Talk:Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health

message: I would like to note here my objection to MC’s reversion of reliably sourced content added to the article on Sept 15. I have other things pressing at the moment, but give will a fuller explanation here as soon possible. EMP (talk 19:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Appropriate sourcing is necessary, but not sufficient, for inclusion. Material must also be presented neutrally and without without undue weight. Per WP:MEDRS, it is especially important to avoid juxtaposing lower-quality sources to editorially "debunk" the conclusions of higher-quality sources. MastCell Talk 19:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with that reasoning. Lower quality sources by their very nature have much less weight to try and be used to attack higher quality sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

text: It's a misuse to quote the 2012 AHRQ protocol document as a criticism or refutation of the 2007 review. The protocol doesn't dismiss the 2007 document, but rather seeks to update and improve it. We'll replace the 2007 review as soon as the update is published. Incidentally, I think that you'll find the updated analysis to be, if anything, more negative about the evidence for health benefits from TM than was the 2007 Ospina analysis. But we'll see.Chen 2012 analyzed meditation approaches in general. Of the 40 trials included in their meta-analysis, only 3 dealt with TM. It's a real stretch to use that paper to say anything specific about TM. If you're citing it because one sentence in the middle of the 5,000-word paper supports your effort to dismiss the 2007 Ospina paper, then, well, I'm not sure what to tell you. (The paper is  for anyone curious).Orme-Johnson is a TM advocate and an employee of Maharishi University. An opinion piece from a TM employee, published in a relatively obscure journal, cannot be presented as a refutation of a definitive AHRQ systematic review. A more fundamental violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS would be difficult to imagine.Let's say a large, high-quality meta-analysis by AHRQ finds that Merck's new antidepressant is ineffective. Then, an employee of Merck writes an opinion piece in a low-profile, non-mainstream journal disputing the AHRQ findings. Do we present the Merck employee's opinion as the last word on the subject, without even mentioning that he works for Merck? That's exactly what you're proposing.The bottom line is that there's a well-established hierarchy of reliable and credible clinical evidence. AHRQ reviews and Cochrane Library reviews are near the top of that hierarchy. If you're unhappy with the 2007 AHRQ findings, you're in luck; they're being updated as we speak. There is no deadline, and we'll get the updated findings into the article once they're finalized. Until then, please respect distinctions in source quality. MastCell Talk 23:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" is not a reliable source, whether its on some hallowed list or not. It makes statements that are clearly incompatible with more reliable sources such as . The reliability of each article would need to be established on a case by case basis (in this case it is unreliable since the material is by a TM advocate) IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MC’s revert 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for //http:/nasw.org/users/ASkolnick/mav.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ayurveda-products.eu/CONTACT%2B_%2B7.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maharishi-india.org/programmes/p4sthap.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vedicknowledge.com/vastu.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maharishi-india.org/programmes/p7/calendar.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228201059/http://maharishi-programmes.globalgoodnews.com/vedic-health/index.html to http://maharishi-programmes.globalgoodnews.com/vedic-health/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mcvm.info/courses.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mcvm.info/faculty.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://dl.globalgoodnews.com/.../Maharishi-Vedic-Approach-to-Health.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://http/nasw.org/users/ASkolnick/mav.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9218475
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://scientificwritingservices.com/cv.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deutsche-nachrichten-agentur.de/de/verzeichnis/wirtschaft/investitionen/524625052
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maharishi.co.uk/safety/HeavyElementsInAyurvedaMedicines.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131116084448/http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productID=98 to http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=98
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091201120725/http://www.tmbusiness.org/american-medical-association.html to http://www.tmbusiness.org/american-medical-association.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121224101608/http://ukpmc.ac.uk/pagerender.cgi?artid=582477&pageindex=2 to http://ukpmc.ac.uk/pagerender.cgi?artid=582477&pageindex=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130151158/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2307/stories/20060421004011200.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2307/stories/20060421004011200.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am inquiring about the second paragraph of the lead section in this article. According to WP:LEAD and MOS:LEAD, the lead section should be written in "a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." I know the 1991 article and 2008 study are extensively discussed in the Wiki article; however, it feels like there is a lack of a NPOV in the lead section. Would shortening and making this paragraph more concise contribute to a more NPOV in the lead section? Whitestar12 (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section