Talk:Tony Nader

President of MUM

Tony Nader is not president of MUM...Bevan Morris is per the MUM web site. [1].(olive (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps there is a MUM Holland, or MUM Europe where Nader id Pres? --BwB (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have checked the references associated with the text in the article and there is no info in Nader biography in the refs provided. This needs some work and I will attend to it tomorrow, if nobody else gets to it by then. See below. --BwB (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

""He is also president of Maharishi University of Management and Maharishi Open University in Vlodrop, The Netherlands."

"Nader comes from a Christian Lebanese background. According to his website, Nader obtained his medical degree from the American University of Beirut, and studied internal medicine and psychiatry."

The names for movement entities appear to be re-used frequently, and changed occasionally, making it hard to follow what's going on. But it does appear that there is more than one MUM. Keithbob has uploaded evidence of this. File:Maharishi Vedic University in Holland.JPG   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems there are multiple campus' for some of these entities. I think MUM also has branch campus' in other countries as well. These kinds of things can cause confusion. We should stick closely to the sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Among other things, Nader issued a press release in 2000 which he signed like this:

Professor Tony Nader, M.D., Ph.D.
President
Maharishi University of Management
Station 24
NP 6063 Vlodrop
Holland

I think Keithbob is correct that there are branch campuses of the Iowa MUM. The one I've heard about is in China. However I get the impression that the MUM in Holland is a separate entity. I seem to recall hearing about an MUM in Scandinavia too.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And you are precisely correct. MUM has an official connection with a university in Beijing and now with an Institute in South Africa. But I don't think there are currently any others. And by having a connection, I mean that MUM degree programs are offered at these sites, and this offering has been approved by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association for Colleges and Schools. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So it would seem then that other MUM's like in Holland are separate entities from MUM USA and should be treated as such. Also we should get good sources (as always) for these before including text about them in any articles. Yes?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. We have sufficient sources to show that Nader has been listed as the president of a MUM in Holland. Are you suggesting that we delete this info on account of not having more information?   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No I was not suggesting that. Just saying we shouldn't get our MUM's mixed up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

TM Free blogg a RS?

Is "TM-Free Blog - Skeptical Views of Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" a reliable source for text about Nader's family? --BweeB (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC) I am posting the added text about family while we discuss the reliability of the source provided.

"In January 2010, Nader revealed for the first time, at a Global Council of Rajas, Raj Rajeshwaris and Ministers in Fairfield Iowa, that he had been secretly married for seven years with a young family (two young daughters, aged at that time 5-1/2 and 3-1/2). " --BweeB (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The actual source seems to be an letter from Bevan Morris, sent by the "The National Office of Communication," on behalf of the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. Here are more copies: [2][3] It is addressed widely, "Dear All", so it does not appear to be private correspondence, and "The National Office of Communication" sounds like a PR department. Press releases are self-published sources that are usable within limits. The existence of a family is not a negative assertion, nor is it a contentious fact.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am asking if this blogg is a reliable source. I put the text here while this question is resolved. --BweeB (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'm replying that the blog posting is simply a copy of an official letter written by Nader's Prime Minister and distributed by the movement's communications department to "All".   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." TimidGuy (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If the president of General Motors issued a press release about the chairman of the board, would that be allowed? I'd think so. Is this information contentious?   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

These aren't reliable sources. Blogs of this sort have no oversight... Lets find the letter in some reliable source and it can be used otherwise, no it can't, especially in a BLP. Contentious doesn't enter into the discussion. If there is a concern I'd suggest the BLP Notice Board. Wikipedia is stringent about BLPs so this should be dealt strictly per policy.(olive (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC))

In most articles mentioning the subject's wife and children is not considered a big deal. I'm intrigued to see that Littleolive oil and TimidGuy do not think that Bevan Morris is a reliable person.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for TG but that's not what I said...The source isn't reliable. Simple. Nothing said about Bevan Morris and nothing about mentioning children and wife. The source isn't reliable. Just find the same thing in a RS. (olive (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC))

Bevan Morris's open letter is the source. If that's acceptable I can rework the citation to make that clear.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you prove Bevan Morris wrote that letter? Unless the source is either with in the TM organization where its likely Nader as the so called head of the org had oversight, or another form of RS per Wikipedia there is no proof the letter is Morris's. That's why we have WP:RS. While its likely the information is true, we can't start to allow sources that aren't reliable because it sets a precedent for BLPs. I looked for the letter in other sources and don't see it, which seems odd. Why isn't a open letter available and more accessible.(olive (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC))

Prove? I'm not sure that I can prove anything in this world. I can't even prove that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet. ;) Have you read this thread? The letter is posted in several places. It was apparently issued by the "The National Office of Communication," on behalf of the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation.

"...Nader as the so called head of the org..." Are we now also questioning whether Nader is the current head of the TM movement? Has there been a coup?   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. You can't prove Shakespeare wrote Hamlet so you rely on RS to base any content on. None of the three sources are RS per Wikipedia, and worse, two of those sources are blogs, and perhaps the third is too.(olive (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC))

I've looked further and still nothing of any kind on Tony Nader's wife and children. I thought maybe something would show up in the press, but I'm not finding anything. As a thought, do we need a source to say Tony Nader has a wife and children as long as we don't go into specific details like ages. Is this a possible 1+1=2 situation. Just grasping at straws.(olive (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC))

Correcting my comment. Fairfield Life isn't really a blog, its a discussion group, so even more so, not allowable.(olive (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC))

SO back to my original question - is TM Free blogg a RS or not? Thanks, --BweeB (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The correct question is whether an open letter from Bevan Morris and the National Office of Communication of the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation are reliable sources. What do you think? Would you trust Morris on the uncontroversial issue of whether or not Nader has a family?   Will Beback  talk  10:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Not the right question. Unless the source reproducing the letter is reliable we don't know who wrote the letter or if its accurate. Further, the "open" letter has not been reproduced on any movement sites or in the press, and I looked, so its only an open letter to whoever it was originally written to, and we don't know who that is. Further, since there are no records of the letter anywhere but on a blog and discussion forum pages, the letter may very well be a copyright vio. The personal opinion of any editor as to the reliability of Bevan Morris is of no consequence to this discussion and is a red herring.(olive (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Do you think the letter which appears on at least three websites is a forgery? Is the theory here that people are spreading false information about Nader?  Will Beback  talk  22:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Try not to put words in anyone's mouth.. so unsanitary.(olive (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

I'm not putting anything in your mouth. I am asking you two questions.   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Will. Lets get this clear. I am not interested in wasting my time with questions that reframe or mischaracterize discussion. I've answered clearly on this issue, and your continued attempts to derail this discussion with reframing of issue and mischaracterization are disruptive.(olive (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

Discussion isn't disruptive. I'm sorry if you feel that way. I still don't understand why editors here are so anxious to make sure that we don't say the subject has a family.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Will. Mischaracterizing and reframing are not part of civil discussion and are disruptive behaviours. Editors here are anxious to use reliable sources. Please stick with the discussion.(olive (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

Reframing questions is a standard part of discourse. There's nothing uncivil about it.   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Status? Have some editors agreed to a simple sentence saying the subject has a wife and two children? If that's uncontroversial maybe we don't need to worry about the strict interpretations of the sourcing policy.   Will Beback  talk  10:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes allowance for simple content that is not uncontested. Wikipedia doesn't make allowances for non reliable sources. I assume you aren't contesting the content. If you are I have no problem with deleting it. (olive (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

What is the "it" you're talking about deleting?   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to the addition, deletion and RS/NB on the content on Nader's family. I'm fine with its deletion per the Notice board.(olive (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

OK, but that doesn't answer my question, does it? Does any object to adding a sentence saying that the subject has a wife and two children?   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I answered your two part question above. "Wikipedia makes allowance for simple content that is not uncontested. Wikipedia doesn't make allowances for non reliable sources." If the content is simple and uncontested I have no problem with agreeing with you if you want to include it. I won't agree per the Notice Board and per Wikipedia to including sources that are not reliable. I hope that clarifiesolive (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

OK, thanks. Then if there's no further objection I'll add a sentence saying something like "Nader is married with two children".   Will Beback  talk  11:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

With a source? --BweeB (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Added text per Will's suggestion. --BweeB (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Footnote no 2

Intro:

In 2008, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, leader and guru of the Transcendental Meditation movement, named Nader as his successor, calling him "Raja Nader Raam" or "Adi Ram".

I can't see that the reference sustantiates what the text says. Also, "Adi Ram" looks strange. Is it a typo?

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks like the result of some sloppy editing, where text was moved around without keeping the proper refs.[4] I'll see about fixing it.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit should have fixed the problems with that citation.[5]   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

The article received a peer review in Oct 2010. A summary of the reviewer's comments are as follows:

• 1) "assume that everyone reading your article is as clueless as I am, and that most people don't want to click through to other links to learn about this article's subject."
• 2) "The lead needs a lot more context. ...... What does "Raja Nader Raam" or "Adi Ram" mean? Why is it significant that he was named this? I am very confused."
• 3) "look into that medical degree a little bit more...... the article currently implies that it's a little fishy."
• 4) "It would be good to clean up the 'drama' regarding his work in Massachusetts. At the moment I'm not entirely sure what he said he did at MIT. Nor am I sure what his conflict of interest could be as I don't know what he was researching."
• 5) Was he awarded his weight in gold by the Maharishi Global Development Fund? Why did they give him so much money? Why do they like his research?"
• 6) A brief sentence outlining the Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology after its first mention would also be good and illustrative.
• 7) [His] "political views[?] Statements like the one made in April 2000 seem to be coming completely out of the blue to me (and I assume anyone else not familiar with his organisation's teachings)."
• 8) "What is the mansion? Why is it the capitol of this country? What land is this country made out of? Why do they even exist? What are their stated goals? I know they already have an article written about them but small sentences to explain these things in shallow detail would really really help."

Since the reviewers comments were not heeded or acted upon at the time they were given, I am going to address these comments now and invite the reviewer back to give further feedback and comments. Input and comments from others are also welcome.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I made the changes based on the above comments and based on comments from BLPN thread on this article I also invited the peer reviewer back for another look on March 31st but they haven't responded yet.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Today I've invited Panyd a second time and attempted to bribe him/her with a cookie :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Parking Zone

• Primary Source --"Maharaja Adhiraj Raja Raam Professor Tony Nader M.D., Ph.D." Maharishi Health Education Center. Archived from the original on September 16, 2010.
  • I've just noticed that this link is also in the External Links section. So if it is used as a source it should be removed from the EL section per WP:EL.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Education

Previously the article text said "According to his website, he received his medical degree from the American University of Beirut" (AUB). This caused the peer reviewer to say: "look into that medical degree a little bit more...... the article currently implies that it's a little fishy." So I have removed the claim but we do have a primary source (the authors book) that supports the source of the MD as Amer U B. Also, primary sources are already used in several places in this article for other facts about the subjects life. Since there is no source that challenges or casts any doubt on the MD coming from American University of Beirut can we include it without a qualifier? Or is it better just to leave AUB out of the text? Here's what the sources say in general about his education:

• "Dr. Nader is an M.D. with a Ph.D. from MIT" Williams, Patrick Gresham Spiritual Recovery Manual: Vedic Knowledge and Yogic Techniques for , page 230
• "Tony Nader an M.D. who also received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from MIT" Smith, Frederick and Wujastyk, Dagmar (2008) State University of New York Press, Albany, Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms, page 14
• "Tony Nader, M.D., neuroscientist, Harvard Medical School and MIT" Chopra, Deepak (1987) Harper & Row, Creating Health: How to Wake Up the Body’s Intelligence, page 212
• "the MIT trained, Tony Nadar" MIT Press| isbn = 0-262-05079-X, 9780262050791|Easterling, Keller|Enduring innocence| November 1, 2005|page 82
• "Professor Nader received his MD degree from the American University of Beirut where he also studied internal medicine and psychiatry" Nader, Tony (1994) Maharishi Vedic University, Human physiology: expression of Veda and the Vedic literature, page 1
• "Tony Nader, M.D., Ph.D., neuroscientist and researcher." -- Ulall, Surendra (May 4 2012) IOWA scholars give scientific exposition of Ramayana India Post, retrieved May 25 2012
• "Tony Nader, a neuroscientist and researcher,......He has a Ph.D. in brain and cognitive science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and completed postdoctoral work at Harvard Medical School." N. Begum,(June 1, 2012) News India Times, Hundreds Attend Program to Promote Vedic Learning retrieved June 2, 2012
• "Neuro scientist and researcher, Tony Nader" -- Luhar, Monica (April 4 2012) India West
• "Tony Nader, MD, Ph.D., will present...." (1995) The Economist, volume 335, Issues 7913-7916
• "Dr. Tony Nader (M.D. and Ph.D. in Physiology) working closely with Maharishiji" --Raval, Indravan B. (2001) "Non-Traditional Interprteation of 'Anarthaka Hi Mantrah'

Journal of the Oriental Institute, Vol. 50, Nos. 1-4, Sept,-June 2001-2001 Issue, pp. 17-22-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)I cleaned up and added another source-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Another Source:

• Professor Nader received his master's degree from the American University of Beirut, where he also studied internal medicine and psychiatry. His PhD is in the area of Brain and Cognitive Science from MIT, where he also became a visiting physician at the Clinical Research Center. He completed his post-doctoral work as a Clinical and Research Fellow in Neurology at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School. He has conducted research on neurochemistry, neuroendrocrinology, and the relationship between diet, age, behavior, mood, seasonal influences, and neural transmitter and hormonal activity, and on the role of neurotransmitter precursors in medicine. . --From the book--Mentality and Thought: North, South, East and West edited by Per Durst-Andersen, Elsebeth F. Lange-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Since there is now a secondary source(above) in addition to the secondary one, I have re-added the text about the degree at Amer Univ of Beirut. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Boston Herald and Conflict of Interest

I made this edit based on [6] at the BLP noticeboard. The source does not say that Nader had a conflict of interest so there is not reason to imply that he did.

• Boston Herald -- "The Massachusetts doctor, Deepak Chopra, is medical director of the Maharishi Ayur-Veda Health Center for Stress Management and Behavioral Medicine in Lancaster, Mass. The other authors are Dr. Hari Sharma of Ohio State University and Brihaspati Dev Triguna of New Delhi, India. The prestigious medical journal was embarrassed by its publication of the article, said [George Lundberg]. The editors of the journal thought the article was about Ayur-Veda, or the ancient Indian form of medicine. Instead, said Lundberg, it was about Maharishi Ayur-Veda, an international business. The journal also found that others connected with the business, including Dr. Tony Nader, overstated their ties to prestigious institutions, such as Harvard, MIT and Massachusetts General Hospital. Nader was asked in a 1986 letter by Dr. Richard Wurtman of MIT not to imply that Nader's "low-grade kind of investigation" is sanctioned by MIT."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kbob. I think your position on this content is right, but seems to me that if you're going to post on NB you should give it a few days to make sure editors see the notice and weigh in. Would you consider re adding the deleted content and waiting until Monday to re add if the NB comments are still in support?(olive (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC))

Hi Olive, I appreciate your point about not jumping the gun on a noticeboard. Perhaps I could have waited longer, but its been three days now and there are 12 additional threads on the BLPN page, all of which have been responded to. My experience is the editors only respond to the most recent 2-3 posts and don't go back 12 threads unless they are already engaged in something. I don't see the need to delete and re-add but if you feel strongly you may do it and I will not object. At the same time, I'm certainly open to further input from uninvolved editors at BLPN and I was disappointed there were not more responses. I'll keep watching the BLPN page and you can delete/add as you see fit. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

PS please note that when I removed the conflict of interest text I strengthened the 'accused of overstating connections' criticsm by adding an additional institution per the source. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually,this is my error; for some reason when I posted I thought you'd made the NB post and the delete within hours of each other. Looking now I don't see how or why I assumed that. I'd agree that NB posts have died out on this topic and your deletion is probably well timed. Apologies for the mistake.(olive (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC))

Thanks. On another point, I left a message some days ago on the user talk page of Panyd, the peer reviewer, but he hasn't responded :-( I'm trying to get some outside editor eyes on this article but so far I've only succeeded in getting the one comment at WP:BLPN. Maybe Panyd will show up when he has time. We'll see.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As of today, there are still no further comments at the BLP noticeboard listing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Questionable quote

In April 2000, Nader, as president of Maharishi University of Management (Holland), issued a statement to celebrate "the dawn of a New World Order of Peace, as demonstrated by the invincibility of President Fidel Castro of Cuba, the freedom of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the Divine Rulership of President Abdurrahman Wahid of Indonesia, and the casting off of corrupt democracy by President Robert Guei of the Ivory Coast".

• Ref 1: cite press release|title=Maharishi University Of Management, Holland Celebrates The Dawn Of A New World Order Of Peace -- The Rise Of Perfection In World Politics And Economy|first=Tony|last=Nader|date=April 6, 2000|url= [7] |archivedate=September 30, 2010|archiveurl=
• Ref 2: Easterling (2005) p.88
• Ref 3: cite news|title=Asianet Summary For Thursday, April 6, 2000|date=April 6, 2000|agency=AsiaPulse News}}

The text above currently appears in the article (bold added to emphasize the quote part) but it is problematic because a) its cherry picked from an 1100 word press release by Tony Nader (a primary source) b) The Easterling source attributes the quote to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (page 88). c) The third source is another copy of the same press release provided by AsiaNet, a press release distribution service. If we are going to use primary sources and feature quotes, there are lots of primary websites with transcripts of speeches etc that we can harvest quotes from [8] [9][10][11] [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Is that what we want for this BLP?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have taken this issue to WP:BLPN [20]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the quote based on WP policy and community consensus:

• BLPSPS says: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" (in this case the attribution to the subject was doubtful)
• The sole responder at the BLP noticeboard said: I would remove the quote because it has no real secondary coverage. BTW, what is it relevant to, actually? As an aside it's missing a quotation mark at the end.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• The comment from the Peer Reviewer said: [His] "political views[?] Statements like the one made in April 2000 seem to be coming completely out of the blue to me (and I assume anyone else not familiar with his organisation's teachings)." [21]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Noted. --BwB (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Original name

Tony Nader's name is given in the corporate record for the Global Country of World Peace as Tanios Abou Nader. I changed this accordingly. It was previously given as "Tony Abu Nader". If someone has other information and a reference, they can correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boazhsan (talk • contribs) 19:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

References

corporate record for the Global Country of World Peace: [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boazhsan (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tony Nader/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ItsZippy (talk · contribs) 21:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks interesting; I'll do a review shortly. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose seems good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The main problem here is the lead, which doesn't really summarise the entire article. The article also lacks breadth, which I think has contributed to this problem.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Seems alright.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	You've said that he is married and has children, but no sources is provided for this. That really needs referencing, especially as this is about a living person.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This seems to be the main issue. You've covered his academic and professional life well, but there is much more you could talk about. At the very least, I think this needs something on his early & personal life, something on his supporters, something on his critics, maybe his influences too.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	That seems alright.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I don't think that this is neutral enough for GA at the moment. The article goes into a lot of detail about his successes without reporting any of his critics.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems to be.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Seems good.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article does not pass our good article criteria at this time. I have outlined the main issues above, which should not take took long to resolve. Once those are dealt with, try nominating it again. Let me know if you have any questions.

Response to GA review

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I have some comments and questions for you that will help me to improve the article:

• 'MOS Lead--The main problem here is the lead, which doesn't really summarise the entire article.
  • Can you please specify which section(s) or major points in the body of the article are not summarized in the lead? Also please note that WP:LEAD says to summarize and the lead is already almost 20% of the size of the body of the article. (lead = 142 words and body = 801 words) I am happy to add more to the lead if there are major points I have missed but we don't want to go too big as its just a summary and it should not contain details. Do you want me to mention his speaking tour? His 'weight in gold' award? What his books are about? Please let me know. Thanks.
• MOS Lead--The article also lacks breadth, which I think has contributed to this problem.
  • This is confusing. Are you saying that you failed the lead because it doesn't summarize content that should be in the current article, but isn't?
• Verifiable--You've said that he is married and has children, but no sources is provided for this. That really needs referencing, especially as this is about a living person
  • Good point, I have removed that un-sourced text, which has been 'tagged citation needed' since April 2012. I cannot find any reliable sources that support it.
• Breadth of Coverage--This seems to be the main issue.
  • Oh... I thought you said the lead was the main issue, but OK.
• Breadth of Coverage--You've covered his academic and professional life well
  • Thank you :-)
• Breadth of Coverage--but there is much more you could talk about. At the very least, I think this needs something on his early & personal life,
  • I have carefully searched Google News and Google Books and used all available sources in the article. I cannot find any info on his early (pre-education) or personal life. Are you aware of any such sources?
• Breadth of Coverage--something on his supporters, something on his critics, maybe his influences too.
  • I agree it would be nice to have more info, but my hands are tied since Wiki summarizes available sources and they do not give any info about his supporters, critics. If you can find, or are aware of sources that contain this kind of info, I would be happy to add the info therein.
• Neutrality--I don't think that this is neutral enough for GA at the moment. The article goes into a lot of detail about his successes without reporting any of his critics.
  • But above you say it needs "something on his supporters", now you say: "the article goes into a lot of detail about his successes" and is therefore non-neutral. This is confusing. Also, I would point out that I am not aware or anything in WP:NPOV that says that criticism is required in an article for it be neutrally written (though it should be included if reported in reliable sources). What WP:NPOV does say is: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately." This includes: "Avoid stating opinions as facts"... "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts"... "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion".... "Prefer nonjudgmental language"...."Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone"... "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". If there are specific passages that you feel are worded in a biased way, please let me know so that I can reword them in to a more "disinterested tone".

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions and comments above. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take those in order:

• You might be right on the account of the lead; I think the main issue here was breadth of coverage and it came across as an insufficient lead. Technically, the lead should probably pass (and that was my mistake), but will of course need expanding once the article itself is expanded.
• The breadth really is the main issue (I tend to say "main issue" too much, I fear). I don't know any sources about his personal life myself, but perhaps there are some scholarly references, or resources that are not available on Google Books? I am not quite sure what you mean regarding wiki summaries, but it would be good if you could find some further information about those things. For an an article about this kind of person, something on his critics, supporters and influences is probably necessary for the article to be broad enough in coverage (for GA this doesn't need to be much, just some mention of it).
• The lack of neutrality comes from the fact that you've not mentioned anyone who disagrees with or has criticised him. The article does need information on his supporters too; it will be neutral if you present his supports and critics neutrally. NPOV requires balance, which is not achieved if there's nothing on his critics or supporters (if there really is nothing in the sources on Nader, see what there is on the movement he leads).

I hope that helps. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zippy, thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions and to clarify your review. I don't agree with your assessment that the article lacks neutrality because it doesn't mention his supporters and/or critics and I'm not sure bringing in off topic info is the answer. However, I respect your opinion and your review of the article. Thanks again,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

After looking back at the article's sources, I was able to locate some criticism of the subject and have added it here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Parking text: Source quote needed

• and was mentioned in a 1991 Journal of the American Medical Association article that accused his associates of deceptive marketing practices.

The above text was tagged with a quotation needed template in April 2012. The text is disparaging and alludes to guilt by association. Per WP:BLP I am parking it here until the source can be accessed and a quote provided so we may ascertain if the content in the source meets WP:BLP standards for inclusion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

New award given to Nader on International Yoga day...

Hey all, it's been a while since I contributed anything to Wikipedia, and I was browsing Tony Nader's page and noticed that nothing had been updated in quite a while. Perhaps the most notable recent event in Nader's life was when he made a presentation to the British Parliament's "All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Indian Traditional Sciences" on International Yoga Day this year and was presented "the Kala Yugandhara" (Universal Enlightened Master of All Arts and Sciences) award by "H.E.High Commissioner Y K Sinha" and and Amarjeet Singh Bhamra, Secretariat of the APPG. My understanding is that "High Commissioner" is the UK term for Ambassador to the UK from a British Commonwealth nation, but I haven't verified that (would that be original research on my part?). Anyway, this award seems notable, and should be included in Nader's page, I think, but no idea how to go about doing that.--Sparaig2 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)