India Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

/Archive 1

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

"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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

• Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health (MVAH)^[1][2] (also known as Maharishi Ayurveda^[3][4] and Maharishi Vedic Medicine^[5]) 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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? ^[6]  Will Beback  talk  05:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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.^[7]

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

• 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. [6] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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. [7]
• 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.[8]
• Maharishi Ayurveda (MAV) is a revival of one of the most ancient and complete systems of natural health care - Ayurveda - ‘the science of life’.[9]
• “Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s essential revival of ancient Ayurveda is integrated and executed in a perfect way.”[10]
• 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.[11]
• 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.[12]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[13]
• 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. [14]

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

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. ^[8]Fladrif (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]