Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:12, 14 February 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Other subpages:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources

Image

An image of someone doing TM would be great. I have an uncle who does this and gave much of his money to the Maharishi. Also ran for the Natural Law Party of Canada. I am sure he would be happy to have his picture taken if we cannot find another.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Of course, such a picture would simply show a person sitting in a chair with their eyes closed. David spector (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that is all that is required. If you do this David would you upload an image? My uncle is kind of overweight and definitely not a picture of health.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Doc James, but I haven't taken any photos of meditators myself. I'm guessing that the photos on the TM website would not be allowed to be copied into WP. Since some editors here work at MUM, perhaps they can obtain a photo of themselves or a friend or student meditating. I hope they will consider doing this. David spector (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not know how to upload a image to Wiki, but there are numerous pictures of people doing TM on various web sites. --BwB (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The website of the TM organization would own the copyright on the images. One would either need permission to release the image into the public domain under a creative commons license or take our own. The image can be uploaded here . There is a little upload file on the left side. If you need further help let me know.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some photos on this article, but I'm not sure how this current photo, which shows some bare trees and road, adds anythingc to an article about a meditation technique-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to see that photo deleted immediately and replaced with a picture of a red and yellow maple leaf, which would be just as meaningless, but at least pretty. Or just simply delete the thing. Someone? David spector (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to delete the photo myself because my objectivity could be questioned. If we're agreed, can someone who is allowed to edit do it? David spector (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a photo of the building at the end of the road, Maharishi's HQ. Or we could use a photo of the Maharishi himself, or Guru Dev.   Will Beback  talk  02:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the most logical image would be the logo found at the top of many TM.org pages, seen here . Any objection to using it?   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I object. WP may not use images copied from a commercial website. That is violation of copyright since (by default) the author of an image owns its copyright. In any case, the current image, titled "Center of Transcendental Meditation" does not appear to show a center. It shows mainly a tree-lined road. Anyway, even a picture of the headquarters building does not fit the topic of this article well (it might fit on the TMM page). I say we should first delete this poor image, then find a public-domain image of someone meditating with TM. Probably MUM would give us permission to use one of their photos if we simply ask. Images don't have to come from a secondary source. David Spector 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages routinely uses commercial logos to illustrate articles on businesses. See General Motors, Apple Computers, Amway, etc. Further, the logo in question is based on a diagram used in TM instruction, so it illustrates a basic concept as well. If Misplaced Pages practice is the only objection then I'll go ahead and add it. As a picture of a person sitting with their eyes closed, we can add one of those as well, but since no special posture is used in TM it'll be a pretty generic photo.   Will Beback  talk  17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the lane photo and added the logo. If we find a photo of someone meditating that would be a good addition to the "principles" section.   Will Beback  talk  07:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it can be used under fair use rational.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tense

As this is the most recent review we should describe it in the present tense not the past tense as there is no indication that things have changed. Also this page is not about physical measures and therefore this does not need mentioning. Little Olive your changes are not an improvement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I did carefully. The review was carried on in the past. I changed the tense of when the review was carried out but did not change the tense which indicated results, although your demand that the tense change imply definitive results and conclusions is a not so subtle POV. Second the review included meditation and physical disciplines like Qigong an integral aspect of the review. The information must be accurate. Further, I did make copy edits including the removal of WP:WTA like "however". Again, and please, you do not own this study nor are you in charge of what goes in and out of this article. Misplaced Pages is collaborative.(olive (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Please WP:AGF. This article is not about Qigong therefore this is not needed in this article and just confuses the issue.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I always assume good faith But I also have concerns which are better out in the open. This article is not about the other forms of meditation included in the review either. The review was a combination of physical and mental based techniques rather than just mediation techniques. It isn't confusing an issue to lay out an accurate summary of the boundaries of the review. The reader should not be misled.(olive (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes I agree that the review was not just about TM. It was almost 400 pages long. The part we are using is the part about TM and we do not need to present everything from this paper just because it discusses it. Please get consensus for your changes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And we can't just select the part of the review that suits what we want to say. That's cherry picking which is a form of WP:OR, creates a POV, and violates a core policy, WP: NPOV. (olive (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

I reworded the lead to reflect the study .... You made multiple massive changes to this article with out consensus despite the request to do a so and despite the standard held buy editors on this article. My changes are minor and are attempts to clearly reflect the boundaries of the study. Despite my position, I have reworded the lead to reflect your concern and the wording of the study. The other changes are minor changes.(olive (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

I'm afraid I don't understand why you are intent on removing simple qualifying language like "of this review". Perhaps you could explain.(olive (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

It isn't cherry picking to only report the parts of review that concern this topic, and it doesn't violate any policies. What a review has to say about Qi Jong, for example, is irrelevant to this article unless it is directly comparing the them.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• (ecx2)I'm afraid I don't understand why you are intent on removing simple qualifying language like "of this review". I can't speak for Doc James, of course, but speaking for myself, the phrase "of this review" distorts our coverage of this meta-analysis by shifting the implication of poor quality from the studies the review is based on, where it applies, to the review itself, where it doesn't apply. Woonpton (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc, Will and Woon are exactly correct. The edits that olive is proposing do more than simply change tense from present to past. It also completely changes the meaning of the paragraph, falsely giving the impression that (i) the conclusions of the study which were specific to the TM Studies were simply generalized findings about meditation and (ii) that the metaanalysis was based upon limited evidence, rather than being a comprehensive review of the entire universe of meditation research. As the study makes clear, it looked at all of the available literature available at the time of the study. The vast majority of the research, including the vast majority of the TM research, was insufficiently documented to even be considered for the meta-analysis. 230 TM studies were sufficiently documented to be included; of these only 3 were deemed to be of good quality. One short-term TM study using a small sample, had some statisticlly significant results; the other two longer term studies did not. So, when the meta-analysis finds that no conclusions can be reached as to the efficacy of TM, or as to other meditation practices, or that there is no reason to prefer one over another, it is not based on limited information, it is based on the entire universe of the research conducted to date. The argument that addressing the findings as to TM in this article is "cherry picking" is puzzling in the extreme, and utterly lacking in merit. When a reliable source contains information relevant to an article, it is not cherry picking to use that information, and to not include the information irrelevant to the article. That is what editors do as a matter of course in all articles. Fladrif (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Thank you Will that was my point exactly. The limited evidence is for TM they way it was worded may it sound like the review was limited when in fact it was an exhaustive meta analysis of all studies published until Sept 2005. There seems to be some issues with basic interpretation of scientific literature here. I have edited here in line with the consensus at If an editor disagrees and feel they are not being heard / understood they may bring this to a RFC. We still have a range of articles in this topic area which need to be substantially changed to reflect WP:NPOV.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for an article is not determined on a notice board. And what is said on a notice board does not give any editor carte blanche to make any edits they want on an article page. I am asking that the review be fairly represented with out bias. And no you can't take a meta study and choose the wording to reflect what the study does not say, that is OR. If the study says mediation you say mediation . If the study boundaries included several forms of mediation you say that, you don't exclude what you don't want or like . That is cherry picking and it is OR . And as well the article has been changed and adjusted so why all of the discussion here now . DId the incoming editors read the thread and the article, look at the changes.

Woonpton, "this review" is a simple qualifier to make sure that what is referred to is this particular review.

To Doc: I think the lead is fine but "exhaustive" is a non encyclopedic unless it is sourced in the study. If not, its POV and should be removed.(olive (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

We could include the other forms of meditation covered in the review in the body of the article, for the sake of completeness, but that level of details does not belong in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is moot. I changed the wording to reflect the review and to satisfy Doc's concerns.(olive (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Discussing the entirety of a book or paper is not in any way required. I have added the ref as requested.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The ref is problematic per the use non academic /scientific sources as comment on scientific studies and reviews, but I won't contest its use or the inclusion of "exhaustive".(olive (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

You say you will not contest its use and than above contest its use twice? The reference is a mainstream health newspaper commenting on the study. One could use the word "systematic review of the literature" from the study but "exhaustive" is better understand and less technical all well meaning the same thing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Contesting means I would try and have the word removed... I'm not doing that ... I note my concern which I have a right to do ....Second, I asked about the word before there was a ref... also my right to do .... If you want a fight you'd better find someone else to fight with.(olive (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Mainstream health newspaper? Unless I'm missing something. (olive (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Healthday news Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes changing the meaning of a study to its exact opposite verges on vandalism. I corrected its meaning with WP:AGF however had a 3RR warning placed on my talk page . As this seems to be an ongoing problem with this topic area a full review of WP:COI maybe required.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you've done . I added a concern about the ref. you have now added another reference completely. This is the original ref without the Health Day news you added. . I also linked to an older version of a page of the original source to illustrate my concern. Perhaps you could explain the addition of Health day news to the original source. I may to be missing the connection.

Vandalism? There was no attempt to change the meaning of the review, but to make sure it was accurate. If you wish to take this to COI, I suggest you do. In the meantime you are mischaracterizing my edits.(olive (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

If it isn't vandalism, it's its second cousin. These edits are only the lastest of a long line ever since this study was released which misrepresent, misconstrue, twist and mislead, completly changing the conclusions of the study and its bases. This is not a matter for a reasonable difference of opinion as to what the study concludes. I will not speak to what may or may not be motivating these edits or whether or not it is deliberate, but it is a very disturbing pattern.Fladrif (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Obsina Bond:

Conclusions:

The field of research on meditation techniques and their therapeutic applications has been clouded by a lack of methodological rigor, although rigor is improving. Further research needs to be directed to distinguishing the relative efficacy of techniques through head-to-head trials, as is com- monly seen in studies of pharmaceutical agents. In addition, the potentially different elements of these techniques should be explored in the laboratory. The dearth of high-quality ev- idence highlights the need for greater care in defining and describing the interventions and in choosing the appropri- ate controls, populations, and outcomes that permit com- parison of studies across techniques. More care in these choices will allow effects to be estimated with greater relia- bility and validity. More randomized trials that draw on the experience of investigators or consultants with a strong back- ground in clinical and basic research should be conducted. It is imperative that future trials on meditation be more rig- orous in design, execution, analysis, and reporting of results. In particular, greater importance should be placed on the re- porting of study methods and providing detailed descrip- tions of the training of the participants, qualifications of med- itation instructors, and the criteria and methods used to determine a successful meditation practice.

I'll change Fladrif's addition later today to reflect, per the quote above, the review conclusions.(olive (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

The reference is the exact same as the one before. Please look more closely. I just added to it. The change you made implied the exact opposite of the actually case "a systematic review" is not "limited". I AGF and corrected it assuming that this was not vandalism. You place a 3RR on my talk page and sent a note to an admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, you added to the reference. No, I didn't send a note to an admin. And yes, I absolutely left you a courtesy note so that you could avoid a block. I didn't add "limited". Why are you implying I added the word.(olive (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

I think not."TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure,

body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients" That's a direct quote from p4 of Ospina Bond. Fladrif (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am quoting the conclusions from the study, and per the article text, the "overall conclusion". What appears to be the problem is that the "overall conclusions" and the specific conclusions noted in the TM article text are conflated. I'll change the article to reflect the text. My copy of Opsina Bond is not numbered I guess in the way yours is.... since there is no page four, but I'll take your word for the quote.(olive (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

I disagree with this change.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree as well. It should be reverted to the original.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I read that metastudy when it was first published and felt that the TM studies were not treated fairly. I also noted that this is the only metastudy of meditation techniques that concludes that none of them is significantly useful. For these reasons I think the metastudy should be included but should be downplayed, perhaps in ways suggested by Olive. The metastudy should definitely be included in Meditation with some sort of caution about its unusual conclusion. (BTW, I urge that we not misspell 'meditation' as 'mediation' on Talk pages, as it can confuse the reader.) David spector (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I also read it when it first came out, and I thought (like previous reviews) it nailed the poor nature of most TM Org-based and affiliated TM research. It didn't find any possible fraud like early reviews did, that would make Keith Wallace write retractions to Science. It did validate previous reviews and the larger field of meditation science I was already familiar with. Nothing new really. Still bad after all these years (apologies to Paul Simon). So it was a helpful vaildation of what many independent scientists were already saying.--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This metastudy is the best study available. There are other reviews that also came up negative with TM like the Cochrane collaboration review in 2006. We do not need to use primary research done by TM instructors.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pediatric review

The results from the pediatric review that I added to the article were from randomized controlled trials. I've deleted the material referring to the ADHD study and which was sourced to a blog. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy, you've been told before about adding primary sources and that it is a violation of WP policy.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been told that before. But it's an odd interpretation of a guideline (not policy) that says, "Reliable primary sources can add greatly to an article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources." TimidGuy (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And I assume you're referring to the Paul-Lbrador study and not the pediatric review, which is a secondary source. TimidGuy (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This you are mistaken . And have been informed of this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the webpage that has the abstract for this study, there were two other articles, and a rebuttal, published in the same issue that addressed the study's methodology and conclusion. I don't have access to those without paying for them, but if we're going to include this study we should also mention the range of views about it.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem including the letters. If we're going to do that, then it would probably be fair to include some of the other exchanges as well. TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This study is still primary research and thus not to be included per consensus.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to that consensus? Will seems to be open to including it. Clearly it's acceptable per MEDRS, which says that primary sources can be used. TimidGuy (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy, you keep asking the same question and keep getting the same answer: it contains employees and/or affiliates of MUM.edu (or related entities): Sanford Nidich, PhD; Maxwell Rainforth, PhD; Robert Schneider, MD. It is therefore not admissible as a source. Please follow the lists we've set up which do have a consensus.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I just said that if we do include it we should also reference the letters about it. I find the MEDRS issues to be a bit confusing and defer to folks who understand it better.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kala you set the lists up. There is no agreement as to their use, and or whether they are Misplaced Pages compliant. We need to consider peer review per the core policy WP:Verifiable, and guideline WP:RS so lets not get too far off the policy track. If there is disagreement discussion would be most useful.(olive (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

I thought we'd already resolved this matter. Do we need to go back to the noticeboards to get more outside input?   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kala's lists were on a Notice Board? My point is that discussion is fine. No need for anyone to get worked up. (olive (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)) To make my position clear. My comment was general and simply that our process for discussion be observed and our policies, however they need to be applied. We don't have permission to carte blanche ignore policy, and discussion can clarify many issues. Like Will, I'll stay out of this discussion now since I don't have the time to really look further.(olive (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

So did I. I suspect if the "activity" that put so many non-compliant references on these entries, and actively kept them there for years, tag-team style, continues we'd have no recourse (if those involved are not banned or blocked) but to continue use noticeboards or whatever is necessary to assure quality for these entries. I would think this would be considered vandalism if it continued, no?

Poor Littleolive Oil still is beating her "peer review" dead horse if as if she didn't hear. If you've ever spent any time around TM True Believers, this exact same "peer review" card is one commonly dragged out, as is the "I didn't hear you" excuse.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We use "reviews" "which are peer reviewed" but not all "peer reviewed paper" are "reviews" and the ones that are not we do not use. This is what WP:MEDRS says. All editors over at WP:MED agree. This consensus is crystal clear.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the decision on this is, consensus is not decided on Notice Boards, nor does Notice Board opinion trump a policy. Per Misplaced Pages Fringe Notice Board: "This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where questions relating to articles on fringe theories can be answered, and to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories." (olive (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

I think we're talking about WP:MEDRS, not WP:FRINGE. Questions about how to apply WP:MEDRS go to WT:MEDRS, which functions as the quasi-noticeboard for that guideline. Noticeboards and their ilk do not set or trump policy, but they do provide forums where uninvolved editors who are familiar with Misplaced Pages standards can help engaged editors like us interpret the policies and guidelines correctly. Arguing that all of the outside editors are wrong and that one is right may make one feel righteous but it is not conducive to consensus building in a community-run project.   Will Beback  talk  08:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Paul-Labrador study was conducted independently. But even if it hadn't been, it could still be included, per the only uninvolved feedback we got on RSN:

"At the very least, there should be clear attribution as to the provenance and authorship of these studies. And if there are 25 peer-reviewed studies by TM followers saying one thing, and no corroboration by neutral researchers, then the weight given these 25 studies should be reduced accordingly. Criticism of the studies' methodology, where available, should be represented in the article. On the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say the studies should not be used at all; if it's a peer-reviewed journal, it's a peer-reviewed journal, if the author is a follower or not. (That's assuming we are talking about reputable peer-reviewed journals.) --JN466 01:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)"

Again, MEDRS says this: "Reliable primary sources can add greatly to an article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources." There is no policy or guideline that would disallow inclusion of the study. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy, please see the above comments by Jmh649 on MEDRS consensus. Studies, papers, reviews or pseudo-reviews, peer-reviewed or not, which include TM org affiliates cannot be included. These have been conveniently listed on several TM-related talk pages, although the lists may not be exhaustive. I hope we don't have to repeat this again to you or the other editors. It's getting rather tiresome, and I'm just new here! :-)--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the discussion on WikiProject Medicine Talk. Colin says that MEDRS favors secondary over primary. We've now accomplished that -- we're favoring secondary sources. Nerdseeksblonde refers to uncited primary sources. On MVAH Talk he didn't say that all primary sources be deleted. This RCT was cited in the Kentucky meta-analysis and scored good on the study's quality scale. Plus, it was published by the AMA. So it seems not to be the sort of unicted publication that Nerdseekblonde was assuming. Will cites NOR, which says that primary sources may be used with care. I'm not sure of Whatamidoing's point, but he's clearly assuming that the studies are in journals that aren't well respected. In this case, it's a journal published by the AMA. Again, MEDRS and Misplaced Pages's core policies don't say that all primary sources must be deleted, and MEDRS explicitly says that primary sources can be included. You can't just say that a review that stops at 2005 is the final word on everything that comes after it. Regarding studies by affiliated researchers, I don't see any guideline or policy that supports your view, or any discussion on WikiProject Medicine Talk of this point. And the feedback that we got on RSN is that they can be used. TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to go back to WT:MED and get clarification. As consensus stand we do not use primary research.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Have posted here for any further comments / advice before potential arbitatration: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I followed your link but could not find any results by searching for "tm", "Transcendental Meditation", or "Doc James". Please supply the section name where you posted your request for arbitration. David Spector 23:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

POV wording in text?

Lede text now reads "A 2007 review of various meditation practices, most notably Transcendental Meditation, concluded that the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality." Is this new version of the text now POV wording? --BwB (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It reflects that despite the fact the largest number of studies were on TM, they were still of poor quality. The reason this is so surprising is that TM research has been going on for decades, and it's still poor! Even the recent TM Org sponsored "review" still uses "health education" as a control. Poor controls were noted way back in the 80's, but they're still using the same deceptive tactics. It's just a statement that reflects an on-going trend of poor quality science. This is important to know because the web is still flooded with press release-style announcements, trying to make TM research look important and factually vital.

It turns out the opposite is the case.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do is check the tex of the study to see if the study says most notably or places extra significance on the TM studies . I would think the best and most neutral thing to do is just to accurately cite the study rather than drawing any conclusions. "Reflecting the fact" is an opinion, and remember Misplaced Pages is about verifiability and not truth, in part because "truth" is subjective. Also you may want to check the article to see if the wording is POV or WP:WTA. Sorry can't help much. Moving.(olive (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

• Evidence on the state of research in meditation practices was provided in 813 predominantly poor-quality studies.
• Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure.
• The physiological and neuropsychological effects of meditation practices have been evaluated in 312 poor-quality studies.
• Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results.
• Overall, we found the methodological quality of meditation research to be poor, with significant threats to validity in every major category of quality measured, regardless of study design. The majority of RCTs did not adequately report the methods of randomization, blinding, withdrawals, and concealment of treatment allocation. Observational studies were subject to bias arising from uncertain representativeness of the target population, inadequate methods for ascertaining exposure and outcome, insufficient followup period, and high or inadequately described losses to followup.
• Mantra meditation practices such as the TM® technique and the RR were the most frequently studied meditation practices.
• A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients;

I think the sentence in question is an adequate summary of the source.   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The summary does not reflect the POV of any editors, it accurately summarizes the results of the source.Fladrif (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No it does not show POV. It is just good editing practice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is not the phrase "most notably" not OR or POV? And did it conclude specifically that "the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined". I thought the conclusion was on all meditation types generally? --BwB (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BwB, TM represents the largest sample in the review and it's what the WP entry is about!--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BwB, at some point WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has to apply to comments like those you are making in this section. This matter has been discussed to death. Consensus has been reached - unanimously among the previously uninvolved editors, I might add. The summary accurately reflects the source. It is neither original research nor expressing the POV of any editors. . Enough! Fladrif (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If its not in the source the extrapolation is OR.(olive (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

There is no extrapolation. My comment to BwB immediately above applies with even greater force to you. Fladrif (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm. We're dealing with this article and this source. Just checking the source should be sufficient. The point is, does the source say that TM is most notable in this study ... It doesn't have to use those exact words, but there should be some indication in the study that this is how the researchers viewed the study, I would think. I'm not sure that counting up the studies and then saying one aspect is most notable is a legitimate way of describing what's in the source. And Flad I stand by my discussion points here and in the past to be as honest per Misplaced Pages policy as I can be. I don't have time to look at the diffs you've posted of archives, but it really doesn't matter to me. (olive (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

If the text says that "that the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined" rather than "that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined" then I am OK with that. Otherwise we need to go back to the earlier version. It is also interesting to note here that some editors are considering TM "most notable" in the study when the study also includes mindfulness meditation and yoga. It was argued by editors, in our discussion of the lede sentence that TM was reported to be the most widely practiced and researched meditation technique, that mindfulness meditation had more adherents now than TM and the TM numbers were dropping. If that is the argument, then perhaps the sentence should read ""A 2007 review of various meditation practices, most notably mindfulness meditation, concluded that the definitive health effects of meditaiton cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality." Or we could just go back to the earlier "generic" version? --BwB (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that it's fine just the way it is. I've never seen such concentrated interest in one paragraph!

Regarding mindfulness meditation, I believe the claim is that while TM was once the most researched meditation method around, that is no longer the case. A meditation researcher at the University of Mass., Jon Kabat-Zinn, has noted MM research is growing at an exponential rate. As with most exponential curves, the growth is near the end of the curve, probably too soon to make the Alberta review. I suspect that much of this has to do with worldwide acceptance of MM in hospitals and now for reimbursement from some insurance companies. I've seen several textbook-level publications as well.

I've heard not any claims as to the number of adherents.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No I think it is good the way it is. Maybe the people from MUM should also stop editing TM related pages until the socket puppet investigation is done? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have been unable to pick up sooner where I left off nearly a week ago. I have been traveling on an intense schedule. Just back last night, I am still catching up on what has happened in the meantime. What I see does not look good. Where I left off was with the suggestion that if other editors feel we must cite either the specific analyses or the sweeping generalizations made in the AHRQ report, to be balanced we must deal also with the weaknesses of the report. Many of these are outlined in detail in the peer reviewed Comment published side by side with the peer reviewed paper summarizing the overall results of the report. If anyone has read these two (I'll give a link below), then it will be obvious that there were mistakes and misstatements in the original report. The biggest problem with the original was that despite its claim to be peer reviewed, it was not. I don't know if this is a common practice of the AHRQ or a unique situation with this report, but one notices right away in the peer reviewed paper that the tone of the conclusions has changed significantly and some of the conclusions have been modified. This is what peer reviewing is all about--forcing the authors to toe the line in terms of science and their conclusions. So the first weakness that needs to be mentioned in the TM article is that the official report was not peer reviewed in the manner of scientific articles. Because of that fact alone, the review has no business being in the lede, but there are many other reasons for moving it from the lede to the scientific research section that probably would take precedence. The two articles begin on pages 1199 and 1215 of the journal at this link <http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/acm/14/10?cookieSet=1>. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a report from the US government agency, read Therefore it is not peer reviewed like a usual journal publications. Unable to open your link. Please post a PMID. This is similar to a CDC report. And it definitely belongs in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's an additional point to consider. The Ospina Bond review did two things: 1) assessed quality of the research using the Jadad scale, and 2) performed meta-analyses on selected studies. The revised, published version of the report presents the assessment of the quality of the research. Since they changed their stance somewhat, even acknowledging that the Jadac scale may not be appropriate for assessing meditation studies, and since they raised the scores of the studies (they eventually became convinced that single-blinding was sufficient), I would suggest that in reporting their findings regarding quality of the research, we use as our source the revised, published version rather than the original report released online. TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TimidGuy for your concerns, perhaps you still have not heard: after much consideration, the paragraph looks fine as it is. It also is not a good idea for biased or directly affected parties to be editing these entries. Hopefully you heard me this time! Thanks in advance.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, the link I gave is to Volume 14, Number 10 of the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. It works fine for me. All papers in this issue are free. Scroll down to the Original Papers section. The two articles are the second and third under that heading. Please show me what WP rule or guideline says reports of government agencies are more reliable than peer reviewed articles. Indeed, please show me the rule or guideline that says government reports are reliable sources. The AHRQ WP article you linked to confirms what we already know. Government agencies and their reports are highly political. As the article says, the power of this particular agency has been cut by law due to political considerations. We all know how dishonest and distorted politics can be. Let's remember that we are trying to create a WP-compliant, reliable article on TM. Peer reviewed sources trump all others, especially when we are discussing scientific matters. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources are always more important than primary sources. There's no evidence that the AHRQ or the NCCAM are significantly political in how they review studies.   Will Beback  talk  07:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the PMID Orme-Johnson DW (2008). "Commentary on the AHRQ report on research on meditation practices in health". J Altern Complement Med. 14 (10): 1215–21. doi:10.1089/acm.2008.0464. PMID 19123876. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) The secondary source stands. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone responded to my suggestion of preferring the revised, published version in regard to presenting their assessment of quality. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable suggestion, Timid. --BwB (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Which version is that that you refer too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback, please show me where the WP rules or guidelines say that any and all secondary sources are better than any and all primary sources. A bad, non-peer reviewed, secondary source is infinitely less reliable than a good, peer reviewed article. If WP guidelines say something different, then those guidelines are faulty and must be changed, that is, IF our goal is to have WP be a reliable encyclopedia. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, the peer reviewed version is the article just before the Orme-Johnson commentary in the journal cited above. And are you telling me that as an experienced WP editor you are hands down ready to accept a politically contrived point of view over an honestly peer reviewed original article? ChemistryProf (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Have we decided that we're comparing a poor secondary source and a good peer-reviewed source?   Will Beback  talk  04:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide refs for your comment that the review is politically contrived. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two different versions of the quality assessment presented by Ospina Bond (aka AHRQ). The first was the original report released online in 2007. A revised version was published in 2008 in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. The revised version raised the scores of the studies, modified the conclusions somewhat (noting that 10% of the studies scored good or better on Jadad and that there had been a statistically significant increase in quality over time), and acknowledged, for example, that the Jadad scale may not be an appropriate tool for assessing meditation research. My feeling is that we should use the revised version as the source for the quality assessment rather than the original report. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

On 29 January, Doc James informed us that the AHRQ reports are not peer reviewed but also implied that since AHRQ is a government agency it not only is a reliable source but takes precedence over peer reviewed primary sources. I have not seen any rules or guidelines that would support this position. Furthermore, in the AHRQ WP article, the politicized nature of the agency is alluded to. An illustration is given as to how powerfully the agency is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry and other special interest groups. Of course, we editors have succeeded in making WP an unreliable source, but everyone knows that all government agencies and departments are politicized. Look at what has happened to the Department of Justice, for example. So I am looking for the WP rules that say that government reports are reliable sources. If there are such rules, then we need to modify them to more accurately reflect the situation. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, in answer to your question of 31 January, read Orme-Johnson's critique to see the evidence of political contrivance. The consultants that AHRQ referred to as "peer reviewers" submitted their corrections and recommendations to the authors, but rather than the authors directing their responses to the reviewers for consensual approval, they simply submitted their responses to an administrator at AHRQ for her to make the final decision of whether the criticisms had been adequately met. Neither the authors' responses nor the administrator's reasons for accepting or rejecting these responses was made accessible to the reader. This is not an acceptable peer review procedure but is a political contrivance to allow the administrator to unduly influence the final report. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy, in answer to your suggestion, I agree that the peer reviewed article summarizing the corrected results from the AHRQ report is by far the better choice, but I disagree that it should be in the lede. From my reading of the guidelines for the lede, this is where the overview of the whole article is given, not an emphasis on any one part, such as the research. These reviews and reports should be mentioned under the appropriate headings in the body of the article. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I do not understand what "the pharmaceutical industry" has to do with any of this. Yes there are "special interest groups" most prominently people who are employees of MUM who are attempting to use the internet to promote there ideas and thus increase the number of student they have. If you disagree with the current interpretation of WP:policy as I said previously ask over at WP:MED.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way here are the cridentials of the author David Orme-Johnson ( Maharishi University professor, and current creator of the "Truth about TM" website ). Does not sound very independent.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, let's try a little mind game. Let's pretend that the several hundred studies purporting to find beneficial effects of meditation in a variety of medical areas are actually reporting correct information. Who might begin to be a bit concerned about their bottom line? You guessed it--pharmaceutical companies. If people find cures that result in decreasing sales of their drugs, they are not happy. Their 20% profit on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of drugs sold annually might be dropped a percent or two. For most corporations, that is a concern. Do the corporations sit around and wait for such predictable downturns? No, they are proactive. Preemptive strikes are not the sole propriety of the military. The pharmaceutical companies exercise major controls over not only NIH and its departments but medical schools, hospitals, and individual doctors. The NIH National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine was established to promote research into natural medicines and new preventive approaches, including meditation. However, some years ago the head was replaced by someone who had no discernible background in this field. That tradition continues today. The research in this center has been taken over and is today a far cry from fulfilling its original goals. The WP article on AHRQ mentions the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, and in doing so merely confirms what many already know. Government agencies are tilted toward the politics of the big moneyed interests. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that research can be skewed depending on who pays the bills or conducts the studies? And that the peer-review process isn't adequate to ensure that only neutral findings are reported in journals?   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the credentials of Orme-Johnson, who are we supposed to look for to criticize research on meditation, representatives of the pharmaceutical companies? It is true that Orme-Johnson was an author on several of the studies contained in the AHRQ report. On the other hand, this is his field of expertise, and he was obviously seen as an appropriate expert from whom the journal wanted a critique of the AHRQ summary. This is the way science progresses. The people most knowledgeable in a field are the ones who pave the way forward. It is rare that someone from outside a field adds anything to advance either the frontiers or the knowledge base of the field. If experts in the topic of the article are excluded from WP, as seems to happen, then we get an unreliable encyclopedia that few in academe will allow students to cite. What is the value of that? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And what is your theory for the Cochrane collaboration in 2006 also concluding that the research was of such poor quality that effectiveness could not be concluded? People who practice TM are not experts in medical research / medicine. WP does not exclude experts just people with obvious COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Ospina Bond modified their conclusion somewhat and raised the scores of the studies in their revised published version, could we perhaps agree that in presenting their view of the quality of research, we use the JACM publication rather than the report released online? We would still use the original report for presenting the results of the meta-analyses, which wasn't included in JACM. This consideration is apart from any discussion regarding the lead. It would be nice if we could get consensus on this. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. I think it's better to go with the review. If another review is eventually released, we could use that.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the review over the revision, Kala? --BwB (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

BwB, WP:MEDRS guides us thusly:

"This page in a nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies."-Kala Bethere (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) This PMID 19123875 is not a revision of this PMID 17764203? Please clarify? Also this publication Evid Rep Technol Assess is much more respected than this J Altern Complement Med Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc's version accurately summarizes Ospina-Bond. The language which TG keeps trying to insert, misconstrues and misrepresents the findings of the original study and of thefollowup, and is inaccurate, misleading and contrary to WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV. That's the consensus as far as I'm concerned. Fladrif (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Will Beback's question above, I was answering Doc James's question about what pharmaceutical companies had to do with the AHRQ report. Precisely because the report did not fit standard peer review procedures, it was left vulnerable to influences not acknowledged or apparent on the surface. This is true of most if not all government reports and for that matter of most reports of any nature that do not undergo strict peer review. Of course, biased papers can slip through a good peer review process too, but at least this is less likely to happen under stringent review procedures involving independent reviewers, as employed by most journals. And, Fladrif, this is why both TimidGuy and I have been pushing for use of the peer reviewed summary instead of the government report. The peer reviewed report has been held to higher standards in which some of the errors that marred the government report have been corrected. It is the more reliable of the two, and it is newer--a later version. For all these reasons, the journal article is superior to the original report. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And Doc James, if you read the Ospina et al. article published in JACM, you will see that the authors state it was based on their AHRQ report. By comparing the data given in the two documents, you will also see that some of the numbers and conclusions are different. This is because errors found by multiple reviewers of the AHRQ report were not corrected in the report but were corrected in the peer reviewed publication in JACM. As for your question on the Cochrane collaboration, which of the reviews are you referring to here? I cannot comment on that until I know which one. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was based on the same data set as the AHRQ. This does not mean it is either an update or a summary. It was looking at a different question.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Relaxation training review

This review is summarized in the article as follows:

• "These conclusions were supported by a 2008 review which found equivalent effects from relaxation training and Transcendental Meditation."

The only thing that the review says about TM is this:

• "An old meta-analysis , published in 1989 about the effects of relaxation trainings on trait anxiety found that relaxation techniques had a medium effect size, while transcendental meditation had significantly larger effect size."

I don't understand. I guess I'll just go ahead and quote from the study. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What are we talking about? It'd be a courtesy to other editors to give some context to postings. Which study by whom?   Will Beback  talk  12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What study?--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does seem that the only comment on TM in this review is regarding a study from 1989. Since the Cochrane review is newer will remove the review completely.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Both reviews are from 2008. The Cochrane review examines a study from 1980, the relaxation review cites a meta-analysis from 1989. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the next review will cover these later reviews? We'll just have to wait and see. I'm not too impressed with the latest TM research, as they are still using poor controls. After decades of research, I'm not sure how helpful more poor research is, other than as an excuse to push TM Org press releases. In any event, let's try to keep biased materials by TM Org affiliated authors out so we can maintain quality and maintain WP standards. Besides we already have some major publications by leading neuroscientists.

I also don't think we need to keep rehashing this over and over again.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cochrane hold more weight than the others no matter if it is a couple years old. Just because well it is a Cochrane review. And it shall continue to hold more weight.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving sentence

Timid moves a sentence within a paragraph without changing the text of that sentence. Kala reverts claiming edit warring and no consensus. What's going on here? --BwB (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors have asked those associated with MUM / TM to stop editing this topic area until these issues are resolved. All editors here are aware of that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc. Please show a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says an editor accused, especially unfairly, of sockpuppetry or meat puppetry must stop editing. (olive (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

Littleolive, I believe I mentioned to you before the WP:COI statement "COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Misplaced Pages is not, and copyright compliance, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Misplaced Pages for the individuals and groups being promoted." A recently posted list shows you and a number of other editors here had IP addresses which revealed potentially serious COI conflicts. Please be careful given this new information. Thanks In Advance.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

COI issues belong on the COIN. I am not a sock or meat puppet so I have no qualms about editing as I always have -neutrally. There is no embarrassment in truthfulness. (olive (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

To all, this talk page is to discuss the subject and text of this article. Other topics and discussions especially those about editors, their behavior, allegedsock puppets, COI etc. belong elsewhere. Thank you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So, to come back to the initial question raised above. How is a simple move of a sentence within a paragraph without any change of text considered edit warring? All this talk of COI and sockpuppet is beside the point. --BwB (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that question occurred to me, too. Why would that be considered edit warring? It seems quite reasonable to juxtapose the two, since they're both dealing with the quality of the research, and then go on to talk about the meta-analyses. TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Please show a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says an editor accused, especially unfairly, of sockpuppetry or meat puppetry must stop editing" is tongue in cheek wikilawyering, nothing else, and Misplaced Pages has a time-honoured tradition of showing people trying this the door directly.

We want no socks, and we want no COI pov pushers, and we have the will and the tools to ban such editors, under WP:DISRUPT, WP:COI, WP:DUCK, WP:UCS and if necessary even WP:IAR. If the letter of policy is made to conflict with the spirit, it is the spirit that is going to win out every time. This is no court of law, and it is no democracy. Ah yes, and WP:ENC. --dab (𒁳) 11:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Research studies on the applications of Transcendental Meditation

The upshot is "null result". I do not think that a separate article is necessary to point this out. In fact, I understand that there is an ongoing attempt of hiding the upshot in as much text as possible so it won't be staring readers in the face so much. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dab. I agree that that article should be merged. I've been researching secondary sources, and I'm finding that there are scores of review articles, a number more recent than Ospina Bond, which only included studies through 2005, and they say that TM has effects on health and on the physiology. TimidGuy (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are "scores" of reviews that editors want to add then that may be a good reason to keep and use a separate research article. I would not want to see this article return to being a collection of abstracts of studies.   Will Beback  talk  13:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The point of a separate article on the TM Research was to keep the main article from being a dumping ground for endless summaries of hundreds of primary sources which the TM-Org affiliated editors insisted on. The idea - which never really got anywhere, was to have this article say "There's lots of research on TM. Go to the other article to read about it so we don't get bogged down in minutiae here." Now that we have (at least for the moment) managed to enforce WP:MEDRS in this article, it probably makes sense to delete the separate article, because the principles of MEDRS apply with equal force to that article as to this one. Merging them, as TG suggests, would undo everything that has been accomplished here. If, in fact, there are "scores" of new reviews of studies that actually meet the requirements of MEDRS, (and I'll reserve judgment on that until I see what TG has in mind - assuming of course, that he isn't topic banned in fairly short order) I might consider that they go in the separate research article. Definitely not in this one. Fladrif (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to delete and redirect.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the redirect so long as research studies don't overwhelm the article. Otherwise, it may be best to have a single article devoted to the '600 studies'.   Will Beback  talk  12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

None of this primary research is notable and therefore does not belong on Misplaced Pages.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted some additions by TimidGuy in the Harvard review he suddenly and surprisingly added. It seems to be a very non-critically examined list meditation research, good and bad, and not very helpful, even misleading. Some problems with TimidGuy's remaining edits are still there, and I'd like to discuss them with editors. Most of the information he's using are from old, obsolete, Primary sources, some have even been shown to be false conclusions way back in the 80's. I realize these are still popular things to say by TM advocates, but a lot of them just don't hold water. For example:

"A 2009 review said that research on Transcendental Meditation has shown specific physiological changes to occur, such as a reduction in respiratory rate, decreased breath volume, a decrease in lactate (associated with stress), a decrease in cortisol, and increases in basal skin resistance."

This is all from old, obsolete research, most if not all by primary researchers, back in the 70's! Compared to resting controls, I don't know that there truly is any significant difference.

"EEG research on brain waves has shown an increase in theta waves and a dominant pattern of alpha waves in the frontal and occipital lobes. With long-term practice these changes seen in meditation carry over into activity. These changes may enhance brain integration and reduce emotional reactivity."

These are mentioned as hypotheses. Any quote, should reflect this. However the TM reference is to research by primary-TM researchers and highly speculative, indeed this comment is contradicted by the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness and the experienced meditation researchers and neuroscientists of that textbook.

Overall, a very poor quality review, with numerous errors.

Also, I'm wondering the status of the COI and Sockpuppet findings. Are you supposed to be posting TimidGuy?--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these concerns. I am not sure that anything other than what they specifically looked at should be included here "ie the literature on addiction" as they do not seem to look extensively at anything else.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We go with what the sources say. The review gave as much space to this overview of findings on TM as it did to the topic of addiction. TimidGuy (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anderson study

Once again, someone is changing a lede paragraph without discussion or consensus, after consensus was already reached on the third paragraph. The "Anderson study" (second one) with the cherry-picked studies actually lists the majority (all but 1) as being compared to "Health Education" controls. Therefore please don't remove this without discussion, esp. on an already consensus-based lede paragraph TimidGuy! It's important to show that subtle physiologic differences are not the result of comparing meditators to someone else resting, twice a day, with eyes closed, with similar expectations, but instead to "Health Education".

We're having problems with people editing these articles not only without consensus, but when we've already reached a consensus on their current form.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kala. Your request must then apply to all Wiki editors. I suggest it also apply to other TM related articles. I note that many changes have been made to this article in the last few weeks without consensus. --BwB (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll just observe that this argument seems to be used by both sides and is empty in both cases. Probably every editor here now or in the past has made edits without first seeking consensus, which is the bold Misplaced Pages way to go. I suggest we get past that and return to the substance of this thread, the Anderson study.   Will Beback  talk  14:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My primary point was that we were already agreed on the final form of the 3rd lede paragraph, and it was my understanding that the WP:MEDRS preference is for reviews (thus the inclusion of the Bond-Ospina review, rather than the later comments). TimidGuy had already been reminded of this at least twice before. The 2nd Anderson TMO study, I wonder why we're including it at all. If we are, it is appropriate to include (per one of the tables summarizing the included studies) that 7 out of the 9 studies use HE as their controls.

Has anyone considered that this "review" was initated by the TM Org? WHo decided what studies would be included? Would such an implication, if known, make it a primary source? A review of cherry-picked TM studies, sponsored by a TM benefactor seems highly questionable, esp. given the table of BP comparisons shown previously in the Bond-Ospina review.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes TimidGuys edits are little more than attempts at vandalism.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops.Check WP:VANDALISM before making such statements about another editor.(olive (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Wow, I blew that. I thought that I had remembered that Anderson explicitly said that he was simply looking at reduction and not factoring in controls. I may have been confusing it with the Rainforth meta-analysis. My deep and sincere apologies. Kala, in regard to why certain studies were selected for Anderson's meta-analysis, he describes that process in detail. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

2004 Canter & Ernst review

This is now in the article twice. Is that a mistake?

• These results were similar to a 2004, review examining the effects of TM on blood pressure which concluded that there was "insufficient good-quality evidence to conclude whether or not TM has a cumulative positive effect on blood pressure." The review said that the RCTs published had important methodological weaknesses and were potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization.

• A 2004 review found that many of the studies related to TM were potentially biased by the association of their authors to the TM organization and had problems with methodology.

I suggest we delete the second occurrence. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes missed that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sidhis / Flying

Neither one of these are mentioned in this article? Wondering why as they are extensions of TM. This ref says "The TM® Sidhis (sic) Program, an add-on to the core TM® product, purports to accept such powers as accruing from meditation practice, and specifically seeks to first develop the siddhi of levitation." PMID 16931164 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I should think that a sentence saying that "The Transcendental Meditation Movement markets, for additional fees in the thousands of dollars, various "advanced techniques" of TM, one of which the TM-Siddhi program.", would be appropriate.Fladrif (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

See if this works.Fladrif (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but what about the levitation and invisibility?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• In a related issue, we should have at least a short section on the Maharishi Effect, created when 1% of a population practices TM. We can still refer back to the TM-Sidhi program article for the main coverage, which is best kept in one place.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Advanced technique section

This section is inaccurately named. We are conflating the idea that some mediation techniques are more "advanced" than the TM technique with a group of techniques that are actually called Advanced Techniques. So we have to tile the section to indicate the techniques are "beyond or other than" the initial TM techniqu with out using the term advanced technique. The are two different groups of techniques that are given beyond the TM technique according to the sources, one is Advanced Techniques the other is the TM Sidhi Program. I'll rename the section to reflect this information.(olive (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

As well the wording is not accurate per the source.(olive (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Source: "In the mid seventies Maharishi began training senior staff in advanced techniques." then "By 1977 Maharishi officially focused his attention on more advanced groups of people who underwent TM Sidhi techniques." (olive (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

I say we change it back to advanced techniques "Supplemental “advanced techniques” practiced by some advanced TM® initiates (e.g., trained teachers or those practicing the technique longer than 5 years) include TM® Flying (Sidhis Program), in which “involuntary muscle contractions” are induced to allow the flyer a paroxysmal movement into the air from a sitting position." PMID 16931164 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the text for your quote on the link/ page you've included. Perhaps "Supplemental techniques" would be a good way to word this.(olive (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Kala's edits correct the text so that takes care of one concern.(olive (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Yes it is in the body of the article rather than in the abstract.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As I read these sources, TM-Sidhi is described as one of the TM advanced techniques. Now, I do understand from blogs and other sources that don't qualify as Reliable Sources that TM has something that the TM Movement calls "Advanced Techniques" that involve adding new words to your mantra, or additional mantras, as well as yoga postures and I'm not sure what all else. I understand that "Advanced Techniques" is a separate course or courses, from the TM Sidhi course or courses. But TM Sidhi is also characterized as an advanced technique. But, I do not see in the sources we can actually use the distinction that olive is trying to draw. I'm just trying to be as accurate as I can in summarizing the sources. It would probably be helpful if people who are familiar with the techniques and courses we are talking about could point us to some reliable sources. I think it is important in this article to accurately describe that there are more courses beyond basic TM that are still regarded as part of or building upon TM, what they entail and what they claim to do, and what they cost.Fladrif (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the webpage for the Advanced Techniques . The so-called "advanced techniques" repeat the same puja as with TM and they just adjust the mantra by adding prefixes or suffixes to the original seed syllable or involve how the awareness of the mantra is placed. The TM-Sidhi program requires SCI and a lengthy preparation. I've previously described this, so I won't go into it again. I heard recently that they were requiring or were going to require taking all seven advanced techniques prior to taking the TM-Sidhi program.--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had that wrong: four advanced techniques, plus what's called the "Night technique" before taking TM-SP (c. 2008). It doesn't sound like they are any longer teaching the Age of Enlightenment technique, unless they're giving that out with the TM-SP now.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We may be reading the source I'm quoting above differently. I see the source as saying there were advanced techniques in the 70' s, and then later the TM Sidhi program for advanced groups -two different situations. I guess whatever we use we should be careful ourselves to delineate the ways of describing techniques that are given after the TM technique. I can't comment on Kala's info . I just don't have the information he has, but we'd need sources anyway.(olive (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Techniques and sequence appear to have changed over time, some kept, some discarded. It's probably sufficient to indicate one of the most recent indicated on a Global Country website :

In 2005 Maharishi added a new Advanced Technique, the Night Technique, to the Transcendental Meditation program. Its purpose is to accelerate growth to higher states of consciousness, specifically by taking advantage of our time of sleep to support the growth of enlightenment. The Night Technique is now the first in the sequence of four Advanced Techniques.

--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A great historic source of old techniques is the Kropinski fraud trial, case 85-2848, Kropinski vs. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, WPEC-US, MIU .--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me a bit off-topic, but I believe the night technique is no longer taught, and I believe that no Advanced Techniques are required to learn the TM-Sidhi Program. I could be wrong. David spector (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

David, the Maharishi re-introduced the Night technique in 2005 to be part of the first advanced technique.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we appreciate imput from those who teach TM and work at MUM we need to use reliable sources and cannot go by people personal experience. The 2006 ref describes advanced techniques and says TM-Sidhi is one of them. If those within the field use the words differently or categorize courses differently they must remember that Misplaced Pages is for the general public and is not specifically for TMers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki writes for all and should provide the reader with correct information. --BwB (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not reasonable for Doc James to oppose the statement of a fact based on his own ignorance. Personal ignorance is never a valid argument from which to deduce any sensible conclusion. We should improve the article based on our knowledge and (when possible) on WP:RS (unfortunately, there are few reliable sources for detailed information on TM). The TM-Sidhi Program has never been referred to as an "Advanced Technique", except possibly by those ignorant of TM terminology. The statement that the set of techniques called "Advanced Techniques" has changed over time is correct. I suspect that Kala is correct in her description of the current set of "Advanced Techniques". David spector (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jadad scale

• The authors said that the Jadad scale "may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation. Though various criteria to assess methodological quality of studies are available in the scientific literature, there is no consensus on which quality assessment tool can be recommended without reservation. The approach adopted for this review serves to indicate important potential methodological weaknesses in meditation research, thereby tempering the conclusions that may be drawn from meditation clinical trials and highlighting areas for improving future research."

This seems excessively long, especially for a verbatim quote. We might add a long quote for an important conclusion, but this is just an aside. We should be able to summarize this in a single sentence.   Will Beback  talk  11:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine to summarize it, as long as we make the point that the authors acknowledge that the Jadad scale may not be appropriate. This is definitely not an aside. It's a point of discussion in the published version, and it's a key point. Their assessment of quality was based on the Jadad scale, and as they acknowledge, it's not obvious that the Jadad scale is appropriate to meditation research. The scale is based on double blinding, but it's not possible to double blind meditation research. The published version of the review also has a discussion of this. Other published reviews explicitly say that you can't double blind meditation research. David OJ's commentary published alongside Ospina Bond in JACM also talks about this. We should add a couple sentences referencing his commentary. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please cut it down to a more reasonable length.   Will Beback  talk  12:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it doesn't present an actual scientific conclusion, it should not be included in the article. Many things "might" happen, but that's not what a review of scientitifc findings should summarize. If the scientitsts retracted their finding, that would be another situation.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This is an interesting aspect on the general methodology of meditation research an dis worthy of note. --BwB (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate if the article was actually on the Jadad scale, but it is not.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This is absolutely an aside, and adding this material does nothing to inform the reader about TM research. What scale the researchers used to evaluate the meditation studies is fundamentally irrelevant. Did the number of "good" TM studies go up from 3 out of 230? Whether or not meditation studies can be double-blinded is not a subject matter for this article. This is simply an attempt to bury adverse findings in an avalanche of irrelevance, something we've seen on these pages consistently ever since this analysis was published. Fladrif (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant, it's central. There is no absolute standard by which research is judged. It's important that the reader know what scale was used -- and that the authors themselves acknowledge that it may not be appropriate to meditation research. And they explicitly state that 10% of the 400 clinical studies scored good or better on Jadad. We need to report this; otherwise the reader assumes that all of the meditation research was weak. Not all of it was, and there's been a statistically significant in the improvement in quality over time. TimidGuy (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy, there already is an entry for the Jadad scale. Perhaps this reference could find a welcome and more appropriate home there? It seems too tangential to include here.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy is absolutely correct here. The Jadad scale was not only one of the central parts of both the original AHRQ report and the updated report in JACM, it could easily be held that it was the most important part. Poor research quality of the average meditation study was the central conclusion of both reports, and the Jadad scale was used to reach that conclusion in both cases. Therefore it is highly appropriate to quote the authors' caveat concerning this measure. It is also worth mentioning that the authors found several of the TM blood pressure trials to be in the good range on research quality even using this inappropriate measure. They do not mention this finding in the summary, but it is shown in one of the tables. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't devote more space to a detail of how the review was conducted than to its conclusions. We can summarize the point in a short sentence.   Will Beback  talk  18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to include it is the most widely used assessment of it's kind in the world.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We write for the general public. No one has any idea what a Jadad score is therefore since this is not a page about Jadad scores it has not place in the article. Adding extra information to detract from the real conclusions is poor editing form.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback, Kala Bethere, Doc James, your points here are well taken. If I have the liberty of expressing this in terms that will be meaningful not only to the scientists who might read this article (and a few may indeed do so, regardless of WP's poor reputation), then I will alter the statement in the article and see if it meets with approval. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content sourced to pediatric review

Why were the following sentences removed that were sourced to the pediatric review? "Of the 6 TM studies, 5 were randomized controlled trials. A primary outcome of the randomized controlled trials on Transcendental Meditation was the reduction of hypertension and improvement in vascular function relative to health education, as well as reductions in absenteeism and attentional problems." There is no policy or guideline that supports the removal of this sourced content. TimidGuy (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered that too, Timid. Thanks for asking for clarification on that. --BwB (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a full copy for review, but it looks like this is not specific for just TM, so therefore either are it's conclusions. Also I cannot see if the source studies are primary, TM Org derived studies. It's not clear how or if they were able to isolate TM as a variable.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at it and it appears this is not related to TM specifically, but to "sitting meditation" in general. It does not isolate TM separately as a variable. It also, it turns out, was a non-consensus edit. Thanks for pointing this out and helping improve these entries.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The review gives details of the findings of 6 studies on TM. These findings can be reported in Misplaced Pages. Your removal of sourced material isn't acceptable. TimidGuy (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy, unfortunately the conclusion most readers would find on this source, doesn't even mention TM in it's conclusions! Please re-read the conclusion, you'll see what I mean. I also certainly hope this review is not hiding a bunch of primary sources again TimidGuy, as I know we've talked about that problem before. If you wanted to created a new entry called "Sitting meditation" though, I think this could be a great start for you.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

TG's mode of adding content is completely consistent with how content is being added and subtracted to all of theTM articles at this point. A revert based on no consensus given that history is problematic. Since there has been a push to include reviews some of which do not pertain to TM specifically, possible lack of specificity as a reason to revert before discussion is inconsistent and no reason to revert content in the future.(olive (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. Note that it describes the results of each of the 16 studies included in the review. This information that I included in the article was specific to the TM studies reviewed. It's interesting that the very editor who removed individual TM studies is removing a review of TM studies. TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TimidGuy and Olive here. If the TM results are specifically shown and discussed in the article, it does not matter that the abstract does not mention TM specifically, those results are relevant. The TM results presented in the article are singled out because this WP article is about the TM program, not about all sitting meditation techniques. If it would clarify the matter, we could add a preface to the sentences as follows: "A review of the effects of sitting meditation techniques in adolescents...." However, I am getting the strong impression that Kala Bethere simply does not want to allow any positive results or statements about the TM program no matter what kind of publication is used as the source. This is not good WP editing. We are here to represent the sources as accurately as possible, not to pick only the sources and statements that show negative (or positive) conclusions. And just to clarify a point, all reviews rely on primary sources. That is what a review is all about. The fact that a reviewer has examined all the primary sources and reached a conclusion is the value of a review. Reviews published in peer reviewed journals are excellent secondary sources. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi ChemProf. I wasn't referring to the abstract, but the actual conclusions of the paper (emphasis, mine):

"CONCLUSIONS: Sitting meditation seems to be an effective intervention in the treatment of physiologic, psychosocial, and behavioral conditions among youth. Because of current limitations, carefully constructed research is needed to advance our understanding of sitting meditation and its future use as an effective treatment modality among younger populations."

Please note the lack of mention of any one specific sitting meditation. It does mention the fact that the datum is disproportionately taken from African-American youths. So it's unfortunately not representative of or generalizable to the population as a whole.

It's hardly fair to blame me for the consistently poor quality of TM research or the high standards the WP uses.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Were in the paper does it mention that "Of the 6 TM studies, 5 were randomized controlled trials."? I read the paper and do not see it mentioned which is the comment you see in my edit summary..Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See pages 536-37 for information on which studies are RCTs. This review includes research on TM, and this article can reference the studies it mentions. Please don't make up rules restricting what can be taken from a source. TimidGuy (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah so you mean that you went through the list of papers mentioned. Counted up the ones that were RCTs and TM and ones that were not RCTs and TM generated a number and added it to Misplaced Pages? Please see WP:NOR.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. Were you the one who added this sentence? "Of these 16 studies 5 were uncontrolled." TimidGuy (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) page 535 "The majority of intervention designs were randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) (n11), and the remaining studies (n 5) had a pretest/posttest no-control-group design." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy, this nonsense has got to stop. And I mean now. If you want to get topic-banned, if not banned from Misplaced Pages entirely, you certainly seem to be going about achieving that in the right way, and with a vengance. You cannot mispresent findings of a study just because your employer doesn't like the conclusions. You cannot insert your own original research into articles to advance the positions of your employer. If you are incapable of conforming your editing to the rules, standards and guidelines of this encylopedia - and there is ample evidence that you either cannot or will not- you should not be editing here. If you can't make that decision for yourself, you're going to find to your embarassment that someone is going to make that decision for you, and probably in very short order the way things are going.Fladrif (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

When I raised the point a few days ago about OR wording in the lede: "Lede text now reads "A 2007 review of various meditation practices, most notably Transcendental Meditation, concluded that the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality." Is this new version of the text now POV wording? --BwB (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)" I got hammered by editors saying it was not OR but reflected the study, even though the study did not specifically "note" TM or conclude that "the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality." And now here we have Timid getting berated for doing what looks very similar with this study. --BwB (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the reference page numbers are given.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of JACM article

The removal of content sourced to this published review is unacceptable. It presents in a more balanced way the results of Ospina Bond's original review. It raises the total number of studies scoring good or better on Jadad. It openly discusses the issues of whether Jadad is appropriate and whether it's possible to double blind meditation studies. It's important to reference their most recent thinking on the topic. TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi TG. Unfortunately Jadad scoring just doesn't much to do with this entry which is on TM. You'll be happy to know however that the WP does have an article on the Jadad scale ]. Perhaps they'll find these comments helpful.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This remark and attitude of Kala Bethere is disingenuous and not appropriate for WP editing. (See discussion of this point above.) ChemistryProf (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Timid guy changed the review to say something which is was not. It was than removed as this interpretation was wrong. Have re added a correct interpretation.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Par for the course. First, TimidGuy and Olive engaged in a tag-team edit war to revert ANY mention of this study in the article. After that ultimately failed, we have seen a concerted and continual effort, led by TimidGuy, to completely mispresent and misrepresent its findings. This is simply a tiresome continuation of that very disturbing pattern of editing. When is CheckUser going to finish up on the Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet Noticeboard?Fladrif (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What? Complete rubbish.(olive (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

No, it's not rubbish. It is absolutely and irrefutably true, your feigned outrage notwithstanding/ If you want diffs proving it, just go to WP:COIN, and type "olive" in the "Search Archives" Box. As I was saying, when will CheckUser get done on the Meat/Sock page? I was under the impression that these things don't usually take this long to process. Fladrif (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No one here knows how long it will take for the SPI/CU to finish. It's out of our hands.   Will Beback  talk  18:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have warned TimidGuy on his user page and will request a block if this continues . There is continued editing against consensus and continued addition of information that is not in the reference / misinterpretation of references by this group.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to help this discussion, Doc, how do you define "consensus"? --BwB (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Valid point for Lede

Earlier today I added the following sentence to lede, which was later removed by Kala.

"By 2004, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had awarded more than $20 million in funding for research on the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique on heart disease."

This is a valid sentence to have in the lede. It reflects a topic in the body of the article and show that TM research has received substantial funding over the years. Cannot see any Wiki policy to say it cannot be in the lede. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources for that are a dead link and a blog. Poorly sourced material shouldn't be anywhere in the article, much less the lede.   Will Beback  talk  19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The link is fine. I've checked it twice. No reason to not add this to the article is there? (olive (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

I wonder why it was marked "dead link". Maybe it was down for some reason. In any case, that source says "To date, Maharishi University has received more than $20 million in government support." Maybe the MUM article would be a better place for that information.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I reworded it to make it closer to the source.   Will Beback  talk  20:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. If no one moves it I can move it later on if others are in agreement.(olive (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

I'd mention that this is acceptable in the lede as balance to the position on the research that is there now. (olive (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

What is it balancing?   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Little Olive, it sounds unbalanced to me, as it gives the false impression that just because they were awarded money, the research was decent, of good quality and independent. Just because they were awarded money does not mean the research meets WP:MEDRS! I'm not even certain that the monies were for independent researchers; it was my understanding that this money went to TM Org researchers, which would mean research that does not even meet WP:MEDRS guidelines.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Ospina Bond study undertaken? The reason for the Ospina-Bond Study is that the NIH is constantly under a lot of criticism for having spent millions and millions of dollars on research through its Center for Complementary and A Aternative Medicine on things like meditation or acupuncture or herbal supplements . The NIH didn't even want to set up the office; it was a Congressional mandate. Advocates criticise the NIH for putting alternative medicine in its own little lonely corner; critics assert that its all a waste of taxpayer money that could be better spent on research into mainstream medicine, or fancy new rockets and bombs, or more tax cuts for billionaires, or more money for HeadStart or whatever.... So, NIH commissions a study, which is asking the basic question: What are we getting in return for our grant money in the meditation field? Answer: Crap, mostly, although the quality of the crap is getting marginally better over time, and we still can't tell from the cream of the crap whether any of this stuff works at all or not. My point? What is it we think we're balancing here? Yes, the NIH is throwing around hundreds of millions of dollars; but that is irrelevant if what it's getting in return for all those dollars is useless. It is a disservice to the reader to say otherwise, when the conclusion of the independent metaanalyis is exactly that - virtually all of it is useless.Fladrif (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The NIH awarded the funding ... repeatedly... To date 29 million dollars. Repeated funding by the NIH is an indication of the quality of the research. As well, its sourced.(olive (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Okay so it seems the purpose of putting this in the lead is to give credibility to the research done on TM. Is there any evidence that funding indicates research quality? Please provide ref. The amount of funding is not of significance to the topic at hand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact the reason to put this the lead is to give a balanced view of the research on the TM technique. Repeated funding by the NIH indicates a recognized standard of quality in the research, and the NIH is recognized as a highly significant granting agency. We don't need refs to establish the significance of the NIH. The amount of research funding indicates support of the research, and the amount indicates the level of support.(olive (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

The fact that the NIH studies something does not mean what it studies is credible. It funds the study of the association between MMR and autism. This does not mean there is an association.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not the job of the editors to argue over why the NIH felt to fund all these TM studies or the quality of the research it funded. It is notable that the NIH has funded TM research to the tone of $20+ mil. It is a point of fact that the NIH has funded these studies and can be presented in the article in a neutral way with references. --BwB (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that we should not keep this in the article just that it does not belong in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. No one is contending that the article should not mention the NIH funding. But olive is arguing that the funding has to go in the lede to "balance" what the lede says about the quality and reliability of the TM research. The point is that the funding does nothing whatsoever to contradict, qualify, refute, explain, contextualize or in any of way "balance" the findings that concern olive. Fladrif (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually no...and its not good to put words in someone else's mouth ... Its so unsanitary. Lets see what Olive actually has to say. We have an article that was stripped of the studies so what is left is a "curiously" negative view of the TM research. At the same time seems the NIH has funded studies on the TM technique multiple times. Those two positions describe the research at this point in time, per this article and based on the many times stated positions of some of the editors here. Content on both of those positions needs to be represented in the lede, and in the article, to accomplish NPOV.(olive (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

and there is much text in the lede about 1 TM research review. Why should this get more attention over the NIH $29 mil in funding? --BwB (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BWB - If you have a quarrel with WP:MEDRS, get Misplaced Pages to change the policy, but don't try to re-raise this issue again. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TEDIOUS . Fladrif (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No I am not discussing the WP:MEDRS point here. Just the simple point that the NIH funding point be included in the lede. --BwB (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Olive- I'm so sorry. And puzzled. But enlighten me. Which part of this post did I misunderstand Those are your words, aren't they? You put them in your own mouth, not me.Fladrif (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You defined "balance" for me perhaps misunderstanding and so mischaracterizing, but I was happy to set you straight on my position.(olive (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

In science all voices do not get equal weight. For example airplanes fly because of laws of physics and cargo cults do not get their own science to validate their unproven POV. Richard Feynman sums things up well.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So far as I've been keeping track, the only studies that have been excluded from the article are those which make medical claims and are not compliant with WP:MEDRS. I don't see evidence that they've been excluded due to the conclusions drawn be the studies. Some of the claims concerning TM and related technologies are extraordinary claims,and those require extraordinary sources, and we also need to be careful to avoid making them appear as mainstream. In the article on the Moon, we don't balance the assertion that it's made of rock with claims that it is made of green cheese.   Will Beback  talk  17:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's because there is no peer reviewed, published research on the green cheese theory. :-) -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but there is peer-reviewed research on cold fusion, ESP, UFOs, telekinesis, the Maharishi Effect, and a number of other concepts that are well beyond mainstream science. The appearance in a peer-reviewed journal is not an indication of acceptance by the scientific community.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Views of the editing

What I am seeing here is two or three editors who reveal in almost every sentence they write on these discussion pages that they have a VERY STRONG NEGATIVE BIAS against TM and its research, and two or three editors, who happen to be TM practitioners and maybe even faculty members at Maharishi University of Management, who appear to be making a genuine effort (though not always succeeding) to create an article that is neutral. This is a condition of imbalance. We do not get a neutral article by including only the few reports and reviews that reach negative conclusions about MEDITATION RESEARCH (not necessarily about the TM technique research) and twist those to state that these negative conclusions refer specifically to the TM research. Either we make an honest effort to reflect the majority of research out there, which means, at the least, covering the relevant conclusions of ALL PEER REVIEWED secondary sources that have data specific to TM. The "relevant conclusions" means, wherever possible, the conclusions that relate specifically to the TM technique, the topic of this article. Not all of those conclusions have to be stated in the abstract or in the summary conclusion section of the source. The summary conclusions in a paper include only those that the authors feel are most central to their stated goal. If their goal was not to compare effects of specific techniques but to lump them together, then they will not include any conclusions about the specific techniques in their summary. On the other hand, their results may show in tables or other data that TM research was uncharacteristic of the whole. In the case of the original AHRQ report, the results showed that the majority of the TM randomized trials scored in the good range, even using the Jadad scale. This was not true of any other meditation technique they included. If we are going to persist in including this government report as a reliable source (and I have stated reasons why we should not), then it is certainly justifiable to include this result of the quality evaluation of TM trials even though it was not mentioned in the conclusions. And we are bound to include all the peer reviewed secondary sources that have findings specific to TM research even if these are not mentioned as major conclusions of the paper. It is not our role as editors to pick and chose what secondary sources suit our fancy. We include all of the ones that have findings that are clearly specific to the TM technique. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If those who believe that their POV is not being fairly addressed here than I recommend they request further eye from WP:MED.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be discussing all sorts of topics in this thread which I created to discuss putting a sentence about NIH funding in the lede. Can we please stick to that discussion here. So, what are the Wiki policies, if any, that prohibit a sentence being placed in the lede about NIH funding TM research for $20+ mil? --BwB (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Such advertisement of TM is non-neutral to start. It's an encyclopedia article, not a sales brochure Bigweeboy. Furthermore, the studies they would refer to would be primary sources! Why on earth would you mention studies, which WP guidelines insist we would not favor in the article anyways? The only reason would be to proselytize or promote a product (in this case TM-as-product). I could list a bunch of WP policies for this, but I think you yourself should try to gain a Neutral perspective yourself, rather than have me do it for you, by simply applying a little common sense. I think it's important for the MUM.edu editors to understand that both peer review and funding monies are never actually a guarantee of good science. Please stop proselytizing.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To ChemistryProf: Wow. You seem to be saying that complying with Misplaced Pages sourcing standards is part of an effort to skew the POV on this article, and that the pro-TM and MUM editors (including yourself?) who've dominated this topic for the past year are solely interested in making the article neutral. I think the evidence points to a different interpretation of recent history. However, this isn't the place to discuss other editors. If you think that anyone here has a COI then please use the appropriate noticeboard, but remember that your own editing may also come under scrutiny. In the meantime, I suggest that we keep the focus of this page on the subject of this article. If we're unsure of which kinds of studies or reviews are best then we can ask for outside input.   Will Beback  talk  17:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reminded Chem Prof on his User Page about WP:NPA and talk page etiquette. Others here are familiar with these policies I think and need no such reminder.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be misrepresenting Wiki policy here, Kala. If a source in a journal, newspaper, etc. reports that the NIH provided funding for TM research then this is a valid reference. The quality of the research, who did the research or that the sudies are primary sources is not important. A source referring to primary research is a secondary source. Just as a review of primary research studies is a secondary source. And, I am not sure what is non-neutral in telling the interested reader that the NIH has funded TM research. Because there is text in the body of the article about the NIH funding, it is legitimate to mention it in the lede since the lede acts as a summary of the material in the article. A simple example of this is the mention of the court case in the lede that found TM to be a religion. A sentence in the lede summarizes the findings of the court, and the body of the article expands the point. Do other editors have a problem with this logic and application of Wiki guidelines? --BwB (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to devote quite a lot of space to the research issues in the lead. The whole lead is, at this moment, about 414 words, of which 115 are devoted to research. The proposed sentence is another 30 words, for a total of 145 out of 444, or 33%. By comparison, the entire article is now about 5621 words, of which about 969 is devoted to research, of 17%. So the lead should have about 20% or less of its space devoted to research. If folks want to add the stuff about NIH funding then the rest would need to be cute by more than half to reflect its weight in the article. I suspect that we could summarizr them all by saying something like "Research into the health effects of TM, funded partly by the NIH, has yielded mixed results", stretched out to about 70 words.   Will Beback  talk  10:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points, Will. I do think that such a summary would be better. Note that the research has pretty consistently shown that TM has a positive effect on health. The issue is whether the effect is greater than controls. Ospina Bond found that in some cases it was and in other cases it was about the same. Perhaps we could say, "Randomized controlled trials, some of which were funded by the National Institutes of Health, generally show positive effects on health but a government report found that these yielded mixed results when comparing the improvement to that found in control groups." I guess we won't know exactly what a summary would say until we've added more of the secondary sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what we have now summarizes well the current research.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, so let's add 1 sentence on the NIH funding TM research by $20+ million. --BwB (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus of non-MUM.edu editors is that it is fine the way it is.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is really true that NIH funded research specifically into the health effects of TM to the tune of $20 million (is that actually true?), that deserves to be in the lead paragraph or other prominent position, IMO. Why? Because NIH is a level-headed organization that is heavily scrutinized by many segments of our society. For them to dispense $20 million in the direction of TM shows that they think that level of funding is worthwhile and likely to produce results (they don't fund purely hypothetical or exploratory or fringe studies). This is real evidence from an independent source that TM may not be fringe science (like Astrology or Scientology) but, instead, a unique and beneficial technique as has been claimed by the TM advocates all along. Even though I run a competing organization that provides thousands of clients with an alternative and do-it-yourself way to learn how to transcend thinking, I have a great deal of respect for TM, including its anecdotal benefits, the 50 or 100 of its research studies that are reliable and independent, and my own published research on transcending (a peer-reviewed article in a psychology journal showing the reduction in anxiety level and increase in 'self-actualization', based on statistically significant self-controlled inventory results). I have become increasingly annoyed with the anti-TM faction here, who consistently and wrongly (IMO) characterize TM as misleading people in order to make money. Although I agree that the TM organizations' justifications for high course fees are untenable (and just plain weird), I believe they act that way in imitation of their founder, based on social momentum. They really don't act like a commercial organization (such as having tasteless advertising saturating daytime and late night radio and TV) but as a serious educational organization who believe they have a panacea for the ills of modern society. I'm not against this kind of enthusiasm and obsession, so long as they have some evidence. Enough of the research is good enough to qualify as evidence; and personally, the immediate positive results in the 104 people I instructed in TM in the 1970s convinced me that TM is generally beneficial. What I am saying is that there is room for two points of view here. Let's give full respect to both the Pro-TM and Anti-TM editors and please stop fighting. Try to focus on reflecting both POVs in the article in a brief, balanced, and well-written way. That should be difficult enough without each side trying to eliminate the other. Editors need not act like bullies, so please stop acting that way, all of you (except for the two editors who have been trying to bring balance and cooperation). David spector (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree about the relevance of the NIH funding. It is as highly reliable an independent source as one could find. NIH absoultely does not fund fringe science, especially the branch (National Heart, Blood, and Lung Institute)that has funded much of this research. This is more neutral and noteworthy than the government report, which I took pains above to show is not independent of political influence. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Chem and David. And am not sure what Kala's comment "I think the consensus of non-MUM.edu editors is that it is fine the way it is." is supposed to mean. --BwB (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As Will said, the perspective of every neutral editor who has managed to stumble into this walled garden is pretty much completely the opposite of ChemProf's and David's. It's both interesting and instructive to see how any neutral editor is quickly labeled by the Fairfield contingent as biased. It's a sad commentary on these articles to that most of them soon slip away in disgust, horror and frustration at dealing with an entrenched group of dedicated and relentless editors determined to push the POV of the TM Movement.

This in an encyclopedia. It is not an advertisement. It is not a press release. It is not a public service announcement. Giving equal weight to opposing views is not "neutral"; when an article is about science and medicine, not all views are entitled to weight, and not all sources are reliable, not even the ones you or the guy bouncing up and down next to you wrote. I am sure it is painful to those editors who have worked so hard to include page after page of material. They were told repeatedly they could not use this stuff because it was not reliably sourced. Why does it comes as a shock that these articles finally attracted some outside attention and those Misplaced Pages policies are actually being enforced?But no-one should have been suprised by this; it was inevitable.

It does not serve writing an encyclopedia to now claim that people who insist that we actually follow the rules here are all being bullies and uncivil and biased and this is all so unfair and uncollegial. Sorry, but not from where I sit, it ain't. But, if you really think so, go take it to ArbCom. But, be careful what you wish for.Fladrif (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif for introducing some semblance of sanity into the conversation. I feel like a foreigner who has walked into a country (or walled garden) where the water is polluted by some strange hallucinogen and meeting another "non-drinker". I also hope you will one day be vindicated for the abuse you have taken, trying to improve these articles. It must be frustrating in the extreme. I've seen numerous false accusations hurled against you for simply trying to improve the articles here. Thanks for sticking in there despite all of the prejudice you've endured.

David, you don't seem that knowledgeable, despite being the head of an organization that also sells mantras, over the internet, your power to do so very tentatively tied to having attended TM TTC. You sound clueless on the fact that the TM Org has bilked millions of tax dollars out of the American people. All because congress mandated some investigation into alternative health claims. You should read Doc James comments to this effect, I do believe he nailed it. The Ospina-Bond review is not some weird, off-base message from the Allopathic Industrial Complex, it's quite simply the reality of the science, despite all the aspersions to the contrary. If you think this is something new, you're just not simply that aware of what independent science has been saying for decades.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sticking with my comment above. The information about funding from the NIH is an important observation that does not fit the interpretation that researching the TM program is fringe science or pseudoscience. The fact that some of you seem to be locked on that interpretation despite any evidence to the contrary prevents you from seeing that the NIH information is relevant. It's not relevant TO YOU if your minds are already made up, but that is not a neutral POV by any stretch of the imagination. It is absolutely as much by the WP rules to include this point in the lede as it is going by the rules to include a politicized governmental report about many different mental and physical techniques the authors squeezed under the title "meditation," even if this report did include some research on the TM technique. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought Will made a good suggestion. Seems like it would resolve the issue. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, reading Will's comment again shows a sensible approach and could present the material in a neutral, balanced way. --BwB (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Will's suggestion above, I have added a sentence on the health research and funding. I think this a fair and balanced statement. --BwB (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're all in agreement. First, my suggestion was to use some text like that in place of the research text now in the lead, not in addition to it. Otherwise we exacerbate the undue weight issue in the lead. Second, other editors disagreed with that proposal. So there's no consensus for that edit.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bwb, would you mind reverting yourself until there's a consensus on changes to the lead?   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do mind, but I will. There have been many edits to this article without any effort to build consensus. As I have pointed out several times, there is no Wiki policy to prevent a sentence in the lede about the fact that the NIH has funded TM research to the tune of $20+ million. There is text in the article on the topic and the lede can reflect this. However, if people are willing to work on consensus and abide by Wiki policy on references, then I will revert now, as you have asked. --BwB (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We are definitely not in agreement. I have searched the government report for statements like the one currently in the lede. I see nothing similar. Inserting "Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" the way someone has done here, instead of referring to the collective meditation techniques as the report does, is obvious POV and is not appropriate. I will submit another version of these two items, although my feeling is that the government report is a weak source and is not specific enough or scientific enough to be in the article, much less in the lede. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the specific objections to having information about NIH funding in the lead? (olive (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

I think if you re-read this thread the answers are here. Speaking only for myself, I think that adding more information about the research gives the issue undue weight in the lead relative to its space in the article. I have no complaint about adding information about the funding, but if it's added then something else should be removed. I had proposed a formula for how we might structure the overall summary of the matter, but apparently BwB misinterpreted my suggestion. Other editors seemed to disagree with altering with the existing text. Can someone propose a shorter version of the paragraph (around 70 words) that covers all of the points?   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the alternative language is absurdly long and gives undue weight. I have inserted a 5 or 6 word "fix" that probably won't satisfy anybody, but strikes me as appropriately balanced.Fladrif (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, here is a summary of the research that represents the body of work and introduces the government report that some editors are so fond of. Obviously the conclusions of specific reviews will be given in more detail in the research section of the article. References can be added when this is inserted to replace the current discussion of the research in the text of the lede. "Possible effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique on physiological, psychological, and individual health measures have been investigated scientifically, as have its effects on society. A significant portion of this research has been funded by government grants from the United States National Institutes of Health, from public funding agencies in other countries, and by private foundations. Several qualitative and quantitative reviews have reported significant changes in a number of these measures during and after practice of the technique. However, a government report reviewing many techniques of meditation concluded that most of the meditation research had used weak methods or was poorly reported." ChemistryProf (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a source that says " A significant portion of this research has been funded by government grants from the United States National Institutes of Health, from public funding agencies in other countries, and by private foundations"? Is the government report the only publication that failed to find positive results? Is it important to say "qualitative and quantitative" in the lead?   Will Beback  talk  06:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I say we stick with what is there now. We could change it to "Research done by the TM movement is generally of poor quality. Independent analysis of the research does not support the claims made by this movement and concludes that TM does not have any properties different than health education / standard relaxation. Well governments has supported research in the past some governments now have policies baring future funding of TM due to its religious and pseudo-scientific nature." Refs can be added latter.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I feel it is important to mention the NIH funding of $20+ million in the lede. Since some editors are keen to talk about the poor quality of the research or that the claims are not supported, the fact that the NIH has continued to support TM research is important to mention. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Will, the government report didn't fail to find positive results. In the results section in the abstract it says that the report found that TM reduces blood pressure. It conducted a number of meta-anlayses; the health education finding is just one of them. Here are some more:

• "When compared to PMR , TM® produced significantly greater benefits in SBP and DBP."
• A meta-analysis of a second group of studies found this: "A subgroup analysis indicated a statistically and clinically significant reduction in DBP in favor of TM® (WMD = -5.19, 95% CI, -10.24 to -0.13) in the long-term studies (Figure 29)."
• A meta-analysis on the effect on cholesterol found this: "The long-term studies indicated a statistically significant improvement (reduction) in favor of TM® (WMD = -23.94; 95% CI, -43.87 to -4.00)."
• A meta-anlaysis on verbal fluency found this: "The combined estimate of changes in measures of verbal fluency showed a large, significant improvement (increase) in favor of TM® (SMD = -0.74; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.36). The results of the combined studies were homogeneous (p = 0.73, I2 = 0 percent)
• TM compared to waitlist controls: "Two studies289,309 totaling 70 participants (TM® = 41, WL = 29) provided data on the effects of TM® on heart rate (bpm) in healthy populations (Figure 33). The combined estimate of changes in heart rate showed small, significant improvement (reduction) favoring TM® (WMD = -5.94; 95% CI, -11.54 to -0.35). The trial results were homogeneous (p = 0.73, I2 = 0 percent)."
• TM compared to waitlist controls: "The combined estimate of changes in DBP (mm Hg) also showed a small, significant improvement (reduction) favoring TM® (WMD = -3.61; 95% CI, -6.62 to -0.59). There was little heterogeneity in the study results (p = 0.31; I2 = 4.6 percent)." (little heterogeneity means that the results were consistent)

It's not clear that we're representing Ospina Bond's report in a balanced way. The health education finding is based on just five studies. And to answer your question, many many reviews find positive results. TimidGuy (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And the results section in the abstract also makes this general observation: "Meta-analyses of results from 55 studies indicated that some meditation practices produced significant changes in healthy participants." TimidGuy (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Timid for taking the time to review this study and point out these findings. I am sure it will help the editors to shape the presentation of the TM research, both in the lede and the article. --BwB (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ospina Bond is accurately reflected in a balanced way in the article as it is now written. Cherrypicking through the report as TimidGuy is proposing is contrary to WP:MEDRS and mispreresents the findings of the meta-analysis.Fladrif (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Flad, could you please elaborate how these points above misrepresent the findings? --BwB (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback, in answer to your first question, I doubt that this exact statement can be found in a single source. We can give sources for the $20+ million from the NIH and probably for each of the other mentioned funding types. As for the government report, as TimidGuy points out, the report found more positive results for the TM program than it did negative results, so the present statement of the results of the report is something made up by a previous editor. It is nowhere to be found in the report. One analysis of the report failed to find significant increases of BP when compared to a control condition. This result was created in part by an error of data transfer by the authors of the report. This error was caught by several reviewers of the report, but was not corrected by the report's authors. In answer to your question about other reviews finding negative results, I am aware of a review by Canter and Ernst in 2004 that found inconclusive evidence for a reduction of blood pressure with TM. Subsequent reviews that included additional studies have found significant reductions, including the government report we are citing. In answer to your last question, it is not important to say "qualitative and quantitative" in the lead. These terms would mean little to anyone other than a scientist familiar with the distinctions between these types of reviews.

Fladrif and Doc James, the current statement in the lede that is attributed to the government report is fictitious. If you disagree, then please point me to the page and paragraph where it appears in the report. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

CP if you look at the ref it says page 4. If you look at page 4 of the report it says "A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients; RR was not superior to biofeedback in reducing blood pressure in hypertensive patients;" As TM has a very extensive promotional strategy both on the web and in journals, I only support the use of third party sources. We have the Cochrane review and the government report.

BTW this was in the summary of the results and thus they feel that these were the most important overall conclusions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If people wish to add further balance to the lead I would support adding a summary of the Cochrane paper.

In response to Davids comments above, in science and on Misplaced Pages all views / POVS do not get equal weight. Those with the best evidence get the majority of the weight well those with poor evidence get little. Currently we say that poor quality studies done by TM affiliates found positive results ( surprise surprise ) and than that properly done reviews by independent third parties did not support these conclusions. And finally there is no reason to call anyone pro or anti TM. Some of us are just evidence based.

Finally the AHQR report is in the public domain so there is no concern about taking direct quotes from it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AHRQ includes many sections titled Conclusion, each of which presents the findings I listed above. We don't know why they highlighted just one of the meta-analyses on page 4. But there's no rule that says we can't mention other findings. In fact, a major finding was that TM reduces blood pressure. It's right there in the Results section of the abstract.Why can't we say that? We need to follow NPOV in presenting this review. It is multifaceted, and it's simply wrong to let a single meta-analysis of 5 studies define all of TM research. In addition, we need to represent the point about quality in a balanced way. It's a point of view that the Jadad scale is an appropriate instrument for the assessment of quality of meditation research. The authors themselves discuss the opposing point of view that it may not be appropriate for assessment. NPOV requires that both points of view be represented. If the authors themselves take it into consideration, why can't Misplaced Pages? In addition to JACM version of the review, we can also cite David OJ's commentary. Again, this review needs to be represented in a more balanced way. Doc, I'm finding that there are many many third-party reviews that support the conclusion that TM has positive results. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume your are refering to "Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM(R), Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure." I assume that this was not in comparison to health education as in the above example.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The results showing a significant effect of the TM technique on BP were from studies using an active control group, progressive muscle relaxation, which itself has been shown to reduce BP. This is a more powerful result than comparison to a usual care control or to a health education control. However, if you read the original papers, it is explained that the health education control was designed as a placebo procedure. The control participants received instruction of the same length and the same amount of instructor attention as the TM group, with enthusiastic HE instructors giving information intended to create the same amount of expectation as in the TM group. The HE group also had periods of quiet time twice a day like the meditation group. So the HE condition was designed as a placebo control. As I mentioned above, one of the reasons the comparison of TM with HE in the AHRQ report found no significant effect is that the authors of the report made significant errors in transferring data from one of the papers to the report's analysis. They also made other errors in this analysis. These errors were pointed out to the authors by three of the report's reviewers but was not corrected in the final report. This is one of several reasons I have mentioned before that make this report a weak source. The Orme-Johnson critique describes many of these weaknesses. So if the original AHRQ report or the later, peer reviewed paper is cited, then to maintain a neutral POV, we need to mention and cite the critique. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry CP not convinced. These are the same people who claim they can fly by meditating. Orme-Johnson was the dean of MUM. The Cochrane collaboration came up with the similar negative conclusions. There is no pathophysiological rational behind the claims beyond relaxation. etc. Seeing that people like analogues here this bring to my mind one with a duck.

Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That evidence has not been presented therefore positive claims should not be pushed as truth.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

First,I'm baffled. Why does everyone here call this study "Ospina Bond?" This designation doesn't correspond to any academic convention for citation. The first author is Maria Ospina; the second author is Kenneth Bond. If there were just the two authors, then it would be common to refer to the study as "Ospina & Bond, 2007" but since there's a whole list of authors, the usual notation would be "Ospina et al., 2007" But "Ospina Bond" makes no sense; it's like a familiar shortcut for a law firm or something. We don't ordinarily shorten scientific citations that way. My thoughts on how Ospina et al. should be covered:

I can see how some might mistakenly view it as problematic to report just the overall conclusions, since they lump all the meditation types together rather than separating them out, but the overall conclusions do actually apply to the TM research specifically as well as to all of the bodies of research together. The conclusions are, loud and clear, that the available reseearch is of such poor quality that no valid conclusions can be drawn, either way, about the effectiveness of any of the meditation techniques. Most of the available research was too poor to be responsibly included in a meta-analysis, so each of the meta-analyses had to be based on a very small number of studies. If I'm not mistaken, each of the "positive" results TG culled out of the TM analysis sections was based on two studies and again if I'm not mistaken, in each case the two studies were conducted by TM-affiliated researchers. This isn't nearly enough data to draw conclusions from . The HE comparisons are somewhat more robust, since they are each based on five studies rather than two, which may be why they felt more comfortable singling those meta-analyses out for a mention. It would indeed be distorting their findings to include all the bits TG pulled out of the analyses, since they were obviously not considered interpretable enough by the researchers to be included in their conclusions. Woonpton (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Woon. Do you feel this sentence fairly and neutrally reflects the findings of the Ospina et al study: ""A 2007 review of various meditation practices, most notably Transcendental Meditation, concluded that the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality."? Do you feel it reasonable to use the phrase "most notably" about TM research in this review? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, following is the part of the quote I could not find anywhere in the AHRQ report: "A 2007 review of various meditation practices, most notably Transcendental Meditation, concluded that the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality." As for the quote you repeated just now, what gives you the right to cherry pick this negative finding and omit the larger number of positive findings listed by TimidGuy? As for your personal opinion of Orme-Johnson's work, that is your POV, not shared by the scores of peer reviewers of the dozens of articles he has published in respectable journals. Nor is it shared by the NIH, since he has been invited to participate in special symposia organized by them. He is a scientist of considerable renown and not someone that any WP editor can simply dismiss. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys are funny. We have gone through this numerous times. I have answers this question above. I have recommended you ask a third party but I think both you and I already know what their answer will be. Anyone not associated with the TM organization knows the answer. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, I don't mean to put you to too much trouble, but I must have missed out on your answers. Would you be so kind as to repeat them? Specifically, where is the statement I indicated in the AHRQ report? And why are we listing only the negative findings on TM from the report and not the equal or larger number of positive findings? Finally, how can we justify ever disqualifying a person's peer reviewed publications from a WP article because they happen to be an expert in the field? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have listed the page number. Look at the ref. Also a full discussion of this is available above and answers your questions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, I have scanned through this long discussion again, and I do not find the reference or the answers you indicate. Would you please copy them and paste them here? Thanks, this will facilitate any further discussion. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Price for TM in lede

The official TM web site has prices for TM. Reference directs to web site. Thanks. Sorry this was me who made the edit. I forge to sign. --BwB (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure who made the above, unsigned, comment. But on this topic. I am pasting (below) the text regarding the price and how it is discussed and sourced in the Teaching Procedure section. So if we are going to mention price in the lead it should summarize these points.

• In 2006, a New York Times article reported the cost to learn TM to be about $2,500 USD and "involves working with personal instructors over five days". The Washington Post and Bloomberg.com reported that the typical cost, in 2009, for a one hour a day four day course to be $1,500 for the general public and $750 for college students. The organization which teaches TM is non-profit and tax exempt. In 2001 however, tax exempt status for the Maharishi Spiritual Center, was refused, as it was not deemed to be an educational organization. The Skeptics Dictionary refers to it as a "spiritual business".-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the most we should say bout the price in the lede is that it's been controversial. Something like, "The TM movement has been criticized for the high price of the course, which proponents say is a good value."   Will Beback  talk  18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP is not vehicle for promotion per WP:SOAPS. Therefore prices should not be included in the article at all, should they? Perhaps it would be appropriate to just state it is overpriced compared to most meditation techniques (per the cost comparison on my User Page). Also, not all TM advocates believe the current price is fair. That's why there are so many independent teachers of TM, some advocates still think it is overpriced.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The prices have been in and out of this article with the regularity of a cuckoo on a cuckoo clock. I don't care either way. There are legitimate arguments to both sides , as with most issues. We just source what we do include.(olive (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

The controversy that Kala describes, and which as been covered in numerous secondary sources, is why the article needs to cover the issue of cost. We're still a long ways from having a comprehensive coverage of the issue, though a significant number of sources on the issue have been accumulated.   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone recently put price the info in the Teaching Procedures section and in the lead. I added to the info in the TP section with more recent sources. I have always been neutral on the price issue. Don't care if its in or out. However if its going to be included, then it should be accurate and clearly stated. Also I think price comparisons by editors on their User Page is OR and we should avoid that and use reliable, secondary sources. Also, even if it's in article I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in the lead.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The price in the lead was based on the ref that follows it. A 2006 paper. Some one changed the price without changing the reference which I assume was done by mistake. It looks like the price has been decreasing. I think the current price belongs in the lead and a discussion of why the price has decreased and peoples opinion of the cost are interesting and encyclopedic if this information is available and belong in the body of the text.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are extensive sources discussing price at Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources. I don't think that's complete, but it's probably complete enough to serve as the basis for a good paragraph. I'm not sure that the exact current price is the most notable thing about it. The simple fact that it is expensive is what is controversial.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As the price and duration of courses seems to has changed maybe we should use the price per hour? About $500 USD/hr?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In a full discussion of the price we might list the price and durations at various periods, but calculating a price per hour might be going a bit far. Better to say something like, "in 1970 the course included four three-hour sessions and cost $75. In 2008, the course included five two-hour sessions and cost $2500. In 2009 the price was reduced to $1500 with no change in the duration", and so on. Readers can easily do the math themselves. I haven't been looking for sources on the length or intensity of the standard class, so I don't know how much material is available. While I'm thinking of it, we should include a little something on training and re-certifying TM teachers too. 22:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A full discussion should include prices in other parts of the world otherwise we risk being US centric. (olive (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has sources for controversies about prices in other countries please add those as well. Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Qoute: Instruction in Transcendental Meditation (TM) on the Island has been suspended indefinitely after overseas practitioners ordered the local office to start charging $2,000 for initiation lessons.

I was considering taking up the role of teaching again but this was a curtain coming down on that," said Dr. Liddell, who was head of TM Bermuda for 15 years from 1984. "I wasn’t upset or angry but it was a bit like a bomb had dropped." Former TM teacher Frances Eddy said she was "outraged" at the price hike. "It makes it very difficult for teachers to ask for that kind of money and it excludes ordinary people.

Well, if Transcendental Meditation becomes so expensive that fewer people waste their money on it, maybe that isn't such a bad thing?

The Royal Gazette/August 16, 2003 By Benedict Greening

http://www.royalgazette.com/rg/index.jsp?sectionId=55 http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm62.html http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/08/21/transcendental-meditation-too-expensive.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerj1976 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have two different areas we are dealing with. One is the actual price of TM. The other is the controversy surrounding the price. The actual price of staring the technique has been added and removed it seems several times with the idea that leaving it in place would constitute advertising. Controversy surrounding the cost of the technique as far as I can remember has never been part of the article. I though we should separate out these two issues before the discussion went much further.(olive (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

Good point, Olive. I started this thread since someone had put the price of TM in the lede and I wanted to correct the price to $1500 and to point out that this was the price in the USA. I do not mind one way or the other if the price is in the lede. If editors feel it is important to have something in the text about TM costs, OK with me, but let's not be too US centric in the discussion. --BwB (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've given it my best shot Transcendental_Meditation#Fees. I'm sure it can be improved, but thanks to Will and others for pulling together in one place a lot of sources which allows a historical overview and a not entirely-US-centric text.Fladrif (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Thanks for doing this.(olive (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Thank you. I appreciate BwB's effort to add info on income levels over time, but (i) the sources aren't good, and (ii) it's kind of beside the point. Until the new tiered fees in the UK, income levels haven't factored into fees for over 40 years. That line of thought invites getting the article ought off into tangents, like what the Beatles or other celebrities must have paid at one week's salary in 1967, or that a $2500 fee implied $130,000 annual income and even $1500 implies a $78,000 annual income at an equivalency to the "one week's salary" concept. It would, however, be good to add is a sentence or two, properly sourced, on the TM Org's response to the criticisms of fees and defending the levels as appropriate. Fladrif (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As a total and complete OR aside, I've roughly calculated that the Beatles would have collectively paid the equivalent in today's dollars of more than $1.2 million to learn TM. In the 1967-1968 time-frame, they made 8-9 million pounds in record royalties alone, ignoring publishing rights and other merchandising and income. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 80,000 pounds per week; the exchange rate then was 1 pound=$2.40 US or $192,000 per week; which at todays prices (CPI ~640 where 1967=100) is over $1.2 million. Nowadays that kind of scratch would entitle them to buy the a Rajaship. Fladrif (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have any definitive sources on the cost of Raja training, which presumably also takes time as well as money. I do recall seeing a source which said that a minor member of the Beatles' entourage, perhaps a driver, being unhappy that he had to pay a week's salary. The issues of Beatles and money are best left to another article. In any case, thanks to everyone who worked on the fees section. It's a long-overdue component of the article.   Will Beback  talk  17:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously suggesting that any of that actually belonged in this or any other article.Fladrif (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, WIll. You see, we can work together to make the TM article a good solid piece of work and to a high Wiki standard. Sure, editors have different opinions - that's natural, but I feel the confrontation of the last few weeks could so easily have been avoided (and indeed dose not need to escalate any further) if people are patient and civil and try to work out the different issues in a mature and responsible way. --BwB (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Patience indeed. This fee issue has been discussed for over a year. 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I confess to having half expected that this new section on fees would be reverted and then subject to contentious discussion for another month or more. Contrary to expectations, this bit at least went more smoothly. I ain't gonna join in a circle singing Kumbya quite yet.Fladrif (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, Flad. Yes, I was trying to put the TM fees in some sort of context since the opening sentence presented the fees as a equiv. to 1 weeks wages and I wanted to show that the fees somewhat mirrored this level in the US fee structure until the late 1990s, when it took a big leap upwards and did not correspond to the "1 week wage" concept. --BwB (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and appreciate the effort. I would agree that the fees were not all that far off from the "one week" concept up until the big jumps in 1994 and 2003, though the sources don't really hang together and it's probably OR to conclude that. I also think its interesting, though not reliably sourced, that a TM newsletter dated June 2, 2009 said that new enrollments nearly tripled and were the highest in over 15 years that month (May?), coincidentally, after the price drop. Fladrif (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And I was so looking forward to four part harmony on the Kumbya. Alas, maybe another time! Good team work :-)-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Harvard Review of Psychiatry

This 2009 review is recent and meets Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. If the authors of this review surveyed the literature and feel that certain scientific studies are evidence for particular physiological effects, we shouldn't second guess them. This is now the third time that material from a reliable secondary source has been removed. The pediatric review should not have been removed, nor the material sourced to a medical textbook. I restored the material sourced to the medical textbook and am working on rewriting the pediatric material. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the fourth instance. Kala also removed the JACM review. (And thanks, Doc, for restoring.) TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

TM mantras from Tantric tradition

I do not know whether or not the mantras of TM are from a Tantric tradition. The text suggests that they are:

"According to pundits of the mantra tradition and Rig Veda tradition, the sounds used in the Transcendental Meditation technique are taken from the ancient Tantric tradition."

Is it possible to clarify if this reference is a primary source? Is this a book by Pandit Arya? Where could one find a copy of the text? --BwB (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we please have a page number for the Alain Daniélou reference? --BwB (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Could we also have a page number for the Arthur Avalon book? Is there anywhere to see this text online? --BwB (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

When I looked up the text by Avalon on Goggle books it has no information on the publisher. Do we know who published this book? --BwB (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, verifiability is important. The reader and editors should have all of the information needed to access any sources in a Wiki article. -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's an entry for an Arthur Avalon book in Worldcat" . But it's Greek to me. (or something like that...)   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Entry for Usharbudh Arya including bibliography at "Libary Thing" confirms that he is the author http://www.librarything.com/author/aryausharbudh. Publisher was:Himalayan Institute Press, ISBN ISBN: 089389074X http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Mantra-and-Meditation/Pandit-Usharbudh-Arya/e/9780893890742 Tuckerj1976 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Can we please get page numbers for the text in the books that support the wording in the article? --BwB (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we please have page numbers for the sources mentioned above? --BwB (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We are still waiting for the page numbers for the above references. Can they be provided? --BwB (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Kratter study in pediatric review

This is an interesting situation. The pediatric review categorizes the Kratter RCT as a TM study, but then in a footnote says that it's not TM but is like TM. I looked at the study and feel it's quite a bit different from TM. In addition, it was only an ERIC publication. So I've not included the findings from this study, which found a benefit to ADHD (improved attention, etc.). TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

German report

We've set a high standard for research, even disallowing, for example, a randomized controlled trial published by the AMA and disallowing one published in 2009 with over 300 subjects. So I don't understand how we can possibly include in the article material about the finding of the German report. It wasn't peer reviewed, wasn't published in an academic journal, is not cited in the scientific literature, isn't included in review articles. The evidence in the report is anecdotal. It fails MEDRS on every count. It's anecdotal, dated, and a primary source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Timid. Bases on other material removed lately for the same criticisms, it seems reasonable to remove the "German report". What do others think? --BwB (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide a PMID link.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I am meant to know, but what is PMID? Thanks, --BwB (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pubmed ID number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

TM is not Hinduism

The article currently says, "The charging of fees for instruction in TM has been criticized by stricter Hindus as unethical..."

The phrase "stricter Hindus" implies that TM is Hindu organization, or possibly an organization of Hindus.

This is false, and clearly only one counterexample is necessary to disprove it. I offer myself as that example. I practice TM but I am a member of the Religious Society of Friends (commonly known as Quakers). If you need an example in the administration or faculty of MUM, I am absolutely certain that there are many non-Hindus there. In fact, in all the years I have been associated with the TMM, I have personally met only a handful of Hindus who practiced TM (I know there are several more around, most of whom live or at least grew up in India).

Furthermore, the TM instruction itself does not turn students into Hindus. Nor is there any connection between any TM organization and any Hindu temple. To summarize, for those who didn't know: TM is non-Hindu. In fact, TM is not even religious. It involves no requirement of a belief in God, for example, so there is no barrier to an atheist learning TM or any of the other TM-associated programs.

Of course, there is some overlap in some programs, such as Yagyas and Vedic Astrology, both of which are similar to counterparts in Hinduism. And the TM puja (which is used as a ceremony of gratitude) has counterparts in Hinduism that are devotional and religious in nature.

I ascribe this overlap to MMY having been formally Hindu (since his teacher represented the Vedic Shankaracharya tradition, which is shared between Hinduism and certain secular Indian philosophies such as Advaita/Vedanta).

I'm sorry if this is confusing because of the overlap, but the bottom line is that neither TM meditators, TM teachers, MUM students, MUM faculty, nor MUM administrators are, in general, Hindus. And, with the possible exceptions noted above, the content of the TM practice and TM philosophy (the Science of Creative Intelligence) are not religious.

Conversely, almost no Hindus in the world would feel comfortable saying they practice TM (since most have not learned it).

Finally, the TM mantras, which are names of gods in Hinduism, are used as meaningless sounds serving as vehicles for transcending in TM. The Vedic philosophies consider gods as equivalent to various aspects of personal and universal consciousness (for example, the three main gods represent the activities of creation, maintenance, and dissolution). Gods are only worshiped in Hinduism, not TM. In TM the mantras are helpful in transcending, which is not a process of prayer or devotion but instead a natural reduction in mental activity resulting in the experience of pure consciousness without thought.

Since I am voluntarily not making significant edits to the article since it is controversial, I would request that someone else remove this misleading phrase. In fact, the article could use a new section that distinguishes the TM technique from Hinduism. I don't think any Hindus would appreciate TM being described as Hindu, since it isn't, even according to them. David Spector 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be misreading the text. TM cannot be "a Hindu". I think the implication is that MMY was a Hindu.

That said, there are many sources that describe TM and its related concepts as being part of or derived from Hinduism and especially the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.

Rather than getting into a full discussion of this complicated and contentious topic, would it be possible to change the wording slightly to avoid the controversy?   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is misreading the text. Does the edit solve your problem?Fladrif (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that, sorry. How about "Religious Hindus have criticized Maharishi's charging of high fees for instruction as unethical"? David Spector 01:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism was of charging any fee. And it is well-sourced.Fladrif (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

David Spector, your long explanation is appreciated. These discussion pages, and even the TM article itself, often reflect a poor understanding of what you have detailed. Some seem to believe that because Maharishi lived the life of a Hindu, he could only have intended to convert all his students to Hinduism. I have never seen any indication of that intention in any of his teachings. On the contrary, he seems to have taken pains to encourage everyone he taught to stick with their own religious tradition, whatever that might be. From the students of his teachings I have met, and the number is in the hundreds, maybe even thousands by now, I have seen nothing to change that impression. They represent a wide range of religions, with only a few who were not previously religious adopting some of the Hindu rituals. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This topic is difficult enough without folks making speeches. Let's try to stick to discussing improvements to the article, please.   Will Beback  talk  06:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are meant to discuss the articles. But I find there are some very basic, fundamental lacks of understanding on the topics we are dealing with, so every now and then, a little explanation and context is appropriate, and just fine.(olive (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

I don't think that folks posting their unsourced opinions and comments about unnamed editors will bring much understanding to this topic. Let's stick to discussing the article. There are forums elsewhere for general discussions of TM and MMY.   Will Beback  talk  07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The simple point is that the TM technique is a technique for transcending. Therefore, it cannot be a religion. --BwB (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If any editor here has a problem with how the TM/religion issue is dealt with in this or the other TM-related articles, let's see some specific objections, with references to reliable sources, and suggestions as to how the article can be improved. Overwrought dissertations setting forth editors' personal opinions, beliefs, and experiences, whether genuine or a cynical PR strategy, coupled with vague accusations that other unnamed editors "just don't get it", are not only irrelevant and immaterial, they present serious obstacles to rational discussion here.Fladrif (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points Flad. Do you think it rational to say that TM is a technique and that a technique is not a religion? --BwB (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement "TM is a technique, so it can't be a religion" is not a rational argument. It is either a non-sequitur or a tautology, depending on how you look at it. A technique can be part of a religious practice, and a religion may consist of or involve engaging in a technique. It is the same thing as arguing "a Roman Catholic mass is a technique/ritual/ceremony, thus it can't be a religion" - the argument nonsensical. The reciting of mantras is an important and integral practice of many religions - Buddhism, Hinduism, many forms of Christianity, etc. TM may or may not be a religion, or part of the practices of a religion. Reliable sources reflect differences of opinion on that question, and the opinion of any editor here is irrelevant. I refrained earlier from pointing out how fatally flawed and malformed the argument was and from pointing out that many people might conclude that practicing "a technique for transcending" is the very definition of religion. But, you had to ask; perhaps you should leave well enough alone next time. Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments did not reference editors unnamed or otherwise nor is that what I meant. We are dealing with a piece of information that editors attempted to explain albeit in a personal way, and although its easy to get sidetracked with such discussion, no reason to believe editors are not commenting honestly and with attempts to improve understanding, and so also the article. (olive (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

Maharishi Effect

ME draft #1

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi predicted that the quality of life for an entire population would be affected if one percent of the population practiced Transcendental Meditation. This is known as the "Maharishi Effect" or "super radiance". With the introduction of the TM-Sidhi program including Yogic Flying, the Maharishi proposed that only the square root of 1% of the population practicing those advanced techniques would be required to created an Extended Maharishi Effect. Practice of TM and TM-Sidhi has been credited by the movement with the fall of the Berlin Wall, a reduction in global terrorism, a decrease in the rate of inflation in the US, the lowering of crime rates, and other positive effects. The Maharishi Effect has been endorsed by President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique, confirmed in 42 consecutive scientific studies, and described as "pseudoscience" by some scientists.

ME draft #2

This version looks good. --BwB (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ME discussion

The article currently contains no mention of the Maharishi Effect. The TM-Sidhi program article has an extensive discussion, mostly concerning what is properly called the "Extended Maharishi Effect", and it's probably best to keep the main discussion of the ME there. But this article should at least have a short section describing it, per WP:SUMMARY. I've posted a draft above, mostly adpated from the text at the TM-Sidhi article, though I can't find the source for the 1976 study. If anyone can think of improvements to the text please edit it directly.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We might find objections from some editors of the primary sources used your draft. --BwB (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've removed the primary-sourced (or unsourced) studies and added some details along with contrasting views.   Will Beback  talk  20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the cart is trying to pull the horse. ;-) The TM-Sidhi is mentioned in the lead (I'm not sure why) and now we want a paragraph on TM-Sidhi. I'm not sure either one is needed as it is just one of several advanced TM courses.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about TM-Sidhi. It's about the Maharishi Effect, which is created by 1% of the population practicing TM. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

An a credited university says the following, In 1960, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi predicted that one percent of a population practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique would produce measurable improvements in the quality of life for the whole population. This phenomenon was first noticed in 1974 and reported in a paper published in 1976. Here, the finding was that when 1% of a community practiced the Transcendental Meditation® program, then the crime rate was reduced by 16% on average. At this time, the phenomenon was named Maharishi Effect. The meaning of this term was later extended to cover the influence generated by the group practice of the TM-Sidhi® program. Generally, the Maharishi Effect may be defined as the influence of coherence and positivity in the social and natural environment generated by the practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs. (http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/)

One TM website also states the following, Transcendental Meditation allows the mind to identify itself with the unlimited reservoir of intelligence at the source of thought – the state of Transcendental Consciousness, bringing benefits in all areas of individual life. However, the effects of Transcendental Meditation are yet more far-reaching: the source of human intelligence is also the fountainhead of Nature’s intelligence – the Unified Field described by quantum physics – which underlies and governs everything in the universe. By enlivening this most fundamental level of Nature during Transcendental Meditation, a person automatically creates a powerful influence of harmony and coherence in their environment. Extensive scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that when even a small fraction of the population is practising Transcendental Meditation, improvements can be measured in society as a whole, as indicated by reduction of negative tendencies and growth of positive trends. (http://www.t-m.org.uk/benefits/)

I think that as this is the claim of the organization itself this must be included and any other assumptions should not be made. I am happy with the draft produced by Will Beback above. I do not see this as contentious and do not see why it should be seen as such. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article needs to look at the whole scope of TM not just the most palatable bits. Thanks Will. Well done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I too agree that a mention of both the claims made by Maharishi and the related research on sociological effects of the TM program and of the TM and TM Sidhi program are appropriate for this article. I have been digging into the research papers and will add some discussion here when I have the early research in hand. As for the proposed statement, I will make a few changes that may increase its accuracy after I have read this research. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good to include the ME section in the article. We just need to be a little careful to make sure we do not confuse the ME from 1% TM practice, and the Extended ME for sq. root 1% TM-Sidhi practice. For example, the Berlin wall came down in the late 1980s, more than 10 years after the TM-Sidhi program was introduced. Was this due to ME or Extended ME? --BwB (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was careful to make sure the sources weren't talking about TM-Sidhi, though we can second guess them.

• has long claimed that were a sufficient number of people to sit together with their eyes closed and engage in specified forms of his trademark meditation techniques, they would create "vibrations" which have a profoundly positive effect on the wellbeing of society. Proponents of what is dubbed "the Maharishi effect" claim that such interventions have played a pivotal role in reducing global terrorism (1989), decreasing the US inflation rate (1987) and collapsing the Berlin Wall (1989). Every mass meditation is also said to decrease local crime by an average of 16%. "Maharishi mob meditates on Limerick's ills" Liam Fay. Sunday Times. London (UK): Jun 13, 2004. pg. 32

I suppose, on a closer reading, that "specified forms" might be an indirect reference to TM-Sidhi.   Will Beback  talk  10:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Logo

Are we sure the logo recently added to the article is the "official" TM logo? I had not seen it before. --BwB (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Go to TM.org. You'll see it on every page, except the home page.   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

References

2. http://www.religiousnewsblog.com/4843
3. "David Lynch's Shockingly Peaceful Inner Life - New York Times".
4. Washington Post, Colleges Use Meditation, Jenna Johnson, December 20, 2009,
5. Bloomberg, Wall Street Meditators, Osharat Carmiel, September 18, 2009
6. "10 Facts About the Benefits of Transcendental Meditation".
7. "Property Tax Commission Rules Against Maharishi Spiritual Center". Mountain Times. January 6, 2001.
8. "Transcendental Meditation - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com".
9. Mantra and Meditation, Pandit Usharbudh Arya
10. Tantrabhidana With Vija Nighantu And Mudra Nighantu by Arthur Avalon ISBN 8177557262
11. While the Gods Play: Shaiva Oracles and Predictions on the Cycles of History and the Destiny of Mankind by Alain Daniélou ISBN 9780892811151
12. Mantra and Meditation, Pandit Usharbudh Arya
13. Description of the Science of Creative Intelligence
14. One position against SCI
15. Wager, Gregg (December 11, 1987.). "Musicians Spread the Maharishi's Message of Peace". Los Angeles Times. p. 12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
16. "Maharishi Effect Research on the Maharishi Effect". Maharishi University of Management. Retrieved December 29, 2009.
17. Fay, Liam (June 13, 2004). "Maharishi mob meditates on Limerick's ills". Sunday Times. London (UK). p. 32.
18. Roach, Mary, "The last tourist in Mozambique", Salon (December 1, 2000)
19. deFiebre, Conrad (October 7, 1994). "Meditation touted as crime-fighter // Study presented builds the case for `Maharishi effect'". Star Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn. p. 03.B.
20. CALAMAI, PETER (October 9, 2004). "Stop the bleeping pseudoscience; Quantum physics film drowns in its own bunk science High point in What The Bleep is stunning animation sequence". Toronto Star. p. J.13.

School programs

I note that the above section states, Schools in other countries, such as the Netherlands, Australia, India, Ecuador, Thailand, China, Great Britain ...

This would seem to suggest that there is no controversy regarding this in these countries, however, this is not the case. For example (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/14/transcendental-meditation-in-schools) Should this not be cited in the interest of balance? For example:

It all sounds very positive, but the idea of introducing TM into schools is not without controversy. Indeed, for many people it can seem like a kooky child-rearing idea too far. There are questions about whether it is appropriate for children - indeed, whether children can master a practice that involves extended bouts of concentration. Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, says that "there is no good evidence that TM has positive effects on children. The data that exist are all deeply flawed."

Educational psychologist Kairen Cullen, associate fellow of the British Psychological Society, sounds a note of caution. She questions "at what age you could realistically expect a child to engage with this. It would certainly take discipline and require physical and mental control and focus." She does believe that TM can, in general, be a helpful tool, but is "not aware of any empirical research specifically showing the benefits to children. This is a very difficult sample group to access and it would be very hard to provide empirical evidence - any claims would therefore be pretty speculative."

Phillip Hodson, fellow of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, believes that regular meditation could boost children's wellbeing. "Thoughts are psychoactive - as powerful as drugs," he says. "Anything that encourages a child's emotional intelligence would be a positive antidote to our goal-orientated education system. It could also be very useful to give children techniques that they can use in moments of stress."

Hodson doesn't subscribe solely to TM, however, saying that it "is just one of a range of relaxation techniques that can help children - the simplest being controlled breathing". And it is potentially problematic to rely on one form of meditation. "I would query any grand claims that a single technique can change your entire life," he says. "If it could, wouldn't we all be doing it?"

Tuckerj1976 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree added a more in depth look at the opinion in other countries is a good idea.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Great to see the focus becoming a little more non-US centric. If we can find research papers, news article, etc. for TM in other countries we can definitely include them. --BwB (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hendel v WPEC

The article says that this lawsuit declared TM a religion. Hendel v WPEC was dismissed. Am going to delete. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The source text is: "a US court declared the movement to be religious, and in breach of the First Amendment guaranteeing separation of Church and State." Should we change the article text since it does not properly reflect the source? --BwB (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving above comment to section below on religion. --BwB (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The lawsuit by Hendel was dismissed BECAUSE TM and TM-Sidi were found to be a religion!!!!! TG- your comment is typical of the intellectual dishonesty you continually exhibit on these talkpages and in your edits. This is absolutly and completely outrageous! BwB, you I excused for your typical clueless. This material is going back in.Fladrif (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Flad. I was just explaining what the text of the news article sources said: ""a US court declared the movement to be religious". Is there a difference between "religious" and "religion"? --BwB (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The courts in Malnak held, repeatedly, that TM/SCI "is a religion", and that teaching it in public schools involved the establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. Similarly, the court in Hendel found that the practice of TM and of TM-Sidhi was a religion. So, what is the point of your question? What distinction are you attempting to draw between "religion" and "religious"? In the context of these cases "religious" doesn't mean "sorta like a religion, but not really a religion". You tell me: is "making offerings to deities" a "religion" or "religious"? The purpose of these talk pages is to move the editing of the article. Don't waste other editors' time and valuable bandwidth by editing without bothering to read the sources, and by playing sophomoric word games. Fladrif (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand its removal? It upheld the previous decision made in 1977 that TM is a religion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Upheld" isn't the correct term of art here - "followed" would be the correct term. Hendel was a different case and a different court. The court in Hendel ruled sua sponte (ie, neither party made the legal argument to the court; the court raised the issue on its own) that TM and TM Sidhi was a religion. It cited Malnak extensively, and found its reasoning dispositive, but made its own additional analysis and findings about TM as a relgion, as well as finding that TM-Sidhi was a religion, which wasn't something Malnak had considered because that program was not before it. But yes, the removal by TG and his stated rationale is utterly inexplicable.Fladrif (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The removal was not "utterly inexplicable" but I get your point. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The removal is easily explained. WP:COI and WP:PUSH would be a start. I could continue.... By the way, what's taking CheckUser so long? Fladrif (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am also perplexed as to why this was removed. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Will has argued in the past that court documents are primary sources. Had you used a secondary source it might have been more obvious to me that this lawsuit was relevant. As it was, I glanced briefly at the appellate court decision in a civil suit and saw that it was dismissed. And now I'm unable to access the court document that I found online yesterday, so I can't verify what you say. I think you'll need to find a secondary source. It's not obvious that this isn't simply your interpretation. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal claims are NOT health claims so once again one can use court documents.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, TG, you misrepresent sources policies and positions to serve your own end and that of your employer on these pages. One is not required to cpntinue to assume good faith once that has been proven to be unwarranted, as it has been by you. Hendel is not a "court document". It is a published decision of a US court, published by West Publishing, an independent publisher. A published court decision is perfectly acceptable as a reliable source.Fladrif (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

TM as religion

The Times is factually incorrect in saying that the 1977 court decision found that the TM movement is a religion. Court documents and law review articles say that the issue was a course in TM/SCI taught in five public schools. This course was found to be religious in nature. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For the sentence in the lede, the source text is: "a US court declared the movement to be religious, and in breach of the First Amendment guaranteeing separation of Church and State." Should we change the article text since it does not properly reflect the source? --BwB (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

References in the lede are superflous. The lede as I have revised it accurately reflects the body of the article, which is exhaustively and authoritatively referenced.Fladrif (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point about refs. But the sentence misrepresents Malnak, which issued a finding regarding a curriculum in TM/SCI. TimidGuy (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it included TM and this is what this article is about. Attempts to distract the reader from the topic at hand or hide the conclusions in mountains of text / qualifications is not what we are trying to do here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Claim that many studies have not been peer reviewed

Regarding this sentence: "A 2003 review that looked at the effects of TM on cognitive function said that many of the 700 studies on TM have been produced by researchers directly associated with the TM movement and/or had not been peer reviewed." I think the part about peer review should be removed, since it's vague and misleading. There are over 350 peer-reviewed studies. One could equally say that there are many peer-reviewed studies. And to highlight this passing statement by prominently putting it at the top in a separate section is a clear violation oF WP:UNDUE. If we can't get agreement to delete, and since it's unlikely that we could find a balancing statement, I would think that the only solution to the NPOV issue created here would be to follow the sentence with one that lists several dozen peer-reviewed journals that have published the research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Are not approx. 350 non-peer reviewed studies "many". The sentence seems accurate. --BwB (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the reference.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please address my point. There are many peer-reviewed studies, as you know. A simple search on Pubmed shows this. How can we conform to NPOV in this situation? TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please ask over at at WP:MED if you do not like the consensus here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ospina Bond meta-analyses

In making this edit, Doc said this in his edit summary: "these are not different met analysis." Here's what the review says: "Five RCTs assessing the effects of TM® in hypertensive patients were identified. Fivetrials205,206,210,220,221 compared TM® versus HE, and two trials220,221 compared TM® versus PMR. Meta-analyses were conducted for the comparisons TM® versus HE, and TM® versus PMR." This indicates they were separate meta-analyses. TimidGuy (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was taking from the summary of the results. Yes they are different meta analysis but this is not important / not significant.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's important to avoid suggesting that this was the only finding or even the main finding. The report includes a number of different comparators and many different meta-analyses. There are a number of different summaries in the report. And it's not clear why you're giving so much emphasis to the summary of results of Topic III. Here's a quote from the summary of results of Topic V: "Meta-analysis revealed that the most consistent and strongest physiological effects of meditation practices in healthy populations occur in the reduction of heart rate, blood pressure, and cholesterol. The strongest neuropsychological effect is in the increase of verbal creativity." See page 5. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is the main finding of the best available study relating to TM. And thus we are going to emphasis it both in the lead and the body of this article. The quoted you give above does not even mention TM... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• First, it seems odd to me to make an issue over an edit summary; whether or not they were separate meta-analyses is neither here nor there as far as the article goes. And second, I agree with Doc James; this is a main finding of the report that pertains to TM and should be emphasized as a matter of course.

But more importantly, countering a summary of results specific to TM with a summary of results general to all the practices covered in the study is not useful. Yes, the strongest physiological effects overall were in the areas of heart and blood pressure, but only because Tai Chi, Qui Gong, Yoga, Contemplative Meditation, and other practices had such strong effects; TM hardly contributed anything to these overall effects (for example, for SBP, Tai Chi, Qui Gong and Yoga were each estimated to reduce SBP on average by roughly 20 mm; TM's estimated average reduction was only 2.5 mm). It would be misleading to use that summary sentence to support claims of health benefits for TM, when those overall results pertained almost entirely to other practices and hardly at all to TM. Woonpton (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And again again, may I refer Timidguy to WP:ORIGINAL use of sources ] and possibly, to some degree]? While I am sure this is not the case this is how it may appear Tuckerj1976 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Health effects

The two quotations below:

Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, has said "there is no good evidence that TM has positive effects on children. The data that exist are all deeply flawed."

Educational psychologist Kairen Cullen, associate fellow of the British Psychological Society, speaking of TM in a pediatric setting has said it , "...is a very difficult sample group to access and it would be very hard to provide empirical evidence - any claims would therefore be pretty speculative".

These were removed by Timidguy citing WP:MEDRS However, this was done based on a miss-understanding/reading of WP:MEDRS. They could be removed on this basis perhaps if they were the views of the writer, assuming they were not an expert in the field, however, in this instance the comments are of noted experts/professional in a relevant area. They are simply cited in the popular press.

Please note that WP:MEDRS actually cites the Guardian as a reliable source

I have reverted. Please do not remove without discussion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerj1976 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes these are researchers opinions about the quality of evidence not health claims and thus okay.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's what MEDRS says: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles." We have made the decision to only include meta-analyses and reviews. These are assertions regarding science and are bound by MEDRS. Please don't add popular media sources in violation of the guideline. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a science and medicine article. Only parts of it are.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification Doc James. I can see from TimidGuys editing here that he is a little confused about this but this is understandable as I am sure this can all be very confusing for some. But I would again like to refer TimidGuy to my and Doc James previous response. Can I also repeat that The Guardian is not considered the popular press but a quality broadsheet and is cited in MEDRS as a reliable source for medical articles. Once again, the two people cited are making comments about the state of the research in TM and pediatrics and are also published experts in this field working at accredited universities. Thank you Tuckerj1976 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph

This is what the reference says if one looks at page four. "Overall it concluded that the results of TM are no greater than health education regarding blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, or level of physical activity in hypertensive patients. ref name="Ospina p.4"/" It does not say "A meta-analysis of five studies found that the results of TM are no greater".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. To deviate from what the study says would be considered a misuse of the source per WP:ORIGINAL. If the reference document says or concludes that Overall the results of TM are no greater than..., this is what must be stated in the article. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Look on page 115. "Five RCTs assessing the effects of TM® in hypertensive patients were identified. Five trials205,206,210,220,221 compared TM® versus HE, and two trials220,221 compared TM® versus PMR. Meta-analyses were conducted for the comparisons TM® versus HE, and TM® versus PMR." Their findings regarding TM relative to health education are based on meta-analyses of two to five trials for each of the conditions assessed. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but that is not what we are citing. Nor is it what we want to cite. We are citing the summary.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And once again, may I refer Timidguy to WP:ORIGINAL use of sources Tuckerj1976 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting overview of TM

This is an interesting book that gives an overview of the research quality. Commenting that most of the thousands of studies were done by people within the movement, not peer reviewed, not properly controlled and published by MUMs own press. Lola Williamson (2010). Transcendent in America: Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion (New and Alternative Religions). NYU PRESS. p. 100. ISBN 0-8147-9450-5. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying this book tells of "thousands" of studies on TM? --BwB (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes your website only mentions 600 http://www.tm.org/meditation-techniques --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This article might be of interest also it could easily be integrated into the research section of the article perhaps? ] Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry correction it says over 600.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Yes it confirms the above book "Much of the research is now done by members of the TM organization, often at their own Maharishi International University (MIU) in Fairfield, Iowa. Most of it is published in their own publications, where it is not subject to the normal peer review system of scientific journals. A strong motivation to prove the efficacy of TM could bias the findings." And I love James Randi Randi "concludes that the Maharishi has turned unproved and outdated notions of Eastern mysticism into a pseudoscientific mess"" Good find. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• Start-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics