Talk:Deepak Chopra/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

suggestion

I'm all for archiving the majority of this talk page, and keeping everything from number 10 "Moving Forward" posted by TPRoD on. This is getting cluttered and I see how I may have participated in that unwillingly. I think we can pick up the BLP noticeboard and everything else easily by following TPRoD's lead and taking it from there. I dont know how to archive these and I assume I probably shouldn't, but all for if someone else does. SAS81 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an automatic archiving system that should kick in if no one decides to do it in the meantime. jps (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

A discussion was initiated on the WP:BLPN in which no specific WP:BLP issues were identified, the discussion was closed there and archived here.

SAS81 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC) This is getting tiresome. WP:IDHT, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Brought back here moved back to this page from WP:BLPN per WP:FORUMSHOP Not all of this is relevant to all of you so I've created a quick read menu if you want to get to certain things quickly. Sorry its long. I know :/ SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Introduction, why I am here I am here as a representative of both Dr. Chopra and the archive project he has contributed to in order to address concerns regarding what we believe to be a genuinely misleading and biased article on Deepak Chopra, M.D. This is my job and it’s important to do everything possible to address these problems in accordance with BLP. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:BIOSELF#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself I also want to thank user JPS particularly in this regard and I believe he and I have set a good standard for how a [dialogue can happen.] SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) see extended content 1 for more Extended content Beyond my involvement with Dr. Chopra I am also invested as a representative of a newly formed archive. Our responsibility will be to present the subjects or topics that are archived in our repository on Wikipedia and the media. I feel it relevant to explain that none of us are alternative medicine practitioners and hold our positions as researchers and historians due to accredited skill sets, with the consultation of university professors and medical doctors. We have very strong ethics regarding our work and how we represent this knowledge to the world, including this encyclopedia. Neutrality and ad nauseum sourcing is a core ethic we share with Wikipedia. Our mission dictates that we contribute to the encyclopedia in the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We have not made our official announcement yet (more details pending and will be discussed then) but our focus is the Wikipedia GLAM initiative and working with Wikimedia Foundation in the future to make our sources and materials easily accessible and to increase the breadth of knowledge on Wikipedia. I’m stating the above not only as a courtesy and a part of my transparency as a COI, but to also say - hey guys, I’m here to work it out with you, listen, contribute, assist with proper sources and citation, guide against misframing of a BLP and genuinely work towards the creation of a great article. I also understand that this particular subject is controversial, and many may have very strong opinions, labels, or associations with Dr. Chopra. I’m not here to sell you on Dr Chopra’s ideas. He is both loved and hated and the article should reflect that where appropriate. The mainstream balance of that dynamic is something I look forward to discussing with you all. Request I am hoping to encourage some savvy neutral editors to come in and help, listen to our concerns, share theirs and find a neutral consensus. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Concerns My concern here is that a majority of the current editors on the article have stated very strong, diverse suspicions regarding Dr. Chopra and there is a great deal of ambiguity expressed amongst them on how neutrality policies get applied to the article. See extended content 2 for more Extended content 1. Regarding what the working definition of “neutral” means, a number of the editors on the page have insisted on what appears to me to be a very peculiar interpretation of neutrality that suggests that the mainstream point of view of Dr. Chopra is that he is a snake oil salesmen/charlatan (or something similar). SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) 2. The claim that this opinion of Dr Chopra IS ‘the’ mainstream label for him suggests that the article must be written and framed in this same voice, and editors hands are tied otherwise. As you can imagine, I have a difficult time wrapping my head around the idea that the small number of mainstream critics that have been cited represent the only legitimate voice of a BLP, let alone the suggestion that the article must be this way because Dr. Chopra critics are somehow the best representatives of mainstream opinion. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) 3. We feel we have significant grounds to argue the neutral mainstream opinion is not overtly critical despite the small number of sources they have; many of the detracting citations are from purely online publications, specialized skeptical books, or assertions in articles, many of them tertiary. On the other hand, we have supporting sources that include Time magazine, Bill Clinton (as sitting US President) in speeches to foreign dignitaries, Mikhail Gorbachev addressing a 15 member scientific panel, the American Medical Association, Gallup Inc., the Discovery Channel, National Institute of Health, numerous peer-reviewed medical journals, New York Magazine, University of California San Diego, Heart Failure Society of America, Health Grades, the Huffington Post, and Forbes, to name just a few. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) 4. The reaction to many of these sources has been reminiscent of a slippery slope. World leaders have been discounted as representative of mainstream opinion because they’re not in the medical field, the public’s endorsement of his best-selling books is trivial, associations with major philosophers such as David Chalmers, John Searle, Daniel Dennett at summits are referred to as parapsychology meetings outside of the mainstream, major news and media outlets have been ignored as mouthpieces for Dr. Chopra, while peer-reviewed medical journals are dismissed as apparently not being “peer-reviewed enough” if they came to a noncritical conclusion, i.e. wiki peer reviewing which is something I understand we are guided against. In short, world leaders, the public, the popular media, medical journals, major universities, academic philosophers, M.D.’s and Gallup itself (whose entire job is to determine the mainstream!) are all incapable of representing the mainstream opinion. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) 5. By this stage I have over studied and analyzed BLP and Fringe so much it’s coming out my ears. I get what fringe requires us to do on topic articles - but the idea that a biography is framed solely by critics even when supporters have more mainstream representation does not seem to be what Fringe is asking for. If that is what WP Fringe actually guides us to do, it is awfully problematic since it cancels out neutrality by the very definition of the word and forces UNDUE weight all over the article. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) 6. Given what I hope are very clear issues, I’ve been asking a number of editors to explain their reasoning for dismissing the noncritical perspective, I’m here to listen, understand and negotiate. However, it’s happening more frequently that when I discuss people’s positions, a number of editors retort with aspersions and accusations that I am refusing to accept a variety of broad policies and give me some link to another policy they claim I don’t understand, then hang a AE over my head. I have been upfront, reasonable (I think!) and respectful of both editors and Wikipedia policies. This situation is making things very difficult for me so I hope all of you can help. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Making things easier for comment and participation We have plenty more sources coming (I could also use a little help in terms of the best practices of how I can easily list and supply the community with them. I do have my sandbox but any suggestions also helpful) but here are the key topics that could use some help in talk. Here is my suggestion for further compromise, and satisfying both BLP and Fringe while stating nothing but sourced facts. Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, author, thought leader, and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a controversial figure, acting as a New Age spiritual leader to some, and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. This is being discussed on the talk page here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Update_on_TRPoD.27s_breakdown Would love to listen to any concerns on this. Thanks in advance. SAS81 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The definition of "neutral point of view" that we are using is the one that you have been pointed to several times. The one located at WP:NPOV and of particular relevance here, its subsections WP:UNDUE / WP:BALASPS and WP:VALID. Chopras non proven claims in the medical field are WP:FRINGE and are not going to be treated as anything other than that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I believe I addressed that in my opening - I've read all those links, have carefully and meticulously read and applied each one, and can be transparent with you about how I come to my conclusions or how I offer suggestions or compromises. When I request some editors explain 'how' they are applying these things and to share their thinking process - you know be transparent, it doesnt help me get clear on your thinking when I'm just slapped with a bunch of links and claims repeated ad nauseum. Perhaps if you could explain how you're applying these guidelines and specifically HOW critics of a living person are assumed a neutral voice on the article. There's a leap in logic there and I cannot account for the steps anyone has taken to come to that conclusion other than pointing to a webpage with a guideline on it. SAS81 (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC) That is probably because your conflict of interest is getting in the way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I think it's great that all these volunteers are just giving their time away free to teach multi-millionare Deepak Chopra's paid representative how Wikipedia works. I love volunteering my time to benefit people who have thousands of times more money than I do! I also need my gutters cleaned. Anyone want to do that for me? Hipocrite (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Well you could do something notable, get an article written about you, find serious problems with it, then follow the steps laid on BLP to address these issues and find yourself here too. I'm not getting any treatment here that is not offered to anyone else. Also, let's have a productive conversation. Thank you. SAS81 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Comments like that not helping TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom. Admittedly I have an inherent bias because of my responsibilities of archiving and my direct relationship with the subject. I revealed that. Inspite of that, I am able to work towards neutrality, listen to all of you and provide quality sources and navigate the policies and guidelines consistently. Also, as a representative of the subject matter, surely you are not suggesting that when living person's raises direct concerns with what appears to be a misleading article they are unable to address those concerns because of their own conflict of interest? the "concerns" have been raised ad nauseum on the talk page and they have been answered there. the fact that the article is not promoting Chopra and is instead presenting the mainstream academic view is not an issue. it is what the article is supposed to do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC) If I believed they were answered there TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, I would not be here. SAS81 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) That you didnt like the answers is not surprising, but they were answered, fully, completely and multiple times.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Sending me a link to a policy page over and over is not what I call answering a question. Threatening me with an AE, then filing a COI noticeboard is also not answering questions. SAS81 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Let's WP:FOC, please SAS81 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I'm confused, SAS81, which parts of Deepak Chopra do you feel are violating WP:NPOV? You're mentioning endocrinology, the words guru and philosopher, while TRPoD is referencing the medical validity of his work. Are you trying to argue that Chopra's approach is medically proven, or that the current page is not neutral/representative of mainstream views of Chopra? If the former, you may be in for a hard time; if the latter, do you have sources to back up your position? Nobody on WP, not me, TRPoD, you or Deepak Chopra, can independently assert what is mainstream or not, but one way or the other the sources will out. The Cap'n (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for participating. I'm arguing specifically that the article does not reflect the full mainstream view of Dr. Chopra with too much UNDUE on criticisms (the entire article is a criticism even before we get to the section called 'skepticism'). I'm extremely concerned by the amount of weasel words in the article and the eagerness to frame Dr Chopra as a charlatan as much as possible without coming right out and saying it. I'm not arguing that his approach is medically proven, that's not my job, but I am arguing that his approach in medicine has mainstream acceptance and that he is known for that. Additionally, since Dr. Chopra is an unusually prolific individual who is incredibly famous, his work as a physician is just one part of what he does. Even many of his books are based on historical or mythic fiction (outside of medicine) and he is a notable (philosopher, new age guru, motivational speaker dont know how best to frame it) individual who represents and articulates a view point on consciousness that also is outside of his medical career. He also is quite a notable entrepreneur (which is different than just 'enjoying business success') It looks like editors on the page want to apply Fringe to ALL of his biography, and to be honest I'm still having a hard time seeing actually 'where' it applies to his biography. As for sources, yes I have too many of them! Problem I am having is making these sources available in context to the discussion. When I put sources in the discussion to show notability, the sources seem to get discounted for reasons that do not appear to be factually correct (clinton, gorbachev, gallup not notable or credible, etc) . In my sandbox they seem to get ignored. How do I solve this? SAS81 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Wait, so you're serious about having Gorbachev tell us (and our readers) that he's a mainstream physician? Apart from that: if you're actually having a hard time seeing how WP:FRINGE applies here at all, then it's going to be hard for mainstream Wikipedia editors to take this seriously. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Hold on sir! Dr. Chopra IS a mainstream physician maintaining an office practice in endocrinology with AMA accreditation as well as focusing on research. I'm not relying on the Gorby quote for that. That's for his notability. But facts are facts. These are just a few of the sources I have. 1 " DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD. (Agree to terms, then search for Chopra, Deepak in California) 2, 3, 4 I don't think anyone who knows the subject can say he is not notable for being an endocrinologist or a physician, as major doctors and scientists such as Candace Pert and Rudolph E. Tanzi have both mentioned him extensively as such 5 6, in addition to it being a major component of his many best selling books. Additionally, the sources I have already provided show him squarely in the mainstream POV. He is a senior scientist for gallup, which is determines what the mainstream view actually is. One US president as mentioned his contributions as a 'pioneer' of alternative medicine (which is technically an incorrect title, Dr. Chopra does not practice alternative medicine) and Gorby mentions he is a notable physician and philosopher. Additionally and to his direct notability - Dr. Chopra was an official attendee at the Clinton Global Initiative, alongside some of the most notable global and thought leaders in the world. This is an essential fact to Dr. Chopra's biography. Please explain how Fringe requires us to omit notable facts from notable sources regarding a BLP, I'm literally stumped on that one. This article completely fails to show why and how Dr. Chopra is popular and why he is considered a global thought leader. It leans solely on criticisms that are solely published as 'suspicions' and not facts. Are you suggesting that Fringe guides us to make the reader suspicious regarding a BLP? Are you denying that he is notable and prominent as anything other than a quack or are you saying that's what WP Fringe directly and specifically guides the editor to assume? SAS81 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) "I don't think anyone who knows the subject can say he is not notable for being an endocrinologist or a physician" I think otherwise. "A lot of people mention that he's an endocrinologist" doesn't mean "he's notable for being an endocrinologist". The people who mention that he is an endocrinologist only do so to lend support to his fringe claims--they don't mention it because they think it's important all by itself. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC) So if notable prominent mainstream academics or leaders mention his work specifically in endocrinology, AND he mentions it in numerous best selling books AND a medical journals AND he teaches courses at the university level, AND maintains an office practice, AND is a notable board member, advisor, consultant to major mainstream institutions (such as gallup) AND have mainstream news coverage mentioning him as an endocrinologist for the past 20+ years how can you honestly determine that he is not notable for being a physician? Just a heads up - I'm not saying that he is 'only' a physician. He also does tons of other stuff which makes this challenging. Please explain your thinking without relying on original research or personal peer review, but based on sources only. SAS81 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Okay, folks, let's take a deep breath here. Ken Arromdee is correct in that Chopra is not notable for being an endocrinologist if the only folks mentioning it are Fringe-pushers, but if SAS81 is able to provide neutral, notable sources that establish a pattern, they may have a case. Our own assertions about what's mainstream don't belong here, the sources can and should determine that. I don't know if they'll uphold what SAS81 wants, but I'd be willing to find out by going through their references, since they seem to be having some trouble there. Let me know if you want some help; I'm sick of WP:FRINGE stuff exploding into sanctions all over the place and would love to nip the hostility in the bud for once. Let's go through the process, organize and weigh the sources and then see what we see. Thoughts? The Cap'n (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I've just put some sources per TRPoD's request here. I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it. I have so many sources and I've been getting called out on posting them or cluttering TALK so does this suffice for this particular branch of discussion? The problem I am having is Dr. Chopra is unusually prolific and does many things both in and outside of medicine. He is hard to nail down even if I am the only one writing about him. Plus there are thousands of references to him for each and every label put on him and it's getting messy fast. Any advice appreciated thank you! SAS81 (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Can we close the WP:FORUMSHOP now please? SAS81 is an acknowledged media representative for Chopra. We listen respectfully and reserve the right to reject, outright, every single suggestion the Chopra media machine might make. It's not our fault if the Chopra media machine are unable to understand why Wikipedia policies forbid us from presenting pseudoscience and science as having equal validity. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Deaths from Ayurvedic Medication

the discussion has wavered far off from the subject of the initial post, for which there is wide consensus that there is not appropriate sourcing to include in this article at this time

There have been deaths attributed to Ayurvedic Medications from the highly reputable source Center for Disease Control. "Although approximately 95% of lead poisoning among U.S. adults results from occupational exposure (1), lead poisoning also can occur from use of traditional or folk remedies (2--5). Ayurveda is a traditional form of medicine practiced in India and other South Asian countries. Ayurvedic medications can contain herbs, minerals, metals, or animal products and are made in standardized and nonstandardized formulations (2). During 2000--2003, a total of 12 cases of lead poisoning among adults in five states associated with ayurvedic medications or remedies were reported to CDC (Table). This report summarizes these 12 cases. Culturally appropriate educational efforts are needed to inform persons in populations using traditional or folk medications of the potential health risks posed by these remedies. The first three cases described in this report were reported to CDC by staff at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center at Dartmouth Medical School, New Hampshire; the California Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program; and the California Department of Health Services. To ascertain whether other lead poisoning cases associated with ayurvedic medicines had occurred, an alert was posted on the Epidemic Information Exchange (Epi-X), and findings from the cases in California were posted on the Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) listserv. Nine additional cases were reported by state health departments in Massachusetts, New York, and Texas (Table)." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5326a3.htm Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Sorry it wasn't loading Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC) unless you have ironclad sourcing that explicitly identify Chopra in deaths from Ayurvedic malpractice , such content has absolutely NO place in this article. WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP , WP:SYN and multiple others of our alphabet soup of rules. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC) I don't see the irony here. He practices Ayurvedic medicine and there have been deaths by Ayurvedic medicine. Which is from a reputable source of Center for Disease Control. Where is the irony? Who mentioned irony? Also, why do you want to link Chopra with deaths by Ayurvedic medicine - was he connected to those deaths? I doubt it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC) was there a misreading of "ironclad", perhaps? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC) I'd repeat, that unless the source specifically refers to Chopra, including such information is WP:OR and something we do not do in Wikipedia articles. As another example; we also could not say that because some people die from use of a prescribed medication of some sort; my local GP is at fault for prescribing that medication. The source must say specifically that my GP prescribed a medication that is implicated in a death(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)) Cheers and thanks for the responses. It was a misreading of ironclad for irony, my bad...I was thinking that Chopra is the "founding president of the American Association of Ayurvedic Medicine" and there are deaths directly caused by Ayurvedic Medicine in America from a legit secondary source [1] that is from a legit primary source ie http://www.cdc.gov/ I can understand the inflammatory nature of this but can this information be presented? If so how? thanks you Skinnytony1 (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "thanks you"... i might add English is my first language :| Skinnytony1 (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC) For inclusion in this article you will need a WP:MEDRES source that states "Chopra's prescription/advocacy of Ayurvedic treatments caused Y's death." Or you will need Chopra himself addressing deaths from Ayurvedic treatments.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC) The lawsuit mentioned at Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health#Flint may be pertinent here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC) I don't think this should be included in this BLP at all. For the record, it is included in the article Ayurveda -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC) That was my conclusion too when I reviewed this content - it's just an inconclusive legal action. But at least it's something other than OR. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC) What is interesting from the Flint link is that he appeared to be practising as a real doctor at the time, without a real doctor registration. Not good. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC) We should perhaps be careful about making allegations here that are potentially libelous as in the above, "is that he appeared to be practising as a real doctor at the time, without a real doctor registration"(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) Which is of course why we should not associate Chopra with these deaths. However, I did use the word appeared when making the observation regarding a reliable source speculating on his registration !! -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC) I suggest the comment be removed. BLP refers to talk pages as well as articles which is easy to forget when in discussion mode.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) I disagree. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC) I understand you don't agree but that doesn't hold water when our BLP policy is clear and when you have suggested Chopra was practising with out a license, a libelous statement. You can remove the comment, or if you don't feel inclined to which I understand, I can, or perhaps someone else will. Your choice. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) I think you misread my comment, which I phrased carefully. I suggested no such thing. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC) he wasnt practicing medicine without a license, he was practicing music without a license. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Practise, practice, lets call the whole thing off. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC) While I do appreciate the sense of humour, I don't appreciate the libelous statement so I'll give it few hours then either delete or see if I can get an admin to do so.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)) Please stop claiming that statements are libelous. See WP:NLT. jps (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC) No one is making legal threats. I am suggesting that a statement accusing the subject of a Wikipedia BLP article of an illegal action is a potentially libelous accusation and at the least does not belong on a BLP talk page. I am also suggesting that any editor who makes such an accusation might consIder removing it per WP:BLP and per human decency. I may ask for help; I have no problem backing off this if I'm wrong, although I am sorry the atmosphere here has been and still is one of liberally throwing around pejorative comments at the subject of this BLP, actions which seems lacking in a professional ethic. Just my opinion. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC))... To be clear, the issue is solely with the term "potentially libelous" and not the rest of what you are saying since those words can easily be construed as though you are considering a lawsuit (or considering encouraging a lawsuit). It's fine to ask for help, and it's fine to be concerned about basic decency and civility towards all people. Please just steer clear of that kind of wording. jps (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC) At no time did I infer in anyway that I was considering a lawsuit. However, I am not comfortable on behalf of Wikipedia that a potentially libelous statement, which it may be since it is an untrue statement that alleges illegal actions on the part of Dr Chopra, is left sitting on this discussion page. (Littleolive oil (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)) You shouldn't be so quick to pull the libel card. It stifles debate what I said was "He practices Ayurvedic medicine and there have been deaths by Ayurvedic medicine" and Chopra is the "founding president of the American Association of Ayurvedic Medicine." I can understand sensitivity but seriously. Skinnytony1 (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) My comment was not in reference to anything you said It was directed at another editor's comment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC))