Talk:Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Academic affiliations, titles, appeals to authority

I am concerned about inconsistencies across the TM related articles.

Unless we are willing to note affiliations of every single researcher in these articles, ( noting some affiliations creates a POV, violates NPOV, and is a reverse of an appeal to authority for example in this article) then we shouldn't note any.

[2]

There are more concerns in other articles, but lets start here...(olive (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC))

If we're going to use MUM personnel as sources for TMM articles then they need to have their affiliations identified. I don't see how the affiliations of people unassociated with the Maharishi movement are as relevant, but if you think they are then we can identify them too.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"If we're going to use MUM personnel as sources for TMM articles then they need to have their affiliations identified." Why?(olive (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC))

Why are we citing them at all? Why do we identify their academic degrees? Presumably because we believe theyare authorities. If their qualifications make them significant sources then relevant elements of those qualifications need to be included. The TMM not only advocates these remedies, but also conducts research and sells them. The address of the MAPI's parent company is the same as the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention. Is that a coincidence?   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Academic titles should not be used per WP:CREDENTIAL. I'll help make that consistent throughout the articles. You are implying in your statement above, that these people are not legitimate researchers who have done legitimate peer reviewed research . That is a concern. We don't have the luxury of making those kinds of judgments in terms of Wikipedia. To do so is POV. Including the kind of information you do discredits and questions these researchers. I can't see that this complies with NPOV.

I actually have no idea what addresses are where, and why, and when it comes to Including information that is included to discredit because of this kind if information well, that's not neutral. If the research is "published in reputable peer reviewed sources", include it, if not, don't. Those are Wikipedia standards. Ours don't matter.(olive (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

I never said we should exclude the sources. I'm just saying that the researchers' academic affiliations are relevant. If researchers at "Philip Morris University" found that Marlboros are healthful then we'd include their affiliations too.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about sources. This is a discussion about what qualifies research or a researcher for inclusion. If the research and the researcher pass the threshold test for inclusion its not up to us to qualify that inclusion. As long as we insist on qualifying the research we aren't neutral. If our readers want more information they'll click on the link, and frankly like it or not if Phillip Morris has researchers doing peer reviewed reasearch published in reputable journals we don't need to to qualify that. The research has been vetted by a jury of their peers. That's their job . Mine is to write about it, and not second guess the jury, the peer review process, and the publication. That's a very slippery slope that leads to confusion and inconsistencies in the articles as we start to decide what's "good" and what's not, and probably misinformation in the end. Its just not our job to make those choices and judgments for a Wikipedia article(olive (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm not arguing about including or excluding this research. I don't see how including the relevant affiliations of the researchers will lead to confusion on the part of readers. Please explain.   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not consistent. Right now, if we decide we don't need to qualify the researcher then we leave the researcher and research there with out comment. if we do think we need to qualify the researcher or research, then we add some content on affiliation . The readers may not know the difference, but they are in fact being subtly manipulated by our little qualifications. What we have are seemingly randomly selected qualifiers on some researchers. The criteria for the inclusion of these qualifiers is not standard in one article let alone all of them. Wikipedia operates on criteria that have been for the most part standardized to prevent chaos and confusion, to create consistencies for both the editors and the readers. With out those standards Wkp articles could be a mishmash of good to very bad, with accurate to inaccurate information. We need standards in these TM articles as well, and because we are not the first nor will we be last to edit here, more universal standards any editor can follow need to be followed, and those standards need first to be based on the larger Wikipedia standards that are already in place. We must not fall back on making personal judgements because of perceived concerns in the research. Our work is more superficial and simpler that that in the end, simple, based on objective criteria anyone can follow. Good for the editor, best for the article, and the good article serves the reader.

If the researcher and research is peer reviewed and published in a reputable publication, that's all we need to put in the article. No appeals to authority, no titles, no affiliations. Any thing else is a subjective and so has to be a non-neutral addition.(olive (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm not aware of any policy that prevents including relevant information about the researchers who we're citing. I don't think that providing more information will confuse readers. I still don't understand how this would cause confusion.   Will Beback  talk  03:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Its non neutral because it creates a subtle POV which is manipulative as all non neutral editing is. I actually didn't say it was confusing to the reader I said its confusing period, and that's across the board. (olive (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand who is being confused by this, if not the readers. I don't find it confusing. Are you confused about the connection between MUM and MVAH?   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not confused, but I think you are, and that's a concern. (olive (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Please explain what the confusion is. It all seems pretty clear to me.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You've made your position clear. Thanks. I'll respond on how I'd like to deal with my concerns tomorrow.(olive (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Clarifying the points I made last night.

• The point on confusing the reader came from you not me. The point was red herring in terms of my concerns.
• Focus on a perceived connection between MUM and MVAH is another red herring. What is the connection and where is a source that says that.
• Adding content to an article because we perceive a connection and we want to make sure the reader sees the connection is non -neutral and would violate NPOV.
• If we are going to add information on some researchers we must do it for all otherwise we violate NPOV. Since such additions would be time consuming and would clutter the articles no such content should be added anywhere, and what is in place needs to be removed.
• Confusion is created when the policies and guidelines are superseded by opinion and hearsay. (olive (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

I wanted to make sure that its clear this isn't about accusing anyone but simply that these are issues I see as concerns and which I am attempting to clarify within the conversations since the conversation seemed to derail in places over some o these points. Thanks(olive (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for ths clarifications. Sorry if I misunderstood your comment about confusion.

What word is shared by "Maharishi University of Management" and "Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health"? Hmmm. Would it be original research to say that both names have "Maharishi" in them? Both names are trademarks licensed to "Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation". Do you really need a source to show that connection?

One business database gives an address for MAPI's parent corporation, 2100 Mansion Drive. It's the same address as the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention, of which Schneider is the director. Now I wouldn't add that fact to the article, but it shows a connection between MAPI, a primary business in the MVAH, and the MUM researchers studying MVAH.

These researchers don't hide their connection to MUM. It's written on the back of the book.

I don't think that NPOV requires providing identification when identification isn't relevant. If I missed a line about that in the policy please point it out so I can correct my oversight.

Hearsay? What hearsay are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  05:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As editors we don't make judgments about connections this is OR as you know. Saying that MAPI is connected to Schnieder because the parent corporation of MAPI has the same legal address of INMP is, in my opinion OR. If a scientist at Phillip Morris does research on smoking and its published in a scientific journal, or reported in a news article, there is no reason for us to mention the Phillip Morris affiliation unless the study or media report specifies it. We should apply that same standard here.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If the scientist doing research on Marlboro cigarettes is employed by an institution housed in the same building as the Phillip Morris company then that sure seems like a relevant detail. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if an employee of Phillip Morris would disagree. However we're not reporting that they share the same building- we're simply reporting the institution with which the researchers are affiliated. No original research there.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the title of the article

• Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health (MVAH) (also known as Maharishi Ayurveda and Maharishi Vedic Medicine) was founded internationally in the mid 1980s by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique.

Why are we citing the title of the article? (The first two citations.) Unless there's a reason for the cites I'll remove them. The two sources are already used elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems okay to remove. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Marcozzi

• Medical Guides to Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, Contemporary Ayurveda, Preface, Marc Marcozzi, M.D. PhD, Churchill Livingstone 1998.

I can't find any trace of this book. Could someone who has a copy please give me the ISBN? Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I found it. The title is a bit confusing, the series is misspelled, and the author isn't Marcozzi (the series editor is Micozzi). Here's the proper cite:

• 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.

  Will Beback  talk  18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete citations

• Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 11: 13–87, 1994
• Journal of Clinical Psychology 45: 957–974, 1989
• Journal of Counseling and Development 64: 212–215, 1985
• Journal of Human Stress 5: 24-27, 1979
• International Journal of Neuroscience 16: 53–58, 1982
• The American Journal of Managed Care 3: 135–144, 1997
• JAMA. 2008;300(8):915-923

Who are the authors and what are the titles?   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wilson, AF., Honsberger, R., Chiu, JT., Novey, HS. "Transcendental meditation and asthma reduction of high blood pressure

Is there a publication and date? Is this the same as Wilson, AF., Honsberger, R., Chiu, JT., Novey, HS. "Transcendental Meditation and asthma." Respiration, 1975, 74-80?   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Maharishi Ayurveda Treatment of Ten Chronic Diseases — A Pilot Study,Netherlands Magazine of Integrated Science, Vol. 5, No. 35, pp. 586-594, 1989, G.W.H.M. Janssen, MD

I can't find any trace of Netherlands Magazine of Integrated Science. Is that it's actual name, or is it a translation?   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there's a journal called Tijdschrift voor integrale geneeskunde. But the only archive of abstracts goes back just 13 years.[3] Worldcat indicates that no libraries in the U.S. carry it.[4]   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I can work on finding missing info, but can't do it right away. Will try to do so over the next few days. TimidGuy (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of these citations are redundant, and it may be possible to delete them without harming the article. Also, there are two dead links, in case anyone knows where they are supposed to lead. (It may be to the same file, despite slightly different URLs.) Anyway, thanks for looking.   Will Beback  talk  18:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• A neuroendocrine mechanism for the reduction of drug use and addictions by Transcendental Meditation. Walton K, Levitsky D. A, Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 11: 89-117, 1994.
• Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: A meta-analysis. Eppley, K.R., et al., Journal of Clinical Psychology 45(6): 957-974, 1989.
• Transcendental Meditation in the treatment of post-Vietnam adjustment. ks, J.S. and Scarano, T., Journal of Counseling and Development 64: 212-215, 1985.
• Transcendental Meditation in the management of hypercholesterolemia.Cooper M, Aygen M., Journal of Human Stress 5(4): 24-27, 1979.
• The effects of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on the aging process. Wallace, R.K. et al, International Journal of Neuroscience 16: 53-58, 1982.
• An innovative approach to reducing medical care utilization and expenditures. Orme-Johnson, D.W. and Herron, R.E., The American Journal of Managed Care 3: 135–144, 1997.
• Lead, Mercury, and Arsenic in US- and Indian-Manufactured Ayurvedic Medicines Sold via the Internet, Robert B. Saper, MD, MPH; Russell S. Phillips, MD; Anusha Sehgal, MD(Ayurveda); Nadia Khouri, MPH; Roger B. Davis, ScD; Janet Paquin, PhD; Venkatesh Thuppil, PhD; Stefanos N. Kales, MD, MPH, JAMA. 2008;300(8):915-923.

Here are the citations for the studies listed above. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll update the citations in the article with that information. Any ideas about the Wilson, et al., article and the dead links?   Will Beback  talk  17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, Will, for updating. I think you found the right study regarding Wilson. Haven't had a chance to look at the dead links. And have absolutely got to get to my other work. I'm weeks behind a deadline and shouldn't be here. Couldn't resist putting in some research. Hope you don't mind. Earlier we had consensus and Fladrif suggested editors add additional positive material. One or two of the studies I added are a little weaker than I'd like, but maybe we can leave them for now. I'll try to identify the stronger ones. TimidGuy (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and there's also a question about the Janssen article. Since it's so obscure it'd be helpful to paste the relevant text on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's no other information about these incomplete cites and the dead links I'll remove them.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it only the Jensen that's now a question? Can you please indicate which are dead? I've actually been noticing that some of the other ref links don't work in instances where they've been consolidated. The link in the ref is dead and doesn't go to the bibliographic citation. I'll try to start noting those as I find them. Have noticed two so far. And the JAMA metals link doesn't work. So much to fix. Will fix JAMA now. I wish we could have a moratorium on adding new content while we address the technical details and POV issues in the content that's already been added. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mischaracerization

This "The MVAH has been involved in controversies over conflicts of interest by researchers, harmful effects of herbal remedies, and contamination of products with heavy metals." completely mischaracterizes MVAH. We have, in the article, an imbalance (as in undue weight) of content under the controversial section. I assumed that this imbalance would be corrected as material was added to the article. Adding this (above) to the lede as it is worded, and as if this characterizes MVAH slants the article and creates a non neutral view of MVAH. I 've reworded it. (olive (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

I think we need to go into a little more detail about the controversies. How would you summarize them?   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually. The lede is a place for the general and summary. How do you summarize one case or two cases in the entire history of the organization. I doubt the controversies even needs to be mentioned in the lede because they are relatively insignificant, relative to the organization, However, the general mention in place now seems fine. (olive (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

The article, minus the lede, is about 1866 words long. The "Controveries" section is about 863 words long, well over a third. Therefore it is appropriate weight to devote a short sentence to the controversies. I'm going to restore the previous sentence. If you can improve then that'd be great, but please don't delete it outright.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section violates Undue weight, and is, as you note a full 1/3 of the article, but represents only three controversial situations in relation to the entire organization, MVAH, and its history. That creates a non neutral POV in the article. Now you want to base the wording in the lede to correspond to that section. Your points above are logical but based on an illogical premise.

And why would you ask another editor to not revert an edit, and in this case an edit that creates a POV. Such a demand smells just a little like WP:OWN.

I would think the better approach is to bring the controversy section in line with Wikipedia policy in which case a simple statement in the lede will be more than sufficient.(olive (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

It's hardly "ownership". I've only made 20 edits to the article, compared to over three hundred by three editors, one of whom made 211 edits alone. The lede should reflect the article. The "controversies" section is well-sourced, so I don't see how cutting it would be appropriate. I've suggested that you propsoe alternate text for the lede, but if you're not interested then I'll try to word it a different way to make it more acceptable. I'm sure we can find a consensus on this.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Demanding another editor not revert you is an attempt to control what goes into the article. You interestingly enough, feel free to revert me. I can add sourced content on any particular area in three lines for example or 300. WP: Weight must be considered to decide which of those is appropriate. I have proposed alternate text, and I added it . You have decided to revert it. I think you may be mischaracterizing this sequence of events. (olive (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Chill out. I'm not "demanding" anything. I ask that you not delete the material outright. I dind't not revert you - I wrote fresh text in an effort to find something acceptable to everyone and compatible with Wikipedia standards.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think we need to be careful about saying things like "The organization has..." There is no MVAH "organization" that I'm aware of. If I understand correctly, MVAH is a concept which is utilized by a number of TMM entities.   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Chilled fine thanks. The "fresh" text is even more specific and less suited to a lede than than your original. I've reworded it....Good point. MVAH is not an organization... health modalities might be a better characterization.(olive (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

There's nothing wrong with a little specificity. It's not like it includes names or dates. "Health modality"? Sure, if it's what you want I'll go along with that.   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with your additions. They are too specific for a lead and are worded in such a way as to characterize the "system " as having had experienced great controversy which is not the case. Perhaps we need outside opinions.(olive (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

I can go back to a less specific version. I'd gotten the impresion you wouldn't accept anything.   Will Beback  talk  04:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you got that impression. I rewrote every addition you made rather than revert.(olive (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

The text in the lede related to the controversies is now: "There have been controversies over the research, administration, and purity of the products." That's quite short, and is much shorter than its appropriate weight. But I hope it's acceptable as a compromise.   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

West Coast coordinator for the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health

Perhaps I spoke too soon when I said there's no MVAH organization. I just came across testimony to the "White House Commission On Complementary And Alternative Medicine Policy".

John Briganti: Good afternoon. I am the West Coast coordinator for the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, including the transcendental meditation technique.

For the past six months, I have been looking into getting our technologies and providers licenses or certified and covered by insurance here in Washington State. I have found the barriers to the introduction of new alternative healthcare systems quite significant and would like to share with you some of my observations and recommendations.

Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health comes from the ancient Vedic tradition of India and provides a holistic program of both time-tested and scientifically verified techniques for the maintenance of good health and prevention of disease and also for the diagnosis and treatment of disease.

More than 600 scientific studies conducted at over 200 independent research centers in 30 countries have verified the benefits of these technologies. In the past eight years, our institutions have received almost $18M in research grants from the NIH because of the effectiveness our programs have shown in eliminating stress and reducing hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Approximately 40,000 have benefited from technologies of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health in the state of Washington over the past 35 years. Yet, none of our technologies currently qualify for licensure or certification and therefore consideration for insurance coverage in Washington State. The reasons are twofold.

Fist, licensure and certification, prerequisites for insurance coverage in Washington State, both require that we must prove that our system of healthcare would be potentially harmful to the public if left unregulated by the state. Our programs have not been shown to be potentially harmful to the public. More significantly, being a potential threat to the public seems an odd and undesirable requirement for insurance coverage. We recommend that laws for licensure and insurance coverage be based on cost effective benefits provided and educational training required, rather than on potential harm to the public and the need for state regulation. Existing laws that discriminate against new alternative health systems should not effect the future availability of federal funding for scientific evaluation of health systems such as Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health which has such a good track record.

Secondly, we have been told by many sources, including administrators at the State Department of Health and members of the Senate and House Committees on health and representatives of the insurance commission industry, that an application for licensure certification would be vigorously opposed by the insurance industry which sees any new healthcare system as an added cost. And, also by some other healthcare providers, including some CAM providers because of issues of scope of practice and competition for scarce insurance dollars. We recommend to the Commissioners that you acknowledge the sometimes fierce competition that exists at the state level between healthcare providers over these two issues. And, that you make recommendations that these local turf wars not be allowed to interfere with the availability of federal funds for the proper and needed scientific examination of the benefits and cost-effectiveness of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health or other scientifically validated health practices not currently regulated by state governments.

— White House Commission On Complementary And Alternative Medicine Policy, October 30, 2000, 6:15 - 6:17 PM. October 31, 2000, 8:45-10:15am. [5]

So if there's a "West Coast coordinator" there must be some sort of organization. Further, he asserts that TM is a part of MVAH, rather than the other way around. He goes on to claim that 600 studies have investigated the MVAH technologies, and that it has been in use since 1965. Is this a common view or is he giving an ideosyncratic opinion? Other sources I've seen put the beginning of MVAH at 1980 1985, IIRC.   Will Beback  talk  03:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that John Briganti is an offical in the movement, and that he is speaking on behalf of the movement. I assume that this can be regarded as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Research controversy

To my knowledge there is no controversy regarding research on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Why is that in the lead? TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You're joking, right?Fladrif (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The lede is a compromised- for-now version after a discussion between Will Beback and Olive. Wikipedia indicates a summary style should be employed that summarizes what is in the article. TG is right. There is no controversy on the research in the article.(olive (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

There is a difference between saying that there is no controversy over the research, and that there no text in the article regarding the controversy over the research. TG asserted the former, not the latter. The former is patently false; the latter has been cured, and will be further cured by appopriately sourced additions. Fladrif (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The "research controversy" refers to the dispute between the JAMA and Sharma & Chopra.   Will Beback  talk  17:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The JAMA controversy wasn't related to research. The original article by Sharma and Chopra was a letter promoting the use of traditional medicine. It wasn't research. The controversy was that although the authors early on acknowledged that they were consultants to MAPI, the didn't include information regarding their financial ties. Plus, the article then went on to talk about allegedly misleading marketing. TimidGuy (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll change the word "research" to "promotion".   Will Beback  talk  17:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And to Fladrif, just because a source says that research isn't definitive doesn't mean it's controversial. The scientific process involves a lot of back and forth. Often the studies themselves acknowledge the inherent limitations in the design. This isn't controversy. A controversy would be if a study were retracted by a journal. TimidGuy (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I sure couldn't see where the AHRQ you cited is specifically talking about Maharishi Ayurveda. TimidGuy (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Try reading it.Fladrif (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I see that a new editor has now rewritten it all, unfortunately, after our hard-won consensus. TimidGuy (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Chopra material

Suggest that the Chproa material Fladrif recently added go in the Chopra article. TimidGuy (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is Chopra talking about the principles of MVAH and TM. It is directly related to this article and your deletion is improper.Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, thinking positive thoughts isn't a principle of TM, nor is it a therapy of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Doesn't belong here. TimidGuy (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sez you. The source says that's Chopra talking about MVAH. We can't use your original research to contradict a reliable source.Fladrif (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If the source is talking about MVAH, why did you put it in this TM subsection? The comment has nothing to do with TM. And Chopra hasn't been affiliated with any MVAH organization for 15 years. TimidGuy (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

TM is a part of MVAH, according to John Briganti. If TM is not part of MVAH we should remove that section from this article.   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading thru the article again today, this section on Chopra and thoughts stands out like a sore thumb. OK, Chopra was involved in MAV years ago, and he may have made these comments about thoughts, but positive thinking is not a principle of TM nor MVAH. Can we remove them please? --BwB (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the source is for the Chopra quotation. If he made the remark while he was associated with the movement then it'd be reasonable to include it. If not, and if he's not referring to TM/MVAH, then I agree that it's off topic. The first and last sentences seem unrelated to the Chopra matter and should probably be kept in some section.   Will Beback  talk  07:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Checking the original source,[6] I see that Chopra's comments are cited to a 1992 audiotape titled "On Creating Health", published by MAPI. Since Chopra was an official of the MAPI, and since it was published by MAPI, it seems like a suitable soiurce for the views of MAPI.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fint section

This is about Chopra, and only remotely about Maharishi Ayur Veda, and probably belongs in the Chopra article. The product wasn't sued the physician was. If a doctor prescribes aspirin to fix cancer and the patent dies, would the article be on the aspirin. Doesn't seem so. Perhaps we could have some further input on this.(olive (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. This episode is directly about Maharishi Ayur Veda. Chopra was its leading proponent in the US, and president of all of the important TM Movement organizations in the US. MAPI got sued, as did a host of other MAV-related entities. Where do you get the idea that two MAV-affilited doctors prescribing "sounds" as treatments for leukemia and other therapies per MAV practice, proclaiming the patient cured of leukemia, and then the guy dying of the desease that MAV purportedly cured is only "remotely" about MAV? Fladrif (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what affiliation Chopra has or had, but the content has to be based on the source and the source is talking about Chopra, and more so Triguna. I do think this is open to discussion and interpretation, so maybe other editors could weigh in. Denial, in Egypt, eh....hilarious.(olive (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Now you really are joking, right? Are you really trying to convince me that you are unaware of Chopra's connections to MAV? He WAS MAV in the US until the falling out between him and the TM Movement. Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Flad. I really don't keep up with this kind of thing, so no I'm not aware of what kind of position Chopra held. For our purposes here it doesn't matter . We just have to cite the sources. Making connections between Chopra and anything else is OR. If the sources says something like Chopra, a leader in MVAH, did such and such well then we can use it. We can't assume Chopra was a MVAH leader then put him in the article (Wikipedia article)... as I understand OR. This is a debatable point...

The question that seems more to the point is whether the article is about Triguna and Chopra or is about the the remedies....I think its about the two physicians. If its about the remedies, fine it belongs here. If its about the physicians and the article doesn't connect them to MVAH, then it doesn't belong here.(olive (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

We have one source that describes Triguna as a founder of the MVAH, and another that calls Chopra a founder of MAPI. They seem closely related to the topic.   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I take it from various sources that the falling out between Chopra and the Maharishi has resulted in the TM Movement treating Chopra as a non-person, and everyone being instructed to make no mention of his name. That's fine. Any religion has a perfect right to excommunicate and shun whoever it considers a heretic if that's its doctrine and practice. But, for purposes of an encyclopedia article, you can't pretend to the world that he didn't exist, or that his involvement in the formation and promotion of MAV, and the statements he made about its principles while still the Maharishi's Dhanvantari /"Lord of Immortality" aren't relevant or material to an article about MAV and MVAH.Fladrif (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MEDRS

I saw that some material was deleted with Wikipedia:MEDRS as the reason. Is this article about a medical topic? Above, Littleolive oil was suggesting we refer to it as a "health modality". Are the products sold by MAPI considered medicines? If I understand correctly, MVAH experts are not considered health care professionals. If they are then it would be worthwhile to include information on their training and certification.   Will Beback  talk  17:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think material related to research falls within MEDRS. Regarding MVAH experts, as far as I know they are either MDs trained in MVAH or individuals who are trained as MVAH consultants and who work in conjunction with MDs. I think it's illegal in all but two states for a consultant to give an ayurvedic consultation without an MD being involved. Hope that helps. I don't know if we could find a source that says this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the material may also fall under WP:FRINGE and WP:RED FLAG. However I think that we should be careful about deleting sourced material just because of borderline issues. If folks really think that well-known skeptics are not suitabl sources then we should take that to the noticeboards. My view is that Carroll, Barrett, and Randi (sp) all have significant points of view and should be included where appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  12:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Confused content and refs

I'd like to clarify before re adding, that these are specifically about Maharishi Ayur Veda , and that the refs as sources are verified per the content added. Thanks.(olive (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Maharishi Ayurveda also holds that perfect health is a state present within every person, that can be chosen by the individual, and that the physical body is a portal to a "quantum mechanical body" that exists at the subatomic level where matter and energy are one, and that every organ and process in the body has a quantum equivalent.

If you acknowledge that these specifically reference MAV, what possible rationale supports you having deleted it?Fladrif (talk) 19:58, 18

November 2009 (UTC)

First , this is a common procedure to move content that is not clear in terms of source, content, or who it references, or other concerns, but that may be re added once the concerns are cleared up . The source doesn't say what the article says it does and further it seems to be referencing a partial comment Chopra made, but that's not clear either. If the source could be established then we can clear up who said what, and decide if ultimately the content belongs in this particular article.(olive (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Addition of content that does not refer to the article

Fladrif . You have added content that does not refer to Maharishi Ayur Veda the article topic /subject area. Please stop adding this kind of content. You can't add content that doesn't refer to the topic.(olive (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Stop deleting this content. It is on topic, which you would see if you actually bothered to read the source material. MAV is simply a brand-name of traditional ayurveda with the added aspect of TM, and a high price tag. Playing tag team with TimidGuy to revert reliably-sourced on-topic material is a WP:Game that you're very good at, having had lots and lots o practice, but it's an abuse of Wikipedia that I'm sick of. Fladrif (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What astounding accusations you make Flad....I am not playing tag team with TG. I've spent several hours combing through the content and sources to make sure I have it as right as I can get it. You can't just say this thing is like this, so I will include it ... First of all I don't know if it is or not and neither do you unless you've spent weeks or maybe months analyzing the herbs, their combinations, modalities, physicians, their training, and so on.... or you have sources that say these two things are the same....We can't create this article on the supposition of an editor. Very simple.(olive (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

It is sourced, and in the article. Fladrif (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And I am questioning that content as per this article.(olive (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Per WHAT Article? I find and cite to a reliable source that says they are one and the same thing, but for TM, and you have what exactly to contradict that other than your say-so? There is nothing in your posting history, even the deleted parts, that leads me to believe that I should place any faith whatsoever in your qualifications to question the sources cited. Fladrif (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And while we're at it, don't you dare even THINK of posting on my talk page that I'm at 3 reverts.Fladrif (talk)

LOL...No worries. I wouldn't even think of it. (olive (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Enough with this POV nonsense

KBob, you seem to be operating under the same delusion that plagued ChemistryProfessor in the Hagalin article that being neutral means neutralizing sources. Rewording a reliably-sources, verifiable statement by someone who is being critical on the basis that expresses a point of view, and that it is not only OK but mandatory to do so, is a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of what NPOV means. If a relaible source has a POV that it relevant to the article it is consistent with Wikipedia policy and good editing practices to report that POV neutrally and accurately. It is contrary to Wikipedia policy and good editing practices to recharacterize the source's statements in a manner that strips the source of its meaning and its POV. If I played by the same rules as you seem to be operating under, I'd rewrite all of the TM-related articles to remove every single expression supportive of TM, its research, its practices, its orgainizations, and its practitioners and leaders on the basis that they are expressing a POV.Fladrif (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that text below, as currently edited by Fladrif contains unnecessary POV wording. What do others think? Can we improve it? "According to Andrew Weil, Ayur Veda, in India, is an inexpensive alternative to allopathic medicine available to all people, while Maharishi Ayur Veda is expensive." -- — Kbob • Talk • 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I had edited the sentence to read like this: "According to Andrew Weil, Maharishi Ayurveda is expensive when compared to Ayurveda in India." However, Fladrif feels that this wording is 'delusional' and 'POV nonsense'. Comments? -- — Kbob • Talk • 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it undersells the tone of the source. I did change it to reflect the source, and hope the change is acceptable. I would also be fine with a direct quote. Its a strong statement and I think we have to deal with it very closely in terms of wording and tone. My opinion anyway.(olive (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Original Research

• TM and Maharishi Ayur-Veda proponents claim that stress is the basis for all illness, and that TM is the most effective technique for improving all aspects of health. Deepak Chopra, founding president of Maharishi Ayur-Veda Products International, Inc (MAPI), the American Association of Ayurvedic Medicine and former medical director of the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center for Stress Management and Behavioral Medicine, has stated that "If you have happy thoughts, then you make happy molecules. On the other hand, if you have sad thoughts, and angry thoughts, and hostile thoughts, then you make those molecules which may depress the immune system and make you more susceptible to disease." While TM and other relaxation techniques may temporarily relieve stress, the balance of these claims have no scientific basis.

The above paragraph which is current text in the article appears to be Original Research. It cites the following reference. [7] (see page 11-12). The cited book says that TM proponents also promote Ayurveda. The author then goes on to give various pieces of information about Ayurveda in general. Information about Ayurveda (including comments from Chopra about Ayurveda) belong in the Wiki article on Ayurveda not in this article on MVAH. Only one paragraph in the cited books' chapter on Ayurveda deals specifically with Maharishi Ayurveda and that paragraph has been included as a block quote in this MVAH Wiki article. I think if you look at the source and at the above text you will see what I mean.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the "Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health" include ayurveda? Does it include Transcendental Meditation? From my reading of the sources I'd answer "yes" to both. If we include reports on TM that don't mention MVAH I don't see how that's different from including reports on ayurveda that don't mention MVAH. Chopra is closely connected to MVAH, so it's not like he's a random commentator. From whichever sources, a section on ayurveda would be just as appropriate as the section on TM.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Maharishi Ayur Veda is not Ayur Veda... just as TM is not "Meditation". I don't know exactly what the differences are but there are apparently many. As I understand it, Maharishi took traditional-to- India forms of "programs" and he adapted and developed them in some way. There may be cross over points and content between Ayur Veda and Maharishi Ayur Veda but unless a source connects those crossover points we can't cite them here, to do so is WP:OR. Can we say TM is mediation and then include information about Meditation in general ... No we can't.(olive (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

I see some sources that downplay any changes, indicating that Maharishi Ayurveda is simply a restoration and systematization of ancient ayurveda:

• In 1980, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of the Transcendental Meditation program, began working with three of India's top ayurvedic experts, Dr. V.M. Dwivedi, Dr. B.D. Triguna and Dr. Balaraj Maharishi. They revived the ancient knowledge of health and called it Maharishi Ayurveda. They formed a medical council that created our authentic herbal formulas according to the ayurvedic texts. [..] The herbs in Maharishi Ayurveda products are prepared in the traditional Ayurvedic way, using the whole herb instead of the active ingredient. [8]
• Recently, working together with the foremost Ayurveda experts in India, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of the Transcendental Meditation program (TM), systematized and restored Ayurveda, along with all the other branches of Vedic knowledge, to its purity and completeness in accord with classic Vedic texts.[9]
• Maharishi Ayurveda (MAV) is a revival of one of the most ancient and complete systems of natural health care - Ayurveda - ‘the science of life’.[10]
• “Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s essential revival of ancient Ayurveda is integrated and executed in a perfect way.”[11]
• Although ayurveda has been around for 5,000 years, it's not outmoded. Its very practical, time-tested principles are perfect for today's seekers of prevention-oriented self-care.[12]
• Maharishi Ayurveda™ is a modern revival of the world’s most complete and time-tested system of natural health care, including personal health evaluations, Ayurveda treatments, health and beauty products and educational publications.[13]

Which sources say that Maharishi Ayurveda is significantly different from generic ayurveda?   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No sources say they are the same... revived, systemized, restored...These all indicate change from what is in place now. If the systems were the same, Maharishi wouldn't have revived, restored, or systemized. Unless a source uses the words, Maharishi Ayur Veda, the source is not referencing this system. (olive (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't interpret the sources that way. Do you have any sources that discuss the differences between one Maharishi Ayurveda and Ayurveda? Maharaishi Ayurveda herbs are preared in the traditional way, says a source, so that can't be the difference.   Will Beback  talk  01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Will. I don't have to prove that these are different any more than I have to prove that TM and meditation are different. Ayur Veda doesn't belong in this article anymore than "mediation" belongs in an article on TM. If someone insists on adding this kind of content to this article than they must prove beyond a doubt that these two are the same thing, an impossibility since they quite simply aren't. If there is insistence on adding content to this article that is OR, I will ask for outside assistance.

and prepartion is only one small aspect of herbal preparation.(olive (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

If I fainted and you revived me, would I be a different person? If you systematized my files, would they be different files? If you restore a painting, is it a differnt painting? In each case I think the answer is "no". MVAH sources talk about Maharishi Ayurveda as being traditional Ayurveda. They don't discuss changes or differences.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The scope of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health is very different from Ayurveda. For example, it includes Sthapatya Veda and Jyotish, which are different branches of the Vedic literature than Ayurveda. And the component of Vedic Vibration is unrelated to Ayurveda as far as I understand. I don't think we should try to make this an article on Ayurveda. It should be about Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, a part of which is an adaptation of specific Ayurvedic remedies and practices. And regarding Chopra, he hasn't been affiliated with any Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health organization for 15 years. Also, other than MAPI, the term Maharishi Ayurveda is generally no longer used but instead the field is referred to as Maharishi Vedic Medicine. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, MAV differs very little from traditional Ayurveda, other than the introduction of TM and the emphasis on consciousness, the mass-market approach and the high price, with multiple supporting sources. Both Olive and TG ignore them, or assert based entirely on their personal beliefs, that the sources are wrong. You have this process exactly backwards. The objection to Chopra is utterly lacking in merit, as I noted above. And, where do you come up with statemens like "Maharishi Ayur-Veda" is generally no longer used? Then why if you put that term into Google, nearly every hit is to an official TM Org site? Isn't the name of the organization principally responsible for MVAH in the US called "Maharishi Ayurvedic Products Inc? If you're going to just make stuff up, try making up something that can't be falsified in less than 10 seconds by anyone who knows how to use a search engine. Fladrif (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the answer to all three is “MAYBE”, fainting may have been caused by a brain aneurysm which might change personality significantly, systemizing files might lead to a new baseline of information output that was impossible before the data was organized differently – if the files that make up a program on my computer are systemized, the program might be completely different – it might not even run!….and yes, a ‘restored” painting IS a different painting…and museums note them as restored in their files.

As well, Maharishi Ayur Veda is licensed.

Its never up to an editor to prove a negative. (olive (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

A restored painting is the same painting. It's not a second painting. I'm not sure why but this discussion seems to have been broken into another section. (See below). Can we try to keep coherent conversations please?   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No. A restored paining is not the same painting although it will retain the same title. A restored painting especially if sections have been repainted must be noted as such . Pigment, strokes, canvas, and the restorers themselves may all contribute to a work that is not original to the artist. A painting is restored so that the viewer can see what is left of what the artist created but restoration is always noted because it is not original to the artist or the work is not, in fact the original work. Furniture that has been restored often looses its value as do coins where even handling can cause change and damage. Restoration must be noted by sellers since restoration indicates the artwork is not the same as the original. Restore, revived in your sources indicate change, not sameness.(olive (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

Also, it's up to editors who assert that Maharishi Ayurveda is different from Ayurveda to prove that positive point. We have sources that show TM is different from generic meditation, so that point is covered.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No. \Per Wikipedia your point is incorrect. The topic in the article is Maharisho Ayur Veda not Ayur Veda. You must have a source that says Maharishi Ayur Veda is the same as Ayur Veda to include material that does not directly reference the topic in the article. Restored, related, revived do not mean, the same as. Proving a negative is contrary to WP:Verifiability.(olive (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

In looking at the WP:Verifiability policy we find

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article."

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

There is no doubt that there are similarities between Ayurveda and Maharishi Ayurveda, but they are not the some. Adding material on general Ayurved to this article is not appropriate. --BwB (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Olive, now, you're simply being obstinant. To sit there and repeatedly write that it isn't sourced is simply false. There are reliably sourced, relevant, verifiable references in the article supporting the identification of Maharishi Ayur Veda and traditional Ayurveda. Will has cited more examples here on the Talk page. Your interpretation of those sources is tortured, illogical, and contrary to the plain and unambigious meaning of the words. Enough. And a note to the wise: The Maharishi split ayurveda into two words to trademark/servicemark his own brand of ayurveda, Maharishi Ayur Veda, just like he changed the spelling of siddhi to trademark TM-Sidhi. You'd better get with the marketing program here. If you start using Ayur Veda to refer to brands of Ayurveda other than Maharishi Ayur Veda, the Maharishi Foundation might lose its trademark just like Bayer lost "aspirin" and Innova lost "cellophane"; you've got to be as scrupulous as Kleenex is about its brand of tissues, Band-Aid is about its brand of adhesive bandages, and Xerox is about its brand of photocopying.

BWB, your quotations are irrelevant and immaterial to the question at hand, since everything at issue here is supported by an inline citation to a reliable, verifiable source. Or, like Olive and TimidGuy, are you making arguments without bothering to read the text you're objecting to and the sources supporting that text? Fladrif (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. You and Will have not presented one single citation that says Maharishi Ayur Vedaa is the same as Ayur Veda ... not one. I suggest you take this to a third party or RFC. If you don't then I will. Your position and Will's is not correct, and I have no fear of testing that with experienced editors. Is it obstinate to try and make the article neutral and fair, and to operate with in the policies. (olive (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

I've presented several sources saying that they are the same thing. I don't see anyone presenting sources saying that they are different.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should I take it to a third party or RFC? First, Will and I are absolutely right about our position, and you are completely wrong. Second, your history in taking issues from the TM pages to third parties for comments is that you ignore their input when you don't like it, and claim that it isn't binding on you. In light of your repeated lack of good faith when it comes to those processes, participating in them with you is pointless and a complete and total waste of time and effort. Finally, obstinance has nothing to do with motiviations, it has to do with actions. Your actions evince a total unwillingness to even bother to read the text or the cited sources, since your rhetorical arguments reference neither and your assertions are totally unsupported by anything other than your unsourced opinions -the very epitome of the original research you claim to be decrying. It's not necessary for me to comment at this time and place on what I think about your assertions about what is motivating your obstinancy. Fladrif (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two sources who seem to say that modern Ayruveda is essentially the creation of the Maharishi.

• William Jarvis, PhD, a professor of preventive medicine at Loma Linda University in California and president and cofounder of the National Council Against Health Fraud, ... [..] "I think we understand ayurvedic medicine well enough to say that it is folk medicine," Jarvis said. ". . . Ayurvedic medicine, as it appears in our society, is really a marketing term [through which] the TM movement . . . and specifically Deepak Chopra, are trying to market both products and services under the heading of ayurvedic medicine. They have basically appropriated the term from East Indian folk medicine and they're trying to turn it into a marketing term that people will buy."[14]
• Since [Ayurveda] is said to be some 5,000 years old, what it considers to be knowledge or science may not coincide with the most updated information available to Western medicine. In any case, most ancient treatments are not recorded and what is called traditional Indian medicine is, for the most part, something developed in the 1980s bt the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (Barrett 1998) who brought Transcendental Meditation to the Western world. [15]

Based on those two sources, we should probably rewrite the Maharishi Ayurveda section.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Look very carefully at this source, which does a very good job of showing where Maharishi Ayur Veda and traditional Ayurveda, as well as other brands of westernized Ayurveda overlap, and where they differ. Fladrif (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So let me understand this. We now have sources saying that modern Ayurveda or Maharishi Ayurveda is not the same as Ayur Veda. Fladrfi suggests that we look at a source that shows not sameness but overlapping and differences. Then, the sources provided to show apprent sameness do not show sameness. For example:

• They revived the ancient knowledge of health and called it Maharishi Ayurveda..... revived

• This one says the opposite, that it’s other things combined (which makes it not the same!):

systematized and restored Ayurveda, along with all the other branches of Vedic knowledge....combined with Vedic Knowledge

• Maharishi Ayurveda (MAV) is a revival of one of the most ancient and complete systems of natural health care - Ayurveda - ‘the science of life’.... revival

• This one says it’s different, it’s “integrated” into it!

essential revival of ancient Ayurveda is integrated and executed in a perfect way.... revival... integrated and executed

• This one certainly doesn’t say they’re the same:

Although ayurveda has been around for 5,000 years, it's not outmoded. Its very practical, time-tested principles are perfect for today's seekers of prevention-oriented self-care..... no sameness here

• This one says it’s “modern” which means it’s not the same as the old one..:

modern revival of the world’s most complete and time-tested system of natural health care, including personal health evaluations.... modern revival

And yet, I am the one who is being cited as having a non neutral agenda. This was and has been my position all along. (olive (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

In cases like this, where there are multiple viewpoints, we should simply report all of them rather than picking which one is right. We can write the MVEDC-related sources say that it is a revival and restoration of ancient Ayurveda following tradtional recipes, while other sources say that Maharishi created modern Ayurveda. If there's a third view we can include that too.   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We can't equate them. Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health includes a small subset of ayurveda. For example, it doesn't include the entire disciplines of ayurveda having to do with surgery, demonic possession, or aphrodesiacs. So we can't assume that everything said about ayurveda in general is related to what has been referred to as Maharishi Ayurveda. TimidGuy (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the discussion concerns the part of Ayurveda that covers herbal preparations.   Will Beback  talk  10:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, the arguments being advanced by TG and Olive are utterly divorced from what is actually in the article and what is in the sources. Instead of this knee-jerk deletion of reliably-sourced, verifiable material, try actually reading what is in he article. You will find that what I added is quite specific in identifying what aspects of Maharishi Ayur-Veda are the same as traditional Ayurveda, and what aspects are different, and that I have added nothing about Ayurveda generically that is not tied directly to Maharishi Ayur Veda. The straw-man argument that MAV isn't idential to traditional Ayurveda or other brands of Ayurveda to justify mass deletions tells me that either you refuse to actually read what you're objecting to, you do not understand what you are reading, or that you don't care and these arguments are not being presented in good faith.Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

“Maharishi Ayur-Veda (MAV) is a systematically developed, carefully researched medical system based on the ancient Indian medical system know as Ayurveda.”--The opening sentence from the book: Contemporary Ayurveda, Medicine and Research in Maharishi Ayurveda, Sharma H, Clark C. Edited by Marc Marcozzi as part of a series of Medical Guides to Complimentary and Alternative Medicine. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. It seems that MAV is a derivative of Ayurveda which has distinct and unique characteristics some of which are shared by Ayurveda as it is commonly understood and practiced today and some of which are not. Many of these unique features have been mentioned in this thread and in the article. These features include unique and proprietary meditation techniques, herbal formulas, sound therapies etc. Likewise it does not include other aspects of Ayurveda such as surgery, demonic possession, or aphrodisiacs. Its very straight forward actually I am surprised to see some editors seem to be saying apples and oranges are the same because they both grow on trees.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's more like saying that apples and Fuji apples are basically the same thing.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Even Wajastyk, who is cited numerous times in this article, says that MAV is a derivative of Ayurveda. In the Notes section on p. 326, Wujastyk says “By Maharishi Ayur-Veda, or MAV, I refer to Maharishi’s interpretation and line of products and services deriving from the indigenous Indic health tradition.” [16]-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in a lead

...Too specific for the lead..WP:Lead section...(olive (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

An article in 1991 in the Journal of the American Medical Association alleged that promoters of MVAH have failed to disclose financial incentives received when they submitted a letter for publication and alleged that marketing practices were misleading. According to a 2008 Journal of the American Medical Association study, two Maharishi Ayurveda products contained detectable lead. In Britain in 1991, two doctors were charged with "Serious Professional Misconduct" for using MVAH in the treatment of HIV.

How is this too specific? Compare to the lead of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, which gives the exact date of his retirement, and quote about why he retired, as well as other specific information. There's no prohibition on specificity in intros. There is a requirement that it reflect the article. WP:LEAD says, "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic ..."   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the blame for putting it into the lead to begin with, as I thought the one-line description of the criticism was a bit namby-pamby. Someone else added the specifics, which I left out as they are repeated later in the article. Either way is OK with me, but it seems important to note not just that there are controversies, but roughly what they are. That seems in keeping with other Wikipieda articles. Newt ^(winkle) 08:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate the participation Newt and yes the lead should summarize the article and 'lead' the reader to more specifics later on in the body of the article. We have to be careful about putting getting too specific in the lead as this creates imbalance and POV.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence?

Fladrif. You haven't added anything that equates Maharishi Ayur Veda with traditional Ayur Veda. Could you explain your reversion and edit. (The 3RR revert time period is a 24 hour period.)

Insistence on reverting to OR content in this article especially while discussion is underway is disruptive.(olive (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

I suggest that you actually read the references before you make a false accusation like this. If you did, you would discover to your chagrin that the added material is specifically referenced to reliable, verifiable sources and is absolutely not original research. Fladrif (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Every source that I've seen about MAH equates it with Ayurveda. Even the TMM sources refer to it as "traditional". I have't seen a single source that describes a significant difference.   Will Beback  talk  19:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia you don't have to show difference you have to show a source that says they are the same. Traditional is not sameness. (olive (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

This topic is being discussed in more than one thread, which doesn't help.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed?

• Entities within the Transcendental Meditation movement, such as Maharishi Ayurveda Products International and various health centers, offer a variety of products and services related to the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, including therapies and herbal supplements.[citation needed]

Which assertion in this sentence needs a source that isn't already in the text of the article?   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The tag is inappropriate, and should be removed.Fladrif (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see that if this content were not in a lede it could be OR, but I would think it could be OK since it summarizes what comes later. My experience with contentious articles has been that even in a lede such statements should be sourced but this may be OK here if there is agreement on it. I have removed it for now. (olive (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

I placed the cite tag there because cited text is especially important in the lead, as you all know. If the sentence is a summary of points in the article then wouldn't it be easy to cite it?-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Which brings us back to my question: which assertions in that sentence do you think need citaitons?   Will Beback  talk  19:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the tag was removed and then re-added, so I'll ask the question again - what in the lead needs a source?   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

WP:COI calls on editors who have conflicts of interest to either disclose them or to avoid the topic entirely. An editor has expressed to me a concern that there are editors on this topic who may have conflicts of interest. People who are employed by the MVEDC or any of its related, trademarked entities such as MAPI, The Raj Spa, and MUM, people who give MVAH treatments such as MVVT and TM, or who train others practice those technologies, and people who are friends or colleagues of those who do all may be considered to have conflicts of interest regarding this topic. For example, it's my understanding that there are some members of the MUM faculty who are writing this article. If so, that should be made explicit as MUM is the principle research facility whose studies we're citing. On the other hand, people who just practice TM or who simply purchase MA products would not have a conflict of interest.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to prove Conflict of Interest please feel free to take me to the COI Notice Board. I stand by my edits and my points as per the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

The propensity for editors here to attack editors when they don't understand, or don't want to accept their points, and then further to attempt to somehow have those editors removed is contrary to all Wikipedia practices, and is harassment(olive (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

So you want to go to COIN so you and TG can ignore it again and claim nobody can make you stop editing articles about your employer and those of your closest colleagues and associates? What a sad, pathetic joke. Fladrif (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking any editors. I'm politely requesting that any editors who are closely associated with this topic follow the WP guidelines. Since you've chosen to respond, let me ask if you know any of the people who we're citing as sources, or if you have any ties to the entities mentioned in this article. To clear the air, I will say that I have no connections to any of these entities, and have never met any of the people mentioned or cited in this article.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not give out personal information of any kind on Wikipedia. Fladrif, the next time you you wish to cite the results of a COIN posting I suggest you provide the diffs to support your statements.(olive (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

There's no need to give out any personal information. However if you or any editor has a conflict of interest that you don't wish to disclose then the best course of action would be to retire from editing this page.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. If you or anyone else has concerns about my behavior, edits or editing please take that to whatever higher authority you wish.(olive (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

This isn't just about you - it concerns every editor to this topic. Before taking it beyond this talk page it seemed like a good idea to make sure that everyone was reminded of the guideline. To clarify, do anyone here think that MUM does not have a conflict of interest with regard to MVAH?   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been addressed, and yes, attacked. You are welcome to draw parallels to MVAH and Santa Clause, but what I am is a neutral editor, and that is all I am. My work attests to that.(olive (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

The issue here is about conflicts of interest. One editor, Littleolive oil, refuses to answer. What do other editors say? For example, one editor, Keithbob, is responsible for over 1/3 of all edits to the article. Can that editor assure the rest of us that there is no conflict of interest?   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Refuses to answer. The Conflict of Interest Notice board incidents in the past came to nothing, yet you continue. Refuses to answer. No. Should not have been asked, and has the right to decline. This is harassment.(olive (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

OK. "Declined to answer". Now could other editors please confirm that they do not have conflicts of interest with this topic, or withdraw from editing it?   Will Beback  talk  02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion of article content. If you have questions you wish to ask specific editors please address them on their user talk pages. Discussion of this article has been derailed long enough. Thanks.(olive (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Nothing is being "derailed". This thread concerns the editing of this article. If you don't want to participate in it further you don't need to.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will 100%. There is absolutely no question that editors associated with MUM, MAPI, and other TM Movement organizations have a direct conflict of interest in editing this article. The assertion by the TM-Org associated editors that COI simply doesn't apply to them is fundamentally wrong, as is the claim that calling them on their conflict and asking that they abide by the principles of COI is harassment. I will say for my part that I have no involvement, past or present, with any TM Movement Organziation nor with any organization in competition with or in opposition to any TM-related organization.Fladrif (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The COI policy doesn't require editors to acknowledge a conflict. In my experience, given all the harassment and bigotry directed my way, it's a really bad idea for editors to disclose anything. Fortunately, in the past few months Wikipedia has begun blocking the abusive editors. My advice to any editor would be to reveal no personal details and to just continue rigorously adhering to all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TimidGuy (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said to Littleolive oil, there's no need to disclose anything: the honorable alternative if there's a conflict of interest is to silently withdraw from editing the article. The lack of answers to direct questions makes it appear that there are conflicts of interest that are not being disclosed. For example, given the size of the MUM faculty, it's hard to imagine how a professor there would be a stranger to the MUM professors whom we're citing. If that's the case and if editors here are defending the work of their friends and colleagues then does anyone think that a COI would not exist? Who here would put the requirements of Wikipedia ahead of their friends and their employers?   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a neutral editor and I do not give out personal information on Wiki. If anyone has issues about my edits on this article than please convey them here and I will work with you to resolve them. However, this is not the place for COI issues. It is not an appropriate topic for talk page discussion and Will you know better. I strongly object to the daily personal attacks and accusations made by Fladrif, and now this thread by Will showing support for Fladrif's disruptive behavior is really surprising.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"calls on editors who have conflicts of interest to either disclose them or to avoid the topic entirely" COI does not require that, rather it requires that COI be avoided, and Will and Flad, you should know requiring people to disclose private info is inappropriate? It's entirely possible to be connected to an organization or belief system without having COI. Users do it all the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not confuse what is required with what is strongly encouraged. Also do not confuse Will's admonition with being anything other than 100% in conformity with the requirements of COI. Also, do not be confused by the dissembling here about what happened at COIN. TimidGuy was found to have, and in fact admitted to having, a Conflict of Interest on the TM-related articles, he was directly instructed not to edit the TM-related articles several times, and to confine his participation to the Talk pages only; TimidGuy and Olive were found at a later COIN to have the identical conflict of interest, and again instructed to abide by the earlier restrictions. They choose to ignore the decisions as COIN, and to posture that no outcome at COIN can ban them from editing any article; it is direct evidence of a lack of good faith and an unwillingness to abide by the directions of independent Admins. Fladrif (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not even worthy of a comment. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We're in agreement on that, though I suspect for entirely different reasons. It should not be necessary to discuss this at all but for the refusal of the conflicted editors to abide by the principles of COI and the decisions at COIN. Fladrif (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, I've said repeatedly in this thread that personal information does not need to be disclosed, but that if there is a conflict of interest which editors prefer not to disclose then they should not continue to edit with a hidden COI. The potential conflict of interest here does not concern a follower of a faith group editing an article related to that faith. It is whether faculty members of a small university are editing an article which relies heavily on research by other faculty members, and which belongs to the same overall enterprise as is also responsible for selling the goods and services discussed in the article. Editing articles that concern our employer or our friends would be a conflict of interest for most of us, unless we were willing and able to put the needs of Wikipedia first.   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I found this from a couple of years ago:

• Of course the ideal is that as an editor with a perceived COI, I never make any mainspace edits and a neutral editor implement my suggestions, if warranted. TimidGuy 14:56, 5 April 2007

That is still the ideal.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for a neutral editor to appear. Hope one shows up at some point. Until then, I'm going to have to continue to make the corrections that I have been, such as Fladrif's misrepresenting AHRQ as having reviewed all Ayurveda research, his completely skewed representation of AHRQ (omitting the positive finding), his odd placement of the Chopra notion about positive thoughts in the TM section, his completely skewed version of Flint, his apparently incorrect statement that AHRQ reviewed MVAH studies, his apparent misquoting of AHRQ. And that's just in the last couple days. Couldn't you just once help with correcting his work? Couldn't you just once acknowledge that I'm helping to improve Wikipedia by addressing these things -- all the while enduring harassment and abuse? Or maybe just once show good faith and implement one of these changes when I call attention to it? TimidGuy (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Several editors here have asserted that they are editing neutrally, so it's telling that even you don't think that they are neutral. I don't think anyone would argue that Fladrif is neutral, even Fladrif. However the COI guideline doens't say that it's good for a non-neutral editor with a conlfict of interest to keep editing an article just because he is waiting for what he considers a non-neutral editor to appear. In those cases the best practice would still be to avoid editing the article directly, and to use the talk page and noticeboards instead.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood TG's statement, but rather than let you decide who is neutral and who isn't, since you are hardly an uninvolved user, and especially since your activities and statements of the last few days imply that you think you are the only neutral editor, a suspiciously biased position, why don't we let the editors speak for themselves. I've said I am neutral and I stand by that, and so has Kbob, here :" I have repeatedly stated that I am aware of Wiki policy on COI and that I edit in accordance with that policy and with Wiki's best interests. I am a neutral editor". Perhaps Flad would like to comment on his neutrality as well. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, if I understnaqd your comments you've accused me of being biased even though I've made a clear statement about my lack of any conflicts of interest. At the same time, you assert that you are neutral while declining to describe your involvement with the businesses and people discussed in this article. Kbob also says he is a neutral editor. TimidGuy says that there aren't any neutral editors, though I'd guess that he exempts himself from that statement. I also understand that you think Fladrif is non-neutral. In other words, the editors who may have been employed by TM-related entities, and who may be friends with the very same researchers we're citing, are all neutral while everyone else is non-neutral. Do I have that right - that the only neutral editors here are employees of the TM movement?   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Will. I'm afraid that you don't understand what I said. But it boils down to: No I didn't say Flad was not neutral. In fact I understood you to say that, "I don't think anyone would argue that Fladrif is neutral, even Fladrif." ... and I felt Flad might like to speak for himself/herself. I didn't accuse you either, Will... but suggested that your actions would indicate that you feel you are neutral. I'm nor sure what kind of logic you are using but no I didn't say those things .... What I said is let the editors, and I'll add (and the edits) speak for themselves. (olive (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

On this very page you've said that I have a "suspiciously biased position", you've accused me of making edits that create "a subtle POV which is manipulative as all non neutral editing is", and claimed that I am trying to "own" the article. So apparently I'm the problem editor here, in your view. Please be direct, Littleolive oil. Do you think there are any non-neutral editors on this topic? Are there any neutral editors? If so, who?   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ask the editors and look at their edits if you want that information. I am a neutral editor. (olive (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Will, are you suggesting that if I have a change that I think should be made to the article, I could request Olive or Kbob to make it? That's fine with me. I think of them as neutral editors but I guess I just assumed that you didn't have that in mind. By the way, I've been wanting to tell you how much I appreciate the work you're doing on the article, particularly all the time you spent on the references. (I still have in mind to look up the Jenssen ref.) And in general, it seems like we're collaborating more than before. I've really appreciated the times recently when you've agreed with me that a source could be represented more neutrally. And around the time you told ChemProf that it wasn't necessary to have permission to create an article, I had been thinking for several days how grateful I was that you were first discussing the movement article rather than just going ahead and creating it. So, thanks for these and other recent instances that made me feel good about our collaboration.

Wikipedia is an odd experience — we duke it out, get into heated discussion, go after the article, and in the process we all feel a bit discomfited. But then the smoke clears, and you look at the article, and it actually looks pretty good. When one thinks back to all the work that's been done the past few years, it's amazing how well the process works, and what's been accomplished. Of course, in my view, the process could be a lot more congenial and collegial. And in my view, everyone here plays an important role -- you, Fladrif, Olive, Kbob. Maybe me too. I guess we'll just have to disagree on how it gets done. You seem to want to constrain certain editors. My feeling is that it's important that everyone participate -- and that we rigorously follow the policies and guidelines in doing so. I have to admit that of the editors here, I feel like Fladrif is the one who cavalierly flouts the policies and guidelines. And I guess the many warnings and blocks are evidence of that. Anyway, I hope we can work together. TimidGuy (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume your first sentence is a joke. If not you seriously misunderstood my comment. Please let me know which it is so I can correct you if you weren't joking. As for rigorously enforcing guidelines and policies, that's what this thread is about. The question to Littleolive oil, regarding her views of what makes a neutral editor, still stands as I'd still like to see if I understand her view correctly.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is your logic, and your statement, and are your assumptions, so perhaps you are the one who should be responding to it, " In other words, the editors who may have been employed by TM-related entities, and who may be friends with the very same researchers we're citing, are all neutral while everyone else is non-neutral. Do I have that right - that the only neutral editors here are employees of the TM movement? " .(olive (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Sorry folks but I think that this discussion has gotten a bit convoluted and become a kind of 'he said, she said', dueling match. Also, I respectfully submit again, that this is not the place for a discussion on COI. Particularly since the subject stretches over several editors and several related articles. I would like to make a motion that we end this thread now and if any editors would like to continue to talk they can take it to their respective talk pages or to the appropriate noticeboard(s). I suggest we get back to the business of editing the article(s) and put aside our personal differences and remind ourselves that we are here for the encyclopedia and not because we want to get in a hot tub and drink wine together. I also agree with Timid that all the editors here bring something to the table and that their time and their commitment is appreciated. We are all here because we want to contribute to a humanitarian project that is bigger than ourselves. Yes, we often rub shoulders and irritate each other, but as Timid says, the editing process slowly moves forward and the article(s) expand and improve. So in the end the process works. My only request going forward is that during this process we always show respect for each other and speak and interact in a civil manner in accordance with the Wiki guidelines. That is really very important for the progress of these articles, for our personal comfort and the Wiki as a project as a whole. Thanks. -- — Kbob • Talk • 15:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's apparent that this issue isn't going to be resolved here. I'll close by simply saying that I think all of the editors here are acting in good faith and with good intentions.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing us back into focus, Kbobb. This article needs work and if we give it our attention, we can knock it into shape. Thanks also for you comments today, Will. --BwB (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Flint lawsuit

Regarding the Jonie Flint lawsuit: wouldn't the outcome of this lawsuit seem relevant? The suit was filed in 1994. I think we can assume that it has long since been resolved. Chopra may have been found innocent, or a judge may have dismissed the suit. I suggest we remove this until we determine the outcome. TimidGuy (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the outcome would be interesting and relevant. But the idea that we should delete information because we don't have follow-up information doesn't make sense to me. Imagine if I said that I thought the 10-year outcomes of study subjects would be relevant and asked that we delete mention of the original study until someone completes such a study. I understand the frustration of not knowing the outcome of some event or trial, as I've encountered this before when writing Wikipedia articles. All we can do is report, with a neutral point of view, what the reliable sources say.   Will Beback  talk  10:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing that the outcome would be relevant. I hope someone, perhaps the person who inserted this, will research this. This suit doesn't come up in Google News Archives. Regarding your comment about reporting, with a neutral point of view, what the sources say: in this case, the source gives both sides. It also represents Deepak's point of view by quoting his lawyer. Is it right to only give the allegations in the suit and report say what the source says related to Deepak's point of view? TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all significant points of view should be included. I've just now read the source and I agree that the lawyer's POV should be included too, in proportion.   Will Beback  talk  11:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I won't have time until tomorrow morning. My editing is mostly limited to whatever free time I have before 6:30 a.m. TimidGuy (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

AHRQ report on ayurvedic approaches to diabetes

Fladrif, I haven't read this report because it must be a couple hundred pages long. But I did search on Maharishi. The only appearances that came up were a mention of Robert Schneider being one of the reviewers for the report and two books listed in the bibliography that are on Maharishi Ayurveda. Are the books the basis for your sentence that says "The NCCAM's 2001 assessment of diabetes included a review of studies on the effects of Maharishi Ayur_Veda"? It could be that those books are listed because they were among the sources consulted in the authors' efforts to identify research on ayurveda and diabetes. I don't think there were any studies on Maharishi-Ayurveda and diabetes at the time of this assessment in 2001. And I can't see that any of the studies included in their review are by researchers associated with Maharishi Ayur-Veda. Can you please indicate which ones? (The only Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health research related to diabetes that I know of are a study in 2006 on metabolic syndrome that could conceivably be related to diabetes and a study that was just recently presented at a conference on TM and diabetes but that hasn't yet been published.) Also, I did a search on the quote from Frontiers magazine and I didn't see it in the report. I hope you won't again simpy tell me to read the report. Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the report. I did. The fact that, on top of being a MUM faculty member, you are claiming personal knowledge of unpublished studies on MVAH, tells me that, just as you were repeatedly and directly instructed not to edit the TM-related articles at COIN, you've got no business editing the MVAH article. Fladrif (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I challenge you to answer my questions. Please try to avoid the logical fallacies of ad hominem and red herring. Please indicate what Maharishi Ayurveda studies were reviewed. Please tell me the section of AHRQ that the quote is from. When I search on a phrase from the quote, it doesn't turn up in the report. Begging here.TimidGuy (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its a reasonable request since Timid has taken time to locate and review the source. Can you please provide some more specifics? Also a reminder that article talk pages are not the place for COI issues. You can post those on the COI noticeboard. Thanks, -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If Schneider was a reviewer, and the review included to books on Ayurvbeda, then lets just say that. Unpublished studies or conference presentations aren't verifiable, so lets leave that part out.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I'll go ahead and attempt to tweak it so that it more accurately represents the sources. I may just exclude the India magazine as a source, since it seems to be inaccurately quoting the review, and simply use the review as the source. Regarding unpublished conference presentations, please look at a thread on TM Talk. Someone added a recent conference presentation that got huge publicity this past week. But I think it probably shouldn't be included, given that it's a conference presentation and given that MEDRS says not to use popular media as sources. Seems like we should wait until it gets published. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotation request

• MVAH attributes disease to demons, devils, and the influences of the stars and planets.

I looked at the cited pages and didn't find any mention of MVAH or MA. Unless I missed something, the source doesn't appear to support the assertion. I have seen material on astrology, and there's already a section on it.   Will Beback  talk  08:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it. Every source on Ayurveda and MVAH that I've ever seen attributes disease to an imbalance in the doshas, which the article discusses. Plus, it's disruptive to be adding this to the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"...malady causing demons" from Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 1988 43(1) pgs 99-100; Demons and Demonology in the Vedic Period by Jerrah Sawatsky (April 2006); "... Therefore an astrologer must not only understand which planets cause disease ..." from An Introduction to Vedic Astrology by Howard Beckman. There are many, many more. For what it's worth, I didn't put it in the article, merely elevated it into the synopsis in the lead. Newt ^(winkle) 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Newt, but these are quotes on Ayurved, not Maharishi's Vedic Approach to Health, which is the topic of this article. --BwB (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ayurved is part of MVAH, but the sentence specifically says that MVAH holds these views, so the source should say the same thing. I think we should probably have a short paragraph summarizing Ayurvedic beliefs, and this asseriton might fit into that.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you guys seem to have it well in hand so I'll leave you to it. Newt ^(winkle) 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sharma research

There's a paragraph criticizing the research of Sharma but no material in the article about the research by Sharma on herbal products. Could we move this to the Talk page until such material is added? It's odd to criticize something that's not represented in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Timid I understand your point that but am reluctant to remove sourced copy. At the same time I see your point, that the current situation is unbalanced and may indicate some biased editing. So with these two points in mind, my alternative suggestion is to put a POV tag there until editors can add the research in question and create balance in the section. Any thoughts from others?-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a valid suggestion, Kb. --BwB (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sharma is cited 12 times and mentioned repeatedly by name. I think he is already well-represented in the article. Do folks think that a special section devoted just to his research is needed? Are there enough secondary sources that discuss it to allow us to have an NPOV seciton on his work?   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sharma has conducted many studies on MAV and written a few books on the topic so we should take that into consideration. I think the main concern here is not to create a special section but to have balanced representation of his research wherever it appears. I think that is the main point Timid is making and I support that sentiment. However, mabye Timid can tell us exactly what paragraph he is talking about so we can zero in on this and figure it out.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any secondary sources that discuss the research, other than what we alreay have?   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sharma has done about a half dozen lab animal and in vitro studies published in major academic journals showing that Amrit Kalash may be a treatment for cancer. The article contains criticism of these studies but doesn't give any detail about them. These are studies published in major academic journals. I think it's a violation of NPOV to have a paragraph criticizing these studies but not have any detail about the studies. TimidGuy (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add the studies if you have them, Timid. --BwB (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The one paragraph which mentions one of the studies gives some detail along with the criticism. We should avoid giving excess weight to studies performed by involved researchers.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I looked up the Goldman criticism and found that it was specifically mentioning two in vitro studies, so my feeling is that it had been too generally characterized and I made it more specific and mentioned the topic of those studies. There's actually quite a bit of research on Amrit Kalash not done by Sharma. I'll try to find time to add a few. TimidGuy (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Humber volume incorrectly cited

Okay, so maybe no one else will fix this, but at least this will be sort of a public to do list. The Humber book is a collection of articles by separate authors. The two pages that are cited some 5 times in this article are from an article by Stephen Barrett. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Timid. I was wondering about that myself. Do we know anything about Barrett? --BwB (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix it. The book seems to have several references to TM-related treatments. Wikipedia has a biography of Stephen Barrett.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NY Times on heavy metals

This balanced article gives different points of view. Only one view is represented in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What viewpoint do you think is omitted? KBob and I went over this material in considerable detail a little more than a month ago, and while I am always of the opinion that any article can be improved, I believe that it represents a neutral presentation of the current controversy over heavy metals in some MAV products that fairly and accurately represents MAPI's positions on the issues. Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kbob put in exactly the material I had in mind. TimidGuy (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit about heavy metals in Ayurveda. Heavy metals are still administered for some maladies. It's traditional medicine. Eighteenth century Italian Giacomo Casanova took mercury for his 'hmm' infections, with apparent success. So the use of heavy metals in remedies isn't just an Indian concept.   Will Beback  talk  09:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. Apparently India has a law that such products can't be sold outside India. Should we find a source and add that? TimidGuy (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That'd be an odd law. However unless the law mentions MVAH or Ayurveda it might not be relevant to this article. There's also a discussion of heavy metals in Ayurveda, so that law may be relevant there.   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Gem Light Therapy

This section has only one citation with no web link and no details about the article, author cited etc. In addition the citation appears to be from a primary source with no secondary source to support it. Also does the source say that GLT is part of MVAH? If not, then this text probably should not be in the article. First step is to get some clear sources then we can evaluate from there. thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I found the details of the source in the Ref section and the article does say that GLT is part of MAV. So this is OK, but can we get a secondary source to support?-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Twenty Components of MVAH

There have been many edits surrounding this section so I thought to bring it here for discussion. The source is valid and the information deserves inclusion but how should it be presented? Such an extended quote should at least be identified as to its source and its author. But we also should consider: Is Barret such and outstanding scholar on MVAH/MAV that we need to give him such an extended quote? Could the information be summarized? Could it be merged with like information from other sources to create a more well complete view of the components? Comments, suggestions?-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the material is a listing, I don't see how it could be paraphrased or summarized. It was originally attributed and I think it should be, like any quote.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

When I added this material, I paraphrased it and inserted it as a list of the 20 components. Olive changed it to a quote; you corrected various transcription errors in the quote, and Will has now appropriately put it in block quotes per the WP:MOS. I thought at the time I inserted the material that a list would be preferable in an encyclopedia article because it is easier to read than either a quote or a paraphrase in regular text. I still think that a list would be prefereable. If the list is too long because of scrolling issues, we could put it in a table to save space.Fladrif (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A long standing principle on WP is that prose lists are preferable to bullet lists. However it's widely ignored.   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Think a "prose list" is much preferable than block quotes. --BwB (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are two different issues. The reason it's formatted as blockquote is that it's a quotation and it's over four lines long. Unless we can find a reasonable way of reqording the entire thing it seems best to leave it as a quotation. What's your objection to having it as a blockquote?   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

esthetics. --BwB (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several elements of the WP manual of style that seem odd, but unless there's an overriding reason we should follow it. BTW, why was the "Other sound therapies" section reformatted?[17]   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Though it looked better and easier to understand in the new format. Not attached if other feel to change it. --BwB (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is that the list or quote be properly attributed as I believe there are a variety of versions of what are the components of MVAH.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the previous, attributed version.   Will Beback  talk  04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Professional training

Doesn't the MUM provide professional training too? Any other institutions of note?   Will Beback  talk  09:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been quite a number of changes to the MUM curriculum over the years, and off the top of my head I don't recall where it stands now. I know training is still offered in the undergraduate major in physiology & health, but I'd have to check to see whether it's still a certification program. And would have to research to see if other institutions offer it. I doubt that's the case in the U.S. TimidGuy (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Saper

The Saper entry in the References section seems to be missing. I don't have time now to fix it, since I gotta run and won't be back until tomorrow. Here's the bibliographic info and link:

• JAMA. 2004;292:2868-2873
• Saper, et al, Heavy Metal Content of Ayurvedic Herbal Medicine Products
• http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/23/2868

In case someone else wants to fix. TimidGuy (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the wrong one. That ref is to the 2004 study of heavy metals in ayurvedic products sold in the Boston Area. The Saper article cited in this article is the 2008 study of heavy metals in ayurvedic product sold over the internet.

JAMA. 2008;300(8):915-923

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/8/915 Fladrif (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fixing the refs. I'll add both papers and we can figure out which one to cite.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are we adding the 2004 study? It didn't include any MAPI products. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume because Will was following your post which created this section and incorrectly cited the 2004 Saper study instead of the 2008 Saper study. Will tried to fix the reference following your citation, before I realized that you had posted the wrong reference. So, I guess you need to ask yourself, not Will, why were you citing the wrong study? Fladrif (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. My mistake. Working too quickly too early in the morning. Thanks, guys. TimidGuy (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Spam Sources

The self-published references by various official MVAH websites are unapologetic advertisements for MAV products and services. Per Olive's comments in one of the other TM Movement articles, these are inappropriate as sources, and should be removed and resourced with independent, or if not independent, at least non-spam sites. Fladrif (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the MVAH website are used as sources for their own assertions, which is appropriate. I don't see anything "spam"-like about them, though they are commercial sites.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think they can be used under Wiki's rules for primary sources but we should avoid commercial web sites whenever possible and if we have to use them then for sure, avoid web pages where actual products are being sold (ie price is mentioned) as that would be spam for sure. I think we are doing that so far. Fladrif if you have specific examples of links please list them here and we can evaluate them and/or look for substitutes that are non or less commercial.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NCCAM Study

TimidGuy added a quote, I assume to "balance" that entery: "The report also said that 'There is evidence to suggest that the single herbs Coccinia indica, holy basil, fenugreek, and Gymnema sylvestre and the herbal formulas Ayush-82 and D-400 have a glucose-lowering effect and deserve further study.'" As near as I can tell, having done several different searches, MAPI does not sell the single herbs nor the formulas Ayush-82 or D-400. I am taking this out on the basis that this statement is unrelated to the products the MAPI sells. If I am mistaken about that, correct me with a citation showing that MAPI sells these products, and feel free to reinsert it. Fladrif (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Your edit to delete the above mentioned sentence would make sense, if the study was about MAPI products, but it isn't. The study and the paragraph in the article is about, Ayurveda and diabetes, and in that context it doesn't matter whether MAPI sells those exact herbs or not because those herbs are part of the study's report and are just as relevant or irrelevant as the other findings. What to other editors think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There were no MVAH studies in the review, so it's not clear why this is in the article at all. If the argument is that something about ayurveda in general is relevant to this article, then the material that was deleted should be included. So my feeling is that either we delete the whole thing or also include the positive finding. TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If not about MVAH, then let's remove it altogether. --BwB (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Ayurveda in general would be included in this article, but I may have missed some more more discussion on this.(olive (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

The article extensively discusses a particular form of ayurveda, so it makes sense to give a brief background on ayurvbeda in general. But I don't think this material is it.   Will Beback  talk  03:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue of single herbs, Maharishi Ayurveda Products produces and sells "herb teas" made of single ingredients.[18] For example, fenugreek is listed, but they don't mention anything about diabetes.   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The main point is 1) If the study does specifically mention MVAH or MAV or MAPI, then why is it in the article? 2) If it is going to be in the article then we shouldn't disallow certain content from the study because MAPI doesn't sell those particular herbs in a single ingredient product. That is the main point coming from me and I think also from Olive and Timid.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

References in lede

In the lede we have the sentence: "It aims to restore balance in the physiology, eliminate toxins and impurities, and awaken the body's natural healing mechanisms, according to Nancy Lonsdorf, Medical Director of The Raj Ayurveda Health Center in Vedic City, Iowa." Is it necessary to qualify this sentence? Can we not simply state that "It aims to restore balance in the physiology, eliminate toxins and impurities, and awaken the body's natural healing mechanisms."? --BwB (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We can move the attribution to where we discuss this in the text. I'm not sure where that is. "Principles"?   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it would be good to move the attribution out of the lead.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume folks would also favor removing the attribution from the last paragraph of the intro.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No I favor removing the entire last paragraph from the lead.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why?   Will Beback  talk  03:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Takes up One Third of the Lead

There are seven sections in the article. Shall we have a summary for each section in the lead? If not then why is a detailed summary of the Controversy section taking up a third of the space there?

The relative paragraph/line/word/character/whatever count of the "controversy" party the lede would appear to reflect with reasonable ct the relative paragraph/line/word/character/whatever count of the article as a whole. Counting sections would be a more artificial and misleading construct, as many of the sections consist of no more than a couple of sentences. On a substantive note, are you concerned that devoting approximately one-third of an article about a brand of alternative medicine that diagnoses through astrological charts and pulses, prescribes compounds that deliberately include heavy metals, and whose contents it will not disclose even to researchers, charges tens of thousands of dollars for sacrifices and rituals to be performed half a world away on Hindu High Holy Days, has had high-ranking officials expelled from the British Medical Society, and had other high ranking officials , and have others prescribe chanting to cure leukemia and a host of other deadly illnesses, and yet others misleading the American Medical Society to get their papers published places undue weight on the negative stuff? Fladrif (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

An agreement/consensus was reached between Olive and Will [19] on an appropriate summary for the lede. I assume the editor /editors who added the present part of the lede were not aware of the discussion. I would think then, that this discussion should be open again since the addition was a non consensus addition that followed on the heels of discussion and an agreement.

To reiterate a point:The controversy section in the article would seem to violate undue weight since it references 4 controversial situations per the multiple modalities /organizations/ products offered by MVAH. Yet the section is at least 1/3 of the article long. The argument that the lead correctly summarizes this section is based on the premise that the controversy section is itself appropriate in length and weight, possibly a false premise.

As well, we could characterize the MVAH as Fladrif has done. That is his take on it, but we could also flip that and characterize it in a positive way. Both would be opinion. We need to agree the content of the section is of an appropriate weight/length per the article topic, make sure the rest of the article is sufficiently developed, then based on those outcomes, come to an understanding and agreement on the lead. (olive (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Has the lead changed significantly recently? In general, the article should contain all significant points of view. Devoting lots of space to one point of view doesn't automatically mean that it is the predominant view. I think the lead is fine for the time being.   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead has changed significantly since the version you put in place and I compromised on. So, you've changed your mind?

The lead reflects the controversies section and the controversies section violates WP:Weight. Is this a concern?

Per WP:Weight :

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

(olive (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I disagree that the "controversy" section has undue weight.   Will Beback  talk  05:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, when you skip sentences it becomes unclear whether the sentence is part of your post or an unsigned comment. Could those involved please look at the above comments and make it more clear who is saying what? Thanks a bunch,-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what we decide about whether or not the Controversy section has too much weight for the article overall, I think it is very obvious and common sense that the Controversy section being only one of eight sections in the article should not take up a third of the lead. These are details from other parts of the article that were elevated to the lead and gives undue weight. That is my main point. In addition the Controversy section also responses to JAMA etc. Would you like to include those in the lead as well? -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I just read the lead in this article and I too find that the section about heavy metals is inappropriately long, to say the least, and indeed it probably should not be there at all: It s not introductory material, it is one very specific topic, one among many. I came across a very similar situation in an article I was editing some time ago. There was information that an editor felt was very important which he had added to the introductory paragraph; others did not want it there and removed it. Rather than eliminating it altogether, we placed it elsewhere in the article, which satisfied most editors. I think a similar solution is called for here: We could remove the section on metals in the introductory lead, or simply reduce it to one sentence or so. There is another section devoted to this topic which can accommodate the necessary information.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Luke. It is nice to see your experience on other Wiki articles. Your suggestion seems valid. --BwB (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bigweeboy, hopefully this will resolve the issue, and I would like to know what the others think, too..--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The number of sections devoted to various sections is not directly related to their weight or to the weight that issues should receive in the lead. If we split the "controversies" section into three sections would that triple the amount of weight it should received? If we join two section would that halve its weight? Someone just moved the heavy metals issue to another section - that's fine but it's still a controversy regardless of where it is in the article. Further, there aren't eight sections of material, there are five plus the lead. The notes, references, and external links aren't reflected in the lead so they don't count.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gandharva veda

In the Other Sound section we have this new sentence "In fact, Gandharva Veda is simply North Indian classical music, which has Islamic rather than Vedic roots." My understanding was that GV is a branch of the Vedic Lit, somehow connected to Sama Veda. Perhaps others may know more about this? --BwB (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you read the references? It's right in there. Your understanding is "OR". And while we're at it, do not delete reliably-sourced, verifiable material claiming that you're correcting a "POV" problem. If a reliable, verifiable source expresses a relevant POV on an issue, it is our job to accurately and neutrally reflect and summarize it. Your deletion reflects a complete misunderstanding and misapplication of the policies you're claiming to be applyingFladrif (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fladrif that the sources specifies MGV even though the quote does not and is therefore valid. At the same time I would encourage Fladrif to excercise patience with his fellow editors as we all make mistakes sometimes.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake Flad in such a loving, supportive and encouraging way. --BwB (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

MAK-4 and MAK-5

• The original Maharishi Ayurveda product is Maharishi Amrit Kalash (MAK), a two-part herbal formula referred to in many research studies as MAK-4 and MAK-5.

Are there other names that are used outside of research? Since the research is discussed in books and on many websites, the line between research and other references seems blurry. Is there a reason to label those names as research terms?   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

An official website[20] refers to:

• MAK Nectar Paste & Ambrosia tablets (MA4&5)
• MAK Nectar & Ambrosia tablets (MA7&5)
• MAK Nectar Paste (MA4)
• MAK MA7 Nectar Sugar Free Tablets
• MAK Ambrosia Tablets (MA5)

MA4 is not quite the same as MAK4. They seem to use"MA" as a prefix for a serial number to distinguish different products.

• Rasayana for Women (MA3347)
• Triphala with Rose tablets (MA505)

I'm not sure what to make of this exactly, but it appears that "4" and "5" are internal codes used to refer to the MAK products. Also, it appears that one is called "Nectar" and the other is "Ambrosia".   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are two commerical sites that use "MAK-4" and "MAK-5".[21][22]   Will Beback  talk  05:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned in the Horner text, there are two parts to MAK, and on the MAV webs sites they call them Ambrsia and Nectar and yes, those are the codes used in the process of ordering the product on mail order websites. These same codes were adopted by researchers as an objective and specific term for their research. This half sentence under discussion, was originally placed by me in the section where it related directly to the topic of research and was backed up by a corresponding citation. The words were taken almost verbatim from the source. I think its most valuable to the reader to place this phrase back where I originally had it and was cited by Horner. By the way, Happy Thanksgiving! -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Honr just says their referred to as Mak-4 and Mak-5, not that they're referred to that way in research. Happy Thanksgiving.   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Horner has a section in her book called Amrit Kalash, pages 117 thru 119. In the first two paragraphs she mentions Maharishi Amrit Kalash several times and never says MAK-4 or MAK-5. It is only in the later paragraphs, on the research, that she begins to use the terms MAK-4 and MAK-5 which she introduces by saying near the beginning of the third paragraph on research: "Maharishi Amrit Kalash is actually a two part formula referred to as MAK-4 and MAK-5. In these studies the two compounds were studied individually and together". [23] She only uses those terms when discussing the research. Other sources likewise use these terms MAK-4 etc only in the context of the research, not in any general discussion. [24][25][26]-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this such an issue? Other than researchers, who else writes about MAK?   Will Beback  talk  07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Its an issue because I carefully placed these terms in a way and in a sentence that clearly reflected the source. This is the most accurate and reader friendly way to introduce the terms. Why do you insist on using them as general terms when it is clear they are catalog numbers which have been adopted for use for research studies?-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me try again. I ate too much turkey......This is your thread and if you are ready to drop the topic I am also. At the present time I am OK with the way the terms MAK-4 and MAK-5 are introduced in the article. Can we just leave it at that? Peace.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is "in many research studies". That seems to be OR, because it's not in the source as you worded it. If we're going to say it we should add that they are also called that on websites that sell them. I think it'd be easier just to list their various names. "... a two-part herbal formula referred to as nectar and ambrosia or MAK-4 and MAK-5." That is true and relevant. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, good suggestion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Distinction Between MAV and Traditional Ayurveda

This is an important topic that has come up in multiple discussions above so I thought to dedicate a thread to the discussion here. My contention is that MVAH/MAV is a derivative of traditional Ayurveda and though it has many common aspects it also has many which are unique which therefore makes it a unique version or interpretation of Ayurveda. Therefore, it is my opinion, that sources that doe not specify MVAH or MAV do not belong in this article and should be put instead in the Wiki article on Ayurveda. I support my opinion, that MAV is unique, by the following quotes from the Modern and Global Ayurveda book which discusses MAV at length and has already been used as a citation numerous times in this article.

• “I indicate where his [Maharishi’s] organization accords with other Ayurveda programs and where it differs.” p. 310
• In MAV “less attractive aspects of traditional Ayurveda are conveniently omitted.” p.310
• “MAV constitutes a whole complex of approaches to health that may include meditation, pulse diagnosis, purification techniques, yoga, music therapy, aromatherapy and of course herbal remedies.” p. 318
• “A final innovation in MAV occurred a the hand of Dr. Anthony Nader, who is credited on the Maharishi Web sites as “the worlds foremost neuroscientist, who discovered that the human physiology is a direct, material reflection of the field of consciousness, the field traditionally known as the Veda, which is the language of modern physics is the Unified Field of all the laws of nature”. p. 318
• “This discovery is at the base of one of the newest services in MAV: MVVT, a service that promises “to awaken the body’s own intelligence” to relieve chronic disorders.” p.319
• “By Maharishi Ayur-Veda, or MAV, I refer to Maharishi’s interpretation and line of products and services deriving from the indigenous Indic health tradition.” p.326[27]-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like there is enough material for a section on the differences and similarities between Maharishi Ayurveda and Ayurveda.   Will Beback  talk  07:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will. We can have a section that compares and contrasts MVAH and traditional AV. However, I agree with Kbob that we should not just put any material that is not specifically about MAV. --BwB (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I like things kept simple. If this article is about Maharishi Ayurveda, that it is what it should talk about. There are other Wikipedia articles about Ayurveda in general.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If Maharishi Ayurveda is the same as Ayurveda then we should say so. If it's different then we should say so and describe the differences. That's simple.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Positive Thoughts Section??

[Positive thoughts---Deepak Chopra, founding president of Maharishi Ayur-Veda Products International, Inc (MAPI), the American Association of Ayurvedic Medicine and former medical director of the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center for Stress Management and Behavioral Medicine, has stated that "If you have happy thoughts, then you make happy molecules. On the other hand, if you have sad thoughts, and angry thoughts, and hostile thoughts, then you make those molecules which may depress the immune system and make you more susceptible to disease."] I have several issues with this Positive Thoughts section.

• Over the years Deepak Chopra has held many titles in the past and present, why have we cherry picked these titles which he no longer holds?
• Did Chopra make these comments while he held one of the MAV titles he is attributed?
• Does the source specifically state that Chopra made these comments in reference to MAV?
• Positive Thoughts is listed as a subsection under Components. Does any source verify positive thoughts as a component of MVAH/MAV?

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed the existing thread in this page about the Chopra material. I'll re-post my last comment, as it may address some of your issues:

Checking the original source,[28] I see that Chopra's comments are cited to a 1992 audiotape titled "On Creating Health", published by MAPI. Since Chopra was an official of the MAPI, and since it was published by MAPI, it seems like a suitable soiurce for the views of MAPI.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Chopra was employed as the head of MAPI, and since his remarks were published by MAPI, it seems relevant to MAPI/MA.   Will Beback  talk  07:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One problem with this is that the tape is no longer available, so it's impossible to give any context for this. Chopra may have cited the research that shows that our thoughts influence our biochemistry. The placebo effect, for example, isn't something imagined: there are actual changes in the physiology. Maybe we should have a Mind/Body subhead and give more context, perhaps including material from one of Chopra's early books. TimidGuy (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Our source is the book, which places the material in the same section as the discussion of MA. If Chopra has written about MA elsewhere then those would be good sources too.   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, Will, thanks for clarifying about the source and for doing that research. That will be fine as long as you can cite it in the article. Assuming you can, I still question that Positive Thoughts is a Component of MAV. So maybe we should move these two sentences to some more appropriate place in the article. Thanks for your help.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections I would like to move the Positive Thoughts paragraph to the Principles section. Since there is no indication from any sources that PT is a component like Herbal products, Sthapatya Veda, Panchakarma,Vedic Astrology etc. I am having 'positive thoughts' that no one will object. :-) -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Keithbob asked above, Positive Thoughts is listed as a subsection under Components. Does any source verify positive thoughts as a component of MVAH/MAV?

Complementary medicine in clinical practice, by David Rakel and Nancy Faass, p. 168,[29] includes a comparison of traditional ayurveda and maharishi ayurveda. One of those differences is that maharishi ayurveda "believes in the importance of positive emotions." While thoughts and emotions are different things, in this context I think it's reasonable to view them as the same concept. More broadly, that source would be good for the section on the differences between the two types of ayurveda.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I Question this Statement

• "While TM and other relaxation techniques may temporarily relieve stress, the balance of these claims have no scientific basis."

In light of the hundreds of studies, this kind of a sweeping claim, given without any context or identity, seems inappropriate. It is sourced to Barret but no page number is given. Could the editor who included this text in the article please supply a page number so we can see who and when this statement was made? Thanks so much.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a very short chapter, KBob. You can use the search function within Google Books. But for you, because you asked so nicely, pp 12-13.[30]Fladrif (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the statement is controversial, it should be added in the MVAH article in context of the book's chapter, and with in line author attribution. (olive (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Hi Fladrif, thanks for the page numbers. I had already gone to Google books and searched the book for TM and was given several references throughout the book, not just in one chapter. After a scanning those pages and not seeing the quote, I decided to ask for help. So thanks again.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read page 12 and there is no reference to TM and other relaxation techniques having no scientific basis. So I guess that must be on page 13 which cannot be accessed since it is a limited preview. So I am just going to assume the text is there on page 13 and is accurately summarized in this Wiki article. I would like, however, to move the sentence to the TM section and out of the Components introduction section and also attribute the text to Barrett as Olive has suggested. Is that OK with everyone?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kbob. I believe the source is saying that TM and other relaxation techniques do have short term effects, but the other claims made by Chopra have no scientific basis. So the source ... and I can see page 13 for some reason...is not referring to TM. The line should probably be moved to the "Positive thoughts" section and given context. I could do it later today. (olive (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

From pg 13 - "Meditation may temporarily relieve stress - as would many types of relaxation techniques- but the rest of these claims [referring to Chopra's claims} have no scientific basis"

OK, I already moved it to the TM subsection. Since you are the one who actually has access to the source page I will let you make any adjustments that seem appropriate. thanks,-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's specifically related to Chopra's positive thoughts claim, so I moved it to that section. TimidGuy (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I moved it with no changes to the Principles section since it is a static and conceptual principle rather than a component action or practice like pulse diagnosis, vedic astrology, panchakarma treatments, taking herbal preparations etc. Thanks everyone for your help.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved Heavy Metals to MA Products section

I moved the Heavy Metals out of the controversy section and into the MA products section. I hope there are no objections.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the purpose of doing so? Should we move all of the "controversy" material into other places in the article?   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally Wiki prefers criticism etc to be incorporated into the article in pertinent locations. WP:CRIT In the case of the Heavy Metals it was all directly related to the MA herbal products so I put it there. Some of the other items in the controversy section we may involve a couple of different aspects of MVAH and may not be so difficult to assign. so it just depends on the relevance to a section. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, so long as folks don't turn around and say that the "controversy" section is small therefore it shouldn't be in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  10:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How references work?

I am still a bit of a novice on Wiki when it comes to references and how they work. In looking thru the article I see that there are some references that seem to go nowhere. For example, when you click on ref [3] you get to another ref that reads "# ^ Reddy & Egenes 2002" but when you click on it, it goes nowhere. The edit text reads "". Can someone please explain how this is supposed to work and how to fix it so it does? Many thank. --BwB (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This dual layered style of Refs and Notes is also new to me. But the Notes are in alphabetical order by author and the Ref you cite above is in the notes section under Reddy

• Reddy, Kumuda; Egenes, Linda (2002). Conquering Chronic Disease Through Maharishi Vedic Medicine. Newyork: Lantern Books. pp. 10. ISBN 978-1-930051-55-3.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When it works, it's great. When it doesn't work you have to scroll down manually. The {citation} template works more reliably, and when this article becomes stable I'll convert them.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This specif ref does not work in the way other do. What is the problem? --BwB (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Organization of article

I reorganized slightly so that the more common and widely known and notable components come earlier in the article. I think it's important, for example, to have the herb material before the Jyotish material. Otherwise it skews the article toward a more peripheral facet of MVAH. Relative prominence can be determined via a search in Google News archives, with 42 results just for the single herbal formula Amrit Kalash but only 8 results for Maharishi Jyotish. TimidGuy (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to add a paragraph for each study then we should spin that material out into a separate article or something. Otherwise we're giving excess weight to obscure studies conducted mostly by a small number of researchers.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why folks keep renaming the "Maharishi Ayurveda Products" to "Herbal products". From the reports they contain more than just herbs.   Will Beback  talk  12:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do it this last time, but normally we don't repeat the topic name in the sub headings. So we should say Products and leave out Maha AV. And since only herbal products are discussed in the section it would seem that Herbal Products is the most descriptive and accurate title for the section.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing that rule. The topic of the article is "Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health", and we don't repeat that in the headings. MAK is not a purely herbal product, unless we consider fruit to be herbs.   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It says in the first sentence: MVAH also known as MAV. Secondly, yes I would consider Indian Gooseberry to be an herbal fruit. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Does MAV=MAP? What is an "herbal fruit"? I've never heard of such a thing.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To avoid confusion now and in the future of editing this page, and for the sake of simplicity , I would suggest we use herbal to mean herbs in the generally accepted sense of the terms, and fruit to mean fruit. So, an Indian Gooseberry would be a fruit/berry. (Unless we have a source that actually calls these items herbal fruits.) I see that Bob may be referring to the actual bottled products which although they may contain fruit are called herbal supplements. That does create a little difficulty in naming. (olive (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

The section deals with MAP, so I don't understand the objection to using that as the section heading. The title of the article is "Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health", so there's no duplication.   Will Beback  talk  09:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And in the section on health centers should we use the title 'Maharishi Ayurveda Health Centers'? It sounds kind of commercial and repetitive to me. What to others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is their name then that's what we should call them.   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Attribution Overload

It's my opinion that the attribution of statements of fact: "According to X, Y is the case" has gotten completely out of hand in these articles. The recent addition attributing to Barrett the statement that the Vedas held that most disease was the product of demons and planetary influences is just the latest example. It isn't Barrett's opinion; it's a fact. The statement is doubly sourced. And then there is a similar attribution to Barrett of Chopra's statements on positive thoughts. I know of no other articles in Wikipedia where the editors have gone to the extremes the editors in these TM-related articles have gone to include these kinds of attribution disclaimers to nearly every statement of mundane fact. It is inappropriate, and appears to be intended to call into question the veracity of the statements being made. I've complained about this before. Are we going to start saying "According to Joe Blow at Newsweek, the sun rises in the East?", because that is the direction this seems to be heading. Fladrif (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted KBob's addition because the source says no such thing. Perhaps I am looking at the wrong source, but a search of this book doesn't appear to say anything about the Vedas, particularly not on p 170 If I am looking at the wrong source, point me to the right place. But, even more to the point, no-one can seriously contend that the Vedas did not attribute disease to demons. Just a cursory search in Google Books of +Vedas +disease +demons gets 615 hits, Google Scholar 2,920 hits; it any one of them at random.Fladrif (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point Fladrif. This comes up when text is contentious or controversial. An attribution specifically cites the source thereby alerting the reader that this may not be a universally accepted fact by all scholars, experts or authors on the topic. The point about the Vedas and demons is as good example as it is not universally held as demonstrated by the text I added today from two authors who say that the disease and demons approach is not of the Vedas, but something prior. So there seems to be differences among the scholars on this. Depending on the article we might want to say 'according to Joe at Newsweek, the sun rises in the East' because others would say the Sun does not rise anywhere, but rather the Earth revolves.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Except, the source you cited doesn't say that. Moreover, assuming that you've accurately paraphrased whatever source you are looking at, and that I am looking at the wrong reference, if the demon theory of disease predates the Vedas, that does not negate the fact that the Vedas attribute disease to demons. Fladrif (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

None can claim with a straight face that the Atharva Veda does not attribute disease to demons. [31] And, if they did contend that, why should they be taken seriously or their views, most charitably described as "fringe", and less so as simply "wrong" be given any currency in an encyclopedia article?Fladrif (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Due to a glitch with Google Books the wrong book title and author was being displayed on my screen. I have now added the sentence you reverted with the correct citation.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That explains the problem with the citation. Thanks for the correction. Now, what about my point that the text you quote in no way contradicts that the Vedas attributed disease to demons and planetary influences? Nowhere in the book you cited do the authors deny that fact. So, what is the point of the added text? MAV claims to be a revival of authentic Vedic medicine, so what the Vedas say about the cause of disease is relevant to this article, but what exactly do you see as the relevance of pre-Vedic medical beliefs and practices?Fladrif (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that, rather than answer my question, the passage has been edited to falsely suggest that the authors contended that belief in the demon cause of disease ceased with the Vedas. I does not say that. It does not even remotely imply that. And, since whatever pre-Vedic civilizations thought was the cause of disease is entirely irrelevant to the article, and you have provided no rationale whatsoever for inclusion of this sentence, I've deleted it.Fladrif (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Attribution is a good thing, but simply placing a name with no identifying information is not helpful. In some cases it'd be better to identify the the authors by their roles, or by the name and position. So either "A study by a professor of health at UNP found..." or "Joe Smith, who has conducted over 100 studies on MVAH, conducted a 1999 study which found..."   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In most cases we are citing an author of a book or news article. So we could also cite the author's name and then the book title or name of the news source as well.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The name of the author means little unless the person is notable. Their qualifications or connections to the topic are what help the reader understand the source of the assertion.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with all of the comments above, somewhat. What it comes down to is common sense. If it helps the reader, include it, if not don't. If its a neutral contextual addition, then again include it, if not, don't. What helps the reader is of course open to editorial opinion. The discussion here is good though, and helps clarify.(olive (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Move and rename Principles section

Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health comprises a broad range of modalities, of which Maharishi Ayurveda is one. The Principles section focuses exclusively on Maharishi Ayurveda and its background. And the discussion of the four Vedas is tangential to this article. I suggest we move Principles after Components, which is more directly relevant. I suggest that we rename Principles to Origins of Ayurveda and its relationship to Maharishi Ayurveda. I think I'll go ahead and make this change. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of content on Ayurveda that is not specifically related to Maharishi Ayur-veda in the sources borders on OR. This is probably the only way its legitimate to have this kind of content in this article , so I would agree with TG's move of material to a new section, although i'm not convinced that the content on AyurVeda is appropriate at all per WP:OR.(olive (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

What is the nature of the OR?   Will Beback  talk  20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Decisions were made by consulting outside experts

Fladrif, there is nothing in this passage in the article that suggests that decisions regarding what services and products to offer were made by consulting outside experts. The passage suggests just the opposite -- that treatments were selected and that consultants wondered whether the American public was ready for them. Please tell me exactly what in the passage says that the consultants had anything to do with deciding what was offered. TimidGuy (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that the product the consultants didn't think would sell is in fact Amrit Kalash. The doctors ignored the advice that it wouldn't sell. The only disagreement shown is the consultants suggesting that something other than what MVAH was offering would be better. TimidGuy (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Flad is right. I read "fresh juice" as fruit juice. Apologies.(olive (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

What is the source for this? The citation says "Pettus, p 30", but the only Pettus I see is an article in New York Magazine, and it doesn't include page 30 nor does it mention anything about juice. Is there an error somewhere or am I missing something?   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the source you can back space on the page numbers at the top until you get to page thirty... there you'll find the context for this addition.... fresh- juice program is mentioned as more marketable than more trad. Ayurveda remedies. Anyway, that should get you to the page.(olive (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks - found it.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourced text on Vedas and Demons

Fladrif, this is the 2nd time you have reverted my reliably sourced text with direct quotes from the source. If you feel there is a problem than please examine the source and then state your case here, with direct reference to the source so we can discuss. I purposely quoted directly from the source for accuracy as I know this point is contentious with you. I'm not sure what objection you have, but let's discuss it. Thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a direct quote. You've deliberately changed the meaning of the sentence, and you know it. It is also utterly irrelevant to this article. I have stated my case here, twice, and you have offered no explanation whatsoever (i) as to why you think this sentence means that the Vedas do not attribute disease to demons and planetery influences or (ii) why pre-Vedic beliefs are relevant to this article. Fladrif (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we try to find points of agreement. Do we all agree that the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health is derived from the Vedas?   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it was or not, but that's the claim made by the Maharishi and by the TM-Movement web sites, so who am I to question that?Fladrif (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, you have once again deleted this sourced text. This is three times now you have reverted or deleted my reliably sourced text which consists of quotes directly from the source. After reviewing the source please demonstrate here, in writing, by directly quoting the source, to demonstrate your objection. The we can discuss it. So far you have done nothing but insist you are right and then revert and delete.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If the source specifically makes reference to MVAH and the Vedas we can use it in the article, if not we can't per WP:OR. The Zysk source as far as I can see does not mention MAV, and only discusses the Vedas. We can't use it, and it should be removed. The Barrett source is ambiguous and some of our concerns and discussion may be based on that ambiguity. When I read the Barrett source I read the first line , this " Ayurvedic medicine is set of practices promoted by proponents of transcendental mediation (TM)... " to be obvious and to connect AV and MVA. The second line I took to be a further explanation of Ayurveda, but not of MAV. The author says," Ayur Veda... is a traditional Indian approach."' The lines on demons is part of this section of the chapter so i took it to be connected to Ayurveda and not MAV. To use it then would be OR again. However, I assume that others took the second and ensuing lines to be referring to MAV, in which case it could be used.I can't see Kbob's source so I don't know what the connection is... It may or may not be referencing the Vedas and MAV. I'm not sure how to solve the problem associated with a couple of different readings of the source except to remove for sure the Zysk source, and probably just remove both Kbob's source and the Barrett source. The connection of the Vedas is tangential at best so i don't think there would be any real loss of information to the topic of the article. My thought anyway. What does everyone else think? (olive (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I don't understand why this is in the article at all. Barrett explicitly says that it's related to the four Vedas. He doesn't say that it's a belief or principle of Ayurveda. TimidGuy (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

KBob, your intellectual dishonesty on this is simply staggering. I have clearly stated my objections: (i) The statement in the source, which reads in its entirety: "Prior to the Vedas diseases were believed to be the result of possession by various demon entities." has a completely different meaning from your sentence: "it is 'prior to the Vedas' that 'diseases were believed to be the result of possession by various demon entities'. You have deliberately changed the meaning of the sentence, for the purpose, judging from your comments above, to assert the POV, supported by no source whatsoever, that the Vedas do not attribute disease to demons and planetary influences; (ii) the statement does not support the view that you wish to assert; it does not state that the Vedas do not attribute disease to such sources; (iii) a review of not only the available literature commenting on the Vedas, but also of the the text of the Vedas themselves, shows that your view is not held by any reliable published source, and is directly contradicted by the original text; (iv) what views were held prior to the Vedas is irrelevant to this article, because MVAH makes no claims to be based on pre-Vedic practices: (v) what the Vedas do say about the cause of disease is relevant to this article, because MVAH claims to be based directly upon and a revival of the teaching of the Vedas, even if it did not explicitly state that disease is attributable to such causes; and (vi) the connection is not original research, because MVAH explicitly attributes disease to planetary influences, it is a central claim of Maharishi Vedic Astrology and a fundamental practice of MVAH; (vii) MVAH also attributes imbalances causing diseases to bhutas (the demons of the Vedas), and it appears to some commenters (Skolnick, eg) that Maharishi Yagyas are sacrifices to Hindu gods to be conducted on religious holidays, to propitiate those gods, strongly suggesting that MVAH continues to follow the demon theory of disease. You have offered no answer whatsoever to any of these points, nor any rationale for why your twisting of this source material is anything other than deliberate mispreresentation to push a POV held by no reliable source whatsoever. Fladrif (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

MAV claims to be based on Ayurveda, which is not one of the four Vedas. The statement about demons and devils is in relationship to the four vedas. TimidGuy (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've cautioned you before, TG, that if you're going to simply make something up, try to make something up which can't be falsified in about 30 seconds using Google. Tony Nader got his weight in gold for what? "Discovering" the correspondence between the 40 parts of the Vedic literature and the body. [32] The Maharishi claimed that MAV revived the original Vedic knowledge.[33] And, what is Ayurveda based on? That would be the Vedic texts, in particular the Arthava Veda, wouldn't it?[34] Try again. Fladrif (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion, and incivility such as accusations of making something up have no place here. Perhaps the pertinent points suggested by TG and Flad could be expanded.(olive (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, what am I making up? Ayurveda isn't one of the four vedas. It's an upaveda, which is indeed part of the Vedic literature. But that doesn't make it one of the four Vedas that Barrett is talking about. His statement is explicitly referencing the four vedas, not Ayurveda. He says Ayurveda traces back to the four vedas, but he doesn't indicate that this statement is somehow saying something about ayurveda. He's making a statement about the four vedas. So why is this in the article, since it's a statement about the four vedas and not ayurveda? He very explicitly says that the ayurvedic understanding of disease revolves around the doshas. TimidGuy (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you contest that Ayurveda is based upon and rooted in the Vedas, in particular the Rig Veda and the Arthava Veda? Do you contest that Ayurveda, even in its later developed stages, attributes many diseases to demons? Do you contest that the Maharishi claimed that MAV was a revival of the original knowledge of the Vedas? Do you contest that Nader was awarded his weight in gold by the Maharisi for, among other things, identifying 40 specific elements of human physiology with 40 specific aspect of the Vedic literature? Isn't the position you are asserting here at complete odds with the entire mythology of the TM-Movement that every aspect of the Maharishi's Science of Creative Intelligence, including all of its theoretical underpinnings and its various technologies and applications, is rooted in and a revivial of the knowledge of the Vedas? If the Vedas are irrelevant to MMY's teachings, products and services, including MAV and MVAH there is a lot of editing and retracting needed to every piece of literature ever to come out of Fairfield and Vlodrop. Fladrif (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ayur Veda is rooted in the Vedic Literature. The Vedic literatiure includes the 4 Vedas, and the four (sometimes considered five) Upa Vedas that are not Vedas, but are separate and auxilliary to the four Vedas. Ayurveda is an Upa Veda.

Whether the Vedas attributes disease to demons or chocolate is not the issue. The issue is whether the source says that MAV attributes disease to "demons". Barrett attributes disease to Ayurveda not Maharishi Ayur-Veda. The logic that; Ayurveda attributes disease to demons, Maharishi AV is based on traditional Ayurveda, therefore MAV must also attribute disease to demons, is faulty logically, and classic WP:OR. Further more, as an aside, and as multiple sources have indicated, Maharishi did not use everything in the traditional Ayurveda. He took some and not other parts as is consistent when an update or reformation or restoration is underway. Unless the source says MAV bases disease on demons its OR, and it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. The source that is a cite for the Vedas and not MAV, the Barrett source, and Kbob's source and addition on demons should be removed. They all violate WP:OR.(olive (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

Under the circumstances I would be happy to compromise and remove all of the text on Vedas and demons (including the text I have placed in the article) since their relevance to the topic is questionable.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Keithbob, as the editor adding the material the onus is on you to justify it. Fladrif says that you are misinterpreting the source. A good way to resolve this would be to post the text that you're summarizing.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And until this is settled, could editors please stop reverting each other? This one sentence, plus or minus, isn't going to break the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not this sentence will not make or break the article, but it does put a "slant" on the article that may misrepresent MVAH, and this is the concern. --BwB (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's not worth edit warring over. If it happens again I'll ask for protection.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not worth an edit war, but we know how Flad and Kbobb love to try an outdo each other. Have a great weekend. --BwB (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, I'm talking about what the source says. He said, "These [four Sanskrit books] attributed most disease and bad luck to demons, devils, and the influence of stars and planets. Ayurveda's basic theory states that the body's functions are regulated by 'three irreducible physiological principles' called the doshas, whose Sanskrit names are vata, pitta, and kapha." He's not saying that ayurveda attributes disease to demons and devils but rather that the four vedas do. So my question is why we're including it in this article. You ask whether I contest that ayurveda attributes many diseases to demons. I don't know. I've never seen a source that says that, and I've never heard of that in Maharishi Ayurveda. As always, I guess it comes down to what the sources say. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the clarity on the source material, Timid. Based on this text, do we have agreement that the material can be removed from the article? --BwB (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's remove the sentence on Vedas and Demons.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. --BwB (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good... and Fald has removed the other content as suggested above that is also non compliant and probably OR. (olive (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

Ayurveda most definitely attributes many diseases to demons. In addition to the sources alrady cited above, see [35][36] [37]. And, as I have ponted out above, Maharishi Ayur-Veda does indeed explicitly attribute some disase-causing imbalances to bhutas - though it is careful not to identify them as demons, which in fact they are in the Vedic literature. [38]. MAV claims to represent the whole of Ayurveda. But, I am willing to let this drop for now.Fladrif (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[39]... more information.(olive (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks everyone for working this out.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Copying abstracts

• According to a study published in Alternative Therapies in Clinical Practice, the effects of "primordial sounds" (Sama Veda, MAV) can be conducive to cell growth when compared to hard rock music (AC/DC, Back in Black). Five human tumor cell lines (lung, colon, brain, breast, and skin) and one normal cell line (fibroblasts) were tested in triplicate for each of an average of four experiments. The recordings of Sama Veda and “Back in Black” were normalized to maintain the same maximum amplitudes, with no significant effect on the results. Primordial sound significantly decreased the average growth across cell lines (p=0.005, ANOVA). In the presence of hard rock music, growth of cells was significantly increased (p=0.03), but the effect was not consistent. It was concluded that sound has an effect on the growth of neoplastic and normal human cells in vitro.[119]

• Sound has an effect on plants and on the human physiology. Cells vibrate dynamically and may transmit information via harmonic wave motions. This study compared the effects of "primordial sounds" (Sama Veda, from the Maharishi Ayurvedaa system of natural health care), or hard rock music (AC/DC, "Back in Black"), and no sound on the growth of cells in culture. Five human tumor cell lines (lung, colon, brain, breast, and skin) and one normal cell line (fibroblasts) were tested in triplicate for each of an average of four experiments. The recordings of Sama Veda and “Back in Black” were normalized to maintain the same maximum amplitudes, with no significant effect on the results. Primordial sound significantly decreased the average growth across cell lines (p=0.005, ANOVA). In the presence of hard rock music, growth of cells was significantly increased (p=0.03), but the effect was not consistent. We conclude that sound has an effect on the growth of neoplastic and normal human cells in vitro

If we want to make the abstracts of studies available to readers then let's just link to them. Let's not copy them verbatim. Doing so is plagiarism, and, since abstracts are generally a paragraph long, it gives undue weight.   Will Beback  talk  04:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I found that extensive copying has been going on here. Plagiarism is a serious breach of Wikipedia standards, and editors have been permanently banned for it. While some times it's hard to avoid re-using a sequence of a few words, copying entire sentences or more is unacceptable.   Will Beback  talk  05:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly new. Much of the "research" material in the TM-related articles, at least on the first cuts, were wholesale cut-and-paste jobs straight from various TM-Movement, particularly MUM, sites.Fladrif (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reworked some of the "offensive" material and replaced with edited version. Will do more later today. --BwB (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Amrit research section

Just a quick note, because I need to get to work. Now that more research has been added to the Amrit section, I wonder if we could consider removing Horner and the list of journals. The studies that have been added include most of those mentioned by Horner (and upon which she bases her statements), with the exception of the aging studies done at Kurukshetra University in India. What we might do is add a sentence about the aging studies. And by the time we do that, then most of the journals mentioned in the list will have been mentioned individually, so it seems like we could do away with the list. TimidGuy (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. --BwB (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine, but could we save that text and ref somehow in case it is needed in future?-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Will develop a couple sentences and then delete Horner and the list. And yes, we can always put Horner back if it's needed to balance something else. TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

References

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5