Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:27, 6 January 2010

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5

UK crime savings

• Abtract: Previous research suggested that a phase transition to increased orderliness, evidenced by reduced crime, should occur when group size approaches the square root of 1 percent of the population. In the current research, analysis of Merseyside monthly crime data and coherence group size from 1978 to 1991 showed that a phase transition occurred during March 1988, with a 13.4-percent drop in crime when group size first exceeded the Maharishi Effect threshold. Up to 1992, the Merseyside crime rate remained steady, in contrast to the national crime rate which increased by 45 percent. In 1987, Merseyside had the third highest crime rate of the 11 largest metropolitan areas in England and Wales. By 1992, it had the lowest crime rate, 40 percent below levels predicted by previous behavior of the series. Between 1988 and 1992, 255,000 less crimes in Merseyside occurred than would have been expected had Merseyside continued to follow the national crime trend. Demographic changes, economic variables, police practices, and other factors could not account for the reduced crime rate. 26 references, 4 tables, and 2 figures

In the UK study it states that "saved Merseyside over £1,250 million, or US $850 million" because of the TM group. Is this an accurate translation of GB Pounds to $? At current exchange rates 1250 million GBP = approx $2050 million. --BwB (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your math is incorrect. In 1996, the exchange rate was about 1.66 dollars to the pound. 1,250,000,000*1.66 = 2,075,000,000, or about $2.1 billion. Ajusted for U.S. inflation, that's $2.85 billion in 2008 dollars.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure how many digits should be in "£1,250 million". Britains and Americans have had different definitions of some numbers. See Long and short scales.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I double checked, 1,250,000,000 is the correct number.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought but purposefully left the figures as they were at the time of the study, rather than updating the values. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the study? We should double check the figures. For one thing, it is important to include how much of the time the level of practitioners was high enough.   Will Beback  talk  03:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Will I am confused by your request for a verification of the Merceyside study cite which says the study was published in 1996 in Psychology, Crime and Law. What exactly are you asking to have verified?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting a quotation of the text that discusses the computed savings.   Will Beback  talk  17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Going twice.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"A Home office Report (1988) estimates that the average cost of each crime is more than £5,000. If Merseyside had continued to follow the national trend of rising crime from 1988 to 1992, there would have been 255,000 more crimes than actually occurred, a saving of £1,250 million." p. 173. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So the study claims that four years of TM-Sidhi in Merseyside resulted in 255,000 fewer crimes? That's an extraordinary claim. Was it reported in any other sources?   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The population of Merseyside is 1.3 million people. 255,000 crimes means that, in a four year period, something like a quarter of all residents would have been the victims of crime. And that's just the claimed reduction - I don't know how many crimes still occurred. This just doesn't seem plausible.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This article mentions the study. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article1043763.ece --Uncreated (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That link doesn't work.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The BBC reported in 2001 that the nation had 716,500 crimes. Acording to this study, the number of crimes that didn't occur in Merseyside was, on average, 63,750 per year. If the crime rate was unchanged between 1991 and 2001 (unlikely, since the BBC reported that it had just gone up 8%), then the TM-Sidhi had reduced crime across the entire nation by 11% through the reduction at Merseyside alone. The 2001 census gives the population of England as 49,138,831, meaning that Merseyside accounts for less than 3% of the population. While Merseyside may have a disproportionately high crime rate, this doesn't make sense. If results this dramatic had occurred it would have been reported in other sources. I think this represents a WP:REDFLAG requiring additional sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The link works for me. It quotes Huw Dixon, the Professor of Economics at York University: “I have been following research on the Maharishi Effect over the past 20 years. Its conclusions are so strong that it demands action from those responsible for government policy.” --Uncreated (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they block visitors from the U.S. What does it say about this study?   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you give the title and date of the article? Perhaps I can find it another way.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I found it another way: "Give peace a chance" by John Naish, March 13, 2004. But that's not independent reporting of the crime decrease - it's just a mention of the study. A crime reduction of this magnitude, 60%, would surely have been reported elsewhere, by people unaware of the TM-Sidhi program.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an NLP webs page that includes some graphs from the study: . If I'm not mistaken, the meditation/Sidhi practice was performed in Skelmersdale. I wonder what changes to the crime rate have occurred since the end of the study. Since the meditation continued I'd assume that the benefit would as well.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the paragraph quotes the study rather exhaustively, it seems to me the information is sufficiently verified, therefore, I would like to remove the tag. How do editors feel about this? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We can remove the "verify citation" tag, but I'm going to post this on the Fringe noticeboard as I think the assertion is too extraordinary to rely on just one source.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, if you send me an e-mail, I'll send you a return e=mail with the study attached, and you can look at it yourself. TimidGuy (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that'd help. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting.   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's give Will a chance to look at the study before removing the cite tag.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already removed it. The material correctly summarizes the study. However I think the study's conclusions are so extraordinary that they require additional confirmation. I'll post a thread on the Fringe noticeboard about this when I get a chance.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it this particular study or the Maharishi Effect hypothesis in general? Would you like to remove the study? Do you feel it's given too much weight? TimidGuy (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I write above, the numbers seem implausible. I can't explain how it could have passed peer review, but no system is perfect. Because the claim is so extraordinary I think that it would require more than one source.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) And I agree with you regarding WP:REDFLAG. I've sent your analysis to one of the researchers to see if there's a simple explanation regarding the implausible extrapolation at the end of the study. TimidGuy (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving it in the article until we've agreed on a final disposition.   Will Beback  talk  19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard back from the lead author of the study. There does seem to be a simple explanation:

The UK breaks crime down into a large number of categories and also revises the categories from time to time. Therefore, to complete research accurately and perform time series analysis, you have to ensure that methods police use for reporting and recording are compatible from year to year. This was true for the period of my study. The question you have received covers the time period from 1991 to 2001. My study was completed in 1993 and published in 1996. In order to answer your question I would need to study reporting criteria for the period in question. From memory I believe a number of crime categories were eliminated from the national reporting schedule in the nineties. This may have been part of a public relations effort or for other reasons. In particular, certain categories like minor damage and low value theft became so prevalent nationally that they were excluded from the figures. Your correspondent is quoting from revised reporting procedures which accounts for the apparent lower figures. At the time of the commencement of my study Merseyside had the second highest crime rate in the UK (all categories included), which then fell to among the lowest as I reported. This trend was apparent across all categories of crime. The methods of analysis I followed and the categories of crime studied, were ones used as standard practice and reporting at the time. A few years ago I did look at crime figures subsequent to my study's publication and found that the trends reported were holding up in subsequent years when comparable categories were included year on year. An update on a raft of social and economic data for subsequent years in Merseyside was included in my PhD thesis completed in 2000. This showed dramatic improvements in quality of life.

Does this make sense? TimidGuy (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I'm not sure what you asked him, or where he got the 1991-2001 interval. If the crimes that are no longer countered were "minor damage and low value theft" then that calls into question the £5,000 per crime average cost. ($8,300 with the 1991 exchange rate) I still have to do more analysis of the data to figure out how they got the 255,000 number. I'll see if I can find a source that discusses the change in crime reporting statistics.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look at this article and it mentions a new standard for recording crime. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jul/10/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation --Uncreated (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. Unfortunately, it makes the situation even murkier. The Guardian article says that crime statistics reported by police were unreliable and inconsistent. However that's the data which the study uses. Further, the article says there were two different sets of statistics: those reported by police and those reported in a survey of adults. The study compares crimes reported by local police to national statistics provided by the Home Office. However the study doesn't say which method was used for the the Home Office numbers. Because of the different methodologies, and the inherent unreliability of the police reporting, it's quite possible that no meaning correlation between the two numbers can be made. The study makes two separate claims about the Merseyside crime rate: that it dropped, and that it did not share the same increase in crime that other districts experienced. The study doesn't discuss how the crime statistics were prepared.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Our job as editors is to report all significant points of view. In the past on this and other related articles one reliable source has been enough even when a source made, what some editors considered, unreasonable or implausible claims. So I'm not sure why this perceived unreasonable and implausible claim is an exception. Having said that I would also say that this one sentence, which puts a dollar figure on how much money was saved by Merseyside due to the Maharishi Effect that supposedly occurred while the study was taking place, is not crucial to the article or even to the paragraph summarizing the study and if Will has a strong objection I am OK with the sentence being taken out.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, regarding what I asked him: I simply copied and pasted your analysis from above. Regarding the interval: His study covered 1988-1991. You came up with info from 2001. I think he's saying that during the period 1991-2001 the categories changed. Also, we don't know that the Home Office used either set of statistics to calculate the cost of a crime. We'd have to find out how they calculated that figure. Not sure what you mean when you say the study doesn't discuss how the crime statistics were prepared. TimidGuy (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the average cost of crimes the Home Office apparently supplied figures for the national crime rate. We don't know how either the national or the Merseyside crime statistics were gathered, or if they used the same method. The Guardian says that the revisions were made because the old methods were inconsistent and unreliable. GIGO.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This study exclusively used publicly available police data. They briefly address the issue of unreliable data, pointing out that the two most reliable categories of data show the same trend as the overall data. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing where they say that the national data comes exclusively from "publicly available police data"? The study also mentions the "British Crime Survey", which presumably follows the survey methodology.   Will Beback  talk  12:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bottom of page 170 mentions their source for national crime data being the 42 police districts of England and Wales. TimidGuy (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kbob that, if there is some doubt or confusion as to how the amount of money saved from lower crime rates was computed, that section can easily be removed, it is not fundamental to the study. As for the rest, it seems we are hearing from the horse (researcher)'s mouth that "to complete research accurately and perform time series analysis, you have to ensure that methods police use for reporting and recording are compatible from year to year. This was true for the period of my study." and that "At the time of the commencement of my study Merseyside had the second highest crime rate in the UK (all categories included), which then fell to among the lowest... This trend was apparent across all categories of crime". Since police reporting methods remained consistent during the study period, the results ought to be be reliable. The article, as Will says, passed peer review, the fact that the lowering of the crime rate may seem anomalous given that it rose everywhere else, can be explained by the field effect. We are simply reporting results documented by the study. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What is fundamental to the study? The only one I've heard from is TimidGuy, who says he has been in touch with an unidentified person who is making unsourced assertions. We have no evidence that the police reporting methods stayed the same during the studyt period. A number of alternate explanations to the field theory are discounted with no apparent investigation. Peer review is not a magic wand. Let's keep looking into this. The background of the study includes the credentials of the lead author. Where did he get his Ph.D?   Will Beback  talk  07:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from Guy Hatchard, the first author of the study, and quoted his response above. I don't think he had a PhD at the time of the study. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you didn't give his name. What are or were his qualifications?   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, peer review is a kind of magic wand in terms of inclusion in Misplaced Pages. We aren't in the business of questioning a peer review board or a reputable publication .... If however, the results of the study are extraordinary, and use of the study makes an exceptional claim, and if the study has not been replicated then caution should be used when and if including the study. In addition to the other suggestions above we might just add to the article that this actual study has not been replicated...Although, there have been other studies showing the same kinds of results. The question then becomes can these other studies be considered "replications" supporting the conclusions of the study we are citing, or not.(olive (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

Regarding "what is fundamental to the study", I would say that since the study is on the Maharishi effect, as demonstrated by lowering crime rates under certain conditions, crime rate figures are what matters most. The computation of money saved is a sort of nice "corollary" to the main point. As far as having more evidence, we have a peer reviewed published study, as Olive says, and a message from the study's author, why would we need further proof? I can't imagine that Misplaced Pages policies would require such extreme caution. Furthermore, short of recreating conditions and re-doing the experiment and the study, I do not see how anyone could obtain more evidence.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that there have been other reports and studies on crime in Liverpool. If any of them, conducted independent of the MUM, have verified these results then that would be useful information. As for the evidence, let's keep reviewing the claims made in the study and see if they make sense. As I originally said, the numbers seem implausible.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, Will. The Home Office reports are available here. . The official crime statistics appear to me, at first glance, to be at very substantial variance with the extraordinary and improbable claims of this study, suggesting that a statistical sleight-of-hand is what is really involved here.Fladrif (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Was this study peer reviewed? Was it published in a reputable publication? We can assume then, in the context of Misplaced Pages guidelines, that the reviewers looked at the study, saw the "numbers" and felt the studies results were justified enough for publication.. Again, if the results of the study are extraordinary, then per Misplaced Pages:RS," Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field..." If it was replicated, however, then we can include this study, and I believe this study was a replication and/or was replicated. Perhaps the study needs to be removed, but if it is, it should be per some clearly defined non compliance with Misplaced Pages policy/guideline rather than the implied questioning of the legitimacy of the reviewers, the publication, and the researchers. The way to include such a controversial edit would be to include reliably sourced comments that question the study, along with the study itself. In the end I don't mind of the study is removed, but it should be because it doesn't comply, not for personal reasons any of us might have.(olive (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

It's my view that, on the face of it, this study is making an extraordinary claim that requires further confirmation. That's true even with a peer-reviewed source. While we're here - is this study notable? Has it been cited in other papers, or reported in the mainstream media?   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The study seems to be a replication, in which case by Misplaced Pages standards could be included. My concern here is not that we exclude or include the study, but that, with respect to you Will, our opinions as to whether something seems plausible or not becomes a criteria for that inclusion or exclusion. I see your point but also feel tied by the guideline. Initially I would have said, just take the study out, but now I can't see why per Misplaced Pages we would do that. A repetition of the same results over time and in different circumstances-replication-would seem to be a form of confirmation, and the legitimate one in the sciences.

As I understand notability, it refers to a criteria for creation of an article. i'm not sure we can look to mainstream press as a standard for significance. In this case, as one of many replicated studies on the Maharishi Effect, this study might be considered significant.

The study itself, and its results are the replicated factors. Is it possible that the application of these results to monetary savings is that factor that is not replicated as often or at all in the other studies, and so could be excluded. Looking for solutions.(olive (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

I think I missed something. Was there an earlier study on crime in Liverpool 1988-1992?   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not appear that this is a replication of earlier studies of crime in the Liverpool metropolitan area. What is appears to be is that the author looked at the crime stats and tried to do a statistical analysis vs the number of TM-Sidhi practioners in Skelmersdale, and draw a cause-and-effect conclusion about them. What he attempted to "replicate" was finding the same cause-and-effect relationship claimed in the other Maharishi Effect papers. There are lots of stats to choose from, from many periods, and without being able to actually see the data tables used in the study, it is impossible to know what is actully being analyzed. It is also impossible to assess how things like a major police crackdown in the Liverpool metro area, credited in the mainstream press with halving the crime rate were dismissed by the article. There is no explanation why, in most of the periods cited, other UK communities had comparable or even greater reductions in crime in individual years, with no apparent assistance from Yogic Flyers in those communities. It does not appear that any non-TM-Movement researchers have ever cited this article. Other than reporting claims of TM-Movement representatives touting the study, it does not appear to have been reported at all in the mainstream press, although one Guardian article noted about these specific claims: "Natural Law is no different to any normal political party in its use of bogus statistics." Fladrif (talk)

While we're at it, I think that fairness and balance requires that we address some of the notable and indeed spectacular failures of the Maharishi Effect: the withdrawal of the Maharishi from Washington DC after the failure to affect crime rates there (predating the highly-touted DC study), the failure of the Skelmersdale flyers to affect the Britiish elections (or even to affect the Labour victories all around Merseyside and surrounding areas) leading to the withdrawal from the UK until Blair left office; the failure to affect the US elections on several occasions, and most recently, the "Invincible America" assembly taking credit for the Dow topping 14,000 and unemployment rates falling, promising nirvana in the US and around the world with peace, love and beads, sex, drugs and rock & roll, a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage, just before the market crash and record unemployment levels of the past couple years. I noted that the TM Org was keeping careful track of the Dow, the unemployment rate and other economic indicators on its website, and issuing press releases announcing how swimmingly this was all going, up until the bottom dropped out, at which point the press releases stopped, the ecomonic stats disappeared from the website, and a robots.txt was added to the websites so Google's cache and the Internet Archive wouldn't show the telltale fingerprints of an enterprise gone horribly wrong.Fladrif (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The data the researchers used regarding Merseyside crime levels is publicly available from the police departments. Why not just request it? See for yourself if crime went down. So far there's been no contravening evidence to suggest that the researchers are misrepresenting the data. TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I can read the Home Office crime statistics. I have read them. But, I have no idea what stats this study actually used. It's clear on the face of the study that they did some picking and choosing about which stats they used. There is a mountain of data, and I'll bet that I can make these stats say anything I want them to, depending on what I want to prove. It is certainly not the case that crime dropped every year in Merseyside during the period of this study. I can even say that the stats are meaningless, because they are comparing reported crimes rather than actual crimes, and ignore the various disclaimers and estimates in the official reports about what they think is happening with unreported crime. There is also no way of knowing how differences in police practices, reporting statistics, and other factors were accounted for (or discounted) in this study. And, as I wrote above, the study would seem to ignore that in virtually every time period, other communities experienced comparable or in some times greater crime reductions, without the apparent assistance of the good folks in the Skelmerdale golden domes. Fladrif (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is, is that the study is peer reviewed and published in a reliable publication. This is Misplaced Pages an encyclopedia whose position is to report what has been published or sourced and is not our business as per many other discussions we've had, to deal with the accuracy of the sources, or to discredit the source itself. If we go this route we open the door to questioning many of the anti TM content because accurate, it is not. I find Fald's comments interesting, but extrapolating reasons for many of these "events" is guess work As I've said before in or out doesn't matter to me, but the reason we remove it should be per Misplaced Pages. (olive (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

The researchers used monthly reported crime totals from the Merseyside police department. They converted that to a time series of crimes/1000 population. TimidGuy (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I'm sure the researchers would be happy to provide a spreadsheet of the data. TimidGuy (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Have you looked at the study? TimidGuy (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Olive on this one, it seems to me that arguments are now being made for the sake of arguing. Saying that since there is data, the authors must have fudged with it to get the results they wanted, flies in the face of peer reviewing. It was a legitimate study, published in a reliable journal, we could go in circles forever, or try to change wiki standards (how many peer reviews would we need, how many publications, before something was deemed wiki worthy?), but it makes little sense. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Markovsky and Fales point out in their "Evaluating Heterodox Theories" article that the journal in which this was published is new and obscure. It has an extremely low Impact Factor, and it is supposed to be a journal on the legal and criminal psychology, so I have serious doubts of the rigor of the peer review of this study, or how "reliable" this journal is. Even a cursory examination of Home Office data shows that a different cut on the raw data - say, using Violent Crime instead of Notifiable Crime - would completely reverse the conclusions of the study. Perhaps Yogic Flying is most effective when it comes to fighting forgery and credit card fraud, not so much when it comes to murder and mayhem.Fladrif (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We need to use Wiki policies to determine whether or not this study should be in the TM-Sidhi article. It matters not what the opinion of the Wiki editors are on the merits of the Maharishi Effect theory. If the study was published in a reputable peer-review journal, then the study can appear. As others have stated above, the editors beliefs about the study have no baring. --BwB (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an extraordinary claim. There is no known 2nd source that supports its assertions. See WP:FRINGE.   Will Beback  talk  04:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If its considered on of 50 studies or so on the Maharishi Effect, its not Fringe. if we compared the results from the other studies we might find that this study is an outlier. We aren't using the study to prove anything, or as a source for anything but itself . We're just saying, there was a study, and this is what happened. I guess i don't see what the concern is. Although, its a form of OR why not just add the study was never replicated. I, on thinking about it, would assume the other ME studies were not really replications. The way I see this, is, if we had multiple studies in some area like HIV and the use of a particular drug on HIV, and if we had high and low outliers, wouldn't we just include those outliers as part of the information on that area of study. Why would we here, make editorial decisions to exclude any of those studies. I can't see that we would. Sure the results of this study are hard to believe, but so what. We're not looking at these studies to fund more research for example, we 're just reporting on what happened. The threshold for inclusion has been met, so I can't see what the issue is. (olive (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

There's nothing extraordinary about a study which says that meditating and similar relaxation techniques lower blood pressure. However asserting that a small group of people meditating 12 miles from Liverpool resulted in a 45% crime reduction equaling a savings of over $2 billion is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require more than one source. If this study was famous then we'd report it for its fame, but we shouldn't report every claim made by fringe groups, even if they are reported in reliable sources. We already devote plenty of space to the Maharishi effect using studies that have been reviewed by outsiders, and I'm not suggesting removing those. But this is an unreviewed, uncorroborated paper written by a grad student and published in a new or obscure journal.   Will Beback  talk  05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

.Why is this a fringe group .... c'mon Will .... this so called fringe group has over 350 peer reviewed studies, and 50 studies in this area. At the least let's get caught up with the times. I guess we are going around in circles. Is it up to one or two of us to argue and decide on this or should other editors be asked for agreement. I'm OK taking it out, but I can't speak for anyone else. What's next. (olive (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

That was a poor choice of words on my part. Statistically, most groups are probably fringe groups. I should have said "fringe views". Every religion has unique beliefs, and if these were framed as such then there wouldn't be an issue. But they are presented as scientific facts. That they were passed by some reviewers at a journal does not mean they they represent the consensus view of science. There are widely held views in science and there are fringe views. Not all of the issues regarding the scientific studies of Maharishi's teachings are the same. If we polled one hundred scientists at random, asking them whether personal meditation is likely to reduce stress, I believe most would regard that as plausible. If we asked the same group whether the meditations of a small group could affect the actions of a million distant people, then I think that only a few would find that plausible. If I'm correct, then it's a fringe view. In his time, Galileo also held a fringe view, as did Darwin (whose views are still not shared by the majority of the American public, though they are now almost universally accepted among scientists). Probably every dramatic scientific development was on the fringe at some point. "Fringe" sounds pejorative, but it's really a shorthand reference to a small statistical group. Misplaced Pages's NPOV requires that we present all significant views, no matter how few people believe them, with the neutral point of view. However it also requires that we avoid presenting a fringe view as the majority view. It's not an easy task for any of us. It's harder still for those who are firmly inside that statistical group. But we're all making progress and the articles are improving.   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Some nicely stated points. Thanks, Will. And it's interesting to hear you say that you think that most scientists would agree that personal meditation is likely to reduce stress. Thirty years ago that notion was every bit as contentious as the Maharishi Effect and was considered fringe. At this point it seems doubtful that the notion of a mind/environment connection will catch on the same way that the mind/body connection has, but things seem to be going in that direction, not just in this research but in other research, too. Anyway, to get back to the point (and if you don't mind, temporarily putting aside the more general issues), you refer to this study as being unreviewed. I believe this is a peer-reviewed journal, isn't it? And I don't know that this journal can be considered obscure. It's the Official Journal of European Association of Psychology and Law. It has a fairly good impact factor. I don't understand why we'd remove this study and not others. The hypotheses of all of the studies are equally implausible. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, Fales and Markovsky pointed out that this Journal is, typically of those in which MUM researchers are able to get their papers published, both new and obscure. Fladrif (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with you Will, but I think you honestly have very real concerns with this study, and I can respect that. Since you are an editor who has done a fair amount of the heavy lifting on some of these articles , and are not just a drive - by, agenda - driven editor , and since the bottom line for me on any article is accuracy along with the collaboration of editors, i will back down on my position and suggest we remove the study . As I've said, I can't speak for anyone else on this issue, but this will be my position

Markovsky and company are certainly welcome to their opinions, but seems like the publication may be more mainstream and less obscure in Europe than is being considered here . (olive (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

It is nice to follow the arguments on both sides from very experienced editors. Thanks for that. The authors of these ME studues have run into these same kinds of issues themselves, I believe. The research science and statistics are good and rigorous, but the theory is hard to others to accept. I am not attached to the research study being in the article, but if it is referenced and appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, then perhaps from a Wiki perspective, the study can stay. --BwB (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"The research science and statistics are good and rigorous" - according to whom? Peer-reviewed journals put out thousands of articles a month, but we don't need to add a paragraph on each one to Misplaced Pages.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Take it easy Will. I may not have used the right words to classify the stats, but you know what I mean. Lots of published research on the ME, but even if the science were impeccable there are those who cannot swallow the theory of the field effect of consciousness. That's the point I was trying to make. --BwB (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So where are we with this study? Is it such an important study that it deserves an entire section? I think that these various studies could be summarized in a sentence - something like "Similar studies by MUM researchers found evidence of a Maharishi Effect in the U.K., India, Puerto Rico and the Philippines."   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree. All these studies showed different effects from the ME and the reader should have the opportunity to see all the effects that have been researched and published. --BwB (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The readers can read the papers for themselves if they want to see all the effects discussed in them. This should be a summary. If these papers are obscure then it's undue weight to devote so much space to them. Have these papers been included in any reviews? Cited in papers by non-MUM researchers? What criteria are we suing for including discussions of individual studies?   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard that a paper published in a peer review journal would be considered obscure. It is just the sort of thing wikipedia does allow, see WP:SOURCES (The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals;) and also WP:RELIABLE (Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available.) In light of the above, it seems obvious that under wiki policies this is a perfectly valid posting.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

All articles printed in in peer reviewed journal are not prominent. If fact, most are obscure. Has this paper been cited or mentioned anywhere else? While this journal may be a reliable source, there's no policy in Misplaced Pages that requires we devote an entire section to a single obscure paper written by a graduate student.   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you know he was a graduate student? This paragraph takes up about the same amount of space as the James Randi straw man paragraph rebutting research that doesn't exist and less space than a paragraph about an unpublished study. I think my argument would be that a peer-reviewed study published in an academic journal should have as much weight as either of these paragraphs. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC) By the way, I guess I"m confused. Here you say that the section should be reduced, and below you criticize me for deleting two sentences. In my edit summary I gave reducing weight as part of my rationale. TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC

I deduced he was a graduate student from your answer to my question about where he'd obtained his Ph.D. "I don't think he had a PhD at the time of the study. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)" If he didn't have a Ph.D. do we know what degree he did have? If he wasn't a graduate student then was he working as a faculty member at MUM or elsewhere?

The idea that the Maharishi Effect extends over considerable distances and affects the behavior of people who are not engaged in it is a significant viewpoint. But this is just another voice supporting that view. We don't need to give a paragraph to everyone who shares that view. I've proposed merging this material with other similar findings into a single sentence or paragraph. If that's unacceptable then I'd like to know why it's acceptable to trim off parts of the studies conclusions. This clearly isn't an "all or nothing" matter.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, I disagree with your definition of the article as obscure. However, even if I did accept your argument, there would be no reason to remove the section. You write that most articles published in peer review journals are indeed obscure. Still, Misplaced Pages says that publications found in peer review journals are to be preferred. It does not say only those articles that are defined as "prominent" (by whom, incidentally?), or are repeatedly published, or written by Nobel prize winners, should be posted, there is no such codicil in the policy. I do not see any compelling reason to rewrite the policy.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting deleting all mention of the source, just trimming it down to its proper weight.   Will Beback  talk 

• Using time series analysis, the study showed that beginning in March, 1988, when the number practicing the TM-Sidhi program in a group reached the required threshold percentage, the crime rate fell significantly.

If I read it correctly, the MTI (Maharishi Effect Threshold Index), derived from the number of people trained in TM divided by the population, is added to the MET (Maharishi Effect Threshold), the percentage of the required 138 TM-Sidhi practitioners who attend daily sessions. The MTI provides a coherence factor on top of the ME. Can anyone find any information on how or why this extra factor is added to the calculation? Does it appear in the other studies too?   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The ME has 2 elements: square root 1% doing TM-Sidhi program in a group (sometimes called the "extended Maharishi Effect") and 1% of population doing just TM on their own (original Maharishi Effect). So to accurately calculate the effect of TM on the crime in a region you need to consider both the numer of people doing TM in the area, and the number doing TM-Sidhis in a group. I believe that is what this study tries to model. --BwB (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. What's the best source that discusses the Maharishi Effect Threshold Index? If it's part of the ME we should mention it in the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as to Hatchard's field.

• Guy Hatchard has been director of Maharishi Foundation North of England Campus, Skelmersdale, for the last six years. His responsibilities include the day to day administration of this £20 million project which comprises a school, a community centre, a health clinic, a housing development, and liaison with over 40 local businesses. Mr Hatchard has received a BSc (Hons) in Logic and Theoretical Physics from the University of Sussex, a Postgraduate Diploma in Teaching from Christchurch College, and an MA in Science of Creative Intelligence in Education from Maharishi International University. Since 1975, he has been a pioneer of research work on the Maharishi Effect. In 1993, Mr Hatchard's research work received high recognition when he was honoured as a keynote invited speaker at the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society on Criminal and Legal Psychology.
• Guy Hatchard, Natural Law Party spokesman for Law and Order ,
• Dr Guy Hatchard, sociologist
• PhD , Physics, Psychology, Economics , 1987 — 2000 My PhD thesis studied the relationship between national economic development and participation Transcendental Meditation.
• Ph.D. Dissertations Written at the University: Maharishi Vedic Science: Hatchard, G. D., Maharishi Vedic Economy: Wholeness on the Move. An Analysis of Improved Quality of Life and Enhanced Economic Performance Through The Application of the Maharishi Effect in New Zealand, Norway, USA, Mozambique, and Metropolitan Merseyside, UK. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Dissertation Information Service, 2000. Order No. 9971789. Abstract

So is his Ph.D. in Sociology, Physics, Psychology, Economics, or Maharishi Vedic Science? There seem to be assertions to cover all of those. His highest degree at the time of the study seems to have been "MA in Science of Creative Intelligence in Education from Maharishi International University". Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No idea! --BwB (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Any idea where he got the "Maharishi Effect Threshold Index" from? Did he create it or is it discussed in other sources?   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Merseyside crime statistics

Going back to the question of crime statistics in Merseyside, I've been having quite a time finding actual statistics. The Home Office crime statistics for those years breaks the national statistics into police areas, but the Merseyside statistics are blanked out on each of those reports. The Merseyside police department has a very nice statistics web page, but it only goes back to 2004. I found enough news reports to give me the flavor that crime stabilized in Merseyside during those years (1987-1992) while crime increased in other reporting areas. This is not the same as crime going down, and the idea that there were 225,000 crimes that didn't happen in Merseyside is just fanciful thinking.

However, in my searching I did come across a very interesting and well-done study done by a professor and associate at Manchester University and published by the Home Office Police Research Group. It provides convincing evidence to suggest that the stabilization of crime rates in Merseyside from 1987-1992 can be attributed to a large-scale methadone program that treated thousands of drug users, reduced drug use dramatically and as a consequence dramatically reduced the acquisitive crimes of burglary dwelling and theft from vehicles. Woonpton (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work finding the study. We should certainly add to the coverage here that the policy attribute the crime reduction to a drug treatment program.   Will Beback  talk  07:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be included, but my addition of the study was promptly deleted, apparently because the study doesn't refer explicitly to the topic of the article, "TM-Sidhi." The information is important information for the reader to have in order to fairly evaluate the claim that the reduction in crime was caused by the TM activity. I don't believe the TM claim should be included without also including this other study that offers another explanation for the reduction in crime. How can we address this problem? A different wording for the Home office study? Or just eliminate the Merseyside study altogether?Woonpton (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just carefully scrutinized WP:OR, (which was cited in the edit summary for this deletion) and I see nothing in WP:OR that requires, or even supports, this deletion. Also, it would have been better, if there was an objection to adding this study, to discuss it here after Will suggested that it be included, rather than summarily deleting it once it was added, without discussion. I would like more discussion from other editors on this question.Woonpton (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I didn't see a post on this until now so that's why I just removed it. I am very sure this is OR... The study you include doesn't mention anything about the topic of this article, unless I missed it, and that's the key factor.

I'm not sure I understand what is being suggested. We can't add content on crime reduction unless it specifically references the topic of the article or that's OR.

If the study does mention the ME then no problem, but unless I missed something in my reading, it doesn't. I don't see the alternative, per any policy, as deleting sourced content.(olive (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

I agree with olive that, as stated, this addition is OR. However, its relevance is obvious. We have seen that much of the research on the putative Maharishi Effect is flawed. Pointing out that police research in the UK confirms the effectiveness of their own Methadone program in reducing crime is highly relevant, in spite of the fact that this report of the Great Britain Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, unaccountably omits mention of the TM-Sidhi Program. All we have to do is include this relevant fact, without comment. It is a relevant fact, not OR. Any relevant fact that has a citation that is a reliable source is permitted in WP. It is simply one more confirmation of the allowable (and quite reasonable) point of view that says that the research is flawed and that there is no Maharishi Effect. I have learned that it is not necessary to yield to the temptation to worship everything stated by Maharshi as truth. I believe that he was far too quick to seize on and amplify any information that could support TM and its advanced programs. For MMY, clearly, the ends justified the means. His one goal was to honor his guru by bringing enlightenment to the world; he did everything he could to achieve that goal. IMO, His behavior is understandable, but, ultimately, not justifiable. No true end justifies untrue means. David spector (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If the source does not mention the topic of the article, it is OR and we cannot use it per the policy. Sorry, but we can't add information so we can include the source. Use of this source is OR. No can do!(olive (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

While the police report doesn't mention the MUM study, the MUM study does specifically discount the role of the drug clinic in the reduction in crime, along with all other possible causes of the reduction. So it's not original research to give another view of an issue raised in the study.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree per WP:OR: "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."(olive (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

The topic of this paragraph is the causes of the crime reduction in Merseyside. The study makes a direct claim that the drug clinic was not a factor. To say that a police study credited the drug clinic, etc, with the reduction instead of the ME is directly relevant to the topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The paragraph is not about crime in Merseyside, it is about a study on the Maharishi Effect In Merseyside that purportedly reduced crime. The article itself, and that is our concern per OR, is about the TM Sidhi program and as a subset , the research on that, or utilizing that program.(olive (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Have to agree with Olive on this one. The article is about the TM-Sidhi program and the research conducted on this program. The source does not mention the TM-Sidhi program or the ME so to put it in the article is OR. --BwB (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No. This is exactly the same argument that was rejected yesterday with regard to the Dow Jones index. There is no policy justification for disallowing the Dow Jones index as a source because it doesn't contain the words "Maharishi Effect" and by the same token the Home Office Police Research Group doesn't have to mention the Maharishi Effect in order to be a reliable source for a alternative explanation for the crime reduction that was purported to be a demonstration of the Maharishi Effect.Woonpton (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is Woonpton. The source must relate directly to the content it is referencing.(olive (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

I now have the study and agree that what is in the article right now is appropriate. Home Office content is OR in my opinion.(olive (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

I've asked above but I'll ask again here to make sure it gets answered: is this the only study in which Maharishi Effect Threshold Index is used? If not, where can we learn more about this component of the Maharishi Effect? this article is missing any mention of it.   Will Beback  talk  02:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#Maharishi Effect.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Will. I was on the way to the OR Noticeboard myself.(olive (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

The drug reports on Page 9 states "Merseyside Police are continuing to explore why their recorded crime rates between 1988 and 1994 stabilized compared with other police force areas" --BwB (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of posting that sentence?   Will Beback  talk  03:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to show that the cops still don't know why the crime rate stabilized. So the "mysterious" ME could be the answer? --BwB (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly could be the answer. But it's not for us to decide. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  12:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will that our purpose is to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view; cherrypicking one isolated statement that seems to support a particular POV, out of a 40+ page paper that provides solid evidence for a relationship between the drug programs and the reduction in crime, would contravene that purpose. The sentence in question is just boilerplate language, a mild caveat that most responsible researchers include in some form; if there is any hidden meaning, it's usually something along the lines of "Keep the funding coming; we want to keep doing research." But the statement in no way discredits or diminishes the evidence in the body of the study, and it should not be used for that purpose. Just describe both studies briefly and neutrally, and let the reader decide.Woonpton (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And, as I pointed out in a post above, more conventional explanations for the drop in crime in Merseyside are found in many reputable sources, like a major police crackdown on street crime, to which a 50% drop in crime is attributed. It seems to me that it is not original research to report reliable sources from the time that said, "the crime drop was the result of successful changes in police practices and policies", even if they make no mention of yogic flyers in Skemersdale.Fladrif (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If consciousness is the primordial stuff of the universe, and if there are technologies that can effect consciousness and create a positive influence in that field, then all things in the universe are effected positively - all police activity, all drug rehab programs, all criminals, deviants, etc. This is the underlying theory of the Maharishi Effect. However, there has to be an instrument for consciousness to work through. If police could not contain crime in 1986, did nothing in 1987 to change their methods, and a TM-Sidhi group was formed in 1987 and crime went down, we could say that the policing methods finally started to work in 1987 and give credit to the cops. However, maybe it was the primordial field of consciousness being enlivened by the TM-Sidhi group that was the ultimate cause of the crime drop, while the police were the physical means through which the result occurred. Just a thought for a Sunday afternoon! --BwB (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But actually there was a big change in police methods with regard to how the police and other agencies in Merseyside dealt with drug users, involving multi-agency cooperation between several large drug clinics, the health authority, social agencies and the police, by which over 5,000 drug users were identified and treated. It's unclear exactly when this inter-agency was fully implemented, but given the fact that acquisitive crime (the type of crime that drug usrs commit) in Mereyside peaked in 1986 and fell steadily from then on (til 1990 when it started going up again) it seems reasonable to suspect that the drug program was in place by 1987 and had a positive effect on crime, and that the TM-Sidhi group achieving threshold in March of 1988 had very little to do with it.

Re: if there are technologies that can effect consciousness and create a positive influence in that field, then all things in the universe are effected positively - all police activity, all drug rehab programs, all criminals, deviants, etc then why would this overall positive effect only work on burglary of dwellings, common theft and theft from vehicles, which are crimes drug users tend to engage in, and not touch the crimes of violence against persons (much more worrisome to most people) which continued to rise steadily and even to escalate in Merseyside during the period in question? I'm still looking at the claim that the crime reduction occurred only in Merseyside and not in other police jurisdictions, but so far this claim looks questionable. For example, in 1988, the year Merseyside reported its largest drop in overall crime (14%) --and by the way there were only three years where the total crime in Merseyside decreased, 1987 (-1%), 1988 (-14%) and 1989 (-6%), London reported an equal reduction, 14%, and West Midlands came close with 11%. All but three of the jurisdictions reported decreases in total crime that year, and those three had very small increases (1-3%). I don't intend any of this for the article, but searched out these data just to satisfy my own curiosity, and share it here simply for perspective in considering how this topic should be covered. Woonpton (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to pester, but is there more information on the Maharishi Effect Threshold Index? Which other studies was it used in? I don't see it mentioned in Dillbeck 1987. Did Hagelin include it in the D.C. study? Where is is discussed from a conception point of view?   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion at NOR/N I have reinstated this source. Woonpton (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so, Woonpton. As I noted above, you can take these statistics and prove anything you want to with them. Merseyside did not experience crime reductions every year. Other communities experienced comparable or even greater crime reductions than did Merseyside in nearly every year, with no help from Yogic Flyers. Violent crime did not go down at all in Merseyside (maybe the Maharishi Effect works best against forgery and credit card fraud, not so much against murder, assault and rape). During the period of this project, Merseyside became the drug capitol of the UK. The methadone program, plus a separate police crackdown on street crime is credited by reliable sources not associated with the TM Movement with the crime reductions which did occur. These "researchers" simply cherry picked those figures which "proved" that their project had worked, ignoring those which didn't support their thesis.Fladrif (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't wholeheartedly endorse all of Fladrif's comments, especially the last. Without access to their database to see what data actually went into the analysis, and without more specific information about the analysis, the assertion that they cherrypicked numbers to prove their theory is unwarranted and needlessly inflammatory, and I respectfully ask that it be struck. I simply provided some raw data for perspective without drawing any conclusions; let the data speak for themselves as background information. Woonpton (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't know for sure what statistics the study used, though it does appear that the percentage crime reductions claimed to have occurred match the Home Office statistics for "Notifiable Offences Recorded". Drilling down through the data, and taking different cuts, such as Violent Crime only, or looking at just the categories of crime claimed to have been affected in the Washington DC study, would completely invalidate the study's conclusions. So, you're right: we can't say for sure that there was cherry picking going on in this study; but cherry picking is a possibility that one must consider. To that extent, I amend my statement above. Fladrif (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wouldn't call it cherrypicking, though; I'd just call it a puzzling omission of an essential step in data analysis. This isn't the only major problem I have with the study, but it's the one that smacks you right in the face as soon as you look at the data. Researchers who were interested in determining a cause for the reduction in crime would immediately look into the data and see if there's anything in the data themselves that could account for the reduction in crime. When they looked, they would see that the reduction in total crime wasn't mirrored in all categories of crime, but was driven by sharp reductions in acquisitive crimes committed by drug users; other categories continued to climb. The researchers then might do some checking and find that there was a massive drug treatment program going on that could easily account for a reduction in acquisitive crimes so large that it skewed the total crime statistics in its direction. And at that point, they would realize that it didn't make sense to hypothesize that the reduction in crime was due to some people meditating in Skelmersdale and causing a "phase transition" in the "collective consciousness," when there was a much more reasonable and practical explanation available. (See Occam's Razor). I'm not opposed to the idea that meditation can improve the world, in fact I sort of believe in it myself; I like to think that when I meditate, I'm somehow improving the situation in Darfur, for example. But choosing to believe something and saying that it's a proven scientific fact are two entirely different things, and such an extraordinary claim should be examined with impeccable research and produce unimpeachable, replicable, results. I'd be as delighted as anyone here if such results were to appear, but so far this body of research has not produced the evidence that this claim requires. It was unreasonable of me to ask you to strike your opinion about the study, but I still think it was unhelpful as first worded, and thanks for amendment. Woonpton (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That notice board thread was begun last night. Give editors a chance to comment especially that this was a weekend. Further there is nothing definitive on this notice board. Lets not jump the gun here... at least give time for input and we can go from there.(olive (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

I agree there's no rush, but I wonder why, if there's no rush, it was necessary to delete the text so quickly.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, Will. How about because I happened to be online. And how about because I consider it a violation of policy. And how about assume good faith. (olive (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

I never stopped assuming good faith. But if there's no rush then let's not rush to delete it. Nobody argues that it is poorly-sourced or irrelevant. So far, no uninvolved editor has agreed that it's NOR. So the reasons for keeping it appear to outweigh the reasons for deleting it at this time. It's just a single sentence. If the views on NORN shift we can delete it again. Is that a problem?   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait. I was under the impression that olive had struck her claim and thanked the noticeboard, per her edit summary there, so I assumed that the issue had been resolved in favor of resinstating the source, and I reinstated it. Is it now deleted again? Is the OR argument still being pursued? I can't keep up. Woonpton (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The current text, a result of input from several editors, is:

• Hatchard dismissed other possible causes for the crime reduction, including an expansion in a drug treatment program that he says began in July whereas the crime reduction began earlier in March, coinciding with the gathering of a group practicing the TM-sidhi program. An analysis by Barry Webb, published by the Home Office Police Research Group in 1996, shows that a large methadone project implemented in the mid-to-late 1980s with dramatically reduced the acquisitive crimes of burglary and vehicle theft by drug users in the area.

Any comments?   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that a generally accepted procedure for Notice boards was ignored here. I understand the misunderstanding Woonpton mentions, and I apologize if my post on the OR/N wasn't clear. Woonpton's action here is not a reason to ignore the fact that a post on the notice board was acted on within less than 24 hours and over a weekend period. I reverted because of that but the reversion was reinstated and edited. As I say below as the WP:NOR policy is worded now this content is a clear OR violation however technically driven, and I'm sorry to see it pushed into the article as it has been . You open the door for more of the same.

Consider these points:

• We don't know if both the ME study and the gov't study examined the same circumstances. Should we want to find that out, we would be doing OR to do so. We as editors are attempting to connect the two studies. if we don't do the research we are connecting two possibly very unrelated studies, and implying inaccurate information. That's why sources must be directly related to the topic of the article. Then the connection of the information is self evident and requires no editor input and connections=OR.

• This related example:

Bob says the temperature will not rise above zero on Dec 24, 2009. The weather report for Dec 24, 2009 states the temperature rose to 20 degrees.

Juxtaposing those together IMPLYS that Bob was wrong, but the real problem is the Weather Report doesn’t mention Bob, nor are we sure they’re looking at the same things. Maybe Bob’s prediction was for his warehouse freezer unit. We need to know they’re talking about the very same things in relation to each other.

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C.

• Make no mistake about it, we are dealing with an instance of OR. Is it technical. Very likely. Can this instance of OR be ignored. Perhaps, with editor agreement. But not for an instance should we assume this isn't a case of IAR, and if we ignore all rules in this instance we open the door for the same kind of scenario for viewpoints you don't agree with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
• My preference is to stick strictly to the policies and not open doors for any more contention that we already have.(olive (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

This is sounding a lot like sour grapes. Woonpton misunderstood your intentions; a quite natural conclusion given the striking of your comments. But at this point, multiple uninvolved editors have weighed in, universally disagreeing with your position. So, give it up already. Or, is this going to be another one of those intances where you decide that Noticeboard input and decisions are going to be heeded only where they support your position, and ignored otherwise?Fladrif (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Flad. You seem to mistake the environment here. I am allowed, in fact encouraged to discuss and investigate the policies, and if I in fact do not agree with two uninvolved editors (Multiple? ), then that's fine. I could as easily say you don't know what you are talking about. You may at any time stop using your well worn and false example of my Notice Board behaviour. As I am sure you remember, but I will remind you again. although I did not agree with the Notice Board comments on the use of the word "crackpot" on John Hagelin, i inserted the word anyway into my rewrite. Will Beback, not I, suggested removing it, and I did despite the objections of several editors. Your attacks are tiresome, but worse is your insistence on scenarios that are inaccurate and untrue . I do not, nor do you have to agree with anything here. This is a collaborative project though, and despite my disagreement I am willing and always have attempted to acted with the agreement of editors even when I disagreed. i will assume now that I have once again explained to you the crackpot situation you will not continue to bring this up . if you do i will consider it harassment.(olive (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Your noticeboard behavior is a recurring and persistent pattern of selective blindness that goes far beyond whether the term "crackpot" can be used in the Hagelin article, as you well know, and dates back to your insistence that nobody at COIN can tell you that you have a conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about your employer, and stretches through multiple noticeboards and many incidents. I didn't even have the "Crackpot" example in mind. Your editing history and talk page behavior when it comes to these articles is disruptive, contrary to the policies and standards of Misplaced Pages, and your continual spewing of invective against anyone who would dare add reliably-sourced independent neutral material which doesn't adhere 101% to the TM-Movement official line, while simultaneously asserting victimhood is sad, tiresome and completely out-of-line.Fladrif (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"..a generally accepted procedure for Notice boards was ignored here." Which procedure was ignored?   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally, editors are given time to respond. Less that 24 hours on a weekend is not the usual. Is there any rule against acting that quickly. No. Is it hasty. Yes.(olive (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

I missed that policy - could you please link to it? If you look at the other entries in that noticeboard, you'll see that most haven't received any response at all. We got a couple of responses from uninvolved editors, and that's about as much as can be expected. We've received the input that we sought. Now let's take that guidance and move on. Remember that "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" is a form of disruptive editing.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you ask for a policy? Did I say this was a policy? No I didn't. I question the way in which this whole situation was handled, and that is my prerogative. My editing is not disruptive, nor is my behaviour. I do, however, deal with disruption and incivility here often. In the future I suggest you do not mischaracterize what I say as you did above . And do not ever threaten me . Ever. (olive (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

So if it's not a violation of a policy then what guideline does it violate? Making groundless accusations is unhelpful, and is another form of disruptive editing.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• This study is more notable than I'd originally realized. Among other sources where I've seen it, it is mentioned in Chryssides.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove POV Tag

I have today removed the POV tag which I placed in the Maharishi Effect section in October. Since that time Luke and other editors have added additional info and other editors hav e made edits which create more balance in the section. Hence the removal of the tag. -- — Kbob • Talk • 14:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kbob good idea, I think we are a bit awash in tags, in this article --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

TM-Sidhi Program as Samashti Sadhana

Most, if not all, of the knowledge and techniques taught by MMY come from ancient tradition (in particular, the Shankaracharya lineages of gurus). Besides the development of consciousness ("moving the silence"), practicing the Yoga sutras may very appropriately be considered as a Samashti Sadhana, a practice meant to help create an atmosphere or influence of Sattva (spiritual purity) in the local population and in the world. MMY's followers call the putative effect of this influence the Maharishi Effect. I propose that a link to Samashti Sadhana be added to the article, perhaps in the section on the Maharishi Effect, since from a spiritual perspective this is a useful way to view the TM-Sidhi Program. David spector (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless a source makes the connection between these two neither can we, either in the article or linking in the article. To do so would be considered OR. So if you can find a source great. {olive (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)}

I concur with Olive, we can't just arbitrarily link articles --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to show a rather obvious and interesting connection between two WP articles. Never mind. David spector (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of "TM-Sidhi"

In case it hasn't been done before, I'd like to point out that, to help trademark the term, the word "Sidhi" was deliberately misspelled. The correct spelling, of course is "Siddhi", representing the Sanskrit letters/diacriticals s,i,d,dh,i, and meaning (roughly) "one who practices powers related to perfection" (it is closely related to several other common Sanskrit terms, including Siddha, Sadhu, and Sat). While one might contest the trademarking of the word "siddhi", adding the prefix "TM-" and the misspelling "Sidhi" produces enough of a difference to make trademarking reasonable. In case anyone wanted to know. David spector (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's a source discussing this then we could add it. But I don't think that we should say so on our own.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info David. If this comes up in future we can look for a reliable secondary source and reference this information.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The larger issue

Will wrote the following, which I think deserves discussion:

That was a poor choice of words on my part. Statistically, most groups are probably fringe groups. I should have said "fringe views". Every religion has unique beliefs, and if these were framed as such then there wouldn't be an issue. But they are presented as scientific facts. That they were passed by some reviewers at a journal does not mean they they represent the consensus view of science. There are widely held views in science and there are fringe views. Not all of the issues regarding the scientific studies of Maharishi's teachings are the same. If we polled one hundred scientists at random, asking them whether personal meditation is likely to reduce stress, I believe most would regard that as plausible. If we asked the same group whether the meditations of a small group could affect the actions of a million distant people, then I think that only a few would find that plausible. If I'm correct, then it's a fringe view. In his time, Galileo also held a fringe view, as did Darwin (whose views are still not shared by the majority of the American public, though they are now almost universally accepted among scientists). Probably every dramatic scientific development was on the fringe at some point. "Fringe" sounds pejorative, but it's really a shorthand reference to a small statistical group. Misplaced Pages's NPOV requires that we present all significant views, no matter how few people believe them, with the neutral point of view. However it also requires that we avoid presenting a fringe view as the majority view. It's not an easy task for any of us. It's harder still for those who are firmly inside that statistical group. But we're all making progress and the articles are improving. Will Beback talk 09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's true that a majority of scientists would say that the Maharishi Effect is implausible. ( Carla Brown actually did her Harvard dissertation on the response of scientists to the Maharishi Effect and used a technique called content analysis to analyze the results. Their responses ranged from, "Hmm, this is interesting, let me take a look at the data," to taking the research from her and throwing it across the room. Her interviewees included Fales and Markovsky.) I guess it doesn't seem obvious to a reader would get the sense from reading this article that the Maharishi Effect is the majority view. Much of the article's content is centered around controversy. The article explicitly says that this research isn't accepted. Olive has agreed that the UK study could be deleted, but unless there's a clear violation of a policy or guideline that solution just doesn't seem satisfying. It's almost like we're sweeping it under the carpet. I've checked the impact factors for three of these journals. Two are among the top five journals in the field. The third was at about the 50th percentile. So I don't think they can be said to be obscure. So the question is, does the article indicate that this is a majority view, and if so, how can we address that? TimidGuy (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The above quote from Will Beback as copied by TimidGuy omitted several sentences of Will's post without an ellipsis to indicate that material was omitted. I have restored the omitted sentences (in bold)in the blockquote. I'm not sure I see any useful purpose in copying Will's post to a new section rather than leaving it in the existing (still active) section for response, especially since in the process of copying to the new section, the post was (no doubt inadvertently) edited. If the existing section is getting too long for editing, then make an arbitrary break, but I would prefer for the ease of review and discussion that posts be left in place and be left intact. I will respond to "the larger issue" in the section above. Woonpton (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The practice by some editors of repeatedly breaking off talk-page discussions in midstream and starting over in a new section makes me wonder if there is any good research on whether long-term practice of TM is associated with adverse impacts on attention span.Fladrif (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what was that you said, Flad. My attention wandered for a moment! --BwB (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice!!! --BwB (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You agree that the majority view of scientists is that the Maharishi Effect is implausible; I take it that you would also agree that it is appropropriate that the article say that this research is not accepted. I take it that you believe that any study of the Maharishi Effect published in an independent peer reviewed journal should not be excluded from the article. Are you arguing that, by including text on such studies, the article is not suggesting that this is mainstream science, so long as there are appropriate disclaimers and descriptions of the controversies surrounding these theories? As an aside, which journals are you referring to, and what field or fields is it that that they have good impact factors? Fladrif (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I thought I was following the refactoring guideline. I thought that I had detected a change in tone and that we could discuss things in a congenial fashion, without the constant hostility and sniping, and was eager to start a new thread. See my post on Will's Talk page. But then my sincere attempt is met with sniping. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you thought you were following the refactoring guideline, I might suggest paying closer attention to some of its principles, such as that it's not advisable to refactor ongoing discussions, and that in refactoring one must take care not to distort the original meaning of the post you are refactoring, e.g. by keeping the parts that seem to lean in one direction and leaving out the parts that lean another direction. And referring to my concern about refactoring as "sniping" is not a good way to ensure the congenial discussion you say you want. I wouldn't even have come into this discussion except that I was dismayed by how the post was edited in copying to leave out the sentences that expressed concern. Woonpton (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

TG. I wonder if you could further explain. You say that most scientists would consider the ME to be implausible. I would take that to be different than a majority view per Misplaced Pages. Since there are fifty or so studies it would be difficult to consider ME a fringe view "Most scientists viewpoints" must be sourced, and most is of course weasel wording. So I'm assuming you're not advocating putting something like that in the article. I'd be grateful for any further explanations. I was confused by your post, and by what you might be suggesting for the article. Thanks , TG.(olive (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Publishing 50 papers - publishing 500 papers - on a theory that is not accepted by mainstream science, does not remove the theory from the realm of "finge". Getting a paper published does not mean anything other than it got published. No-one outside of the TM Movement ever cites any of these papers. Mainstream science ignores it as unworthy of even being discussed. As for sources, haven't we gone through this before, many times? If someone cites a reliable source that reports that some aspect of SCI is not mainstream, or nonsense, or crackpot or rejected by the majority of scientists, your reaction has pretty consistently been: "That's just one person's opinion; he can't know what other scientists think, and besides, that's a personal attack". What kind of evidence do you need before you agree with TG that the ME research is not accepted by the majority of mainstream scientists?Fladrif (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I said, "I think it's true that a majority of scientists would say that the Maharishi Effect is implausible." When I said that, I wasn't suggesting that that somehow go in the article. Rather, I was sharing my personal speculation. I thought we were going to explore an overall solution, in the spirit of collaboration, and had some ideas how we might proceed toward resolution. But instead, the battleground mentality continues. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked you nicely (or so I thought) what it was you were proposing here, because I can't tell. You can continue to sulk about Woonpton's post and my intended-to-be-humerous aside (sorry if you took it wrong), or you can tell us what you had in mind.Fladrif (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Flad. If there are 50 papers published and they are peer reviewed then as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned mainstream science is looking pretty seriously at these studies whatever our personal opinions might be, and per Misplaced Pages 50 studies is substantial and does remove the studies from the realm of fringe in terms of the studies themselves. "No one outside of the TM movement ever cites these papers" .... The issue is peer review and publication for inclusion on Misplaced Pages.

WP:Fringe theories: "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject." Note that we are not suggesting that there is consensus in the scientific community on the importance of the theory . We are simply saying the theory has been studied and reviewed so the studies should not be considered fringe to science. No one is claiming consensus.

And please don't quote as if I had actually said the above.

My position is completely consistent per Misplaced Pages and per WP:Reliable Sources...and frankly that's all I care about...

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Misplaced Pages editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim.

TG, Thanks I wanted to clarify your position. I assumed you were giving an opinion and not suggesting we add the opinion, but felt the point was worth checking.(olive (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Your opinion that the publication of studies on the ME in peer-reviewed journals removes it from the category of fringe science is simply wrong. There are lots of peer-reviewed papers published over the years on ESP, for example, but claims of clairvoyance, telekinesis and the like are still "fringe science" if science at all. Ditto with cold fusion. You quote from the note in Misplaced Pages on Fringe Science, but not the whole thing. It continues:

Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Misplaced Pages as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Misplaced Pages on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality (see WP:REDFLAG).

Fladrif (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What part of this guideline applies? Does the article say that this hypothesis is accepted? It says just the opposite. Does the article use a single source? In fact, a number of reputable journals have published studies on the Maharishi Effect. Are the studies published in reputable journals? The journals that have published it include Yale University's Journal of Conflict Resolution, which is a top political science journal. I guess at this point I'm not sure what's being suggested. The sources used in this article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines. Of course, I'd love to completely delete all Maharishi Effect material from this article. Is that being suggested? TimidGuy (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone would want to delete all the Maharishi Effect material from this article. Why would that be desirable? Also, how are we judging which journals are reputable?   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment above to clarify Fladrif's misunderstanding of what I am saying: " Note that we are not suggesting that there is consensus in the scientific community on the importance of the theory We are simply saying the theory has been studied and reviewed so the studies should not be considered fringe to science. No one is claiming consensus."

I didn't quote the rest of the paragraph because its not applicable to this situation, "Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source". We are talking about 50 or so studies not one or two.

ESP, the Maharishi Effect, relativity and so on are not science, science is a process, a procedure, a method.These are theories, ideas, postulations, that have undegone a procedure that may or may not have positive outcomes. (olive (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Have the MUM researchers ever published a study that fails to show a positive outcome?   Will Beback  talk  07:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For example, two studies by Charles Alexander (see the Canter & Ernst review) and a study by John Kesterson based on his Ph.D. dissertation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However Orme-Johnson argues that Kesterson's study was actually a positive outcome.

• The finding was only "negative" from the perspective of a particular hypothesis about what meditation is supposed to do. From a broader perspective, the study expanded knowledge of the physiological effects of meditation to something that was perhaps even more interesting.

Orme-Johnson also disputes the Canter & Ernst review. Without seeing the papers I can't judge for myself. Do you think Orme-Johnson's analysis is correct?   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Any response?   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding how to judge whether a journal is reputable, my feeling is that if it's based at a university or a prominent academic association and is cited in the academic literature, then it's reputable. Impact factor is increasingly used, though it's a bit controversial. Here, for example, is a page ranking the top journals in the area of political science according to their impact factor. You'll see that Yale's Journal of Conflict Resolution is ranked fourth over the period 1981-2007, making it one of the top journals in the field. TimidGuy (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. How do we judge the reputations of journals in the medical field, where I think most of the studies have been published?   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Two points: (i) I still have no idea what TimidGuy is proposing with respect to this article. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any proposal in the above discussion points. (ii) Olive, I neither misunderstand nor am I misrepresenting your position. You claim that publication of 50 studies on the ME means it isn't "fringe science". I am simply pointing out that your opinion in that regard is wrong. I am not asserting that all of the research on the ME should be excised from the article because it is fringe science, just as I understand that you are not asserting that anyone should claim in the article that the theory of the ME and the research supporting it is a consensus or majority view. Fladrif (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ESP, the Maharishi Effect, relativity and so on are not science, science is a process, a procedure, a method.These are theories, ideas, postulations, that have undegone a procedure that may or may not have positive outcomes. Could you expand or clarify what you mean by this, because it's not making sense to me as phrased. Science is not just a process or method; it's also the body of established findings that has been produced by that method. The process and those engaging in it are characterized by a critical spirit and a deep commitment to the testing of assertions and to revising or discarding assertions that fail the test. Those theories that become established are supported by a web of interlocking evidence coming from a variety of sources. It's not the experiments and their publication but the fact that independent researchers have done the same experiments and got the same results, or expanded the implications to another setting or problem, that slowly over time makes a set of findings part of the knowledge base of science. It's all part of science: the critical attitude toward one's own work as well as others', the commitment to rigorous testing, the experiments, and the replication of the experiments by independent researchers, establishing the results as a solid finding.

Also, TimidGuy keeps saying that the article says that the Maharishi Effect isn't accepted by mainstream scientists. I've read the article twice (the article has gotten much worse IMO in the six months or so since I last looked at it) and don't see where the article says that; could you point me to the actual sentence(s) in the article? Thanks. Woonpton (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Woonpton . A discussion of what is science could be an endless discussion... discussion of Popper alone could go on for months. So for time reasons, I'll pass on making any further comments, with the view that there are multiple ways of understanding the word "science". (olive (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Popper? Popper has nothing whatever to do with this conversation. You made a categorical statement about what science is that made no sense, lumping ESP, the Maharishi Effect and relativity together as "not science" but as theories that have "undergone a process" (a process you call science? That wasn't clear) that "may or not have positive outcomes." The statement was incomprehensible to me and I asked for clarification; in response you say you can't answer because there are many ways of understanding what "science" is and it would take too much time to have that discussion? I suggest in that case not making statements you can't back up, explain or clarify. The only way I can make the sentence make sense is if you are suggesting a very narrow definition in which science means only the conducting of research and publication of the results, a narrow definition I don't believe would find consensus among scientists as an adequate definition of what constitutes their enterprise. At any rate, conducting and publishing research that appears to be scientific but produces no useful or replicable findings is the very definition of pseudoscience, and those who defend pseudoscience often try to narrow the definition of science so that their activities can be legitimized as having gone through the "process" of science. No doubt that's not what you mean to imply here, but without clarification, I can't tell what you do mean. Woonpton (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, are you asking about TM studies, or TM-Sidhi studies? TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What was the question?   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked if MUM ever published any studies that failed to show a positive outcome. Neither of the two studies TG cited had anything to do with the Maharishi Effect. I would point out that there has been at least one spectacular failure of the Maharisi Effect: The Invincible America Assembly, As Raja of Invincible America, Hagelin organized an Invincible America Assembly in Fairfield, Iowa. Hagelin predicted that when the number of assembly participants reached 2,500 that America would have a major drop in crime, and see the virtual elimination of all major social and political woes in the United States. Hagelin said that the Assembly was responsible for the Dow Jones Industrial Average reaching a record high of 14,022 in July 2007, and predicted that the Dow would top 17,000 within a year. The Dow did not reach 17,000 as predicted, but instead, within a year, was below the levels when the Invincible America Assembly commenced the prior year, eventually dropping under 6700 at its low, and has yet to recover to the July 2006 levels when the Assembly commenced. The TM Movement website that was tracking the Dow and other economic indicators up until the market collapse removed that information from the website, and added a robots.txt blocking Google Cache and the Internet Archives from retrieving the information.Fladrif (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

MUM didn't publish any of these studies. The studies we need to continue discuss o this article are related to the Maharishi Effect, are they not? Are we getting sidetracked?

No, not at all. This is a case in point that relates directly to Will's question (this wasn't published as a study, but if the Dow had continued to climb, do you really think some "research" claiming a causal statistical association between the rise in the Dow and the meditators in Fairfield wouldn't have been published? (A rhetorical question, but a reasonable one.) And it also relates directly to the power of the Maharishi Effect and so is directly relevant here. Woonpton (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it was published on a TM-Org website that has not been entirely deleted, as I found on looking further, in which Cavanugh, Rainforth, the Goodmans and Hirsch published, and then issued press releases on, their "Research Abstract" on "The Impact of Group Transcendental Meditation Practice on Quality of Life in the U.S.: A Quasi-Experimental Study of the Scientific Demonstration Project" showing overwhelming success of the first 100 days of this experiment/demonstration/whatever. So it is most definitely a "published" study on the Maharishi Effect. Fladrif (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: MUM is not the publisher of the peer reviewed, published publications we are using as reliable sources in this article. I see Flad has added a study publication that I would not consider to be reliable since it is not peer reviewed and is published by the TM org as far as I can tell.(olive (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Many sources we use for this article are not peer-reviewed. Are you saying that the only TM sources which are reliable are those published in peer-reviewed journals? If so we'd have to delete quite a bit of information from these articles.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am of course talking about the studies we use. For many sources peer review is not an applicable guideline. I'm striking a word in my initial post that may have created confusion.(olive (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

This may be an interesting intersection of WP:MEDRS and WP:SPS. Self-published sources are generally allowed for assertions about the subject of the article. An alternative is to include it and make clear that it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reputations of journals

Will, I was asking for clarification regarding this statement: "Thanks for that. How do we judge the reputations of journals in the medical field, where I think most of the studies have been published?" Are we talking about TM studies here or Maharishi Effect? TimidGuy (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a general question, though I suppose on this page we should focus on TM-Sidhi. Journals cited in this article include: International Journal of Neuroscience , Experimental Neurology, Psychosomatic Medicine, Social Indicators Research, Psychology, Crime and Law, and Journal of Scientific Exploration. You gave some information on Journal of Conflict Resolution (thanks). I see that there is a claim that the paper published in Social Indicators Research was only reviewed by TM-practitioners. If true, that would create questions about their review process. So, to repeat, how do we judge the reputations of these journals?   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not true regarding Social Indicators Research. Who made that claim? There's no absolute measure for reputation that I know if. Some people use impact factor, but it's fairly controversial. I've checked the four journals cited regarding the Maharishi Effect, and these are all solid journals. Nothing obscure. JCR is the highest. Psychology, Crime, and Law is about 1, which puts it in the top 8 for journals related to psychology and law. Social Indicators Research is about 1. Journal of Mind and Behavior, put out by the University of Maine, had an impact factor of .54 and ranks at about the 50th percentile in this list from 2001. I guess my feeling, like I said before, is that journals for academic associations, universities, and major publishers are reputable. TimidGuy (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Park makes that claim, though now that I re-read it I'm not exactly sure which journal he's referring to. (, p. 30).   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Social Indicators Research is .608 in the PDF you sent, not 1.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this discussion is about . Misplaced Pages has guidelines about sources we adhere to. We can't just decide on some criteria for ourselves here... make up our own rules. I intend to operate by WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. (olive (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Olive, you and others have talk about "reputable publications" on this page. I'm trying to figure out what criteria we're using for determining what qualifies.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy and guideline are relatively clear on that. My intention is to use those as my guides. If we need to look at each individual source and stack it up against the guideline or policy, that's fine, but no discussion here is going to, in my mind, establish some criteria for the use of sources beyond Misplaced Pages. (olive (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

I'm new at judging the reputations of journals. The Misplaced Pages policies seem to treat scholarly journals with a broad brush, indicating that they are all usable. WP:RS Perhaps I should ask you what you meant by "reputable publications", since you are among the editors using that term.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm referencing Misplaced Pages here: "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

This quote needs to be understood and placed in context of the entire guideline WP: RELIABILITY and in context of parts of the policy WP:VERIFIABILITY for anunderstanding of reputable. As an experienced admin you probably have that understanding, so I won't bore you further. (olive (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

OK, so we're back to deciding which sources are reputable.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. We're back to reading and understanding the guideline and the policy and then, using the sources If a concern comes up regarding a source bring it here for discussion. The guideline and the policy in their entirities (probably not a word) have more than enough information. We can discuss the policy /guideline but this isn't the place probably except in a specific instance, and after that its opinion. and or agreement and consensus . I'm not in the market for an addendum to Misplaced Pages which is how I would see this.(olive (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand what you're saying. The policy talks about using reputable sources, but doesn't seem to define that term. So I'm asking how we apply that to the peer-reviewed journals cited in this article. If you don't want to participate in the discussion then that's OK too.   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. WP:RS gives clear guidance for choosing sources; the most important and clearcut of the principles relating to our difficulty here is that Misplaced Pages articles should be sourced with secondary sources rather than primary sources. Primary sources are individual studies; secondary sources are review articles and meta-analyses. This is not an "addendum" to Misplaced Pages; this is standard and longstanding Misplaced Pages guidance and practice. Adhering to this guidance should eliminate a lot of the difficulty and confusion that's going on here. I also recommend a careful reading of WP: MEDRS which is just as much a guideline as RS, and which spells out even more clearly and helpfully how to vet sources for medical articles. This is Misplaced Pages. This will take us much farther than trying to rank journals on their "reputability;" which strikes me as a dubious task. Woonpton (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I too had assumed Park was referring to a journal peer-review process when he said that the reviewers were TM practitioners, but on re-reading this I'm not sure what this review board was that John Hagelin referred to in the press conference, saying that the study had been "carefully scrutinized by an 'independent scientific review board,' several of whose members were at the press conference," and whom Park polled and found that they were "all followers of the Maharishi." Other than the obvious fact that this could in no way be called an independent review board, it's hard to know what to make of it without more information. Woonpton (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, I was getting the ranking from the Social Indicators Research web page, which gives .955 as the ranking. But I think Woonpton has a good point. We've probably gotten as much from this discussion of impact factor as we can, though I do think it was interesting and helpful in some ways. And yes, Hagelin's review board that he consulted in designing and conducting and writing up the experiment had nothing to do with the subsequent publication in 1999 in Social Indicators Research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem problematic to you that Hagelin characterized this "review board" at a press conference as an "independent scientific review board," when it was obviously nothing of the sort? It also strikes me as curious that Hagelin, who had eight co-authors, would need to consult TM practitioners outside his research group about how to design and conduct and write up the study, especially when the research consisted entirely of statistical analysis of existing data. He might have done well to consult some independent professional statisticians, but it's unlikely that anyone without those statistical credentials, or even anyone with the credentials who was not independent of the TM organization, could have been any help as far as providing independent review of the process. And that goes for the peer review for the journal as well; does anyone know what the professional qualifications of the reviewers were? If there were no independent statisticians on the review panel, the peer review could not be considered a useful review, since the study is 50 pages of statistical jargon. Only a statistician would be able to review this statistical study on its merits.Woonpton (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently "impact rankings" vary considerably over time. If we're going to use that measure as a gauge of a journal's reputation we should probably find the number for the period closest to the date of publication of whatever study we're looking at.

I see that here and on other articles some editors are deleting studies, or study conclusions, that they think are weak. On what basis is this being done? Is it OK for us to decide that a study, published in a journal that is presumably reputable, is weak and just delete it in whole or in part? For example, our summary of the UK study was trimmed to delete one possibly implausible conclusion, while retaining other conclusions. Is that a fair way of summarizing a study?   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Will. I deleted that because I thought it would please you. It was a gesture of collaboration and compromise. Sorry that I got it wrong. And my rationale was that it's not a finding of the study and that it was a matter of undue weight to highlight a couple sentences of speculation in the discussion at the end of the study. The finding of the study was that there was a correlation between group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi program and reduced crime. TimidGuy (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

TG, I appreciate the effort, but if folks are going to complain about the coverage of a study being trimmed then we should make sure that we have a rational basis for doing so. Sorry if I'm a bit dense about this, but how do we determine which conclusions are part of the study, and which aren't? The information about national crime level and the info about the cost of crime were both obtained from the same cabinet department. In a different article, you deleted a study entirely, even though it was also published in a peer-reviewed journal. You wrote "I'm going to remove this study for now; I want to look at it more closely; the design may be too weak to include". I'd agree with your logic, but elsewhere there are arguments that we can't second-guess the peer-reviewers. Is it right to delete a poorly designed study, or is it right to insist that we must devote a full paragraph to all studies published in peer-reviewed journals?   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Input from editors requested: Journal of Scientific Exploration

The Journal of Scientific Exploration - reputable?   Will Beback  talk  12:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd heard that name before, but couldn't place it; now that I see the toc it all comes clear. I listen to the Coast to Coast radio show while I'm falling asleep; that's where I've heard the name. If this is considered peer-reviewed, then the concept of peer review has lost all useful meaning.Woonpton (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

?   Will Beback  talk  12:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Journal of Scientific Exploration seems to indicate that any journal, no matter its reputation, is liable to used as a source for this article. That's OK with me, just so we all know that we're not rigorously demanding only the best possible sources but instead are accepting anything that meets the minimum standards.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not fine with me. The threshold for inclusion is peer review and reputable. If the publication isn't reputable we need to remove it. What proof is available that indicates it isn't reputable. I think we need to examine the proof and then decide whether the journal stays or goes.(olive (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

The burden of establishing the quality of a source is on those adding the material. As I've been asking over and over in this thread, how do we judge whether a journal is reputable? I asked repeatedly about this particular journal, but haven't received an answer.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton had made a comment so perhaps he could weigh in here. As I said before , the way to decide if a journal is reputable is to bring information on the journals themselves here, discuss it, and then decide as a group, rather than create some overarching criteria. That's the way I would see it anyway. Perhaps we could create a new thread to discuss this journal in which editors are asked for comments and agreement one way or the other as to the journal's reputation.(olive (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

"...the way to decide if a journal is reputable is to bring information on the journals themselves here, discuss it..." OK, please bring information that shows this is a reputable journal so we can discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No Will. I will be happy to set up a thread on this topic, but I didn't say I think the journal is reputable nor did I say it wasn't reputable. I actually have yet to look into the situation. You seem to have misunderstood and mischaracterized what I said. I hope this clarifies.

Is anyone willing to defend the JSE as a reputable journal? If not we can cut the discussion short.   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry we must have been posting at the same time, and we now have a new thread I suggest we wait a couple of days or so to fairly give editors a chance to weigh in. We're not in a rush are we.(olive (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

I've been asking about this since the 12th. A couple of more days won't hurt. Note that this same journal article is also cited in John Hagelin, so our discussion here would apply to that as well.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is theJournal of Scientific Exploration a reputable source per WP:RS and WP:Verifiable? (olive (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Journal of Scientific Exploration.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this journal is fine to use, considering the sources that we're using in this article: Flim Flam by Randi, the Dallas Observer (a free tabloid), a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle who makes an unattributed statement that those outside the movement see no such cause and effect (presumably assuming that the editors and peer reviewers of the many journals that have published this are inside the movement), a political journalist, and the Skeptical Inquirer, which claims to be an academic journal but probably has a lower impact factor than the Journal of Scientific Exploration. We wouldn't use it if it had published a study, but it's as good a source as these other sources for presenting both sides of the debate surrounding the research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not a science journal. By its own mission statement, its a publication intended as an outlet for woo that no reputable science journal will publish. The whining about the other sources used in this article is just that - baseless whining grounded in either a complete misunderstanding, or a purposeful misinterpretation of both WP:RS and WP:V that TG has repeated over and over again: that he wants to do his own original research to independently verify from primary sources what is reported in a reliable secondary source before he'll agree that it can go in the article. That's not the way this process works. That being said, I would agree with the folks at RSN who wrote that JSE is probably OK to report what the authors claim, but no-one should pretend that this is a science journal. Fladrif (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to insist on moving the heading to the beginning of the discussion and keeping the thread together; there was no reason to start a new thread. I've noticed that what happens when an ongoing discussion is broken out into a new thread, besides disrupting the flow of discussion, is that often the two threads are archived in different places, even in entirely different archives even though they happened concurrently, making it very difficult to follow a discussion in the archives. So, please, let's keep the discussion together in the same thread.

As for the Journal of Scientific Exploration, I've already given a brief response above. As I said, I listen to Coast to Coast while I'm falling asleep; the guests advocate for various fringe notions such as conspiracy theories of all kinds (the JFK assassination, the idea that the demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11 was a US government plot, the idea that NASA is suppressing information about UFOs, the idea that the founding of the United States was a Masonic plot, etc etc), alien abductions and descriptions of the 57 different kinds of aliens who visit the earth and do scientific experiments on humans, sightings of little-known species such as BigFoot and the Loch Ness monster, proof that the ancient Mayans were actually aliens from outer space who also built the same kind of architecture on Mars, time travel, cars that use water for fuel, and so forth; it's a veritable audio encyclopedia of wacko ideas. Now and then the host mentions, in signing off with a guest, that listeners should read the guest's article in the latest Journal of Scientific Exploration. I had always assumed, until I encountered it here, that the Journal of Scientific Exploration was the house magazine of the Coast-to-Coast program. So my impression, which isn't proof of disreputability but just the impression formed by its association in my mind with this collection of crackpots, is that the journal is not a serious journal. And as I said above, the fact that this journal bills itself as peer-reviewed throws the whole notion of peer review right out the window. Whether it can be used to cite Orme-Johnson's opinions I haven't formed an opinion myself, except that it seems sort of internally consistent. Caveat: I haven't actually looked at the journal itself or scrutinized any of the articles to evaluate the quality of research therein, I've only glanced at the table of contents for the issue Will linked to, which seems to cover many of the same kinds of ideas promulgated by Coast to Coast. Woonpton (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

These would seem to be serious academics and would help legitimatize the quality of the journal, but I would think given their peer review process, not as a publisher of research studies. I would tend to agree with TG that this journal is more reputable in terms of opinion than Randi for example, whose book did not undergo any kind of peer review process in the sciences, and whose academic qualifications to investigate science fall far below the editors in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. So I would allow the journal as a source for opinion, the equal at the very least of some of our other sources. I would add that these pages are for expression and discussion of opinion on the article and attack of another editor for expressing their opinion is unwarranted and uncivil. (olive (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

Again, arguing that another editor's opinion, even if genuine, is ill-founded and contrary to Wiki policies is not a personal attack nor uncivil. Enough with the baseless claims of victimhood.Fladrif (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ?Since I don't see anything in my post that constitutes an "attack of another editor for expressing their opinion" (unless an editor here has been a guest on Coast to Coast Radio, in which case I will apologize and strike the "wacko" designation) perhaps olive's post was inadvertently incorrectly indented so as to appear to be a response to mine. As for the link provided, the information there rather confirms my general impression.Woonpton (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not you Woonpton . No worries. But serves as a reminder for us all.(olive (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

So, to bring this discussion forward, it seems that the only evidence we have that this is a reputable journal is that the editor-in-chief is a professor. Is that it? Is that all it takes for a journal to be reputable?   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone making that point, actually. I did suggest that the credentials of the editors in chief are considerable and that serious academics (professors?) add some legitimacy to such a journal. I think there is agreement from the editors who have commented so far that as a source for serious research the journal is not acceptable, but as a source for opinion pieces the journal is adequate. As a few editors have suggested this journal is probably comparable if not superior to some of the sources for opinion we have in place now. (olive (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)) That seem quite clear

If you weren't making that point then it'd appear that we have no one arguing that this is a reputable journal.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I t seems clear what is being said here. The journal can be considered reputable for opinion, as reputable as Randi or Skepdic, but not reputable enough as a sources for scientific studies since the peer review process is less stringent that might be desired. If we want to define reputable with an overarching definition rather than specific to individual instances we have to be ready to toss out not only this journal but Randi and some of the other news articles that are commenting on scientific research.(olive (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Suitability as a source for the author's opinion is the lowest rank of a reliable source, equivalent to what we accord to a blog or other self-published source. If that is the sole basis for using this source then the question turns to the merit of including more of Orme-Johnson's opinions in this article. He is already cited extensively, and if we're going to include this then we should probably reduce other mentions of his opinions to avoid giving his views excess weight.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we willing to reduce other sources as well because they are extensively used/quoted. I don't see anywhere in WP:WEIGHT that we should reduce the sources from particular individuals as undue weight. An expert in the filed may have many opinions and or views As well, when we source Orme Johnson's we are sourcing an expert in the field not a blogger. When we source Randi we are sourcing a magician. I'm looking for some consistency here.

We have the general agreement here of the editors who commented that this Journal is acceptable for Orme Johnson's comments. I'd like to see that honored.

If we are going to extend this discussion to excluding OJ than I think several editors have suggested that we have other sources that are of equal quality like Randi. That's a whole other discussion. We can go there if needed but lets not conflate the two discussions.(olive (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

is there anyone who we cite as much as Orme Johnson?

No. In this article, we devote five paragraphs totaling 677 words given to the opinions of Orme-Johnson. Two paragraphs totaling 163 words to Randi, and two paragraphs totaling 154 words to Park. Woonpton (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's even more than I thought. That means we're devoting more than twice as much space to OJ as to two independent views combined.   Will Beback  talk  05:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As for Randi, he isn't being cited as a magician - he's cited as a prominent skeptic. I asked in another thread - who is an expert on the TM-Sidhi or the Maharishi Effect outside of the movement? Randi and Park seem to be the leading experts, such as they are, but if there are others that are more prominent then let's give those more weight. NPOV does not allow us to only give one view.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OJ is highly credentialed and educated in the field he is commenting on. Randi is not credentialed in the field he is commenting in especially when his excursions take him into the realm of science We have multiple sources that create balance from sources where the "speaker" is credentialed . Excluding someone like Randi or some of the other less reputable sources does not upset the balance of NPOV .

Per article we could probably find many sources that are used multiple times . No policy requires we start counting those sources, and I'm not going to do it. That's not how we determine NPOV.

As I said we have agreement for including the journal. I don't have much else to say unless we begin a new discussion on the equal exclusion of some of the sources mentioned in this thread. The position of the other editors on this issue needs to be respected. I'll keep an eye on this thread should this discussion shift in any way.(olive (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

It seems like I've seen other editors discussing the amount of space or the number of sections devoted to one or another POV or aspect, so if the amount of space or the number of citations aren't good ways of judging the weight then I'd like to hear what is a better metric.

Do folks think that OJ's view of the Maharishi Effect is the majority view, and that Randi holds a fringe view?

Let's get back to the matter at hand. We cite this same article twice:

• Theory and critique
  • David Orme-Johnson and Robert Oates later replied to this critique in the Journal of Scientific Exploration
• Middle East
  • An article published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration by David Orme-Johnson and Robert Oates in response to Fales and Markovsky analyzed their alternative explanations and found that they couldn't explain the phenomenon and that there is as yet no other explanation other than the one hypothesized by the study.

In the first case, we're not saying much of anything about the OJ rebuttal beyond its existence. What's the point of that?

In the second case, it doesn't not sound like it's an opinion. It sounds like it's an analysis. If we're citing is as a source we should reword it to say that OJ and Oates hare giving their opinions, not that they are performing a scientific analysis.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding weight and the amount of space devoted to David OJ, note that he's the author of the Middle East study. It's only natural that the article would include information sourced to him characterizing the study and responding to critiques of the study. Regarding the theory, I think we could add more info in response to the critique. I agree that it's weak the way it is. In the second case, OJ and Oates do give a scientific analysis. Fales and Markovsky only offered conjecture. You're welcome to reword it. TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the JSE a reputable journal for scientific analysis, or merely a reliable source for an author's opinions? We have no evidence that it's a reputable journal. That leaves it as a reliable source for notable opinions. Unless anyone can show that the JSE is a reputable journal, I will rewrite the text to make clear that this is just the opinion of an involved expert.   Will Beback  talk  12:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify. I'm not sure where the numbers came from in counting words that supposedly constitute a view, but I don't see the relevance of such a count . OJ is not a "view" nor are any of the other sources/people we are citing. OJ is, however, a researcher whose studies we are using because of his expertise both in direct relation to the topic of the article, and in terms of his academic credentials. We add the research not as a view but as research that is in the majority on the topic of the article, and we would be remiss in excluding it. We also have grounds based on the prevalence of OJ's research to note an attack and rebuttal or analysis of an attack on that research. We do the reader a great disservice in terms of the over arching position of this kind of research if we don't show the attack and a concise summary of the rebuttal. As for Randi and some of the newspaper articles we are using to supposedly create NPOV; I see it rarher like a top worm biologist, highly educated, published with possibly multiple grants who spends a lifetime studying and researching worms. He discovers new worm species as well, but for example the giant blue worm is pretty hard to believe and it has never been captured live (there is such a worm apparently), and his work is attacked by a magician who has taken upon himself the ardorous task of exposing such reseacrh using his own methods of research and rebuttal. If the topic of the Misplaced Pages article is earth worms to which of these people will we give the most weight/ page space. At the same time the magician's points could be included but the onus is on us to make sure the reader knows that he is not the expert nor is is research comparable to the biologist's, and we don't do that by saying it in the article (OR), we do it by calculating the amount of word space to give to each.

In terms of a next step, I would suggest we continue to include the Journal discussed above, noting agreement at this time and with these editors that it is reputable as an publication for the kind of opinion/ rebuttal/ analysis we are including here. We add enough information from the journal on the OJ rebuttal to make the Markovsky/Fales attack and the ensuing rebuttal informative. We can leave Randi and other non peer reviewed content as is until or if a specific discussion deals with the weight of these additions should that discussion ever come up.(olive (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

I wouldn't recommend overinterpreting the word count or my intent in providing the count; it was a simple answer to a simple question: how much do we cite Orme-Johnson. I'm a data person; when someone asks a question that can be answered by tabulating data, I am usually curious enough to count up the data. But I wasn't implying anything or suggesting anything by providing the data, and I agree that counting words isn't how we judge weight. Undue weight is determined by whether the article is knocked off balance by giving too much emphasis to material that leans the article in one particular direction. I included Randi and Park in the count just because there have been complaints here lately about including them, so I wondered how much we do cite them. Not very much.

I find the analogy about the worm professor not terribly useful here (I think we'd probably disagree about who the professor and who the magician are), and I am perplexed by the battleground mentality that would lead someone to characterizing a scholarly critique, such as Schrodt or Fales and Markovsky, as an "attack." This is not how we view critiques in the world of science.

I scolded Fladrif for using intemperate language about a study the other day, but it's hard to think of temperate words to describe Orme-Johnsons' remarks in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, as reported in our article. I haven't read the critiques that this is supposed to be a "rebuttal" to, but they must be pretty devastating if this is an accurate representation of his response.

I have not yet offered an opinion on the inclusion of this source for citing Orme-Johnson's comments, so should not have been counted as having agreed to inclusion. (If anyone took my wry comment "it seems sort of internally consistent" as agreement, well, it wasn't.) And having really looked at the material as a result of this request for input, I am reluctant to agree to its inclusion, not because it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, or because I don't like Orme Johnson's credentials, but because it's pseudoscientific nonsense. The criteria that I think should decide inclusion or exclusion are not "is the journal reputable?" or "is it peer reviewed?" or "is the author 'highly credentialed'?" but "is the material encyclopedic?" and "does it serve the reader?" This material fails on both of these criteria. And I'm confused; we had agreed, I thought, that this journal isn't a scientific journal and shouldn't be used to cite scientific analysis or settle a scientific question, but that's exactly how it's being used here. So maybe I'm confused about this distinction. Woonpton (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I've just reread this thread and realized that people might not realize which citation I'm talking about here, since we cite this source three times in the article, and the paragraph I'm talking about isn't included in the two citations Will quotes above, so here it is:

In response to Schrodt and others, researcher David Orme-Johnson said in a 2009 paper that, a body of research since the late 1970s has found small but statistically significant causal effects in a wide variety of contexts in which the mechanism isn't clearly understood. He says this evidence supports a field-theoretic view of consciousness, which suggests that there is an underlying common field of consciousness and that individuals can interact directly at a distance via this underlying field. Research has demonstrated that focusing attention on a common event may produce small but statistically significant effects on inanimate detectors, such as random generators. In addition, well-controlled EEG studies have shown that evoked potentials in one person’s brain may produce changes in the brain of another person, but who was isolated in an electromagnetically shielded room. Also, studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) suggest that the brains of individuals separated from each other may become significantly correlated. Reviews have found over 2,200 reports of distant intentionality.[46

Woonpton (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The subject matter, the TM Sidhi program, has already been deemed encyclopedic, that is, notable, and by logical extension the research carried out on aspects of the program because of the number of studies, significant per the encyclopedia. Because we all have opinions about such topics, WP standards for inclusion must be adhered to . I respect your position on this "pseudoscience nonsense" but it is just that, a position and opinion. We must have some objective standards for inclusion.The journal is not the publisher of OJ's research, but is publishing a rebuttal or whatever you want to call it to the Markovsky and Fales "comments". We have a study, we have "comment" on the study, and we have a counter comment by the researcher. How do we not serve the reader by giving this whole picture. The journal has been discussed, as I understand it, as not acceptable to cite scientific analysis, but as possibly reputable for comment, opinion, rebuttal. In no way can we use a source to settle any question . We simply supply the content and the source and let the reader use that information in any way they see fit.(olive (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

But that's exactly how this cite is being used, to settle the question. That's not "supplying the content" that's using Orme-Johnson as a battering ram to force a particular POV into the article. This material is being presented as a scientific analysis (yes it is, in fact TimidGuy refers to it earlier in this thread in exactly those words) but it wouldn't be published in a serious scientific journal, so shouldn't be used in the article as scientific refutation of the critiques, which is exactly how it's being used. Woonpton (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't think that's fair. We have OJ's study in the article . Why is the "battering ram" the counter comment from the researcher, but Markovsky 's comment is fine. Why is it a battering ram to allow for the whole picture to be displayed. Its your opinion that OJ points aren't legitimate, but again that's your opinion, that the counter comments can't be published somewhere else, your opinion, however educated. Why are the comments of the researcher, his defense of his work, creating POV, but leaving out that information neutral ...Its not . This is opinion. What's fair and neutral is show it all. Let the reader decide. Don't withhold information from the reader. OJ as the author must certainly be considered an expert in terms of bis own work and capable of presenting a defense of that work. The reader needs to see it all not just the parts we think are necessary. And on the contrary I do not ram in POV comments but want the article to be fair and neutral per Misplaced Pages, not fair and neutral per editors with opinions and agendas... I don't refer to you here Woonpton .... just a general statement that could refer to any one of us (olive (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Woonpton, Will identified two cases. The second case he identified was OJ's response to the conjectures by Fales and Markovsky regarding alternate explanations of the phenomenon. In my response, I explicitly said I was referring to his second case, in which OJ does analyze whether those explanations. The paragraph you noted is from the literature review. What are you suggesting for that paragraph? It's the only paragraph in the article that characterizes the theory. TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to address these comments in full right now, but I've learned that silence is taken for agreement here and that one must keep commenting repeatedly in order not to be mistaken as agreeing with the last thing that was said, even if the last thing said doesn't reflect consensus and even though one has expressed oneself on the topic before. So this post is just a placeholder to say that my silence should not be taken as agreement, that you have missed the point of my objection (I take responsibility for that; I apparently didn't explain it well enough) and that I will respond more fully later. Re TimidGuy's correction, my point still holds, that it was my understanding that editors were in agreement that this journal is not a scientific journal and can't be used as a source for scientific analysis or scientific argument. It doesn't really matter which cite from that article is at issue; it's presented as scientific analysis and this source is still not an appropriate source for that, as we've agreed.

Serving the readers requires giving them the information they need to understand a topic from an objective, neutral point of view. I agree with "letting the reader decide" but I also believe that the reader must be provided a fair presentation of the information they need in order to decide. I had to search out the data underlying the UK study and tabulate those data myself before I could be sure that the information presented in the article about this study was wrong. This is not a task we should be assigning readers. I fixed the wording to bring that section more into line with a neutral presentation of the topic, but that's just one paragraph. We have to do better than this.

As for a specific opinion as to how to treat the Orme-Johnsons material in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, I would need to read the critiques and the rebuttal in full, and my university library is closed entirely until after the New Year, so I won't be able to do that til then. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless of course someone was willing to send me those articles before then. Woonpton (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Social Forces article is online. David OJ's article is on his website, but an html glitch makes it hard to read. You can capture the pdf by right clicking and downloading the linked file. Or you can e-mail me, and I'll send the pdf. Note that if Fales and Markovsky had published their paper in the same journal that published the original study, the authors would have had a chance to respond, as they did to the Schrodt critique. But according to Markovsky, JCR rejected their paper. So they published it several years later in Social Forces. Usually a journal will give researchers a chance to respond, but when David OJ sent his paper, the editor basically told him to go to hell. So he had to try to find a different journal. TimidGuy (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, TimidGuy. This will take me some time to read and absorb, but my first thought on a quick scan is, why are we citing the lamest passage out of this paper instead of summarizing the source? I assumed, from the paragraph in the article, that this collection of grasping-at-straws must summarize his whole argument, in which case he must not have much of an argument. But scanning the source itself it looks as if he has actually made some substantive arguments that could be cited. I don't necessarily find them persuasive, but that's neither here nor there; at least they are actual arguments that address a few of the issues raised in the critique. But the arguments are based on new statistical analyses that he presents as findings in this article, and then we're back to the problem that we've agreed that this isn't a serious scientific journal and shouldn't be cited for scientific findings. Leaving that question open for the moment, my point is that if we are going to use this source, we ought to at least cite it in such a way as to provide a fair summary of Orme-Johnsons' rebuttal. Woonpton (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a point. Part of the problem may be the transition I used, which suggests that it's a summary. I'll tweak it. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

?? Not sure I understand what you're talking about here, but if I do, you've missed my point. The issue isn't that the wording of your "transition" confused me into thinking that the material was a summary, when it wasn't; the issue is that anything we put into the article should be an accurate and unbiased summary of the material in the source, and this wasn't, regardless of the wording. Although in this case I don't see any particular transition; the paragraph just starts out: In a 2009 paper, Orme Johnson says . None of these five things, separately or together, constitutes a useful or substantive response to anything in Fales & Markovsky, or even addresses any of their points in a meaningful way, and summarizing his response in this way makes him look as if he's grasping at straws in the absence of having any meaningful argument to offer in response to the critique. Kind of like saying "Is, too!" which isn't exactly a useful rebuttal. But given that the quality of the source doesn't allow us to present anything but opinion from this source, perhaps this paragraph does give a reasonable enough expression of his opinion, and should be left as is. Woonpton (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"We add enough information from the journal on the OJ rebuttal to make the Markovsky/Fales attack and the ensuing rebuttal informative." "We have a study, we have "comment" on the study, and we have a counter comment by the researcher. How do we not serve the reader by giving this whole picture." I agree that we need to add enough information to make the study, the critique (not an attack, a critique; there's nothing about this critique that could reasonably be called an "attack." As I said before, this is not how we view critique in science) and the ensuing rebuttal informative. And I agree that there should probably be some mention of the "rebuttal" even though it doesn't constitute a very adequate response to the critique. The question is how much weight should each get. If the author of the study and the researcher writing the critique were both indepedent researchers, that would suggest one weighting formula, but when the author of the study is also an apologist for and an employee of the organization that's selling the product, then that suggests a different one. When the article seems to be skewed in the direction of discrediting the independent critique and defending the invested researcher by methods other than by providing arguments and analysis directly addressing points raised in the critique, that is not helpful to the reader.

Let's imagine we're working on an article about a drug, and we cited a study, conducted by researchers employed by the drug manufacturer, that concluded that the drug not only cures blood pressure and cancer but has a positive effect on the national debt, and if then an independent researcher gave compelling arguments and analysis to suggest that there may be other ways of interpreting the results, and we cited that critique. And imagine that the ensuing "rebuttal" from the drug company researchers, rather than addressing any of the substantive points of the critique, made irrelevant arguments like well, we've got a body of research showing that the drug produces improvements in inflation, unemployment, world stock prices, the growth rate of the monetary base, traffic accidents, crop yields, cigarette consumption, air traffic fatalities in Massachusetts, stock prices for Washington DC corporations, work days lost to strikes, public statements by the US President about the USSR, patent applications, infant mortality, degrees conferred by universities (etc etc etc), how much weight should that rebuttal be given? Obviously the independent critique should get more weight than the useless and irrelevant rebuttal.

A responsible review of the literature, or encyclopedia article, would weight the arguments on their merit and present a balanced overall conclusion based on the merits of the arguments. Since editors of Misplaced Pages aren't expected to have the knowledge, training or expertise to do the kind of critical analysis required to provide an objective view of a topic, policies must be used to guide editors toward that objective view. If we wrote the article in such a way, and weighted the study, critique and rebuttal in such a way, as to suggest that the claims made by the drug company should be given more credence than the critique by an independent third party researcher, then we would not have provided that objective (neutral) point of view, and we would have failed our readers. Woonpton (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicely said. But we need to be cautious about making up rules. As far as I know, Misplaced Pages doesn't say that a researcher's institutional affiliation requires that his research be given less weight. And by the way, David OJ isn't an employee of any organization. He's retired, though still writing papers. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break

There's no making up rules here; the rules are already in place. See WP:MEDRS: Whenever writing about...claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe notable personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. And by the way, whether David OJ is now retired from a TM-related organization is immaterial; if he is still writing TM research papers and offering defenses of TM-related research, he is still very much a TM-connected person, whether he's actually still being paid by the organization or not. You may be confusing a COI issue with an independence of research issue; while often overlapping, they aren't precisely the same. When the person doing the research on the effectiveness of the product is connected to the institution or company selling the product, that research cannot be considered independent, regardless of whether money is actually changing hands at this particular point in time; it's still a primary, non-independent source and should not be given the same weight as an independent, third party source. David Orme-Johnson's longterm relationship with the TM organization and his longterm role as a creator and defender of the TM-connected research make it imperative that independent third party sources, if available, be used in such a way as to provide an objective outside view of that research. Woonpton (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton. I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be questioning David Orme Johnson. Would you mind clarifying your points. Thanks(olive (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Olive. I am not questioning David Orme Johnson, I am simply stating as a point of fact that Misplaced Pages values independent sources over involved sources, so involved sources should not be given more weight in our presentation than independent sources, so as to make it look like we are suggesting that the independent critique should be discounted, for reasons that don't actually address the substance of the critique. This isn't personal about Orme-Johnson or even a comment on his research per se, it's just a general point about sources. If the researcher offering evidence of the effectiveness of a product is associated with the body that's selling that product, that researcher cannot be considered an independent source. It's really very simple, and to my eyes looks fairly clear in what I said before, as it should be clear from the guideline. It's not that complicated, really. Woonpton (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are reading the policy the same way. At any rate, since there have been multiple conversations on the legitimacy of researchers and research because they might be meditators, a clarification of how editors read the policy is critical, and for me at least important to clarify. Thanks for doing so.(olive (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Please indent under the post you're replying to. Also, I am not talking about the "legitimacy of researchers and research because they might be meditators" that would be a misrepresentation of what I've said. Again, the issue here is not Orme-Johnson's "legitimacy," only his independence, and it's an issue not because "he might be a meditator" but because until he retired, he was employed by the organization that sells the product. This is not a matter of personal opinion but a matter of fact; he was employed by the institution and so cannot be considered an independent researcher. This is true not only in Misplaced Pages but in the real world; the company or organization selling the product cannot be considered an independent evaluator of the merit of the product. This is why we have Consumer Reports, so we don't have to rely on the sellers of the products for reliable information about the product; we want an independent body to test and rate the product. This is also how we write an encyclopedia, and how Misplaced Pages is configured; we look for independent secondary sources rather than relying on primary sources that are too closely allied with the product. Woonpton (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton. I didn't say you had said anything, I did say there have been several discussions on this point, and I am clarifying what you mean,

What is being sold and who is selling it?

I prefer not to indent to the point where the text moves too far over to the left of the page, but thanks for the reminder. (olive (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Olive. First, I think you have left and right mixed up, but even if you think the text has got too far over to the right (the convention usually allows several more indents before most people would say the discussion needs to be de-indented) then it's common practice to indicate at the beginning of the text that you are de-indenting, so that people know you are continuing the same discussion and replying to the post directly above, even though you have moved the indentation over to the left. Without the notation. starting at the left usually means that you're replying to something farther above in the thread, not to the immediately previous post, or you're moving the discussion back to the original point of the discussion from which it has strayed, or that you are starting a new thought under the same general heading. There are conventions that make discussions easier to follow; I prefer that we follow them here. Second, you do not get to clarify what I mean. You can ask me to clarify my meaning, but you do not clarify my meaning. This conversation and attempt to "clarify my meaning" don't seem to be generating anything helpful; I think my meaning is quite clear: (1) Orme Johnson is not an independent researcher, (2) Misplaced Pages values independent research, as quoted above (btw, it should not be necessary to keep repeating the same thing over and over again--see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe notable personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact, and it's not helpful to say that it's important to clarify how editors read policy without clarifying how you read that policy yourself. Since you're the one who has raised the issue of differing interpretations of policy, it would be helpful if you clarified how your reading differs. Woonpton (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(btw, this is what the left margin is for, unless de-indent is specified to indicate a continuation of an ongoing discussion with the indentation reset) I promised last week, in response to a question about how I think this critique and rebuttal should be handled, that when I had an opportunity to read them carefully, I would propose wording to show how I think this material should be covered. Now that my company has gone, I can do that. However, in order to do it fairly, I need the original Orme-Johnson article in addition to the critique and rebuttal. Since TG knew where to find these other articles, I wonder if he, or anyone, knows where this article can be found online. Also the Schrodt critique and the OJ rebuttal that were published in the same issue. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I understand indenting. If my original post was not indented at all its was an oversight on my part. I was referring to the point at which we can choose to bring back posts to the left of the page rather than have it wander too far to the right ... sorry I did confuse right and left.

I am attempting to understand what your points are, to have you clearly state them rather then for me to reiterate, perhaps incorrectly, what you mean. I believe I now understand , and I would say you are incorrect.

David Orme Johnsons taught at a university. That university is selling education. That university does not sell TM, it operates independently of MVEDC, the organization that does teach the technique. There is a mistaken belief of some editors here that somehow if you do this meditation technique you are no longer capable of creating neutral research. I am not referring to anyone in particular just a general comment The NIH seems to think the research created by researchers at this university such as Orme Johnson published is strong enough for millions of dollars of funding, and the peer review process of over 350 publications seems to think the research is strong enough for publication. I don't see that we are using publications created by the TM organization to cite comments on research, and if we are I would agree they are not the best sources . We are though, citing the research itself, and we can in some instances cite the web sites of experts in their fields to make comments about their fields. All of this is acceptable per Misplaced Pages . If you are referring to the Journal of Scientific Exploration, the topic of this thread, then the discussion is not about Orme Johnson's affiliations but about the quality of publication itself. We are citing information from the source as we have done multiple times on other article. Since that journal is in no way associated with the TM organization, I'm not sure what the issue is beyond scrutiny of the publication.

I believe WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT refers to consensus. I am making an honest attempt to make sure I understand the points and position of an individual editor on a discussion page.(olive (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Fair enough, re the last point, except that you haven't actually clarified what your own interpretation is. If you're actually saying that Orme-Johnson's affiliation with a TM-related organization doesn't create an issue about the independence of research, then our difference of interpretation is profound. The assertion that MUM isn't "selling TM" is immaterial; it's related quite strongly to what I understand is being called the "TM movement" and as such has a strong affiliation which should be taken into account when writing an encyclopedia article about anything TM-related. I'll say more about the peer-review issue when I am ready to address the question of how I think the Orme-Johnson Middle East paper, the critiques of the paper and the rebuttal to the critiques should be handled in the article, but for now I'll just remind us, for about the 17th time, that we were told by independent editors at the RS noticeboard this summer that peer-review is not enough to to confer the mantle of scientific acceptance on an article or to establish it as a reliable source (and here, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT very much applies).

As for the indentation, you missed my point again. I understood that you wanted to keep the indentation from getting too deep to the right; my entire point was that if you are going to move the indentation to the left for that purpose, then you should specify what you're doing by noting (de-indent) or something of the like at the beginning of the text, to distinguish this particular use of leftward movement of indentation from the usual uses of a leftward movement of the indentation, in order to facilitate ease of following the discussion for other editors. It's just an established convention to make it easy for people to follow the conversation quickly without having to stop to figure out, is this a return to an earlier point, an attempt to get the discussion back on topic, a new thought, or what? If it's noted as a continuation, then it's easier to follow without interruption. At any rate, I would prefer that you wait until the indentation has gone more than three or four steps to the right, before you implement this kind of de-indentation, even if properly identified. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Research done by Orme Johnson must be looked at in terms of the mans' credentials, and per Misplaced Pages the quality of the publication and its peer review process. Policy, then guidelines are the first level of guidance on Misplaced Pages.
• Notice boards are meant for comment by those not involved in the article . A notice board is in no way definitive nor are the opinions of those commenting either definitive or necessarily accurate. Editors commenting may be very experienced editors or may have very little experience at all. Consensus is established on the page of the article.There is no consensus on any of this, only a few opinions. WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT refers to consensus.
• In general policy supersedes any notice board comment.
• I suppose, how I indent is my business, and I indent like most other editors I've worked with. I've never had any complaints in the past. (olive (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

if I understand the views expressed here, we're not citing JSE as a reliable source on scientific matters, just as a reliable publisher of OJ's words, which are noteworthy because of the published research he conducted under the auspices of MUM. That significance only goes so far, and giving OJ the last word on every issue is probably excess weight. WP:NPOV calls on us to include all significant points of view, with appropriate weight to each. We have OJ's view in the article already, so we need to avoid to adding it over and over again just because he keeps publishing rebuttals. Another alternative would be to devote a section to OJ's research and rebuttals, which would clarify the weight issues.

As for the role of noticeboards, they are valuable for giving outside perspectives and are an integral part of dispute resolution. Like most parts of dispute resolution, they are not binding. However repeated cases of ignoring outside input and voluntary dispute resolution efforts may leading to binding resolution.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying "I ignore outside input and voluntary dispute resolution" as Woonpton seems to be suggesting. I sure hope not.(olive (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Please don't put words in my mouth, especially with quotation marks around them. However, I do agree with everything Will says here, in terms of general principles. As for following conventions of indentation, of course you are free to do whatever you like; it's just that I've noticed that the conventions, which I have seen used everywhere on Misplaced Pages but on this talk page, facilitate communication by making it easier for a group of editors to follow a discussion quickly and smoothly. Woonpton (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking to Will, Woonpton. The quotes are his words. You suggested WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT (olive (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Olive seemed to say that noticeboards had little value, and I was disagreeing with that view. As for consensus, it helps us determine how to comply with core policies, but it cannot override them. We may not form a consensus on this talk page to ignore NPOV, for example.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not my view and that's not what I was saying, However, I do not see notice boards as definitive nor are they meant to be. Just clarifying my position. (olive (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Could you clarify what purpose you think they do have?   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my 2 cents to this discussion. My observation over the course of many months, is that olive is scrupulously consistent in her opinion toward noticeboards. She values them highly when the uninvolved editors agree with her, in which case they are to be regarded as definitive authority on the subject matter of the dispute bringing an immediate end to all further discussion or dissent, but when the uninvolved editors do not agree with her, the noticeboards are irrelevant and any input is to be ignored with impunity and without consequence, and the matter at issue is to be regarded as open and unresolved, subject to further discussion at other fora. I have discerned no variation whatsoever in her approach, and she is to be commended for her unwavering consistency. Fladrif (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Olive, the fact that you were speaking to Will is irrelevant; you connected the quote with my name by appending the phrase "as Woonpton seems to be suggesting." Don't do that. Woonpton (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion on Talk:Transcendental Meditation#Bob Oates, it appears that Oates' most relevant credential as of the publication of the paper is "director of public affairs at Maharishi University." If so, I'll add that to the discussion of the paper he co-wrote with Orme-Johnson.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Invincible America

I've made a preliminary check for a reference that contains this information but nothing so far. For now I'll store this here although this is original research. I'm also removing the final sentence in the paragraph which is also unsourced

The Dow did not reach 17,000 within a year as predicted. Within a year, the DJIA was below the levels when the Assembly had commenced, eventually dropping under 6,700 at its low, and, as of December 2009 remained below the July 23, 2006 levels when the Assembly commenced.

The number of assembly participants did not reach 2,500.

You're too impatient. Back, slightly reworded, more sources. If you want to argue that if the market peaked at 14,164 it's "original research" to write that it never got to 17,000, we're going to have a highly entertaining discussion. Fladrif (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are citing information about the Dow and then connecting it to information about the IA course that creates new information about the course. No can do. Its OR. I did look for a source that makes the same connections, but didn't find anything. So unless we find such a source that little bit of content has to go.(olive (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

I strongly disagree. I have done no original research whatsoever. Everything is sourced to reliable, verifiable secondary sources. I have drawn no conclusions whatsoever about the Invincible America Assembly or the Maharishi Effect or the source material. It's not going anywhere.Fladrif (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The source must specifically and directly reference the content. We don't have a source that makes the connection the article is making between the Dow and the IA course. Connecting the two as we do here creates information not contained in any source and that is OR.(olive (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

More fundamentally, the problem is a synthesis of content that creates OR, as is often the case with synthesis: WP:SYNTH. In this case we do have two sourced statements but they can't be connected to create a new position or new information unless we have a source that makes that same claim.,

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." (olive (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

You misstate, misunderstand and quote out of context. The material you object to is neither original research nor synthesis; it is good editing of an encyclopedia article.

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Misplaced Pages articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.WP:SYNTH

Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research.

Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation. Present the material within the context contained in reliable sources, but avoid presenting the information in a way that "begs the question". An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition. 'Misplaced Pages:These_are_not_original_research

Fladrif (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm having trouble making sense of this objection. I don't have any investment in the paragraph as it stands; I think it's too wordy and is bogged down with irrelevant information, and I might take some of it out, but the SYNTH/OR argument for removing it doesn't seem relevant to me. Synthesis is when you have a source that says one thing, and a source that says something else, and you draw an unwarranted connection between them to support a third statement that doesn't follow from either of the sources; that's synthesis. But when the article says that according to Reuters, John Hagelin predicted that the Dow would go over 1700 in a year as a result of the harmony created by the TM activities, it is not synthesis to follow that with market indexes showing that didn't happen. The statement is sourced, and it is not creating a separate fact by drawing an unwarranted connection between the sources.

It's just the same as citing Park's critical remarks about the DC study and then citing Rainesforth's rebuttal. You don't require a third source to say "Park said this but Rainesforth said that;" that fact is already apparent from the sourced statements that have been given..you just report both the sourced statements. By the same token, we have Hagelin predicting that the Dow Jones would go over 1700 in a year, rebutted, if you will, by the Dow Jones index showing that the Dow did not go over 1700. You do not need a separate statement cited to a third source, to say "Hagelin predicted that the Dow would go over 1700 in a year, but the Dow didn't go over 1700 in a year." I don't see either synthesis or OR here; it's just the standard back and forth between sources that characterize most of this page. It's Hagelin who connected the Dow Jones and the Invincible America project, not any editor here, and it is certainly encyclopedic, and not synthesis or OR, to provide sourced information that shows whether that prediction came true or not; in fact it wouldn't make sense to report the prediction without information about how accurate the prediction turned out to be Woonpton (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I resubmitted the text that the IAC numbers have never reached 2500 and used the IAC tallies web page as a reference. --BwB (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that WP:SYNTH refers to summarizing content from a single source not summarizing data from more than one source. Also I agree with others that unless a source directly links it content to the article topic, than placing it in the article is not appropriate.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Flad on this point. We have a prediction by Hagelin that the Dow would reach 17000 with a reference. We also have a reference that shows the Dow did not reach 17000. To put both these facts in one paragraph is not WP:SYNTH. --BwB (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence slightly, removing the words "as predicted" to cancel out any possible WP:SYNTH. If the Dow did not reach 17000, then the fact that the prediction was incorrect is obvious. --BwB (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, but I have a question, which is unrelated to anything that could be put in the article. At what time of day are the afternoon sessions held? The reason I ask is I am wondering about the problem of a reverse causation /self fullfilling prophesy effect here. If the markets are having a great day, and the news is good, are more flyers likely to show up; on days when the markets are plummeting, and the news is bad, are flyers going to stay home? Not deliberately or consciously necessarily, but perhaps unconsciously (pun fully intended)? Things are going great, this Assembly must be working, I need to show up at the dome to keep up the good work versus Everything's going to hell in a handbasket, this isn't working, what's the point, I might as well stay home. Human nature. How does one correct or account for such an effect, if the flying that is supposed to be affecting the market is taking place at or after the market close? The coherent waves of consciousness are theorized to be traveling at the speed of light, so there's no reason to think there is a lag in the ME of more than a few seconds to investors around the world. I'm genuinely curious. Fladrif (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On the Invincible America web site there is a phone number 472-1212. Perhaps if you call there someone can answer your questions. --BwB (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia this is what we can say. We can say Hagelin made a prediction...if the source says he did. The source does, so we're OK. We can say, that despite Hagelin's prediction concerning the IA course, the Dow dropped. Do we have a source that specifically says that, that specifically references Hagelin or the IA course and the decline of the Dow, connecting the two, and drawing the conclusion that Hagelin's prediction was inaccurate. No, we don't, therefore the connection is a synthesis of two pieces information that advances another position, a third new position that is not sourced. If this were a research paper we might be able to cite Hagelin's original prediction, note the position of the Dow, and conclude by saying Hagelin's prediction was incorrect. This isn't a research paper. Its an encyclopedia and every step of information must be referenced.

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." WP:SYNTH.

No part of the material you object to concludes "...therefore C". Per my citations above to both Misplaced Pages policy and its practical application, this is neither synthesis nor original research. It is simply good and responsible editing of an encyclopedia setting forth reliably-sourced, indeed unquestionably and indisputably accurate facts, presenting no opinion or conclusion whatsoever. If the article continued "....therefore, the Invincible America Assembly was a success/failure and the Maharishi Effect is proven/falsified", you might have an objection worth considering. But, the article does no such thing. Your objection is not well-taken, and several editors clearly agree with me on this. Fladrif (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just read the WP:SYNTH policy again, I an not sure if what we have currently breaks the policy. We have a ref that says Hagelin made a prediction. We have a ref that says that the Dow did not reach 17000. However, we are not tacking these sentences together to make a new sentence, or saying that prediction failed since the Dow did not reach the 17000 mark. We are simply presenting both referenced facts, and letting the reader make the connection. I do not think this is a WP:SYNTH violation. --BwB (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatchard

Why all the qualifying text on Hatchard? It seems like the inclusion is an attempt to discredit the research? Please note that the study authors are Hatchard, G. D., Deans, A. J., Cavanaugh, K. L., & Orme-Johnson, D. W. Yes Hatcher is the lead author, but both Cavanaugh and OJ have been involved in numerous ME studies. Why the focus on Hatchard? --BwB (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead author is the main person responsible for the research. We already have articles on Orme-Johnson and Deans, so it's not necessary to add more about them here. We can add something about Cavanaugh too.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages prefers independent secondary sources but many of the articles cited here are dependent primary sources, not so good. If the author of a research study on TM is connected to TM, the research cannot be considered independent and the reader should know that. Just as medical journals require researchers who conduct drug studies to reveal whether they are associated with or have received funding from the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the drug, it is also responsible reporting to indicate when researchers who write about TM are connected with TM. Nothing sinister about it. Woonpton (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the material (not sure why it was deleted in the first place), added citations, and summarized the co-authors as MUM professors.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked at your reaction, BWB. Why would identifying Hatchard and his affiliations be construed as an attempt to discredit the research? Are not his affiliations, credentials and background badges of honor to be worn proudly, bringing added credibilty, weight and prestige to his conclusions?Fladrif (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for your feedback. You live and learn. Just thought all the text on Hatchard was overkill. --BwB (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

1978 meeting

• The figure of 7,000, needed to appreciably change things worldwide, represents the square root of one percent of the world's population. This is a figure arrived at after the phenomenon was first observed at a meeting of sidha meditators in 1978, Morris said.
  • "Power of TM | Followers take credit for upsurge in U.S." Noel Osment. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.:Jun 9, 1984. p. A-21
• Bevan Morris, president of Maharishi International University of Fairfield, Iowa, recalled that in 1978, 300 out-of state TM practitioners joined Rhode Islanders in a test of the power of meditation. TM's publicity says the results of that test included "improved quality of life on an index of eight measures, including crime, deaths, motor-vehicle fatalities, auto accidents, unemployment, and beer and cigarette consumption."
  • "It might not fly at the '92 Olympics, but yogic competitors had a field day" CAROL McCABE Journal-Bulletin Providence Journal. Providence, R.I.:Aug 18, 1989. p. C-05

Are these the same meeting? If this was the first appearance of the Maharishi Effect, and the source of the "square root of one percent" threshold, then it is a significant event in the history of this topic.   Will Beback  talk  10:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And, then there's this: "many times the required number of Yogic Flyers have been trained to create invincibility for the whole world". Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no other input, I'll go ahead and add a line about the RI event marking the first appearance of the ME and the square root.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Maharishi Effect connected to "yogic flying" was first observed at a meeting held in 1978 in Rhode Island. With the involvement of only the square root of one percent of the population, the meeting was purported to have "improved quality of life on an index of eight measures, including crime, deaths, motor-vehicle fatalities, auto accidents, unemployment, and beer and cigarette consumption."

I understand why this was added, to try to establish the first use of the "square root" rule, but I have a slight problem with the wording and the date. I doubt very much that the Maharishi Effect was "observed" in Rhode Island in 1978. The Maharishi Effect doesn't tend to be actually observed by anyone; it only appears later as the result of considerable statistical analysis.

In a list of ~50 "Maharishi Effect Papers and Presentations" I find a listing of an analysis by Dillbeck, Foss, and Zimmerman, 1993, that concluded that this meeting (actually, it says, 300 TM-Sidhi experts spent the summer in Rhode Island, from June 12 to September 12) was responsible for improving the quality of life on these eight measures; the data run from 1974 to 1980. The study is contained in a collection called "Scientific Research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program: Collected Papers (Volume 4 pp 2521-2531) It may not be important for our purposes that the analysis wasn't published, since the statement is supported by two media sources, but the "observation" of the effect could not possibly have predated the statistical analysis, so I'd prefer we didn't say that the Maharishi Effect was "observed" in Rhode Island in 1978; it was observed wherever and whenever the statistical analysis was performed. Woonpton (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of that is my own poor writing. How about something more like this?

• A 1993 paper by MUM researchers identified a three-month convocation in RI in 1978 as the first instance when the practice of TM-Sidhi/Yogic Flying by the square root of 1% of the population achieved the Maharishi Effect.

Would that be more accurate?   Will Beback  talk  09:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, since I don't have those sources. Does the 1993 paper say that the convocation in RI in 1978 was the first instance when the Maharishi Effect was achieved? Oh, but wait, we can't cite that paper, even if it does say that, because it's never been published. Do the two newspaper articles cited say that the 1993 paper says that the Maharishi Effect was first achieved in RI in 1978? Or do the newspapers quote Maharishi spokesperson(s) as saying that the Maharishi Effect was first achieved in RI in 1978? If so, that's what the article should say. You could even use the word "observed" if that's the word they used, as long as it was attributed to spokespersons for the organization, and not stated as a fact that the effect was observed in RI in 1978, which is almost certainly not a factual statement. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate?

I'm not sure that this sentence (below), recently added to the Maharishi Effect section, is an accurate representation of the source since the source does not mention the Maharishi Effect or crime statistics. What do others think?

• Sentence added to TM-Sidhi article: "These crime-reduction claims, cited by the Natural Law Party, were characterized by political journalist Andrew Rawnsley as the "use of bogus statistics".
• Quote from the referenced source:Rays of sunshine radiate out of Brussels as the leader of the Natural Law Party explains their principles.'It is well known that Maharishi Transcendental Meditation reduces stress and increases positivity and integration. It is equally well-established by scientific research that... its advanced form, Yogic Flying, creates the same effects for society as a whole.' Cut to a couple of guys bouncing along the floor as it's explained how they can bring 'peace and stability to the whole of Europe'.

Apparently, we have been wasting our time trying to deal with Slobodan Milosevic using bombers when all along Natural Law possessed the solution. A 7,000-strong squadron of expert yogic fliers will be dispatched to flood the region with 'a stable collective consciousness'. Anticipating scepticism, we were then shown some graphics demonstrating how elite yogic fliers have already cut the crime rate in Merseyside by more than half and achieved a substantial fall in war deaths in the Middle East. This is where, alas, it turned from the enjoyably surreal into standard fare. Natural Law is no different to any normal political party in its use of bogus statistics.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It specifically refers to the claim of crime reduction in Merseyside, - I bolded the relevant language - and the characterization of this as "bogus statistics" is in specific reference to that (as well as to the Middle East study). I am utterly flummoxed that you claim to find this confusing or inaccurate in any way. Fladrif (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Involvement in, and watching policy pages has allowed me to see that the understanding of what and what is not WP: OR is not easily understood, nor are its boundaries often agreed upon even by the most experienced editors. Kbob is right this doesn't refer by name to the Maharishi Effect, but I think it does directly reference the Maharishi Effect. As I understand OR , its not that we are looking for an exact match of words but more that we have to see that the topic of the article and of the source are directly related. For example, in the methadone study added and discussed above, the information in no way has anything to do with the ME, and it is our placement of the material here and the implied connection that could likely violate OR, where as here, we definitely have content that is describing directly the ME, and the topic of the article, even if not by name. So in my opinion, the sentence is probably fine. (olive (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Once again you have a way of making things clear Olive, I appreciate the distinction: the journalist's sentence does relate to the ME, even though it does not call it by that name and even though it was coined in reference to a political party at election time. I do feel thought that the methadone study is entirely unrelated to the ME and may well be OR, unless a direct link can be shown. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual error

This article quotes this sentence in the Dallas Observer: "Once considered a top scientist, Hagelin's former academic peers ostracized him after the candidate attempted to shoehorn Eastern metaphysical musings into the realm of quantum physics." According to Woit, whose book we cite in this article, Hagelin began promoting his connection between consciousness and the unified field as a graduate student in the early 1980s. He joined MIU faculty in 1984. Yet he continued collaborating with CERN researchers until 1989 and with other collaborators such as Nanopolous as late as 1992. TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Dallas Observer article, and the text here is explicit that we are talking as of 2000. Assuming that your information is correct that Hagelin stopped working with the CERN folks as of 1989, and with Nanopolous as of 1992, looks to me that the Observer article is 100% accurate. Insofar as Wiki policy is concerned, we are simply neutrally reporting what a reliable secondary source states. Contrary to your baseless snark above, the Dallas Observer is a well-respected newspaper, it is owned by Village Voice Media - a well-respected prizewinning journalism organization, it is one of the top 100 newspapers in the country by circulation, and has won numerous national and regional prizes for its reporting, including a Pulitzer. If you have a reliable, verifiable, independent secondary source that says that this information about Hagelin is wrong as of 2000, then put it in the article, with citations. Otherwise, this is a complete non-issue.Fladrif (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The DO article doesn't appear to give an exact date for the purported ostracism, so it's hard to say that it conflicts with other accounts. Both sources agree that the ostracism followed his theories about the connections, rather than preceding them, so the general cause-and-effect are the same. Many times sources contradict each other and it's usually best to report all versions rather than decide which is correct.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Slight quibbles re coverage of Hatchard UK study

Hatchard, et al., used a time series analysis to show that beginning in March, 1988, when the number practicing the TM-Sidhi program in a group (the Maharishi Effect Threshold), combined with the number of people trained in TM (the Maharishi Effect Threshold Index), reached the designated threshold percentage, the crime rate fell significantly. That trend continued all the way to 1992: when the researchers analyzed the percentage of crime rate changes for the years 1987/90 and 1987/92, they found that of all the 42 police districts of England and Wales, Merseyside was the only one where the crime rate decreased, whereas it rose everywhere else. Hatchard dismissed other possible causes for the crime reduction, including an expansion in a drug treatment program mentioned below that he says began in July whereas the crime reduction began earlier in March, coinciding with the gathering of a group practicing the TM-sidhi program.

I think some of this needs slight changes in wording to be brought in line with the source. Since so far what I've put in the article has been summarily reverted, I'm choosing to put this out for discussion rather than making the changes myself. First, "beginning in March, 1988...the crime rate fell significantly." This is not actually true; the fall in the crime rate began sometime in 1987 and continued through 1989, and the paper doesn't actually claim in so many words that the fall began in March 1988. The phrasing from the article abstract: "A phase transition occurred during March 1988 with a 13.4% drop in crime..." might seem to suggest that this "phase transition" signaled the beginning of the drop, but this drop was part of an already falling cycle; it didn't mark the beginning of the cycle. So I'd suggest a slight change in wording to bring that in line with the source.

"that trend continued all the way to 1992" again not true; the trend continued only through 1987,1988 and 1989; the crime rate in Merseyside started going up again in 1990 and continued going up through 1992. (Percentage increases: .6% in 1990, 7% in 1991 and 6% in 1992). Here again, the paper doesn't actually say that in so many words; what it says is up until 1992, Merseyside crime rate has remained steady in contrast to the national crime rate which has increased by 45%. Well, yes and no. Compared to the national crime rate, which indeed was close enough to 45% Merseyside was relatively stable. But the direct statement in the article that the downward trend in the crime rate continued "all the way to 1992" is neither factually accurate nor quite true to the source, and I think maybe that should be reworded. Woonpton (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Those seem like legitimate issues. Can you suggest suitable text to address them?   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Woonpton, good points. I agree that it needs tweaking to be closer to what the study says. TimidGuy (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping someone who thinks that paper means anything useful, maybe the person who added the incorrect statements in the first place, would be willing to fix it. If no one else will, I'll give it a shot, but I'm not very good at paraphrasing nonsense.

In the meantime, I've been working on the rest of that paragraph, trying to find a source for when the drug program was implemented, because I have a quibble about that sentence too: Hatchard dismissed other possible causes for the crime reduction, including an expansion in a drug treatment program mentioned below that he says began in July whereas the crime reduction began earlier in March Actually, what Hatchard said was "...expansion of the numbers being treated at the Liverpool Drug Dependency Clinic did not take place until July 1988, too late to account for the March 1988 fall in crime." He doesn't cite this statement to a source, doesn't provide any data. It doesn't serve as a very adequate refutation of the drug treatment program as a cause for the crime reduction as it stands, and to my eye it looks lame and defensive being used for that purpose.

The drug treatment program that was launched in Merseyside in the mid-80s has been described as "an enormous mobilization of multi-agency resources involving GPs, probation officers, health and outreach workers, voluntary street agencies, CDTs, and drug clinics" and since even at the peak of the mobilization the Liverpool Drug Dependency Clinic was only serving a quarter of the thousands of drug users who had been "captured" into the program, it's unlikely that the numbers being served at the Liverpool Clinic before and after March 1988, even if we knew what they were, could serve as an adequate estimate of the numbers being served by the entire program at the time. And of course a vague, unsourced comment that the numbers started increasing at that clinic starting in July, without data to back it up, can't be taken as anything more than someone's off-the-cuff remark, and shouldn't be treated as if it were actual data.

I've searched the internet and cannot find anything more definite on when the program was implemented than "mid 80s" or "mid to late 1980s." I suspect that because it was so huge and involved so many different agencies and so much inter-agency coordination, it was probably phased in over time and didn't proceed at the same pace in the different townships of Merseyside. But the pont is, it obviously involved much more than the Liverpool drug clinic, a statement that is added to discredit the drug program-crime reduction explanation with only a vague mention of numbers at one clinic not increasing til July seems like an attempt to misdirect attention rather than a fair consideration of the alternate explanation, especially when all he had to do was look at the data and see that the drug explanation was a more reasonable explanation than the meditation-consciousness explanation, especially since the crime rate started falling steadily a year before the "phase transition" occurred in the MTI%. . Even though the statement is sourced, it doesn't serve the reader well to include it as if it provided an adequate refutation of the study that provides very persuasive evidence for the crime reduction being connected to the drugs program. Woonpton (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton, you make some very good points. You may be pinpointing the weaknesses if there were any in the study. Also, I've wondered how definable the words "phase transition" are in terms of an accurate description of when results were noticed. If the ME does work I would think that possibly its extraordinary results might in actuality be a reflection of both the drug rehabilitation program and the ME which in fact the ME study doesn't take into account as you say. If you can reword the article text to reflect the study accurately that would be excellent.(olive (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

No, actually I haven't even touched on the weaknesses of the study. However, I did remove a couple of misleading statements from our article and am satisfied that the material is more neutral now, My personal opinion is that if the ME had actually added anything to the drug program, one might have seen an improvement in all crime categories, in violent crimes and in criminal vandalism as well as in drug-related crimes, but that's just my opinion. Woonpton (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, right, not the study but the wording of the paper on the study. Thanks for correcting for the accuracy in my wording. (olive (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Woonpton, I sent your comments in this thread to Guy Hatchard. Here's his response:

"Please thank your correspondent for his interest. Firstly the statement that crime had been falling steadily for a year prior to March 1988 is incorrect. Time series analysis was conducted extensively on the data. Even one month prior to March 1988 the data was closely following the trend of previous years. Time series analysis proceeds by modelling the monthly data for years prior to the intervention and then asks the question does the post intervention data fit the prior model? If it does not, the amount of difference that that was evident in the intervention month is assessed. This came out to be 13.4% drop in crime. This is true of March 1988 but not of February 1988. So we are dealing with a 'phase transition' in the physical sense where a huge change in state occurs within a very short period of time and any explanation must fit this data pattern. I was able to communicate directly with those running the Merseyside drug rehabilitation initiative. From this it was apparent that the drug program was not expanded until later on in 1988 after the large fall in crime in March 1988. There is a need to differentiate between the efforts to reduce drug dependency in Merseyside which were shared by most other major cities in the UK (which had been going on for a significant time prior to 1988) and the special and unique efforts that began to be expanded in Merseyside after mid 1988 which later on became known as the 'harm reduction' movement. The Liverpool Drug Dependency Clinic was at the centre of this movement and was able to provide an assessment of the timing general adoption of a novel approach which began later in 1988. The Harm Reduction movement effectively decriminalised the approach to drug abuse in Merseyside and became considered to be a model approach that was widely adopted elsewhere, but this movement had not yet come together in March 1988. Therefore the drug treatment approach in Merseyside is in no way a good candidate to explain the dramatic fall in crime which occurred in the space of one month in March 1988. To suppose that the Merseyside drug program was the cause of the fall in crime in March 1988 would violate principles of causality, moreover the lack of effect in other cities with similar interagency programmes would also run counter to this explanation. My study went through a very rigorous peer review process and was closely scrutinised prior to acceptance for publication. There was also a length restriction on the final article. So several hundred pages of research had to be condensed down to the final length. So detailed consideration of alternative explanations are of necessity reported in summary rather than at length. All the very best."

In a thread above I believe you gave a link to a pdf of the Home Office study, but when I clicked on the link I got Page Not Found. Do you have a pdf of the study, such that I could get it from you? TimidGuy (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Timid for supplying this interesting response form Hatchard. --BwB (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss how Hatchard's comments add anything useful here, since my "quibbles" were about the wording of our article; that's been fixed and as far as I know there's been no objection to my changes that brought the wording more in line with the source and with NPOV. I don't find Hatchard's comments helpful, since what he says here is what I already disputed in my earlier comments, (he seems to have missed the point of my comments completely) but further debate on the matter is unlikely to be productive. We cite both studies accurately and fairly and let the studies speak for themselves; that's what we do here. Does Hatchard have an issue about the coverage of his research in the article? Whether he does, or whether he doesn't, I don't believe his opinions are relevant here; we rely on reliable sources for the information we put in the article, and I think we've done that quite well and in a way that doesn't support misinformation. I thought we were done with this two weeks ago. Woonpton (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just checked that link and it works fine for me; if I click on it, it immediately downloads a pdf, so maybe you need to do whatever it was you were saying I'd need to (something about right-click, as I recall) to a reference I was looking for (as it turned out, the article downloaded automatically for me without my needing to do anything). So try that. Woonpton (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

TM-Sidhi vs. Yogic Flying

Yogic Flying and TM-Sidhi appear to be different names for the same technique. If so, isn't Yogic Flying the more common name for the technique, and shouldn't the article have that title? If not, is there any part of TM-Sidhi that's notable aside from Yogic Flying? We seem to be burying the lead.   Will Beback  talk  12:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yogic Flying is one facet of the TM-Sidhi program. When one practices the TM-Sidhis, Yogic Flying takes up a portion of the time. TimidGuy (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What are the other portions?   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The technique is called the TM-Sidhi program. Yogic Flying is part of the TM-Sidhi porgram. The article tells us this "Derived from the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the TM-Sidhi Program consists of "formulas" or "sutras" (threads), the practice of which proponents say can lead to development of advanced human abilities, called Sidhis. The essential aspect necessary to gain these powers is called samyama, a synthesis of three methods taught by Patanjali. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's samyama includes the incorporation of Yogic Flying and other sidhis." --BwB (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can the Maharishi Effect be attained by people only reciting the sutras and not achieving Yogic Flying? Of the sources in that link, only The big fish treats them separately, and only to a small degree. Just looking at raw google hits, which are a very crude measure, gets about 84k, while gets only 29k. I'm thinking that we could move this article to Yogic Flying because that would be the more common name.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Maharishi Effect is based on group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs. TM-Sidhi program is the name used in the scientific literature, which doesn't use Yogic Flying. It's the name of this meditation technique. Yogic Flying is just one aspect. It would be a misnomer to rename the article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Article naming conventions are based on the most commonly used terms, not necessarily the terms used by scientists. Hence, we have Killer Whale, not Orcinus orca. See WP:NC: "Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". Per Google News, "Yogic Flying" is seven times more common than "TM-Sidhi" or "Maharishi Effect". It appears that the parts of TM-Sidhi that aren't Yogic Flying are, in essence, advanced TM techniques. If so, those parts might be best handled in the TM article.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources use TM-Sidhi. The TM-Sidhi program and Yogic Flying aren't the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges. It's not true that the parts of the TM-Sidhi program that aren't Yogic Flying are advanced TM techniques. The two practices are very different. TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we comparing apples and oranges, or maybe a grape vs a bunch of grapes? Isn't yogic flying and the sutra associated with it part of the TM Sidhi program? Isn't TM part of the TM Sidhi program? As for Advanced Techniques, I have asked this question before, but gotten no answer. Am I correct in understanding that there are, in fact, "Advanced Techiques" that the MVED teaches that are not the TM-Sidhi program? The Official TM Movement websites indicate that there is/are such advanced techniques, though they say nothing whatsoever substantive about them. other than adverts for people to sign up for Advanced Techniques, I have seen no mention in third party sources other than blogs as to what these "advanced techniques" consist of. Those sources indicate that advanced techniques involve more freqent meditation than twice a day or longer meditation periods, stretching or yoga, and different or additional mantras. Is this correct? And, can anyone point us to reliable sources on it?Fladrif (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The TM Sidhi program is as the names says a program, that consists of multiple sutras or threads of which yogic flying is one. Yogic flying is as Flad implies in his grape analogy, a subset of the TM Sidhi program. We might also call it a comparison of apples and oranges since one is a general category, a program, and the other is a technique. The two are not interchangeable.

I haven't seen sources on advanced techniques. There are such techniques, but I don't believe they have been researched . They are, as I understand, techniques that deepen the experience of the TM technique.(olive (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

We have the description of that student from the 1970s, but it's very brief.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, TM-Sidhi program is an advanced program offered by MVED. It is not an Advanced Technique of TM. It is a specific program that includes the practice of TM, one aspect of which is Yogic Flying. --BwB (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So TM is the repetition of a one-word mantra, and TM-Sidhi is the repetition of longer phrases, and doing both results in Yogic Flying? Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The TM-Sidhi programme is an advanced aspect of Transcendental Meditation." So maybe the program offered in the U.S. is different from that offered in the U.K.?

Maharishi Effect vs. One Percent Effect

In one of his edits Fladrif brings up a good point. Early on TM folks claimed to be able to create peace if 1% of a city or country practiced TM. Then in 1975 they said if the square root of 1% did the TM-Sidhis and Yogic Flying in a group, that that would decrease crime etc. So my question is, when did the term the Maharishi Effect come into existence? Does it also refer to the 1% effect or does that effect have a different name? Does anyone have any sources that would clarify this? -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't have refs but I think the term "Maharishi Effect" was first coined when it was found that when individuals numbering 1% of a city's population did TM individually it reduced the crime in several US cities. Later it was found that sq.root of 1% doing TM-Sidhi in group had the same effect, and this was called the "extended Maharishi Effect". Perhaps the book "Permanent Peace by Robert M. Oates" might have something on this. --BwB (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The source I cited said that MMY predicted it in 1960, that it was "observed" in the mid 70's. The earliest reference I find to the term "Maharishi Effect" is in the mid 70's. It does not appear that a different term is used to distinguish between the 1% TM practitioners / sqrt 1% TM-Sidhi practitioners flavor of the ME, but the ME theory holds that TM Sidhi creates waves of coherence more efficiently than does TM alone. Fladrif (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We have yet to fully describe the "Maharishi Effect Threshold Index", which appears to be a combination of the 1% practicing TM and the square root of 1% practicing TM-Sidhi.   Will Beback  talk  09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

From Hatchard et al, 1996 (p 168): "Theory and previous research predicts that 1% practicing TM at home will product an effect equivalent to the square root of 1% practicing TM-Sidhi in a group." In other words, the only difference seems to be in the numbers it takes to produce the same effect. Woonpton (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Theory and critique

The "Theory and critique" section is a muddle of different things leading to repetition and, dare I say it, a lack of coherence. I suggest we split it out, with a brief description of the theory, then the research studies with their respective critiques and rebuttals, and finally any general critiques and general reception at the end.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I would go farther than that and say that the entire article lacks coherence. There's not a clear distinction between the practice of TM-Sidhi and Transcendental Meditation, the basic model. And it's unclear from the article whether the Maharishi Effect is related to TM-Sidhi exclusively, or to both levels of meditation. The article has it one way in one place, where it says the Maharishi Effect is an effect of yogic flying, but in the theory and critique section of the Maharishi Effect section, it's related to both by a mathematical formula: the Maharishi Effect will appear if 1% of a population are practicing TM, or if the square root of 1% of a population are practicing TM-Sidhi (or if you use the Maharishi Effect index (apparently invented by Hatchard?) you can come up with a threshold combining differing percentages of each.) If the Maharishi Effect isn't solely an effect of TM-Sidhi I'm not sure why it's in the TM-Sidhi article. Maybe it should have its own article, but without it, there wouldn't be much left to say about TM-Sidhi, apparently. Woonpton (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If there's nothing else I'll split out the "theory" from the "critique".   Will Beback  talk  09:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the material in that section consists of rebuttals, which I would think should adjacent to the critique. Or we could have theory, critique, rebuttals. We don't ever really present the theory in this article, by the way. There is extensive criticism of it without actually presenting it. In any case, thanks for putting some attention on the chaos in this section. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Each critique (and rebuttal) of a specific study should immediately follow the presentation of that study.   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

1% of population doing TM technique = Maharishi Effect. Sq. root of population doing TM-Sidhi program in a group = Extended Maharishi Effect. ME effect first coined in the 1970's before TM-Sidhi program was introduced. --BwB (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And, apparently, the Maharishi Effect + Extended Maharishi Effect = Maharishi Effect index. We need to clarify all this in the "concept" section.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, I'm looking at two different equations, one from Hatchard 1996, one from Orme-Johnson 2009, in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, although he says it's copied from his 1988 study (I don't have that study so I can't confirm that, but I don't have any reason to doubt it ). Orme-Johnson, btw, is a co-author of the Hatchard study. The Hatchard equation says that

Maharishi Effect Threshold Index (%MTI)= % of threshold for TM-Sidhi + 10,000* N/population, where N is the number of people in the area who have been trained to meditate on their own and are assumed to be meditating independently in the population.

And the Orme Johnson equation says that

ME (the predicted population size affected by a given number of practitioners in each of TM and TM-Sidhi) =aN₁ + bN₂, where N₁ is the number of meditators distributed through the population, N₂ is the number of individuals practicing TM-Sidhi in a group, and a and b are "empirically defined constants" each having an estimated value of 10, or 100.

They should be roughly the converse of each other, except that the %MTI is expressed as a percentage and the ME is expressed as a number indicating a population. I've plugged in some numbers and unless I'm making a mistake, the two equations don't seem to be compatible with each other. I started with a hypothetical population of 100,000, for which 1% would be 1,000 and the square root of 1% would be 31.6. Either 1,000 individual meditators scattered in the population or 32 TM-Sidhi practitioners gathered in a group should meet threshold for the Maharishi Effect, according to theory, and in fact if I use equation (2) to generate the population size affected if both the criteria are met, I get 200,000, which matches theory. However, if I use equation (1) to generate the %MTI if both conditions are met, I get 103.6% instead of the 200% which would be suggested by the product of equation (2) and by the theory. If I choose an arbitrary combination of TM practitioners and TM-Sidhis in a group that should together roughly affect a population of 100,000 (400 TM practitioners and 25 TM-Sidhis in a group predict an affected population of 102,500 using equation (2)) then equation (1) should give an answer of 100%, but using the same numbers I get a %MTI of 117% rather than 100% for the same population. So, unless someone can point out something wrong with my calculations (I'm good at statistics but not so great at basic arithmetic) or unless I've copied these equations wrong, there's something that doesn't add up here. Woonpton (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I've checked the figures again and I'm quite sure that if the equations are right, the calculations are right, but I'll have my sister (a math professor) who will be visiting tomorrow double check me as well. Woonpton (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My sister concurs that the equations should be compatible (in other words if you generate the size of the affected population from arbitrarily chosen Ns, in the ME equation, then feed those Ns and the resulting population back into the %TMI equation, you should get 100%, but you don't. So it must be some wiggle room in the "empirically defined constants" that makes them incompatible with each other. Woonpton (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Empirically defined constants"? I wonder if the same constants are used in every study, or if their value is changed from study to study to fit the data. There is an old tradition of pugging in constants to make the equations work - witness Einstein's cosmological constant. But at some point, after enough studies have been conducted, the proper constant should be determined and fixed.   Will Beback  talk  09:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I just came across a mention that the "empirically defined constants" are only estimated to be 100 if N > 100. Fales and Markovsky take this to mean that N=100 is the lower cutoff for the effect, but I haven't seen that assertion anywhere in the TM theorists' and researchers' writings, and the way I read that note about the constant is simply that the constants won't necessarily be the same for N<100 than for N>100, but that doesn't preclude N < 100. And there's nothing to say whether the constants may change from study to study. But more problematically, it's not clear whether the equations are actually taken into account in the analysis. According to Fales and Markovsky, referring to Orme-Johnson 1988, "the ME equation, from which specific hypotheses might have been derived, was ignored complely in the research. The time-series analysis employed each day's higher number of Sidhi meditators rather than its square, and the number of non-Sidhi meditators was not included in the test. There also were periods during the study when group size fell below assumed thresholds for affecting Lebanon, or both Lebanon and Israel, but Sidhi group size rather than zero was used as the independent variable ."

Orme-Johnson's rebuttal to this didn't address the criticism; it mostly argued that while he didn't use the square of the TM-Sidhis in the analysis, he did look for a upward curve in the line that would indicate a quadratic effect ("such an effect was found for the war in Lebanon, but not for the composite index") and then drifts off into rambling about effects in open systems not staying where they're supposed to: "testing the quadratic effect is complicated by the fact that populations are not closed systems. Perhaps if the effect could be contained within a single population, say a country, then as the size of the meditator group in that country increased there would be a predicted quadratic increase in the effect. But the effect is not contained, but spreads out to other populations as the group gets bigger. What the formula predicts is how many more people are affected, not how much the effect will increase in populations in close proximity to the meditator group. A related question concerns the measurement units of the formula." That's all he has to say in response to F&M's valid criticism of the fact that he doesn't seem to take the equation into account in the analysis. He seems to be saying well, the equation doesn't really apply because it didn't work out the way it was supposed to, and maybe that's because we don't have a closed population, and besides there's a problem with the measurement units (what measurement units? The only measurement units in the equation are the number of people practicing TM and the number of people practicing TM-Sidhi) so it's okay to ignore it. But if that's the case, then why introduce the equation in the first place? At any rate, his rebuttal only addresses the part of the equation related to the quadratic term; he ignores entirely the criticism that the number of TM participants was not included in the analysis, and that the threshold generated by the equation was not respected in the analysis; in other words, the equation was apparently ignored in every respect, but the omission of the other parts of the equation was not addressed in the rebuttal, and the rebuttal to the part related to the quadratic portion wasn't terribly useful. Woonpton (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Invincible America Daily Tallies

This is an external link that's been added recently; the edit summary indicated that the editor adding the link wanted to make this information available for readers to make up their own minds. But all it does for me is to raise more questions that don't find answers there. The text at the top of the page says "Only 2000 Flyers, rising to 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring security to America and defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in the world." The way I figure it, the square root of 1% of the US population is around 1754, give or take, so what's this 2000-2500 about? Are they changing the threshold? And what's with the different colors? Numbers over 2000 are in red; numbers between the sq. root of 1% and 2000 are in green; numbers below 1750 are in blue. There's no legend to explain the different colors, or why the threshold is set at 2000 instead of at the square root of 1% as given in all the discussions of the theory of and research about the Maharishi Effect. And what to make of the fact that the number was over 2000 for nearly 3 months in late 2008 and into 2009, and over 1750 for most of the year? Did peace and security come to the US and the world? If it did, why didn't anyone notice? This link doesn't provide enough information, and the information it provides seems to be at odds with the information in the article. Woonpton (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are good questions and I hope we can find answers. A more general question is whether this coherence turns on and off with a sharp cut-off, as is implied by the analogy to superconductivity and the Meissner effect, or whether it has a gradual onset and a residual effect. The attention to the precise numbers and when the threshold is achieved seems to point towards sudden onset, while some comments I've seen point to benefits even before the threshold is met and a residual effect long after the demonstration is over.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How long the effect lasts seems to depend on which lag terms in the analysis spit out the desired statistical results for a particular analysis. As to the onset, this is vague and elusive in the papers I've studied, a moving target... or maybe more accurately, a disconnect between theory and evidence. According to Hatchard, the onset is immediate at the point of reaching threshold. He draws an analogy with water boiling; it only happens when the temperature of the water reaches exactly 100C, and by the same token, the Maharishi Effect drives crime down in Merseysides exactly when the number of TM-Sidhi practitioners in Skelmersdale exceeds threshold. OJ/Oates (2009) also argue that "Maharishi Effect theory holds that the effect will suddenly manifest in the system as a whole after 1% of the population is practicing the TM technique, or a group of the square root of 1% is practicing the TM-Sidhi program. Such sudden sharp changes from relatively disordered to more ordered states are 'phase transitions' which are common throughout nature."

However, the data underlying Hatchard's study directly contradict his assertion that the the drop in crime in Merseyside began in March 1988, precisely when the TM-Sidhi group in Skelmersdale passed threshold; actually the downward trend in crime in Merseyside started sometime in 1987 and was on a steady downward descent before the "intervention," as can be seen clearly in the graph he provides and also in the data themselves. Hatchard's statistical analysis compared the data before March 1988 to the data after March 1988 and found that it went down sharply after vs before; it's not unreasonable to suspect he could have set the cutoff arbitrarily at any other time throughout the downward drop that occurred fom 1987 through 1989 and got similar results. Also detrimental to his thesis is that according to his table 1, the number of TM-Sidhi practitioners in Skelmersdale exceeded threshold in 1990 and 1991, but during those years, crime increased in Merseyside rather than decreasing.

Also, some of the studies in the listing of studies supporting the Maharishi Effect claim a positive effect without the threshold being reached, for example a set of studies published in the Journal of Mind and Behavior in 1988 claim to show a strong relationship between TM participation and crime statistics in 160 randomly chosen US cities, even though TM partipation in those cities was given as .45%, and in another study described in the same article, a strong relationship between TM participation and crime in 80 randomly chosen US cities, even though TM participation in those cities was given as .33%. So it's not clear from the published findings that the threshold has to be passed to produce the effect, or that if the threshold is passed, that the effect is produced, which makes this rather problematic for a scientific finding, and at the same time creates difficulty for the theory. Woonpton (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this, that relates to my above comment about lags: "Another indication that predictions do not derive from the theory is that lagged effects were not specified prior to the research. The researchers then interpret any significant correlation at any non-negative time lag for an indicator as supporting their theory. This multiplies the likelihood of finding "supportive" evidence, but opens the door to Type II errors even wider." (Fales & Markovsky). OJ's short rebuttal: "The authors have previously replied to this issue: 'Even if one were to dismiss the results for longer lags, the consistent and even stronger results found for lags 0 and 1 cannot be overlooked.' In that reply we speculated that the longer lags may reflect effects on policy makers (a kay element of the theory), which take some time to manifest down the chain of command." If the same variables come out significant on all the lags, 0, 1, 2, and 3, I would give OJ the point, but there would be no basis for F&M's comment if the lag results weren't hit and miss, in which case the point goes to them. I'd have to see the analysis myself in order to know which direction the point goes. Woonpton (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now seen the study and the point goes entirely to Fales & Markovsky. Orme-Johnson et al didn't just run lags 0-4, which would have been bad enough, but it appears they ran lags 0-10. The lag results are entirely hit and miss, more miss than hit, consistent with F&M's characterization. Woonpton (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to be cognizant of the lack of "readiness" of science to address this level of technical detail.Science today, and especially social science, just isn't ready to specify the constants or time lags with anywhere near the degree of precision Fales and Markovsky want. Is this a fatal flaw with the theory? Or is it simply that the theory is still at a comparatively early stage in its development? Orme-Johnson and Oates consider the correlations between the number of assembled meditators and the quality of life index to be too striking to ignore. Fales and Markovsky don't really address this head on, preferring to invoke Bayesian confirmation theory in order to shift the burden of proof onto the theory's defenders.Hickorybark (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Did I read that right? You think it unusual, unfair or in some way improper for the proponent of a novel theory to bear the burden of proving his conclusions, and that instead the burden of proving him wrong should be placed on anyone questioning the theory? I'm not a scientist, but I play one on TV, and that's not how science works. While we're at it, which one or ones of the authors gave you permission to post the chart from this study , and how was the permission given? Since you appear to be actively editing portions of the articles dealing with this study, its critics, and defenders, it's only fair that you disclose your relationship to the principals involved.Fladrif (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't need a personal relationship to obtain permission, and I prefer to keep my personal information private. Sorry.Hickorybark (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one need not. But it is hardly the most credible explanation, is it? Occam's Razor and all that. Fladrif (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Hickorybark's post is placed clear at the left margin rather than indented under one of my posts, I assume it's not in response to anything I've written here, although I think I'm the only one who has referred to Fales & Markovsky in this thread. But if not, then I'm at a loss as to what it is in response to. If this were a general discussion about Fales & Markovsky, it might have some relevance, but this is a discussion about the threshold, onset and offset of the Maharishi Effect, trying to determine what reliable sources say about each of them, to provide a fair and accurate description of these elements of this effect for the article. This isn't about whether science is "ready" to specify the links between the Unified Field Theory and the Maharishi Effect or whatever; this is about getting a consistent and accurate description of what the literature says, pro and con, about what the theory is, what the claims are, what the evidence is for and against those claims. Orme Johnson's opinion about how "striking" the correlations are is not particularly relevant, compelling or useful to the present discussion. There are many reasons for significant correlations, especially generated by this kind of analysis, that have nothing to do with actual relationships between things in the real world. I don't agree with everything in the Fales & Markovsky critique (more about that later, maybe) but I do know from experience that these types of analysis are especially prone to spurious results, and agree with their comment to that effect (how much more "head on" could they address the correlations than to suggest the correlations may be spurious, I wonder?) As they say, time-series methods are "ideally suited to extracting whatever 'effect' one desires." The burden of proof is on the researchers making the extraordinary claims, not the other way around. Woonpton (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about the nature of the ME, and its onset. Any other details or theories of its physical nature would also be appropriate to add to the "Concept" section.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Names for Maharishi Effect

We have new text saying that other names for ME include "Maharishi Technology of Unified Field". However, I have also seen TM referred to as MTUF, as well as the TM-Sidhi program. I am not sure that we want to call the Maharishi Effect the MTUF. It more that the MTUF creates the ME. --BwB (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

An explanation can be found here --BwB (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This reference would seem to clarify that MTUF refers to the TM-Sidhi Program in general and the Flying Technique in particular. While TM has to do with contact with the underlying Unified Field, MTUF clearly refers to "enlivening" or "moving" the Unified Field. I therefore agree with BwB that if the Maharishi Effect exists at all (I'm dubious), the MTUF (the unification and enlivening of consciousness by maintaining Samadhi (the Unified Field) while the body is active) is what causes it. David spector (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure both of you know better than I. Here are some quotes from a recent article:

• "Just 100 experts, trained in the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field, are sufficient to create a strong harmonious and friendly atmosphere for the whole island," said Theodore M. Pizanis, Director of the Cyprus Association for the Advancement of Science of Creative Intelligence.
• A number of international and local experts will speak on the mechanics of Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field, described as "a time tested scientific knowledge proven to produce enormous benefits for the individual and society".
• Akis Christophides, a dental surgeon in Nicosia, pointed out that the Technology of the Unified Field is a technology of consciousness. "The effect of the technology lies in the collective consciousness of the whole population. Over fifty studies have shown that group practice of the technology causes quality of life indices to go up, negative trends in society like crime and accidents to go down and even terrorism and war to abate," he said.
• According to the Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, there is a link between the Unified Field Technology and feelings of contentment and happiness among the population.
  • "100 yogic flyers could bring peace to Cyprus" Stefanos Evripidou. Cyprus Mail. Nicosia: Sep 30, 2009.

So it sounds like it's a synonym for TM-Sidhi itself.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, TM-Sidhi = MTUF --BwB (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I read it in Orme-Johnson et al 1988; "The collective practice of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field by a group of experts, numbering approximately the square root of one percent of the ...population" led to societal improvements (the Maharishi Effect).

By the way, if we want to include the first use of the term "Maharishi Effect," according to the same article, "This phenomenon was named the "Maharishi Effect" by the first investigators to study it: Borland and Landrith, 1976") As far as I can determine, Borland and Landrith was never published but is contained in the collected TM research papers, so probably not citable. I really hate citing things secondhand, but that may be the only way to cite it if we think it's important enough to include. Woonpton (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Woon. The ME was first introduced for the effect of TM only in US cities where 1% of pop. were doing TM. After the TM-Sidhi program was introduced the sq. rt. 1% ME was presented. Do not have sources for that yet, but working on it. --BwB (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I've added it to the text.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"General Views" Stuff moved from Hagelin article

I have a couple of problems with this stuff. First, the rewrite which was inserted, and later remvoved from the Hagelin article describing Fales & Marcovsky's critique, is rather inappropriate. It puts the findings of the Middle East study in their mouths, and suggests that they find merit in the presentation of the conclusions of that study, which they most certainly do not. Second, this is not a matter of "General Views", it, is rather, a third repetition of material already thoroughly covered in this article specifically related to the Middle East study of the ME. F&M are critical of the underlying "master theory" of the ME, to which DOJ et al have replied. That is covered in 3.2 "Critique" And, they are critical of the structure and conclusions of the particular study of the ME in the Middle East, again to which DOJ et al replied. That back-and-forth is covered in 3.3 "1983 Middle East Study". Putting this material in yet a third place seems overkill, repetitive and unnecessary.Fladrif (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On the narrow issue of where to put it, I was acting hurriedly and plunked it down in a section of its own when it should have been integrated with the material in "1983 Middle East Study", where we already discuss the study. Let's try to consolidate the material as much as possible to avoid repetition.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that was the case. But, seeing it in place, I think that it has been sufficiently covered in what was already in this article. Plus, the characterization of F&M's critique, including out-of-context quotes that falsely suggest that they find merit in this study is higly problematic. Hence, I deleted it.Fladrif (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I quoted Fales and Markovsky verbatim. The fact that their conclusions were negative doesn's negate their acknowledgement that the evidence was striking and in need of some kind of explanation. I made it clear in my summary of their review that they thought the prior probability of the ME effect being true was near zero. But there was more to their discussion than that. What was there previously was shallow, unclear and amounted to little more than emphasizing that Fales and Markovsky are vehemently opposed to the ME effect. Hopefully there is more to our articles than a litany of who's for and who's against!Hickorybark (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You quoted them out of context in a manner which places their conclusions in false light. Given that you claim to have permission from the authors of the study to post a copyrighted image from it on Misplaced Pages, I have to question your objectivity and whether you have a conflict of interest with respect to this material, as the most credible explanation for how you would get that permission is that you have a personal connnection with the authors and/or the study itself. You may be one of the authors for all I know.Fladrif (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry, I wrote the following this morning in response to Fladrif's first post on the subject, and then my company came and I'm just now getting back to save the page): I mostly agree with Fladrif. I do think that the treatment of the critique and rebuttal are somewhat more balanced and on-point than the other treatments we have of the same back and forth (although that's not saying much), with some quibbles about wording, for example where it says that Orme-Johnson responded to the critique with a point-by-point rebuttal (no, he only responded to selected points, and left much of the key substance of the critique unanswered). Will had proposed a major revision of the whole Maharishi Effect section, so I was waiting to see what he does; I also hoped to weigh in on how I think the critique and rebuttal to OJ 1988 should be covered, once I've absorbed the critique and rebuttal in their entirety, although it may be too late for my input by then. But I do agree that consolidating the repetitive information would be good, and it looks like Will is getting a good start on that. Woonpton (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I've done all I can for the time being. There's still the issue of some sources being re-used, but so long as the material on the 1983 study and the material on the general ME are kept separate that's inevitable.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Duval comment

Another source we're omitting is Robert Duval, who wrote a critique of the Middle East study that appeared in the same issue. I don't have ready access to that paper but here's what Leffler writes in an unrelated paper:

• Of course there are plenty of skeptics. For instance, Robert D. Duval, a political science professor at West Virginia University, wrote in 1988 about a study from the Journal of Conflict Resolution, "This article is of questionable value to mainstream international politics research because its basic premises are suspect. The fundamental assumptions of a 'unified field' and a 'collective consciousness' are not within the paradigm under which most of us operate." Even Duval, however, admits that "If one will, for the sake of argument, accept these premises as plausible, then the research conforms quite well to scientific standards."

Orme-Johnson also quotes the paper:

• “... one may conjecture that instead of the TM-Sidhi technique influencing conflict in Lebanon, the level of conflict in Lebanon may have led the participants to hurry down to the hotel and meditate at the first sign of violence across the boarder.” 3, p. 815

If anyone can track down this paper we should include a mention of it in the discussion of the study itself.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Duval was one of the peer reviewers. His paper appeared along with the original JCR study and explained why he recommended that it be published. TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that background. If anyone has access to the paper it might be worthwhile to include his views, pro and con.   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's true Duval was one of the peer reviewers, and it appears to be true that he wrote his comment to "explain why he recommended that the article be published" but to leave it at that is grossly misleading, because it suggests that Duval was in favor of publication, when it's obvious from his comment that he recommended publication only reluctantly. His comment is a reflection on the deficiencies in the peer review process of the Journal of Conflict Resolution, not an enthusiastic endorsement for publication. He writes, "The disturbing aspect of this piece is not that it is in print, but that it got there via the very mechanism that, one would suppose, should have screened it out --an anonymous peer review and editorial process..." He devotes most of his comment to a listing of potential flaws and problems in the research, but adds that by the standards of the journal for acceptance, he couldn't recommend it not be published ("It is seen as sufficiently internally consistent by the JCR editorial review process to say that it conforms to acceptable standards of scientific research"). According to the editor of the journal (in an editorial comment accompanying the publication of the study) Duval in reviewing the paper "discussed the research design and execution in detail, replying that 'if I apply the criteria I would use to judge any other example of traditional research I would have to recommend publication.' He nevertheless expressed reservations about the implications this had for the conduct of scientific research and offered to write a commentary."

The problem here, as I see it, is the low peer review standards of the journal. Bruce Russet, the editor of the journal, explains those standards thus: "...the hypothesis seems logically derived from the initial premises, and its empirical testing seems adequately executed. These are the standards to which manuscripts for publication in this journal are normally subjected." These are low standards indeed. All that is required is that the ideas be internally consistent and that the research methodology and execution appear to be competent. Since the "research" consists entirely of statistical analysis, it stands to reason that if the editors really wanted a rigorous and careful peer review process they should have included at least one statistician in the review panel; instead the first version was reviewed by a political scientist and two psychologists, all of whom (according to the editor's comment) "raised various questions about the methods employed in the study." The paper was revised by the authors and resubmitted a year later, and sent out to two reviewers: the political scientist from the earlier panel (Duval) and a psychologist who hadn't been one of the earlier reviewers. Duval responded as described above, reluctantly recommending publication but asking for space to make a comment, and the psychologist characterized the paper as a 'logically and methodologically coherent effort to test a set of hypotheses that, to be blunt, I regard as absurd,' and added, "I do not trust a quasi-religious organization to conduct fair and impartial tests of the predictions of the founder of the organization." In spite of the reservations of the reviewers, the editor decided to publish the article, "also ambivalently" (I highly recommend reading the editor's comment in its entirety.) This is the peer review process that we're constantly being told has conferred the imprimatur of scientific legitimacy on this research. Woonpton (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Duval's comments seems like a significant point of view and should be included in our discussion of the study.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this background on the JCR peer-review process. However, it is not for Wiki editors to be involved in the internal workings of any of these journals that published ME research. I am not sure how their policies for deciding what article to publish are any of our concern. The JCR published the study and we are using it as a ref, that all that matters. I do not think we have to include every view of every person involved in the peer review process with every study. That would be a tedious undertaking. It may also create undue POV. How do we decide what comments of what reviewer should be included and who's comments to ignore? Perhaps we would give undue weight to some reviewer's comments? I think that we will need to get input from other editors and find if there is consensus before we include too much of Duval's commentary. --BwB (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The journal thought this view was important enough to include side-by-side with the study, so we're not deciding its importance on our own. Have any other reviewers' comments been published in the journal?   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading and writing and evaluating scientific and social-scientific literature for 30 years, (and have served as a peer reviewer myself) and this is the first time I have ever seen a peer reviewer ask permission to provide a qualifying comment for publication. Peer reviewers'comments are almost never published, so your concerns about giving "undue" weight to one reviewer over another doesn't really apply, but if you feel it's important to give all the reviewers' views, I suppose we could use the editor's comment, published in the same issue, where he briefly characterizes the views of all the reviewers (as I've described somewhere above, none of them an unqualified endorsement and at least one outright rejection) as well as his own ambivalence about publishing the article. I'm not sure I think that's necessary, but if you think it's important to do so in order to put this reviewer's comments in context, we could consider that. Since the comment provides some balance and context to the research, it would be a disservice to omit it, just as it would be a disservice to omit Schrodt or Fales & Markovsky or any other published criticism of the research.Woonpton (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Concept

I removed the sentence "It is believed by proponents that a minimum of about 100 practitioners is needed to achieve coherence." from the Concept section. The quote from Alexander is in reference to the Middle East project and not a general principle. It is my understanding, and I may be wrong, but even a couple of folks doing TM-Sidhi together creates a small ME. --BwB (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the entire paragraph:

• The square root of 1% effect is said to be produced through "group dynamics of consciousness." It is proposed that a minimum “critical mass" of coherently interacting people is required before this amplification effect can be reliably observed. In a community of 100, both 1% and the square root of 1% would equal one person. Clearly, this would not even constitute a group! None of the over twenty square root of 1% studies accepted for publication in Scientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program, vol. 4, was on a population smaller than a million because it was decided that small groups of less than approximately 100 may not reliably produce such amplification effects.

I don't see anything in that, or in the preceding materials, to indicate that minimum critical mass is limited to that one study. They say this number was "proposed" and "decided" without clear reasoning for the decision, but that's what they say. Are there sources that contradict this paper and the 20 studies it mentions?   Will Beback  talk  13:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They do say that the critical mass is necessary for the effect to be observed. Perhaps the ME exists with lower numbers but is too small to be observed. Are there any studies with smaller groups?   Will Beback  talk  13:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps for the studies they need at least 100 to have a marked and measurable effect on society, but the theory is that sq. rt. 1% creates the ME. Fell that that sentence I removed is not applied to the general concept. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this:

• "In 1986, researchers proposed that a minimum of about 100 practitioners is needed to achieve observable coherence."

Does that cover it better?   Will Beback  talk  13:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it was a study in the Middle East, perhaps we can qualify the sentence and say ""In 1986, researchers on the Maharishi Effect in the Middle East proposed that a minimum of about 100 practitioners is needed to achieve observable coherence.". Open to other suggestions. --BwB (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree except that they reference 20 other studies. Were all of those studies in the Middle East? And why would the location of the study matter - is there a different threshold for observability of the ME in Israel versus the Philippines?   Will Beback  talk  13:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement as originally worded by Will is sourced and attributed; BwB's objection seems to be that he "believes" that there is a ME effect even with only two practitioners. This is not a policy-based reason to remove material from the article, and is contradicted by the ME research reports I've read, where there has been great insistence on the effect appearing suddenly when the threshold is reached. Will's proposed wording "In 1986, researchers proposed that a minimum of about 100 practitioners is needed to achieve observable coherence." is okay, except that "researchers proposed" could be misleading in that it could suggest to readers that this was a research hypothesis that was tested empirically, when that's not the case. The quote comes from a rebuttal, not from a research article, and it's apparent from the quote that the number 100 was just picked out of the air. I'm not aware of studies with fewer than 100 practitioners, but the abstracts (or even the full studies) don't always give that figure, so it's hard to tell. I don't find the argument that this refers only to the Middle East study persuasive; it seems from the paragraph that it's intended to apply generally. Woonpton (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, my point is that the quote is about ME studies, not a general principle of the ME itself. Perhaps this sentence would be better placed in the studies section, not in the Concept section. That's my point. --BwB (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm still not sure I understand the distinction you're making between the ME that emerges from statistical analysis and the ME that exists as a concept unconnected to evidence, but I appreciate knowing that for you there is such a distinction. Woonpton (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that talk about the minimum number of people required to achieve ME? The text quoted above indicates that one is not enough.

Another question that should be addressed in the "concept" section is the matter of distance. In the original study, published 21 years ago, the authors say:

• The exact nature of the relation of the effect to distance, however, must await further experimental clarification. p. 2669

Quite a few studies have been conducted since then, so I assume that there's been further study of the distance matter. Does anyone know of such a study?   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How about:

• For a 1986 study on the Maharishi Effect, researchers decided that a minimum of about 100 practitioners would be needed to achieve observable coherence.

I don't like anonymous "researchers", but I don't think it's helpful to list them either. Maybe "researchers at MUM" would be more precise.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Will. I am OK with either version. Perhaps we want to remove the word "about"? --BwB (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote "about 100" because the source says "approximately 100". We can use that word instead. I'm not sure we can simply say "100" if the sources isn't that definite.   Will Beback  talk  11:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK --BwB (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd do Kbobb's job for him! --BwB (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Minimum

This is a little off topic, but I'm trying to understand this. Let's say there's a community a 100,000 and in it are 50 households in which two people meditate. While 100 is far fewer than the 1000 required to bring coherence to the entire community, can each pair of meditators bring coherence to their immediate neighborhoods of 200 people? In other words, would 10,000 people benefit from the ME created by the 100 practitioners? Do I understand the concept correctly? Or is there no effect because 1% of the entire community need to be meditating for the threshold to be met?   Will Beback  talk  12:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I've often wondered this myself. Seems like we should see a greater effect in Fairfield. Will contact David OJ with your questions. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered that too, after BwB said he believes even two people can have an effect, and I realized that two people practicing TM-Sidhi together meet the square root of 1% threshold for a population of 400; who's to say that N=100 is the lower limit, since that limit wasn't established empirically. But then as far as that goes, neither were the 1% and square root of 1% thresholds.

Whatever David OJ has to say in response to the question may be of general interest to our discussion here but can't help us with the article, since we have to rely on reliable published sources, and from what I've seen so far of his published work, I'm seeing very little that bears on this topic. In OJ et al 1988, in the discussion about the ME equation, he explains the absence of an intercept in what is apparently supposed to be a linear equation thus: "The absence of a constant term follows from the assumption that the effect vanishes (and does not diverge) as N tends to zero." The assumption must not have been tested, or surely the results would be written up somewhere (this would be a very important finding) but this assumption should have been tested before the equation was even published (that would be part of the job of peer review properly done, to ask those questions "On what basis are you assuming that the effect disappears as N approaches zero, is there an empirical, theoretical or logical basis for that assumption?" etc) and regardless, it should have been tested sometime in the 20 years from then to now. At any rate, the implication of the assumption is that the effect doesn't disappear until N is approaching zero, which would suggest that N can be a very small number and still produce the effect. Woonpton (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC) It's not the part of the assumption that says the effect =0 when N=0 that needs to be tested; that assumption follows from the theory and hypothesis. The part of the assumption that's at issue here is "as N tends to zero" and to establish at what point the effect disappears as N approaches zero, would be a crucial and Important finding.Woonpton (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes interesting for us editors but not for the article unless we can get refs. Look forward to OJ's response. --BwB (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume your comment refers to OJ's private response to TG, not to what I've quoted from the published research report, which (summarized of course, and without my comments) would be perfectly fine for the article if we decided to include it. Woonpton (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In Orme-Johnson's rebuttal to Schrodt he writes "Nor did we assert that no impact would occur below the square root of 1% threshold; it is presented as a sufficient condition for measurable improvements, not as a necessary condition for any improvement." Woonpton (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So was he saying that there really is no threshold at all? That's quite different from what Hatcherd said in his study, which was co-authored by Orme-Johnson.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what he seems to be saying there, although it differs from some of his own writings, for example the 2009 rebuttal to Fales & Markovsky, in which he writes,

"The critics assert that there is no rationale for the threshold effects in the Maharishi Effect theory, which holds that the effect will suddenly manifest in the system as a whole after 1% of the population is practicing the TM technique or group of the square root of 1% is practicing the TM-Sidhi program. Such sudden sharp changes from relatively disordered tomore ordered states are "phase transitions" which are common throughout nature" (followed by many examples of phase transition in nature).

You will have to draw your own conclusions.Woonpton (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems to say that the system is still disordered below the threshold for a phase transition, but that coherence is achieved suddenly once the threshold is met. If so, then there appear to be two contradictory views on the nature of the threshold.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lynne McTaggert material

I think this sourced material was removed without discussion. Seems like it should be put back. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See . If someone wants to properly summarize her views without plagiarism then I don't object.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll rework this and re add.(olive (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Scientific Research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program: Collected Papers

• Orme-Johnson, D. W., et al.,"Longitudinal effects of the TM-Sidhi program on EEG phase coherence", in Chalmers, R.A., et al., eds., Scientific Research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program: Collected Papers, vol. 3, Maharishi Vedic University Press (1989) pp. 1678–1686

This paper does not appear to have been published elsewhere. Is this book a reliable source for scientific research?   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be considered a reliable source, since it's self-published. TimidGuy (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, more opportunity to learn about correct use of primary sources. --BwB (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not just a primary source, but a self-published primary source making a claim about an objective scientific fact.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Primary Sources

I am still learning about the policies of Primary Sources, so I am opening this discussion to understand when we can and cannot use Primary Sources. We have a recent addition the the Concept section that uses a TM Movement web site as the ref:

As of 2009, seven nations had achieved invincibility through Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect, according to a movement website. The invincible nations are: India, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Holland, and United States of America.

I remember in the past that there was a debate whether or not we could use material published on David OJ's web site. Perhaps someone can explain the difference to me in this instance. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We can use Orme-Johnson's self-published material about himself, or about topics in which he's a recognized expert, though not about other living people. We use his website as a source here: Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Reception, for example. The globalgoodnews.com is self-published by the TMM, and so it is suitable as a source for this article, within limits. Primary sources are best used to provide illustrative details or quotes to support material found in secondary sources. As it stands now, it's a bit bare. I'll add some material from secondary sources about invincibility to set this in the proper context.   Will Beback  talk  13:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Will. I really do not have any issue with you including the material above about the invincible countries. I am just trying to learn the ins and outs of using primary sources. --BwB (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also good to keep in mind that when referring to scientific subjects or scientific research, individual research studies are considered primary sources since the authors are the people who did the research (peer review is assumed here and is not an issue in whether something is a primary source or not) and for Misplaced Pages purposes primary sources are ranked below secondary sources (like independent literature reviews or meta-analyses) which summarize and synthesize a number of primary sources. See WP:MEDRSWoonpton (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Canada study

Why are we adding a whole section devoted to a single study that hasn't received any attention? If we were to add a paragraph for every study we'd overwhelm the article with primary sources. The appropriate weight would be something more like a sentence in "other studies".   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I wondered the same, and agree with your assessment. Woonpton (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the text could be shortened or could be added to another section, unless I'm missing something.(olive (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

Poor Canada! Anyway, it is interesting to have studies from other countries than the US. We seem to be quite US centric in may of the Wiki articles on TM related topics, so nice to get a little variety of perspective. I vote to keep the Canada study and then be more critical of further studies, always baring in mind that we can replace the Canada study. So let's leave this for now, eh!!? --BwB (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about deleting Canada, just giving an obscure study less weight. The reason we devote so much space to the Middle East and Washington DC studies are thoat those received independent attention and responses, and they are frequently cited by the movement. Neither of those is true of the Canada study.

I presume that Luke has a copy in hand. Can he or anyone else explain why the threshold for a positive response in Canada was 1625 participants, the square root of the population of Canada and the U.S combined? Since the population of Canada alone is far smaller, I'd have thought the threshold would have been far lower as well.

Second question: were the two studies reported in one paper?   Will Beback  talk  18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know where 1625 came from, but the World Bank says the population of Canada is 33,311,389 (could that be right?) of which the square root of 1% is 577. Woonpton (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The 1985 population was 25,843,000. List of population of Canada by years. Would the square root of 1% of that be 508? If so, why wasn't the threshold met when that number of participants was achieved? Why were three times that number required?   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You're asking me? I'm still trying to understand why, if the square root of 1% of the present US population is 1754, the Invincible America daily tallies of yogic flyers in Fairfield gives 2000 as the threshold for creating peace and prosperity and invincibility for the entire US of A, and since even that number has been exceeded for months at a time during the last couple of years, why aren't we there yet? And yes, 508 is correct. Woonpton (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1% sq. rt. of the combined population of US and Canada for the years of the studies, I think. --BwB (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking that the TM-Sidhi group was in FF and the authors of the study looked at the effect of this group on the crime, etc. in Canada for those years assuming that the size of the group (1625) was large enough to create a positive effect in Canada as well as USA. --BwB (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

FF? The way Luke wrote it, it sounds like they did not get positive results until 1625 practitioners were active, while theory seems to say that they should have seen positive results anytime they had over 508 participants.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Will. FF = Fairfield, IA. The group was in Fairfield. Since the group was larger that the sq. rt. 1% of the combined pops of USA and Canada, then the ME could be measured in Canada as well. The study looks at the effect of the 1625 Yogic Flyers in FF on the quality of life, crime, etc. in Canada. If the ME group was in Canada and was 508, then it would have the effect for Canada. At least, that's the theory. If we have 8000-ish in one place anywhere in the world (as we had in Dec 1983/Jan 1984) then it can effect the whole world. --BwB (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you send me a copy of the study?

If BwB is correct, then similar results should be evident in every city and state of the US. If so, why did they only look at Canada?   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the study period was 1982-1985, but the study was not published until 1995. That seems like an unusually long delay in presenting a finding. Is there any explanation for why they waited ten years to publish the study results?   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, BwB the 1625 figure was for the population of the US and Canada combined, perhaps I should have made that clearer. The paper was published in 1995, but it dealt with data gathered in the 1980s, which was analyzed later. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Luke, Do you a copy of have the study? Does it explain why they included the population of Canada but excluded the population of Mexico? Or why they waited ten years to publish the study?   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't ask me mate! Maybe they only thought to check at a later date. Have to ask the authors of study, I guess. --BwB (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking anyone who has the study in hand.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If the threshold for Maharishi Effect is calculated based on the population which falls within a circle centered on the Yogic Flyers, as Hatcherd suggests, then the population of Mexico counts as much as the population of Canada. Nome, Alaska, is about 3,000 miles from Fairfield, Iowa. A 3,000 circle centered on "FF" includes all of Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and much of northern South America. (Hawaii is 4,000 miles away, meaning that to cover the entire U.S the population figure would be yet higher). More modestly, Vancouver and Halifax, on opposite coasts, are about the same distance away as Mexico City, 1600 miles. The population of Mexico in 1985 was more than 70 million people, about half of which least probably resided within 1600 miles of FF. (Plus most of Cuba). Why wouldn't those people count towards the threshold if it's calculated according to Hatcherd's theory?   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, you're running into one of the issues raised by critics, (which we do actually cover in the article, though we could do a better job with it.) Both Fales & Markovsky and Schrodt raise this issue: why is the unit of measurement people rather than distance?

"The implication is paradoxical" say Fales & Markovsky. "Assume there is a 100-person TM Sidhi group in downtown Chicago and another in rural Fairfield Iowa. Ignoring for this example the smaller effect of non-TM-Sidhi meditators, ME=1,000,000 for both groups. This means that the effect would have a radius of a few miles for the Chicago group, but more than 50 times that distance for the other group."

And Schrodt:

"...the population figures used to determine whether the effect should be activebear no resemblance to the actual population distribution in the Middle East. Specifically, the research used the populations defined by political boundaries...and the comined populations of Israel and Lebanon to provide the population baseline. This ignores the sizable populations in the metropolitan areas of Amman, Irbid and Damascus. Amman is closer to Jerusalem than Ashquelon, Irbid is closer than Haifa, Damasscus is closer than Elat, and all are closer than Beirut, and yet the populations of those Israeli cities are included in the calculations; those of Syria and Jordan are not"

Orme-Johnson replies, as we report in the article, that the Maharishi Effect research has applied the square root of 1% formula consistently "in terms of political units -- cities, states, nations-- rather than purely on geographical distances which ignore these community boundaries. These political units reflect greater homogeneity, closer personal ties, more frequent interactions, and stronger internal lines of influence...than those across boundaries and hence cannot be ignored in calculating the pattern of 'spread' of predicted coherent effects on collective consciousness and behavior."

He goes on to say, "When estimating the population influenced on an international scale, those nations geographically closer to where the group is located have always been predicted to be influenced by a smaller group than those further away..." This is new to me; I haven't seen this anywhere else. Have you?

But this begs the question, then why in this study was only Canada affected and not the US? I don't have the study (does anyone actually have this study?) but one can assume that the original hypothesis must have involved both the US and Canada, or they wouldn't have used the combined populations to figure the threshold. Woonpton (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. While Canada is closer to Fairfield than Mexico, neither is particularly close. It'd seem to me that Baja California is just as similar to California as Quebec is New York. Further, I recall seeing a "press conference" in which Maharishi was asked about the effect of a group of Yogic Flyers practicing near a border, in which he replied that to get the best results for a country they should be positioned in the center, otherwise the forces of coherency would spill across to the border and benefit the other country. I'll have to re-read the OJ paper and see if he indicates what the theoretical basis is for his views on this.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is what the study says, I hope it helps:

Estimates of the USA and Canadian population were obtained from the US Bureau of the census (1987) and Statistics Canada (1988) of the Canadian Socioeconomic Information System, A fixed threshold was used in the present study, rather than a threshold which could vary in size weekly, according to the square root of one percent formula, because the Canadian population was only available annually, and weekly interpolations might not be accurate.

The square root of one percent of the USA and Canadian population was approximately 1625 at the end of 1985, the most recent year for which data on the endogenous variables were available at the time of the study. This conservative 1625 threshold was adopted, since unlike a threshold adopted on the first year or middle year of the study, exceeding this threshold would mean a predicted influence on whatever year it occurred. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So they include the entire population of the US including Alaska and Hawaii but excludes the entire populations of countries that are the same distance away? Does that make sense to anyone?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the hypothesis of this study -do they state it?   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Studies can and do limit their scopes. I'm not sure I see the concern. We have the study, its scope, and we determine if it is reliable or not per Misplaced Pages. (olive (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

I don't have the study, but I would assume the authors laid out the populations they would include in the study -Canada and US. Hawaii and Alaska would be included but not Mexico. We could hypothesize as to why they decided to not include Mexico, but only the authors know. Possibly population data was not easily available. I don't see the relevance here, though. Am I missing something.(olive (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

While odd, it's OK to limit the investigation of outcomes to Canada. However in this case the authors seem to be redefining the Maharishi Effect itself. since it's only a hypothesis, they are free to do so but they should make it explicit, by saying something like, "we reject the view of Orme-Johnson and Hatchard that the ME radiates in all directions equally and instead believes that it follows arbitrary boundaries of our own definition." Do they say anything like that or is the discrepancy unexplained?   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We've been discussing this study for a couple of days now and there's still no evidence of any notability or other reason to give it so much weight. Unless there's anything else I'll go ahead with trimming it down and moving it to "other studies".   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Will, that will save me a trip. I was going to go to my university library (an hour away) to get a copy of this paper tomorrow, but if we're not going to devote a separate section to it, I won't bother fighting the first-day-of-the-term crowd. I'm still curious, because it seems to illustrate some serious questions, but not so curious that it can't wait til next weekend. At any rate, the problem it illustrates is treated in Schrodt and Fales & Markovsky. Woonpton (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, does the study specifically say that the group was in FF, Iowa? We now have thext in the article that reads "..when the number of Yogic Flyers in Fairfield, Iowa,..." Just want to make sure we are accurately reporting study. --BwB (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

TG was kind enough to send me the study. The main group of Yogic Flyers was in FF, but apparently other groups were active in D.C and Vlodrop, and I'm still trying to figure out how they figure into the total. Most of the literature I've seen says that the Maharishi Effect occurs when there are a sufficient number of Yogic Flyers in one place. The way in which YF's in multiple locations have an additive effect does not seem to be discussed as much. Does anyone have an insight into this?   Will Beback  talk 

Why was the material added back? This is a single paper, conducted by people connected to Maharishi University of Management, which hasn't received any attention from independent sources. The entire "other sources" section is from primary sources, but if we keep the coverage of individual studies short it's not a major problem. But if folks are using Misplaced Pages to promote their studies then that is a problem and I'd ask for the whole section to be deleted. Let's keep our perspective on the importance of these studies. If we can't do that then we shouldn't be editing this article.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume Luke was not aware of the discussion on condensing this material. However, you are making a lot of assumptions, Will. Who is using Misplaced Pages to promote their studies. You would ask a whole section be deleted? What perspective and what importance? Was the Canada study peer reviewed in a reliable journal?

The Canada study should in my opinion be reduced and added to other studies. I'l make that change based on the discussion here. (olive (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

I see that Luke has condensed the study. Is this acceptable? (olive (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

I hadn't seen this discussion and just made corrections to material that did not accurately reflect the source; if someone wants to condense it further I have no objection. Woonpton (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Luke expanded the material without any discussion. He even added back a poorer version of the citation, undoing a positive contribution to the article. The rest of the section is entirely devoted to a single paper, also written by MUM people. That material was also added by Luke. This is excessive weight on primary sources that haven't received any independent attention, and it constitutes non-neutral editing.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give Luke the benefit of the doubt as I said above, and suggest he didn't see the discussion in which the Canada study was being considered. The edits may have created a non neutral aspect to the article given the discussion, but unless we know what Luke was thinking here I'd say lets wait and see if the editor is non neutral. You seem intent on hanging Luke. Any special reason. (olive (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

I do assume good faith, but he was aware of this discussion. After I'd posted several questions with no response I went to his talk page to ask him to respond. He posted some text, which partially answered one question, but hasn't participated otherwise. The editing is non-neutral, and it's coming from a single editor. His motivation is not important, but his actions are. Note that there's still no explanation from him about his latest edits.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) :I've just gone back and looked at Will's summary that was there before Luke added back material; it's better than what's there now and it's all we need for that study in the "other studies" section. I think we should restore that version.Woonpton (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, I was not aware that you had several questions from me specifically, and though I understood that the study might moved to another section, I absolutely did not realize the editors wanted it reduced to a single sentence. If I missed that, I apologize to everybody.

I had no intention of offending you when I added some of the original information to your edits, in a shorter form from the original version. Some of I felt was necessary, because it made things clearer, there were for instance two studies, not one, with different findings. Also, I did not think my version was particularly long, it is now four sentences:

Panayotis Assimakis, University of Crete, and Dillbeck published two studies in 1995 in Psychological Reports. . Using a time series analysis of data from 1982-1985 the authors showed that the quality of life for Canadians improved significantly when the number of yogic flyers in Fairfield, Iowa, exceeded the square root of 1% of the combined populations of Canada and the U.S. Improvement in the quality of life was measured in the first study as a decline of violent fatalities, cigarette consumption, and worker-days lost in strike. The second study showed that when the number of participants reached the required threshold, a corresponding decrease of violence and fatal accidents occurred in Canada.

I made my changes in good faith. I wanted to respect the desire for having the studies displayed less prominently while maintaining the more relevant information. If this is not what the other editors intended I am, of course, open to hearing it.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Luke, that was mostly not accurate to the source; it has been corrected to this:

Panayotis Assimakis, University of Crete, and Dillbeck published two studies in 1995 in Psychological Reports. . Using a time series analysis of data the authors concluded that the quality of life for Canadians improved significantly when the number of yogic flyers in Fairfield, Iowa, exceeded the square root of 1% of the combined populations of Canada and the U.S. Improvement in the quality of life was measured in the first study as a decline in a composite index made up of three causes of violent death: motor vehicle fatalities, suicide and homicide, from 1983 to 1985. In the second study the quality of life was measured by a decline in the same three causes of violent death, plus cigarette consumption and worker-days lost in strike, from 1972 to 1986.

I still think one sentence is all this study merits. Woonpton (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Woonpton, your edits are excellent, I really like this version. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Luke, let me ask again the basic question that I asked at the start of this thread: why are we devoting so much space to these studies? Let's broaden the discussion to include the paper by Dillbeck that covers five studies. What makes these two papers significant? Have they been discussed in any independent sources?   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not really sure I understand your question. The studies are on the ME and the topic of the section is the ME. They are peer reviewed, which, as we have read in earlier threads, is a generally accepted standard of reputability. For that reason I think they are appropriately placed. Depending on what in your opinion "significant" means, they may or may not be so; however, that will also be true for a lot of information that is found in wikipedia, and whose presence none of us would ever think of questioning. As for the studies being independently verified, I am not aware that this is the standard commonly applied in wikipedia, but I am still learning, so please tell me if I am missing something--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Maps of Maharishi Effect

• An approximation of the map in Hatchard 1996, centered on Skelmersdale
• A similar map centered on Fairfield
• Abstract version

I've prepared and uploaded these sketch maps. The first is an attempt to duplicate the map in Hatchard, which shows concentric circles centered on the location of the Yogic Flyers. The second is centered on Fairfield. Hatchard makes a point about how various circles include different populations, and therefore require different number of participants in order to meet the square root of 1% threshold. The North America map shows that to include the populations of the U.S. and Canada, it should also be necessary to include the populations of Mexico, and possibly also Central America, the Caribbean, and parts of South America. so the studies apparently disagree on the fundamental principles of the Maharishi Effect. Or, is there some element of the Maharishi Effect hypothesis that allow some populations to be excluded from the total used to calculate the threshold?   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a third illustration, which I hope captures the concept as best we understand it. The yellow triangle is the political entity in which the TM-Sidhi group is practicing, the location of their activity marked by a star. The red square and green circle are other political entities: cities, counties, states, or nations. Since "A" (AKA Anchorage or Honolulu) is within the same entity, it is included in the outcomes, even though it is farther away than other population centers. The closest other entity is the red square, and so "B" is included in a further expansion of the populations (AKA Halifax or Vancouver). The green circle is the farthest object from the center so it is included after the triangle and square, even though it has close populations. "C" (AKA Laredo) is only included in a larger total despite being closer than "A" or "B", since the borders of its overall political entity are farthest from the center. Does this explanation seem consistent with the hypotheses of OJ, Hatchard, et al. as editors here understand them?   Will Beback  talk  11:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Think you're spinning your wheels here Will. We have a study on the effects of ME on the crime in Canada. Let's just stick with the Wiki policies to decide whether or not to include in the article. --BwB (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Include all views, proportionate to their weight. The studies we're citing may have contradictory assertions and we need to present all significant views to the readers. Assimakis, whose credentials are unknown, has a view of the ME that may be as significant as Orme-Johnson's, but OJ has more publications to show his significance. Hatchard's diagram is based on OJ's older work, so it is also an expression of OJ's theoretical work. However OJ may have given more than one version of the hypothesis. Maharishi has also made recorded comments on the relation of the ME to international borders. That would be another view to include.   Will Beback  talk  12:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it'd be good to clear up the matter of how distance and border effect the ME so we can get it right in the "concept" section.   Will Beback  talk  22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though I think it's going to be difficult to clear it up because the published explanations, even from the same authors, are inconsistent and contradictory. Woonpton (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Geographical distance vs borders is discussed in OJ's reply to Schrodt, which appeared in JCR and is briefly summarized in this article. It's also discussed in the JSE paper. TimidGuy (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we not making mountains out of mole hills here? Will has recently reduced the Canada study section in the article to a couple of sentenses and move it to the "other" section, thus relegating it to a fairly unimportant study. --BwB (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue of how distance and borders affect the Maharishi Effect field is applicable to many studies, not just the Canada study. We don't have to complete this today. TG was kind enough to send me some of OJ's papers that give his views on the topic, and I found a Maharishi video that addresses the issue too. We'll get there.   Will Beback  talk  18:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In his 2009 "Reply to Critics", Orme Johnson quotes a paper published 19 years earlier:

First, in the forty studies in this area, the √1% formula has been consistently applied based on quantification of the surrounding population in terms of political units—cities, states, nations—rather than purely on geographical distance, which ignores these community boundaries (e.g., Dillbeck et al., 1987; Dillbeck et al., 1988). These political units reflect greater homogeneity, closer personal ties, more frequent interactions, and stronger internal lines of influence (cultural, emotional, and economic, as well as political) than those across boundaries and hence cannot be ignored in calculating the pattern of “spread” of predicted coherent effects on collective consciousness and behavior. . . . Our common experience with such everyday field effects as transmission of radio or television waves tells us that local conditions (including weather, the terrain, and other electromagnetic sources, such as power lines) affect patterns of transmission across large areas. The proposed intimate connection between consciousness and the unified field would support similarly uneven patterns of influence due to local boundaries in collective consciousness. (Orme-Johnson et al., 1990: 759)

In the first sentence he seems to be saying that since 40 previous studies used political boundaries to define their their study areas then the political boundaries must be significant. He then goes on to hypothesize on why boundaries might be relevant. However they doesn't seem to be any evidence that the hypothesis was ever tested. Since most statistics of the type used are compiled according to political units, it's easy to see why the studies were structured to use those units as the study areas. But those studies do not prove that the political boundaries have any significance in and of themselves. Meanwhile in 2006, Maharishi stated that if Yogic Flyers are positioned near a border the radius of their influence will "go to the other country". He does not say anything about how that influence would prefer to stay within borders containing people of "greater homogeneity, closer personal ties, more frequent interactions, and stronger internal lines of influence". So there are a couple of sources. I'll keep looking for more.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

During the period of study there were two large assemblies of TM-Sidhi program participants nbot held in Fairfield, Iowa but which were were of sufficient size to have a predicted influence on Canadian quality of life according to the square root of one percent figure. The first assembly was in The Hague, Holland in late December and early January 1985 (about 6500 participants). The second assembly was in Washington D.C. in July of 1985 (about 5500 participants). To include the hypothesized influence of these two large assemblies together with the Iowa group, the number of participants in each assembly was added to the as the square root of (N₁ + N₂), where N₁ is the number of participants in Fairfield and N₂ is the number of participants at the other location. This gives us a single number for a given day reflecting the combined influence of the two groups under the assumption that each groupinfluences a population proportional to the square of the group's size.

If I read this correctly, Assimakis says that the influence on the population of Canada of a group in Washington D.C. is the same as that of a group in Holland, despite the obvious difference in distances. (The Hague is about 2500 miles from the nearest part of Canada, while D.C. is less than 300 miles from the Canadian border.) And both of those are equal to the influence from Fairfield, about 500 miles away from the border.) It also follows that if the effects are additive then eight groups of 1000 would have the same effect as one group of 8000 or 80 groups of 100. Does anyone else know of a different interpretation?   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Weight: criticism vs. rebuttal

In the Washington D.C. study discussion, we devote about 45 words to Park's criticism, and then about 131 words to Rainforth's rebuttal. That's inequitable. The space should at least be equal, or greater weight devoted to the criticism than the rebuttal (since we already devote so much space to the study itself, co-authored by Rainforth).   Will Beback  talk  02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not be always possible to express an opinion pro and con in exactly the same number of words. And it is not necessarily the number of words use to convey a view that matter. --BwB (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what we're doing, discussing objections to a study and then the rebuttals to those criticisms. To give a rebuttal without ever explaining the criticism is an obvious case of giving undue weight to the rebuttal. And the number of words do matter, as some editors here have argued repeatedly. While space is not the sole element of weight, it's the primary one.   Will Beback  talk  19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, we're listing Rainforth's rebuttal to some points of Park's that we don't mention. I think if we actually list Park's criticisms then it will balance out.   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. However, let's not carried away with this. Perhaps we can choose the key criticisms, present them succinctly, and then counter with the rebuttal. --BwB (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This brings me to something I've been thinking about. Now that I've read all of the critiques we cite, I'm frankly dismayed by how inadequately and in such an unbalanced way we've treated them. I do think Park's criticisms, though informally stated and general in nature, should be briefly covered, since his book is well-known, but there are scholarly critiques that deserve a great deal more space than they're getting (certainly more than Park) and we should be summarizing them accurately instead of just picking out bits to serve a point. We should be presenting all the important criticisms, not just the ones that the TM researchers chose to "rebut." I had always assumed, watching this article, that the reason the article didn't address the obvious methodological problems with this research was that no reliable sources address the problems, so there was no way to get at it. But no, we've got several good sources that raise all the crucial questions and criticisms, and we do a disservice to our readers by not sharing them fairly. Woonpton (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes this could be a good approach, Woon. How do we know what are "important criticisms"? --BwB (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Carla Brown's Harvard dissertation

What about also including Carla Brown's Harvard dissertation that studied the responses to the hypothesis? She conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 35 people regarding how they assessed the JCR study. The interviewees included peer reviewers, newspaper reporters, Congressmen, policy analysts, activists, lobbyists, and diplomats.TimidGuy (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume "also" means "in addition to giving a fair treatment to published critiques" although I'm not sure what useful information that would add. How all these people, most of them I'd guess not experts in statistics or in scientific methodology, "assessed the JCR study" would be completely irrelevant to a scientific debate, which is what we as an encyclopedia are (or should be) covering here, in the form of reliable sources. An unpublished dissertation generally isn't considered a reliable source for scientific or scholarly information; it's even more primary than most of the sources we're using. Woonpton (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The last discussion I saw on the reliable sources noticeboard, for those who think their input is valuable, was that doctoral dissertations may qualify as reliable sources, but need to be used with caution. (However, I don't think that dissertations by students of MUM and MERU should be included as they lack independence.) Brown's dissertation is copied incompletely on one of David Leffer's websites. Brown concludes that, out of a 35-person Middle East policy network, only one person (a lobbyist) believed the results of the study. I think this dissertation has a significant point of view and it should be mentioned also, but without giving it undue weight. A sentence should be able to cover it adequately.   Will Beback  talk  18:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, I withdraw the objection, as long as the source isn't used to establish a scientific finding but simply to summarize a sampling of opinion, and I agree, a sentence should do it. Woonpton (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good compromise folks, thanks. --BwB (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text:

• Carla Brown, a graduate of Maharishi University of Management, wrote her doctoral dissertation for the Graduate School of Education of Harvard University on the reception of the study among 35 peer reviewers, newspaper reporters, Congresspeople, non-governmental policy analysts, activists, lobbyists, and members of the U.S. diplomatic community. Of those, most were "unprepared for the description of reality" in the study and only one, a lobbyist, said she believed the results of the study.

It's actually two sentences, one for the nature of the thesis and the other for the conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, Will.(olive (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Nice! --BwB (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will, but I'm not sure that accurately represents the finding. I believe that a major finding of the study was that the majority of those interviewed responded emotionally rather than objectively. TimidGuy (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I looked at this quickly when tired and didn't look far enough. TG is right. The study and its findings are more complex than we are saying here, so I'd like to look further today and see if we can add more accuracy to Will's sentences. I'm adding here the part of the study which suggests applications of the study findings because it gives a sense of the study's range. (olive (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

In observing the ways in which members of the foreign policy network assessed International Peace Project in the Middle East, I found that a small subset followed scientific evidence where it led or at least considered it and gave it as much or more weight than their own predilections. Another larger subset gave greater weight to their own values: within the imposing constraints of their jobs and overwhelming amounts of information, they found the study profoundly out of place with the hard realities of conflict and with the political realities of the Middle East as they defined them. In observing the contrast between those who were more likely to consider the IPPME research in the future and those who were not, I found a structure of concerns that was more than a collection of individual filtering mechanisms. This community-wide net of tacit assumptions was highly articulated and actively used. Most respondents identified with them fully, while some few acknowledged these assumptions but easily put them aside when confronting new and unusual scientific findings.

Nope. I reluctantly agreed to citing this as long as the source isn't used to establish a scientific finding but simply to summarize a sampling of opinion, and I agree, a sentence should do it. The source should not be used to establish a "major finding," or any finding, for that matter. The rule in the world of scientific research is that if a dissertation has merit, it will be published. If it hasn't been published, it doesn't exist. I'm aware that Misplaced Pages rules in some cases are more lenient than academic rules, but as support for a finding, for analysis, I don't see support in policy for using an unpublished dissertation as a source.

When I withdrew my objection above, I was taking Will's word for the discussions on the RS noticeboard, but have now read those discussions carefully. Yes, people seemed to say in general that dissertations and theses can be used with caution on a case by case basis, but when it came to the specific source at hand in the examples he links to, the dissertation was removed from the article as a result of the noticeboard discussion.Woonpton (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being shorter, just has to be more accurate.(olive (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

You seem to have missed my point. My objection isn't to length, but to the use of the source to back up a finding or analysis; an unpublished dissertation isn't a reliable source for that. Woonpton (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion of emotion in the conclusions. The main issues that seem to appear are concerns about the legitimacy of the theory or study, and its relevance to the work of the individual network members, and how those contribute to the filtering out of unconventional ideas. The issue of filtering is covered by the second sentence. I suppose we could add a few words on how the respondents also thought it was not relevant to their work.

However before we get into wordsmithing perhaps we should first agree on whether this is a suitable source at all. Do we need to go to the WP:RSN, and if we did would it make any difference to the discussion here?   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As an unpublished dissertation, inclusion of the study is definitely debatable. I do see the use of the study as an interesting addendum to the studies on the ME since it does give possible glimpses into how and why a novel idea/study/science may be seen as it is. As an aside, I wonder why this study was never published. Good graduate schools such as Harvard are probably not in the habit of accepting dissertations that are too weak for publication.(olive (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Okay, I've gone through the conclusions about ten times, and I don't have any trouble finding the statement Will cited (accurately, I might add), although I'd also include the statement that none of the 35 respondents was convinced that the Maharishi research indicates "a solution to Middle East conflict;" this is an important observation about a group of Middle-East scholars and policy makers. But search as I may, I can't find the passage olive cited. And I agree with Will that there's no discussion of emotion in the conclusions. I stand by my position that the source is not adequate to cite findings; if it is publication-worthy it will be published, and at that point it will qualify for citation. If it goes to the RS noticeboard and comes back with a different answer, I'll respect the consensus at the noticeboard, but after participating in two requests at noticeboards where the response from uninvolved editors was ignored by editors here, I'm not sure why we bother. If we only respect the noticeboard if it comes out the way we want it, then it's not much help to us as a community of supposedly collaborating editors. Woonpton (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't cite a passage, Woonpton, I was referring to the study as a whole and somewhat more specifically to "Contribution of These Findings to the Field of Sociology of Knowledge Application"(olive (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Oh, sorry, the blockquote was posted just below your post and there was no signature, so I assumed it was an addendum to your post. But looking at the page history I see it was posted by TimidGuy. Excuse the confusion, but TimidGuy really should sign his contributions. Though I (understandably, I might say) misattributed who posted the passage, my comment with respect to it is the same. Woonpton (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Woonpton. I didn't realize what you were referring to. I thought you were referring to my post. I did post the passage above and it came from "Contribution of These Findings to the Field of Sociology of Knowledge Application"... (olive (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

While I know nothing of this particular dissertation, I did once look up the dissertation they cite as the flower of the Vedic Mathematics curriculum at MUM. It seemed to me of high school quality and certainly did not justify the praise MUM gave it on their website. This also explained to me why MUM made it so difficult to find. As a long-time TM practitioner, I understand the unification of education based on the Science of Creative Intelligence. I understand that MUM provides a really good education for the whole person. However, I believe that, with few exceptions, the only people praising the actual intellectual contributions of MUM to Academia is MUM itself. It makes no sense to generalize that dissertations are acceptable or not acceptable as WP citations, since there are good and bad dissertations, and we have no mechanism (other than publication and citations in subsequent papers) for evaluating them. My inclination would be to agree with Olive and Woonpton to disallow this citation. David spector (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to how this discussion veered into an attack on MUM. Since the writer of the dissertation we are reviewing graduated from MU and was accepted into the PHD program at one of the best schools in the US, we can probably safely say her education and accomplishments at MUM were comparable to other students in Harvard's Phd programs.

I am not suggesting we disallow the dissertation out right, I am suggesting it makes an interesting addendum to the sourced studies.

Perhaps we could clarify the use of Notice boards. For example, the WP:CONTENT notice board says," This noticeboard is for discussions and advice pertaining to encyclopedic content and associated issues." Consensus on what goes into an article is gained by consensus on the article discussion page not on a noticeboard. Notice boards supply a place for input from outside editors, opinions. advice, sometimes discussion, but notice board input is not binding.

I really think its time that allegations that Notice board input has been ignored by some editors here stops. That simply isn't true. (olive (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

"Concept"

• 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. Maharishi introduced the TM-Sidhi program, including Yogic Flying, in 1976.

• In 1960, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi predicted that if one percent of the population practiced Transcendental Meditation, the quality of life for the entire population would be affected. In 1976, a study by researchers associated with Maharishi University of Management described, an on-average reduction in crime of 16% in communities where 1% of the population was practicing the TM technique. Following the Maharishi's introduction of the TM-Sidhi Program, it was hypothesized that exponential effects would be experienced from group practice of Yogic Flying.

It's good to have this type of history in the article. But is an anonymous page on the MUM website the best source we can find for these assertions? Do we know more about the 1976 study, the 1974 first notice, or the 1960 prediction?   Will Beback  talk  10:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the other day that Hagelin's 1987 paper gives this information. Speaking of which, we have extensive criticism of Hagelin's theory but I don't think we ever give a summary of what he said in the two papers in which he presented it. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point Timid. Let's put in some text about what Hagelin presents ion these 2 papers. --BwB (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the titles of these papers?   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the papers in question are:

• "Is consciousness the unified field? A field theorist’s perspective", Modern Science and Vedic Science 1, 1987, pp 29-87
• "Restructuring physics from its foundation in light of Maharishi’s Vedic Science", Modern Science and Vedic Science 3, 1989, pp 3-72

Both are published by an MUM journal. They'd certainly be better sources than the anonymous MUM webpage.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Rascoe, Ayesha, "Meditators predict Dow 17,000, near US utopia", Reuters(July 27, 2007)
2. Litterick, David, "Wall Street life: We're picking up God vibrations, it's giving the Dow excitations", The Telegraph (August 4, 2007)
4. Dow Jones Industrial Average 2005-2009 Google Finance.com
5. "Maharishi inspires the creation of perpetual memorials of invincibility" Global Good NewsService, Global Country of World Peace (January 9, 2008)
6. For a discussion of this issue, see Dudley Shapere, "Scientific Theories and Their Domains" in Frederick Suppe, The Structure of Scientific Theories (1977)
7. Journal of Conflict Resolution 1988. 32:813-817
8. Journal of Conflict Resolution 32: 773-775
9. Cite error: The named reference Alexander1986 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Journal of Conflict Resolution 34:745-755
11. "Seven Invincible Countries". Retrieved December 30, 2009.
12. Assimakis, P. D., & Dillbeck, M. C. (1995). Time series analysis of improved quality of life in Canada: Social change, collective consciousness, and the TM-Sidhi program. Psychological Reports, 76, 1177.
13. Assimakis, P. D.; Dillbeck, M. C. (1995). "Time series analysis of improved quality of life in Canada: Social change, collective consciousness, and the TM-Sidhi program.". Psychological Reports 76: 1171–1193.
14. "Carla Brown's Experience". LinkedIn. Retrieved January 2, 2010.
15. Brown, Carla Linton (1996). Observing the Assessment of Research Information by Peer Reviewers, Newspaper Reporters, and Potential Governmental and Non-Governmental Users: International Peace Project in the Middle East (PDF) (Doctor of Education thesis). Harvard University. OCLC 36504138. Retrieved January 2, 2010. {{cite thesis}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
16. "Maharishi Effect Research on the Maharishi Effect". Maharishi University of Management. Retrieved December 29, 2009.