was added April 19, 2007 by user:Sueyen, an SPA.[22] Here is an archived version of the link used as a source.[23] It doesn't seem to support the claim. Unless we can find a source that directly connect MSV to MVAH, we should probably remove the section.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Have noted you comment, Will. Give me a day or two to see if I can find a source, and, if not, then can remove. --BwB (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Added ref today - Robert Schneider's book "Total Heart Health". Thanks for your patience. --BwB (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll copy that to the Maharishi Sthapatya Veda article, where the same assertion is also made.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Link TM or TM technique?

The first sentence of the article currently reads

"Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health (MVAH) (also known as Maharishi Ayurveda[1][2] and Maharishi Vedic Medicine[3]) was founded internationally in the mid 1980s by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who developed the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique."

My opinion is that we should link the words "Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique" directly to the TM technique article. It seems illogical to state that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi developed the TM technique and then link the reader to an article other than the one directly about the TM technique. That was the reasoning for my change, which has been reverted by Will BeBack. --BwB (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. It'd make sense to link to the Transcendental Meditation technique directly. Let's add both links.   Will Beback  talk  11:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wondering Will why you feel your way of wording the 1st sentence is better than what I proposed? --BwB (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording BWB has proposed seems most accurate and appropriate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That clause is there simply to identify MMY. The more general TM link is more appropriate there. I added a second sentence lower down that lists the principle technologies or modalities used in MVAH, and included the TMT link there. So the intro now has more and better information.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

Regarding the section on Chalmers and Davis, it's difficult to know which sources go which claims because of the way the 6 citations are aggregated at the end of the paragraph. Is there any chance that the editor who wrote this could place the citations in context? TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I support this request. --BwB (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Amrit herbs

The article had said that Amrit contains 13 herbs. Two links are given, and both go to the Mapi Nectar page, which says that the Nectar alone has 44 herbs. The book I cited says that there are 26 herbs. And it lists them. Also, the MVAH article says that the exact composition hasn't been disclosed, but sources belie that. I suggest that we omit the latter point, omit any reference to number of herbs, and simply say that the formulas include herbs such as... and then list some. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --BwB (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you have made the changes discussed above on 26 Oct. --BwB (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference quality

It was agreed on that review articles would be used to support health claims thus moved this here for discussion:

Chemical analysis has found that the formula is a mixture of low-molecular-weight substances that serve as antioxidants. Research has found that these antioxidants scavenge "free radicals" that damage cells, scavenge dangerous molecules known as lipid peroxides, and scavenge oxidized low-density lipoproteins that are a cause of cardiovascular disease. Studies have also shown that the reduced damage by free radicals may enhance immunity by increasing the response of lymphocytes and macrophages.

Free radicals have been implicated in the formation and growth of cancer cells. Studies funded by the National Cancer Institute that were conducted on lab animals have found a reduction in tumors and increased survival rate with a diet supplemented by Amrit Kalash. And studies using human cancer cells have found that Amrit Kalash helps to prevent formation of cancer cells and can transform cancer cells to normal cells. However, no clinical trials have been done, and it is unknown whether these test-tube results would translate to an effective cancer therapy.

A double blind, randomized controlled trial on human subjects over the age of 35 have found that Maharishi Amrit Kalash (specifically MAK-5) showed an improvement in visual acuity, suggesting that the formula may help improve alertness and reverse some of the effects of aging. And a double blinded study found a reduction in symptoms of hay fever. A study on 30 patients with angina found a significant decrease in the number of episodes.

This paperback is hardly a review article. [24] Here is the visual acuity one [25] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The article said "A study on 30 patients with angina found a significant decrease in the number of episodes" how do we know it is significant because the study was neither controlled nor blinded.[26] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you gave no explanation for deleting the material sourced to a medical book published by Springer, I've restored that. TimidGuy (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a medical text and therefore not an appropriate ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Springer is an acknowledged reliable academic publisher of medical books. Your objection per the edit summary seems to be that the book is "alternative" medicine. Could you indicate why you consider this book to be not reliable per Wikipedia. Frankly it looks to me like you've removed a reliable source.(olive (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

Please see WP:MEDRS "widely recognised standard textbooks" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS "Major academic publishers (Elsevier, Springer Verlag, Wolters Kluwer, Informa to name a few) publish specialized medical book series with good editorial oversight; volumes in these series summarize the latest research in narrow areas usually in a more extensive format than journal reviews."

I'm not sure what your point is.(olive (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

Good point, Olive. MEDRS explicitly says that books from Springer are reliable sources. I think the material can be reinserted. Also, I don't understand why the Pelletier book isn't a reliable source. Doc James's concern seems to be that it's a paperback book, but it was originally published in a hardcover edition. The publisher is Simon & Schuster. The author, Dr. Kenneth R. Pelletier, is a Clinical Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, at the University of Arizona School of Medicine; and, a Clinical Professor of Medicine in the Department of Family and Community Medicine and in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco (UCSF). TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

James. It looks as if you have the wrong source above. You might check below and then revert your edit. Your argument seems to have been based on the wrong source- unless I'm missing something.(olive (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

He gives a link to the Pelletier book on Amazon, and to the abstracts of two of the studies mentioned in the Pelletier review, one of which is a double blind, randomized controlled trial. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Chemical analysis has found that the formula is a mixture of low-molecular-weight substances that serve as antioxidants. Research has found that these antioxidants scavenge "free radicals" that damage cells, scavenge dangerous molecules known as lipid peroxides, and scavenge oxidized low-density lipoproteins that are a cause of cardiovascular disease. Studies have also shown that the reduced damage by free radicals may enhance immunity by increasing the response of lymphocytes and macrophages.

Free radicals have been implicated in the formation and growth of cancer cells. Studies on lab animals have found a reduction in tumors and increased survival rate with a diet supplemented by Amrit Kalash. And studies using human cancer cells have found that Amrit Kalash helps to prevent formation of cancer cells and can transform cancer cells to normal cells. However, no clinical trials have been done, and it is unknown whether these test-tube results would translate to an effective cancer therapy.

References:

Stuff needs to be based on review article. With Springer may "publish specialized medical book series with good editorial oversight". These are not them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks, TG. I missed that.

At any rate, James you've unilaterally deleted reliably sourced content which is a concern in terms of the remedies in the TM arbitration. (olive (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC))

Please bring this to WP:RS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation markup

For some reason, I just can't get the Mashour citation I just added to the Amrit info to link to the entry in the References section. I've been looking at it for 10 minutes and can't figure out what I did wrong. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Harvard citation no brackets#Usage. The first four authors should be included in the footnote. For example, {{harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|Black|2005| p=25}}. In this case, perhaps {{harvnb|Mashour|Lin|1998}}. BTW, could you send me a copy?   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Will. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Transcendental Medication?

Is this correct? "Separate warnings were issued on side-effects of both Transcendental Medication and the Maharishi Ayurvedic diet . . . "? Does the source say "Medication" and not "Meditation"? For the third time, it would be great if whoever added this material would locate the citations in context. Otherwise, to check something like this an editor has to look at 6 different sources. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a typo. The article in The Independent says "TM and the Maharishi Ayurveda diet". If, in the course of revising all the footnotes, editors had not managed to remove all the URL's, readers and editors could more easily check the sources directly. I do not, however, believe that the material is all that complicated that I need to walk you through the six sources. Fladrif (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

GMC - 1991 Reference

What is the "ref" for the sentence on the GMC's findings re potential harmfulness or toxicity of MVAH preparations or diet supposed to be a reference to? "General Medical Council 1991" doesn't tell anyone anything about what the alleged source is, and makes it impossible to verify. This sentence was added September 10 [27], the sole edit by user:Ljkdavis [28] I am not going to presume that this is the "real" LJK Davis nor, if it is, to accept his characterization of the GMC's findings. Unless someone can provide a real citation and evidence that this is a real source, this should be removed. Fladrif (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I had assumed it was from Newcombe. Have ordered the book and will check. It's apparently a reference to the GMC annual report that Newcombe talks about. We could likely get that, if needed. But first I'll check Newcombe. TimidGuy (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I found a different source that talks about the research on toxicity and used that instead. May still try to get the GMC report. TimidGuy (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The GMC made charges relating to potential harmfulness or toxicity of MVAH preparations or dietary recommendations, as can be seen from the list of draft (initial) charges of the case case . However after hearing evidence, the charges were found not proven. Thus they do not appear in the list of proven charges in the final press release of Oct 25th 1991 or in the official report of the GMC The clearing of these charges against the doctors should be stated in the article, with the above references. Ljkdavis (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add the material an refs. --BwB (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why has it taken 2+ months to respond to my question above? What, specifically, did the Official Report state with respect to those charges? Provide an exact quotation, as it is does not appear ot be available online. The argument that the silence of the Press Release shows that the charges were unproven would appear to be a deduction of the editor, and thus Original Research. Fladrif (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Bigweeboy I will add the material and refs, with a new citation directly referencing the hearing's proven charges in the same way that the draft charges are cited. Fladrif, I can't quote you anything from the Annual Report because there is no mention in it of the charges relating to herbs and diet. It's pretty obvious from the Press release and Annual Report that the said charges were unproven. But the legal, verifiable fact of the proven charges, with the absence of the charges relating to potential harmfulness or toxicity of MVAH preparations or dietary recommendations, is the ultimate proof. Ljkdavis (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not the way things work. If you do not have a reference that says the GMC found the charges to be unproven, we cannot add it to the article in the manner you suggest. You admit that you have no such source, but instead are equating silence with vindication. That is your conclusion and original research. Fladrif (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Flad on this. We need a source that states the charges to be unproven. Do you have such a a source Ljk? --BwB (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd disagree. If the media allege something and then it's not borne out in the GMC report, the info reported by the media is suspect and we should be cautious. I think we can use the GMC report as a source but we'll need to figure out how, and can maybe try a noticeboard. Fladrif, it's hard to identify the source of some of these allegations because of the way they're stacked up at the end. If you added that material would you please put the citations next to the respective claims? TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you're missing the point. There is no claim being made that the news reports were in any way inaccurate. Davis is claiming that the GMC charged them with a number of things, including that the treatements were harmful and toxic, and concedes that this was accurately reported in the press. He claims that the GMC found that these particular charges on toxicity were not proven. When asked for a source, he says that there is no source for that - that those particular charges are simply not mentioned in the GMC's press release or in its Official Report. I specifically asked for a quote from the GMC's findings that those charges were "not proven"; his response is that the silence on those charges constitute such a finding. That is fundamentally wrong. There are any number of explanations as to why the GMC made no ruling on those issues - perhaps it decided that the findings it did make on other issues resulting in striking them from the Register were sufficient, and it was unnecessary to make additional findings; perhaps it was indeed that those charges were not proven. It is not for us as editors to indulge one's speculation in the absence of a source. Fladrif (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No point in discussing this until we have the report. One point to consider is that the source doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. This is a medical claim -- that a substance is toxic -- and we only have popular media as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The article in The Independent that we're using as a source says this immediately after the statement about the alleged toxic effects: "The GMC solicitors have obtained samples of the Maharishi pills. They expect to carry out their own scientific tests over the next few months." I think that per MEDRS, we'd need a better source than The Independent. And if the GMC conducted their own tests, that would seem to be the final word. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've lost track of which text in the article we're talking about. Could anyone post the text in question?   Will Beback  talk  12:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the text:

Independent tests of the pills prescribed by Chalmers and Davis showed that they had, at best, a negligible effect on the HIV virus, but were 100,000 times more toxic than AZT. According to a 1990 report in The Independent regarding the accusations, the claim that Ayurveda has no side effects "appears to be inaccurate." The article says that separate warnings had been issued in the past on side-effects of both Transcendental Meditation and the Maharishi Ayurvedic diet, such as a warning by the British Dietetic Association on the potential dangers of the Maharishi Ayurvedic diet to AIDS patients.

TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright vio

I edited the last sentence in the Chalmers and Davis section because it may have been too close to the original. Here's the original:

"MAV only became the focus of a GMC trial because it had been marketing its therapy specifically to one of the most vulnerable and controversial groups in the late 1980s (i.e., HIV-positive homosexuals)."

And here's what a Wikipedia editor had written[29]:

"MAV became the subject of the GMC trial because it had been marketing its treatments specifically to one of the most vulnerable and controversial groups in the late 1980s: HIV-positive homosexuals."

It's hard to know how much the text should vary from the original, but I edited it to be safe. I should probably be more cautious about this myself. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

The book chapter by Newcombe is a reliable source by any measure. It has been deleted by Skolnick in favor of his version. Reliably sourced material shouldn't be deleted without discussion and consensus, especially by someone who was a defendant in the lawsuit. TimidGuy (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you offer some diff or link or other information so we know what you're talking about? What book chapter by Newcombe? I see there's already a chapter by Newcombe cited several times.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Here it is.[30] TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Skolnick deleted a book chapter[31] and replaced it with a link to his personal website. [32] The article on that page was published in a newsletter in 1991. The information tacked on at the end about the 1993 resolution of the lawsuit wasn't published. We've replaced a reliable source with a source that violates WP:RS. I propose that we delete Skolnick's website as a source and restore the book. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The website isn't the source: it's just a convenience link. The source is the Fall 1991 issue of ScienceWriters: The Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers. "The Maharishi Caper: Or How to Hoodwink Top Medical Journals" by Andrew A. Skolnick. Why not leave that and add back the other sources? I'm not sure I see a good reason to delete any of these.   Will Beback  talk  18:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The MVAH article says this: "According to Skolnick, in 1993 the suit was dismissed without prejudice.[124]" and gives Skolnick's website as a source. But the article in the newsletter that appears on his website didn't say anything about the resolution of the lawsuit. (It couldn't have, because the lawsuit was settled in 1993 and the newsletter article was published in 1991.) The information being referenced is simply information on the defendant's personal website. TimidGuy (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Skolnick shouldn't be deleting sourced text about a lawsuit in which he was a litigant without discussion or consensus. Arbcom prohibits this kind of editing on the TM related articles. The deleted copy and refs should be replaced and Skolnick should be reminded about the Arbcom ruling and about WP:COI.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We only know that Skolnick was a defendant because he edits under his own name. There's an asymmetry involved in this editing process when it comes to people's identities and WP:COI. As for the ArbCom, I'm not sure to which finding or remedy Keithbob is referring.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to this ArbCom Final Decision: "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.[33] The source text that Skolnick deleted should be reinstated.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has argued otherwise.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And nobody has disagreed with me that Skolnick's web page violates WP:SPS as a source for information about the resolution of the lawsuit, so I guess that can be removed, right? How about if we simply use the judge's order as a source (but without making any interpretive statements, of course)? TimidGuy (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the Skolnick article is reliable for what it says. Obviously, it can't be used for assertions that aren't in it. As for court documents, those are not allowed normally to refer to living people. Some or all of the parties to the case are still alive, so I'm not sure using the source would fly.   Will Beback  talk  11:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Then it seems that Skolnick's article should be deleted as a source in this context, since it doesn't give any information about the resolution of the lawsuit. Some sources say it was dismissed, others say it was settled. The judge's order would help clarify the situation. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of definition

Why was the definition of "dismissed without prejudice" removed? See WP:MTAA: "Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used." This is a jargon term. Most readers will not understand what it means. It should, per the guideline, be defined. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about lawsuits. The disposition of that lawsuit is a minor issue in this article and does not deserve extended explanations. We don't define "lawsuit" or "conflict of interest", nor do we even explain exactly what the lawsuit alleged. The Wikipedia guideline you're citing is Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. The technical issue we're discussing in this article is MVAH. Do we even define "Ayurveda"? No. "Vedic"? No. "Pulse diagnosis"? No. "Blinded experiment"? No. "Enema"? No. If we feel a need to define relevant technical terms, we should start with those.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Court documents

• The judge's order states, "This cause of action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate if settlement is not effectuated."
  • The Lancaster Foundation, Inc., The American Association for Ayur-Vedic Medicine, Inc. vs. Andrew A. Skolnick, George D. Lundberg, M.D.; United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 82 C 4175; Judge Kocoras

I reverted the addition of this material from this article and from Andrew A. Skolnick. Picking quotes from lower court documents is not accepted on Wikipedia, particularly in reference to living people. Let's not even get into the question of why a Wikipedia editor has a copy of this document, which does not appear online.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the judge's order. It's not cherry picking. It's the final word. This is the full text regarding the resolution of the case. Skolnick is cherry picking and making it sound like there was a judgement. This helps make it clear that there wasn't. TimidGuy (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's still an unpublished primary source, undoubtedly one of many court document filed in the case. If the quotation is significant it will have been reported in secondary sources. Since you're insisting on including this obscure source would you care to explain why you have a copy of the judge's order?   Will Beback  talk  10:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not one of many documents filed in the case. It's the judge's statement about the resolution. Some experienced Wikipedia editors view a judge's order as a secondary source, and more reliable than media reporting of a case. (I've solicited the opinion of Jonathanwallace.) Any court document is publicly available to anyone who asks for it. If you feel that a court document not available online shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, then we should remove all reference to the lower court judgement in the Hendel civil suit. Or for that matter, if we follow your reasoning that a lower court judgment is a primary source, why are we using the Hendel lower court judgment in a civil suit unrelated to religion to say that TM and the TM-Sidhi program are a religion, whereas the appellate court document makes zero mention of religion? TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you personally obtain this one sentence legal document from the courthouse? Or is yours a second-hand copy?

I don't see any articles quoting the judge in Hendel, but that's a separate issue so let's not get distracted.   Will Beback  talk  11:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So your position is that a judgment or judge's order can be used but not quoted? Is that the issue? TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 11#Settled out of Court? February 2007
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 12#JAMA controversy March 2007
• Talk:Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health/Archive 1#Dismiss without prejudice October 2009
• Talk:Deepak Chopra#Settlement October 2009
• Talk:Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health#Deletion of sourced material March 2011

Have I missed any?   Will Beback  talk  11:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also relevant: TimidGuy's very first edit to this article, over four years ago, was to add this same assertion: 12:56, March 2, 2007.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this so important? Didn't we argue about this whole "dismiss without prejudice" issue before? How many times has this been brought up? I don't see the need to include such a minor detail. The Skolnick biography doesn't even mention the reason for the lawsuit, a key issue in his career, so this would be an out-of-proportion detail. Your repeated efforts to include it and your possession of this obscure court document leaves one concerned about POV pushing. The libel suit seems to be of interest mostly to the involved parties. It's sufficient to say that it was dropped before reaching trial.   Will Beback  talk  11:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would we include a lawsuit without saying specifically what the result was? Odd that you would consider that a minor detail. The lawsuit wasn't dropped. There was a settlement agreement. The judge's order helps clarify this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question of why this is so important that you've been pushing it for four years. If it was settled instead of dropped then we can say that. It doesn't require any more detail than that.   Will Beback  talk  11:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I'll email you the judge's order. We don't actually know that it was settled, because we don't have any way of knowing whether the settlement was ever effectuated. We have sources saying that it was dismissed (Implying there was a judgment), which the judge's order shows isn't factual. And we have sources saying it was settled, which the judge's order shows isn't factual. That's why I quoted the judge's order. But I suppose quoting the judge's order doesn't really help, since it's in legalese. My very first edit to this article was, I thought, a helpful rephrasing in plain English of what the judge's order says: "Pursuant to a settlement agreement, in 1993 the suit was dimissed by the judge at the request of the plaintiffs, with the option of reinstating pending completion of a settlement." Maybe let's wait and see if Jonathanwallace responds. He seems to know this stuff really well, in addition to being well versed in Wikipedia policy. The representation of the outcome of the lawsuit is misleading in the Skolnick article, but frankly, I'm afraid to touch that. (And by the way, another reason I recently added the text from the judge's order is that I now understand, per recent discussions at RSN and BLPN, that a judge's order is considered a reliable source.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand why this is so important, to you or to the reader. But it's been discussed and rejected at least a couple of times before over the years. I'm not aware of any change in policy regarding using court documents concerning living people. Could you please point me to these recent noticeboard discussions?   Will Beback  talk  11:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

TG was kind enough to send me a scan of a "Minute Order" docket entry form, which indeed has a typewritten section with the text TG has quoted. However he was incorrect when he said it was the complete text. The second sentence says "All pending motions are hereby moot." It gives no indication of what the case was about, which motions were pending, when it was filed, who the attorneys or secondary parties were, or why the case was dismissed. It doesn't tell us if settlement was ever effectuated. Like many primary documents, it creates more questions than it answers. If we were writing an entire article on the case then this type of detail might be appropriate and acceptable. But for a biography and for this article on health technologies, it's neither informative nor sufficiently reliable.   Will Beback  talk  11:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

See BLPN[34] and RSN[35] (though the latter thread will likely be archived shortly, and the URL will change). There have been other similar discussions at RSN. The consensus is that judgments and judge's orders are reliable sources. What could be more reliable than a judge's order regarding the outcome of a case? It's clear from this document that there was no judgment, so the sources that say that the suit was dismissed are wrong. It's clear that the settlement hadn't yet been effectuated, so the sources that say that it was settled are wrong. It's clear that the plaintiff has asked for dismissal and has retained the right to reopen the case if conditions aren't met. If we're going to mention this case, we need to say what the result was. The judge's order is the definitive source for that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a signed legal opinion by a judge. It's a docket form, perhaps written by a clerk. It's a minor, primary source of with limited scope.

One of the reasons we discourage the use of primary sources is that there are so many of them. Once we begin using them it's hard to know when to stop, and which to include. The files at Wikileaks are primary sources too, for example. Was the plaintiff's lawyer Bill Goldstein? He's living in Fairfield, right? I bet he has a bunch of primary sources we could use. Maybe Skolnick does too. It's better to stick to secondary sources and avoid all that thicket. Unless you really want to go there.

I suggest we say the case ended before going to trial. We really don't know much more than that.   Will Beback  talk  11:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[Also, I don't see how it's possible to say "It's clear that the settlement hadn't yet been effectuated,..." That isn't clear from this docket form. Maybe there are other sources who've said it was never settled after all. In which case it was just dropped without any settlement. Unless there are other sources we just don't know.]   Will Beback  talk  11:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a minor primary source: it's the final document in a prominent court case indicating the resolution. In addition, it's not self-evident that this is a primary source. Some very experienced Wikipedia editors say that a judge's order or opinion is a secondary source. And the strong consensus at RSN has been that judge's orders and opinion's are reliable sources and can be used in Wikipedia. And this was also the consensus at BLPN. Even if it were a primary source, keep in mind that primary sources aren't proscribed. All I did was quote from it. If you think it's not an acceptable source, why did you delete it here but not in the Skolnick article? Also, are you thinking that there's some other document, a signed opinion or something, that closes this case? I can request a docket entry list to check. But why would there be a signed opinion, since there wasn't any judgment? It's doubtful that there's any other closing document other than this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're grasping at straws. If this isn't a primary source then nothing is. There's no consensus at BLPN to allow sources like this docket form. Let's just stick to using the best available sources instead of digging up obscure and ambiguous primary sources.   Will Beback  talk  12:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious why you deleted both the citation and quote from this article[36], but only deleted the quote in the Skolnick article[37], leaving the citation intact. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't recall. This isn't the most important part of the article. Let's stop beating this dead horse.   Will Beback  talk  11:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'm curious why you deleted the quote from the court order in the Skolnick article but left intact the citation to Skolnick's personal website, which we had already concluded didn't meet RS. I assume good faith: that you want to meet the standards set by RS. Yet your editing is very inconsistent, and confusing. In this article you didn't say anything when Skolnick deleted an academic book as a source and added his personal website. Yet you deleted the quote from the court order and the citation. In the Skolnick article you left intact the citations to the court case and to Skolnick's personal website but deleted the quote from the court order. Are you saying that if some portion of an article isn't important, then it's ok to have citations to sources that don't meet RS? TimidGuy (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't recall. This isn't the most important part of the article. Let's stop beating this dead horse.  Will Beback  talk  10:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience infobox

The feedback from uninvolved editors at WP:FTN is pretty clear: the pseudoscience infobox shouldn't be used:

I recall at one time, infoboxes were being widely employed as a workaround to NPOV by fringe proponents. Supposed "creatures" and "phenomenon" were lent an air of academic credibility through the use of scientific-sounding classifications within the boxes ("primary data", "first sighting", "habitat", "status", "sub-grouping", etc.) I believe that one science-minded editor, now vanished, began adding "pseudoscience infoboxes" to fringe articles as a sort of retaliation. In my opinion, neither kind of infoboxes are useful or appropriate since they skirt requirements for attribution, quality of sources, NPOV, undue weight, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI There's another of these at the top of Remote Viewing. I agree with LuckyLouie...such an eye-catching "all you need to know" format should either play it straight or go. Untaggably burning a payload word like "pseudoscientific" into a high visibility template caption is basically poisoning the well, which isn't ideal practice for an encyclopedia. K2709 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to delete it again. TimidGuy (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Two people commented. There was no discussion on this page before hand. Thus I am returning again. That is not consensus. I have requested further input here [38]. Would you be so kind to link to the WP:FTN discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are two further comments in support of removal:

As I've said elsewhere, I'm against use of the infoboxes. However if you have a topic for which extraordinary WP:REDFLAG claims are made and you have reliable sources that criticize it as pseudoscience, then that critique should be prominently summarized in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My take on the wider discussion....do away with info boxes. especially ones that use loaded terms, or misleading descriptions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We now have four comments from three different uninvolved editors, with the latter two comments being specifically in response to your adding it in this article. Here is the thread.[39] TimidGuy (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like of them have changed their mind "Maharishi claims people can fly using Quantum electrodynamics? You're making me wonder if that pseudoscience infobox was badly needed at these articles.LuckyLouie - 11:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy, where is the thread you're referring to? I don't see discussion about infoboxes in that link. An alternative medicine info box would be more appropriately neutral. Octopet (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Theoretical basis

Does anyone have the book referred to in this section? It appears there is a typo in the sentence which reads "...nonmaterial intelligence and consciousness who modes of vibration manifest as the material universe." Can we safely assume it should read "whose"? Octopet (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy added that.[40]   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have corrected. Octopet, here's the thread that you asked about above.[41] TimidGuy (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This section is pseudoscientific as it stands. Since it makes scientific claims it should have mainstream scientific responses. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Fringe views should be presented using the neutral point of view, not necessarily a skeptical POV. IOW, we should present the concept in the terms used by proponents. However it should also include the mainstream view. This article does cover some of that in the "Reception" section, and also in the "Controversies" sections. This book has three chapters devoted to MVAH:

• Wujastyk, Dagmar; Smith, Frederick M. (2008), Modern and global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms, Albany: State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0-7914-7489-1 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

It's already cited extensively, but I'm not sure that all of the views in the book are included.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)