Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:13, 4 August 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other subpages:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/religion
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/promotion of studies
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/341 studies

Outdated information on SCI

I'm just noticing that there's some outdated information on SCI. MUM no longer offers a PhD in SCI. Undergraduate students no longer take SCI at MUM. There is no Maharishi European Research University in Switzerland. Subjects are no longer taught with reference to SCI. The term "creative intelligence" is rarely used. Maharishi Vedic Science has replaced the Science of Creative Intelligence. I see that the sources for this information are dated. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources?   Will Beback  talk  11:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I only know what I read. There was a MERU in Switzerland as recently as March 2006, judging by this website. Meanwhile, there's a September 2006 source that reports a MERU in Vlodrop. Did it move or have there been two MERUs? 12:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I confess to being baffled by claims like this, just as in the case of the discussion of rounding above. It is not useful to claim that information in the article or that sources are outdated without explicitly stating (i) how, and in what respect the information is claimed to be incorrect or outdated, and (ii) providing sources. Current, official TM websites actively promote SCI. To claim that "Maharishi Vedic Science" has replaced SCI is an extraordinary claim in light of the fact that SCI is currently being used and was the core of the educational program and required for all students at MUM throughout its existence. MUM's current website states the raison d'etre of MUM: "Maharishi announced his intention to create a university whose entire curriculum would incorporate the Science of Creative Intelligence. Its name would be Maharishi International University."

Are we to accept on faith that this has now all been assigned to the dustbin? What do you mean by "replaced"? Is is a new name for the same thing or something completely different? Cryptic and unspported claims, like "It's different, but I can't tell you how or why because it's a secret" are useless to us as editors and counter-productive to collaboration. Verifiable, reliable sources, not individual editor opinions, judgments and claims of personal knowledge are what we need here. Fladrif (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The current MUM web site lists all the undergrad, MA and Ph.D. programs on the web page . I do not see ant degrees in SCI currently on offer. --BwB (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of the Ph.D.s, we can finesse the issue by changing "are awarded" to "have been awarded". That's still consistent with sources, etc. As for the rest, we need explicit sources not personal research.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Note that there is also no longer an undergraduate course in SCI and it's no longer a required course for every student. There is no undergraduate course in the Science of Creative Intelligence.. I'll adjust that too. TimidGuy (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that edit is you deleted the fact that MUM used to require the class, yet you left the source which said so. Could you please restore the fact that, at least in the past, MUM students have been required to view the 33-tape SCI lecture series? There are more than one source for this, if we need to further establish it as a fact.   Will Beback  talk  11:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand why we've added a reference to "Science and Technology of Consciousness" to the SCI section. What it is the relationship, if any? Regarding SCI at MUM, I have a student handbook from 2003 which says that it was a requirement for all students, so the change is apparently since then. The text should reflect that it was a previous requirement. An undated (circa 1999) paper by Samuel Boothby says: "For the past 26 years, all students who have attended M.U.M. take the 33 Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) lessons as their first course." There are other sources as well for it having been a general requirement in the past.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am equally baffled, particularly since no-one had deigned to answer the questions which I posed above. If we are to take as true that MUM has abandoned 30+ years of tradition that required all incoming freshmen to take the 33-lecture SCI course, and that taught all subjects as aspects of SCI, we need sources to verify this. On top of this, it would be helpful to those of us who are not TM and MUM insiders to have an explanation, even if not sourced, as to when and why MUM would make such a sea change in its approach. If, on the other hand, this is just a change of nomenclature, acknowledging and explaining that would make this all a lot more understandable. Fladrif (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:VERIFIABLE "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The definitive source for whether SCI is being taught now is the university handbook. If its not there, not up to us to say it is now being taught. I don't see any problem with a statement something like," SCI was taught until such and such a date for incoming students", or something like that as long as its sourced, but we do want to be accurate don't we.(olive (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

In this case the handbooks are primary sources, and it's a bit dicey to use one to contradict a reliable secondary source. We have multiple sources which says it was a requirement, including one that says it was in place for at least 26 years. We have a 2003 handbook which includes the requirement. We have no source that gives a date for the end of the requirement. I'm inclined to remove the STC mention, and to alter the text to read something like, "For most of its history, MUM required all students to ..., but by 2009 it was only required of graduate students. " Is that celar enough for everyone?   Will Beback  talk  03:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Text proposed by Will is OK for me if supported by reliable sources. --BwB (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The "...but by 2009, it was only required of graduate students" isn't reliably sourced, for the reasons stated by Will above. The rest of it is fine, leaving open whether or not, and when, the change was made. Again, I have seen no answer to my questions on this issue.Fladrif (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What we can say to avoid OR is something," like SCI was taught at MUM until....From (date) to (date) it (or SCI) is taught only to graduate students. The MUM handbook would be be an appropriate source for information on what is being taught at MUM.(olive (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

And to answer Flad's question. I'm not party to why a university changes its courses, but you could always call the admissions office and ask. The admissions office does answer such questions I believe, so if there was a public answer, I'm sure they'll be happy to tell you. At the same time, universities adjust curricula all of the time, and those are internal, academic situations and decisions that may be inappropriate to discuss with those outside the university.(olive (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

That doesn't answer my question. For 30+ years, all incoming freshmen were required, as their first course, to take the 33-lecture SCI course. For 30+ years all subjects were taught as aspects of SCI, and to do so was the founding purpose of MIU. That is what all our sources say, and is confirmed by official MUM publications. According to TG, neither is the case any longer. That strikes me, if true, as an astounding, fundamental change in educational philosophy and approach. It is not like some small college decided to drop Ancient Greek and start offering Mandarin Chinese - though even that is likely to make the local paper and be hotly debated in the Alumni Association newsletter, with the Administration issuing an official explanation and statement. It made the news, and official statements and explanations were issued, and controversies aired, every time a private college or university dropped mandatory chapel.When colleges and univesities make fundamental changes in their curriculum - like going to or abandoning a "Great Books" curriculum - they always explain publicly what they're doing and why: certaily to their important constituencies: students, faculty, alumni, donors - and the changes more often than not become matters of more general news reportage and controversy. I can think of dozens, and can readily find hundreds and thousands of examples. No-one would seriously contend that such a change, large or small, even at a school as small as MUM, is confidential and not to be discussed outside the university. That none of the editors who are actually in a position to say from personal knowledge why or even when this supposedly happened, is truly curious. That silence and intimations of confidentiality lead me to question the claim even more than the inability to produce verifiable reliable sources. Fladrif (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, Fladrif, call the university if you want an answer... I have no idea what the situation is, and have no clue if any other editor does....Don't make a mountain out of a molehill...sheesh... And it didn't say the situation was confidential, I said it might be ....I don't see the local press panting at the university gates looking for a story on the SCI. To assume an editor is in position to know this is....an assumption. Good Grief ... Much ado about nothing.(olive (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Further. Per the sources which is what this is about...If the handbook says no SCI for undergraduate students, we have to go with that, and if we have sources that say there was SCI we can use that too...Its simple.(olive (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

While Olive may not know about this changeover, apparently TimidGuy does know so when he returns maybe he can answer Fladrif's questions. As for which sources are best, the usual standard is that secondary sources are preferable. However the handbook would seem sufficient for the simple issue of whether SCI is a current requirement for undergraduates.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Will's proposal sounds like the simplest and most practical one to me. A quick look on MUM's General Degree Requirements web pages for Master's degrees , Ph.D. degrees and Bachelor degrees shows that while the first two require students to take the 33 Lesson SCI course, the third one does not. Finding a secondary source with the same information just does not seem practical.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We have secondary sources that discuss SCI being an undergraduate requirement. There's no reasons why we shouldn't be able to find a secondary source for this this, yet none seems to exist. It's a bit odd that this change was made without any kind of announcement or explanation. However we've cited the MUM Handbook before, so I don't think there's a sufficient reasons to avoid using it in this case. I don't here anyone defending the addition of "Science and Technology of Consciousness" to this section, so I assume that removing it won't be controversial.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Another one:

• . Without proper intellectual understanding, experience of pure consciousness can be misunderstood, as it has been numerous times throughout history. At Maharishi University of Management, this requirement is satisfied by all students taking a course in the Science of Creative Intelligence®—the science of consciousness—as their first course at the University.
  • "Consciousness-Based(SM) Education: A Future of Higher Education in the New Millennium" by James D. Grant, in The University in Transformation: Global Perspectives on the Futures of the University published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000.

So there are a number of secondary sources that have said it is a requirement, and only one primary source which says it is no longer one.   Will Beback  talk  04:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

More recently, Complete Book of Colleges, 2007 Edition By Princeton Review includes the undergraduate requirement. All new students take a foundation course, "The Science of Creative Intelligence". I believe it was published in 2006.   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We should go by the University catalog. It was changed about two or three years ago. There is no more definitive source than the catalog. TimidGuy (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Regarding Fladrif's question, SCI principles are still used, but the more general term Maharishi Vedic Science has replaced SCI for the most part. TimidGuy (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

TG, to repeat what I think was one of Fladrif's questions: Was this significant change made without any announcement? Was the omission from the handbook the first that anyone knew of this change? Since MIU was founded to teach and investigate SCI, and since this was the core curricula for over 30 years, it seems remarkable if there were no comments or discussions when that curriculum was dropped. Did it coincide with the Maharishi's death?   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether we define the catalogue as a primary source is not really the issue so much as we need to be as accurate as we can. Primary sources are to be used with care because they do not necessarily have the oversight conditions to be accurate. All the university articles I looked at use some sources that they themselves generate, and we have to assume the university wil be accurate about itself. There's really no other way to get updated information on certain aspects of the institution. As long as schools and universities are included in Misplaced Pages the articles will have to have to a combination of sources. Notability will have to be established by secondary sources but some information significant to an understanding of the institution will probably have to be based on content generated by the instituion. This essay fro WP:UINGUIDE says it well:

Special care is required for citing self-published sources, such as information about a college/university published by the college/university itself: the cited information must be authentic, not be self-serving (see Neutral point of view), and not involve claims about third parties. Self-published sources cannot comprise the majority of an article's citations. Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, however, these sources cannot be used to establish encyclopedic notability. Coverage by mainstream news organizations should always be preferred over press releases by a college or university's news office and stories in the student newspaper.

However, colleges and universities do publish a wide variety of important and authoritative information that should be included in any article. The Common Data Set, a fact book/almanac, President's reports, course catalogs, and/or faculty handbooks are excellent and authoritative sources of information on the college or university and can commonly be found on the websites for the provost, registrar, or institutional research office. A university's library or archives office may have a list of published articles or books about the university's history that can be used as reliable sources as well. (olive (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

"Course catalogues... are excellent and authoritative sources of information on the college or university and can commonly be found on the websites for the provost, registrar, or institutional research office." This is exactly the case here, we have a course catalogue on line. That should be it. I don't understand the need for a secondary source in this case or all these questions about announcements. Do University commonly send out announcements when they change their course catalogues or course requirements? I'll shut up now as I feel I am beating this already dead horse well into the ground. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources are usually preferable to primary sources like a college handbook, but we can still use those sparingly. I've gone ahead made the change proposed above.   Will Beback  talk  06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone added a citation request for this sentence in the intro:

• The Maharishi developed the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI), a system of theoretical principles to underlie his meditation technique.

This assertion does not seem controversial, and is covered in greater details, with cites, in the SCI section. We don't need to cite every sentence in the article, especially not in the intro. Why was this tag added? If there's no reason I'll remove it.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I've removed the tag.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"add balancing point per NPOV"

The material in bold was just added, without any discussion, with the edit summary, "add balancing point per NPOV".

• Leading individuals and organizations associated with TM cite the existence of many studies, "more than 600 published research studies, conducted at over 200 independent research institutions in 33 countries", to support TM-related concepts. The quantity of studies have been cited to support the political programs of the Natural Law Party, the tax status of a TM institution, the use of TM to rehabilitate prisoners, the teaching of TM in schools, the issuance of bonds to finance the movement, as proof that TM is a science rather than a religion, and as a reason to practice TM itself. An article in the Jerusalem Post and a review by Canter and Ernst said that many studies appear to have been conducted by researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi, including Maharishi University of Management in Iowa and Maharishi European Research University in Switzerland, which is disputed by Orme-Johnson and by other TM researchers, who have said that studies on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health have been conducted at over 200 different research institutions and universities in over 30 countries worldwide. According to newspaper reports and the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, some of the research has been "criticized for bias and a lack of scientific evidence", for "methodological flaws, vague definitions, and loose statistical controls", and for "failing to conduct double-blind experiments" and for "influencing test results with the prejudice of the tester". Research reviews in science journals say that double blinding may not be possible in meditation research. Various research reviews have identified some studies as being well-designed, rigorous, or high quality. According to a 2003 review of studies on cognitive function in Wien Klin Wochenschr and a student journal, many of the hundreds of studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals, though a bibliography posted by Orme-Johnson lists over 300 peer-reviewed studies on TM.

1. "'Maharishi Invincible Towers to be set up in 192 countries'". The Hindustan Times. New Delhi. February 10, 2008.
2. Deardorff, Julie (December 12, 2001). "Town sees meditation as way to peace". The Charleston Gazette. Charleston, W.V. p. 2.D.
3. Hutchinson, Brian (February 22, 2003). "Wasting away in Maharishi-ville". National Post. Don Mills, Ont. p. B.1.
4. Plagenz, George (September 4, 1996). "Is government ready for a dose of TM?". The Nevada Daily Mail. p. 3.
5. Rowland, Darrel (July 21, 1996). "PARTY HOPES TM PUTS MEMBERS IN POSITION TO LEAD". Columbus Dispatch. Columbus, Ohio. p. 01.C.
6. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C4-96-1425 World Plan Executive Council-United States, et al., v. County of Ramsey, Filed March 20, 1997
7. Walpole Study of the Transcendental Meditation Program in Maximum Security Prisoners: Cross-Sectional Differences in Development and Psychopathology. Charles N. Alexander; Kenneth G. Walton; Rachel S. Goodman in Transcendental Meditation in Criminal Rehabilitation and Crime Prevention. Charles Nathaniel Alexander, Kenneth G Walton, David Orme-Johnson Routledge, 2003 ISBN 9780789020376 p. 159
8. Victory, Joy (May 18, 2004). "Meditation Controversy". The Journal News.
9. "Propectus for the issue and offering of three million RAAM" (PDF). Stichting Maharishi Global Financing Research. November 14, 2006. Retrieved June 2, 2010.
10. KAPICA, JACK (November 27, 1993). "VEDA LAND The New Incarnation of the Maharishi REJECTION BY THE VOTERS ONLY SERVES TO MAKE THE NATURAL LAW PARTY'S APPEALS MORE URGENT, ITS PLANS MORE GRANDIOSE, ITS CLAIMS MORE STRIDENT". The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont. p. D.3.
11. "Q&A with John Hagelin, 8 Great Reasons to Meditate" (PDF). Center for Leadership Performance. 2009. Retrieved June 2, 2010.
12. Hecht, Esther (January 23, 1998). "Peace of Mind". Jerusalem Post. p. 12.
13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wien Klin Wochenschr. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
14. Orme-Johnson, David (June 18, 1991). "Letters to the Editor: Turn Prisons Into Think Tanks". Wall Street Journal. p. 15.
15. Schneider RH, Walton KG, Salerno JW, Nidich SI (2006). "Cardiovascular disease prevention and health promotion with the transcendental meditation program and Maharishi consciousness-based health care". Ethnicity & Disease. 16 (3 Suppl 4): S4–15–26. PMC 2267926. PMID 16938913. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
16. Bezalel, Mel (May 1, 2009). "Trance 101". Jerusalem Post. p. 14.
17. Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology (5th ed.). 2001. p. 1583.
18. Baxter, Bronte (2008). "Where Have All the Flower Children Gone? Part One". The Canadian.
19. Ospina, Maria, et al, “Clinical Trials of Meditation Practices in Health Care: Characteristics and Quality,” The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Volume 14, Number 10, 2008, p. 1210
20. Orme-Johnson, David, “Commentary on the AHRQ Report on Research on Meditation Practices in Health,” The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Volume 14, Number 10, 2008, p. 1210
21. Rainforth, Maxwell, et al, “Stress Reduction in Patients with Elevate Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Analysis, Current Hypertension Reports 2007, 9, p. 522
22. Anderson, James, et al, “Blood Pressure Response to Transcendental Meditation: A Meta-analysis,” American Journal of Hypertension, March 2008, Volume 21 Number 3, p. 311
23. Linden W, Moseley, ?The efficacy of behavioral treatments for hypertension, Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback 2006, 31, pp. 51–63.
24. Cite error: The named reference The Humanistic Psychologist 2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
25. Cite error: The named reference Anderson08 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
26. Makin, Stephen (November 2003). "Yogis and yagyas: Stephen Makin went to Maharishi School and rebelled by deciding to study medicine. Here, he explains the impact that transcendental meditation has had on his life". Student BMJ (11): 426. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
27. Cite error: The named reference truthabouttm.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Some points:

1. Where does WP:NPOV mandate the inclusion of "balancing" material?
2. The assertion that there are hundreds of studies conducted at hundreds of institutions is in the first sentence. Why are we repeating it a second time? The added material does not relate directly back to the rest of the sentence which concerns whether the bulk of the research is conducted by TM-related researchers. So it seems like a non-sequitor.
3. Does this section need more POV from movement members? They are already cited extensively.

A significant amount of new material has been added to the research section in the past weeks without any discussion, and without any "balancing points". I suggest that the material be brought here for discussion and that other significant changes in this mature article be discussed. I see that a very minor change was reverted for lack of discussion, so more significant changes should certainly be discussed.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable. Both points of view need to be represented. If the article says that most TM research is done by people affiliated with MUM, then the other point of view, that research has been conducted at many different institutions, should be represented. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What you added is already in the first sentence of the section. Please read it before responding again.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Would have to agree with Will here. The first sentence of the paragraph already states this point. Does it need to be repeated? I don't think so. --BwB (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In the not to distance past all content added to the TM related articles was discussed on the talk pages before adding. I personnally, did not support or like it when that convention was ignored by some editors. If we want to go back to that system, I heartily support that but... this article is not controlled by any one editor and I would suggest we do treat each other with that in mind. Second, a move to add content that is discussed first before adding it to the articles be accepted by all editors on all but basic copy edit content. This move must be agreed upon by all of us to work. This cannot be a procedure that is adopted by some, ignored by others and must include all content additions.(olive (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

I agree that the article should not be controlled by TimidGuy or any other editor or group of editors. The principal of prior discussion seems to be enforced in an uneven way. To be fair, the appropriate thing at this point may be to move the undiscussed material here for the proposing editor to explain why the material is helpful to the article, and to allow other editors to give their input. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The section in bold seems like a relatively small and innocuous addition to me. Is it properly sourced? If so why is there such an objection? That being said, I do not have a problem with discussing new additions to the article in the talk pages beforehand. However, Olive raises a valid point. If we decide to do this, it needs to be something followed by every editor, otherwise it will be total chaos. if everyone is comfortable with this, then we can do it, yes?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've stated my objections to the material. Did you read them? As for deciding this, Olive has already "decided" it by repeatedly reverting changes or deleting material from the article. All I'm asking is that TimidGuy's edits are given the same treatment as other editors'. I ask that all editors seek consensus before making significant changes, including deletions or additions, to this article. Some of the recent additions and deletions have not been consistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and with the Arbcom's recent decision.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The "balancing" point, apart from being redundant and repetitive, is not "balancing" at all. The sources state that much of the research cited in support of TM was conducted by researchers or at institutions tied to the TM movement. That is not disputed at all by Orme-Johnson or by the other source cited, and it is a mispresentation of the sources to say so. They do not deny this. They can't, because it is demonstrably and irrefutably true. They merely assert that some of the research was conducted by individuals or at instututions without such ties. That is not a refutation, and it provides no balance. The statement about the provenance of much of the research is factually unassailable, and the addition of repetitive misdirection does not serve the clarity of the article nor the purposes and policies of Misplaced Pages. Both the new text and the prior text citing DO-J should be deleted. Fladrif (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both points are true -- that researchers associated with TM institutions have conducted much of the research and also that much research has been done by unaffiliated individuals. Both are sourced. Both go in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There are three numbered points above, plus a fourth point that's come up about your other additions on the past month. Any responses to those?   Will Beback  talk  11:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Gosh Will... I haven't made any decisions so lets not put words into anyone's mouth ... most unsanitary ...and lets not get carried away with gross exaggeration....Perhaps you'd like to explain per the arbitration your concerns with TG additions...I have no problem with how TG added content... He's adding material slowly which gives editors time to respond, and he's simply giving the full picture per the sources, and such a picture is what NPOV is. Did you delete reliably sourced content?

Seems to me we have some contentious issues to work out here before we go on with editing the articles. I would like to deal with those completely and have editor input form those who are involved in editing these articles. We need to do this in a systematic way, and have clearly defined outcomes per these articles. (olive (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Happy to participate in all discussion on these pages. --BwB (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are relevant points from NPOV: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. " And "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." There are multiple points of view about the research. The section on promotion has made multiple assertions about the research. These assertions are from popular media, in violation of MEDRS. I have added content giving a different point of view, and have cited sources that are compliant with MEDRS. Regarding duplication of material, the point about number of studies and number of research institutions, etc., was already in the article in the Quality of Research section. It's not clear why it was also added to the promotion section and why there are two different sections of the article talking about research quality. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Regarding the stated reason for the edit in question ("add balancing points per NPOV"), it turns out that WP:NPOV does not discuss the concept of "balancing points". All significant points of view must be included, but they don't need to be continually balanced by opposing POVs. And once we've represented a POV, we don't need to keep repeating it. The second clause that's quoted above from NPOV deals with how to balance competing POVs from reliable sources. In that case the greater weight goes to the more prominent POV/source. If they're equally prominent then they should be presented equally. Again, nothing about "balancing points". If a POV needs to be represented then we should add it for that reason, not to provide "balancing points".

As for this material in particular, the Schneider et al article does not address the assertion that the research is mostly done by TM devotees, whereas the already cited Orme-Johnson reference does (at least ostensibly). Schneider is just providing another example of using the quantity of research as a thing of value, which fits with the numerous similar assertions made in a range of endeavors.Talk:Transcendental Meditation/promotion of studies. The Schneider material does not bring an unrepresented POV, but rather is part of the already thoroughly represented POV. I've gone ahead and integrated it into the other examples.

WP:MEDRS is a useful guideline, and we should follow it as much as possible, but it does not trump WP:NPOV. We can't exclude significant points of view just because they're printed in the popular press rather than in peer-reviewed journals. This is not an exclusively medical or scientific topic.   Will Beback  talk  12:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Two general points:

"This is not an exclusively medical or scientific topic." I'll hold you to that.

And we must always consider excluding points of view if the source for those views is not reliable per the content we are adding. (olive (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Does "I'll hold you to that" mean you agree or disagree?

The 600 studies are used to promote TM and a multitude of related enterprises. They are discussed in the popular press and even in advertising brochures by leading members of the TM movement. If they are touted in the popular press then they may be criticized in the popular press.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To Will: This article is pretty obviously not just scientific or health related in scope. Hope that answers the question above.(olive (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes, thanks. It's always good to find points of agreement.   Will Beback  talk  11:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You've used this rationale in the past. But it's not relevant. We go by the policies and guidelines. In matters of science, the popular press isn't relevant. It's what appears in science journals. If we're going to criticize quality, the points of view that are represented should be from science journals. And multiple points of view should be represented, per NPOV. If you want to make the point that those who are promoting TM shouldn't cite the research to support their claims, then you should find a source that says that, rather than violate WP:SYNTH. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I've quoted WP:NPOV and other policies in the past because they're important.

Is TM purely a matter of science? Just a concern for a bunch of eggheads in an ivory tower? I don't think so. TM has connections to religion/spirituality, to commerce, and to politics. These studies are used to advance the TMM movement in all of those directions. There are sources that note the studies are used for promotion. This should hardly be a surprise to anyone familiar with the movement.

I've just completed a survey of the 341 studies that I suppose are considered the best of the bunch. Of those, more than 240 have lead or co-authors who appear to have been involved with MUM or other TM entities. So while OJ may say that the studies were conducted at 200 institutions (which is hard to verify), the assertions that most were conducted (in whole or in part) by TM devotees seems to be correct by a large margin. I'd be happy to post that survey so you can check my work.   Will Beback  talk  12:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I did the work I might as well post it. Talk:Transcendental Meditation/341 studies. It might also be interesting to sort them by date or language.   Will Beback  talk  12:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gosh... Lets call these people researchers, with legitimate and in many case outstanding credentials in their fields. Devotees implies a particular kind of allegiance and is a personal judgement which we should not and cannot make. We have policies and guidelines that dictate what and how we use sources, so I'm not sure what point/points you are making. Could you clarify, please. (olive (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

The problem with that argument is that the policies and guidelines specify that the sources we rely on be not only secondary but independent, or, as in the excerpt TimidGuy quoted above from WP:NPOV, "disinterested," so the degree to which researchers or commentators are connected to TM is very much a policy-related question. "Devotees" is perhaps too strong a label, but the label is immaterial; it's the connection with TM, however characterized, that is at issue here and that must be pointed out if our readers are to get an accurate picture of this research. Will, by counting up the sources himself, is simply confirming the assertion by sources that most of the touted research is done by TM-connected researchers. Woonpton (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Woopton. Perhaps Will could also add a comment. What we have to go on in terms of sources are the policies and guidelines. Peer reviewed research published in reputable publications is what we have to go on. Such publications are vetted by scholarly peers. That's what we go on. If we need to go to, secondary sources, that is another consideration. "Disinterested" is a judgment call we don't make. Most researchers are "interested" in what they do. Peer review as a process takes care of any concerns we as Misplaced Pages editors might have as to "interest". I guess I'm not clear as to why this list has become apart of this discussion, that is, as to what point is being made. (olive (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

I used the term "devotees" because that's the term used by the Wall Street Journal:

• Maharishi's followers cite more than 500 scientific studies as proof of the rehabilitative benefits of TM, but they were mostly conducted by TM devotees whose objectivity is questioned.

To which Orme Johnson responded:

• Your April 17 page-one article "For $1,500 a Head Maharishi Promises Mellower Inmates," on the use of Transcendental Meditation in prisons stated that the 500 studies of TM were "mostly conducted by TM devotees." In fact, these studies were conducted in more than 160 independent universities and research institutions in 23 countries.

It doesn't take a logician to see the disconnect here. The WSJ referred to who conducted the studies, and OJ responded with a comment about where the studies were conducted. While denying the general assertion, he does not deny the specific claim that most of the studies were conducted by devotees of TM.

As for the list I posted, I notice that many of the studies where I was unable to find a connection are from the 1970s, or from foreign countries where it's harder to trace the affiliations of the researchers. That leads me to believe that there are probably relevant affiliations which I missed. Also, it points to a surge of interest in TM in the 1970s among the unaffiliated scientific community, which may have tapered off in subsequent decades. I don't think the list should have any direct effect on our editing, but there has been an undercurrent in the editing and the discussions here that the assertions of affiliations or conflicts of interest are not grounded in reality, or are discredited by the fact that they studies have supposedly been conducted in 200 institutions. That's simply incorrect. If anyone sees any mistakes or omissions in the list feel free to correct them.

Note also that this list just includes the 341 studies that are published in "independent peer-reviewed journals or other edited scientific publications". I presume that means there are at least 260 studies which were either unpublished or were published in unreviewed or unedited journals. I'd guess that the proportion of those studies conducted by devotees is even higher.

Getting back to the article, does anyone know what is meant by "edited scientific publications". In the context, it appears they are not peer reviewed. Could that refer to publications like Scientific American?   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I did some more research and the number of papers written entirely by unaffiliated persons appears to be 80 out of the 341, or about 23%.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

After stepping away from this article for some time, though I continued to observe the updates, I'm very return to editing. Less glad, however, to see that TG and Olive continue to use WP policy as a bludgeon to preserve their decidedly non-objective, friendly view of TM. For the record, and with a good faith that presumes they are both capable of change, I'll state that I find their continued involvement in this page troubling -- from what I recall, aren't both devotees themselves, or otherwise affiliated? I've called their objectivity and disinterestedness into question before, and I'll do so again now.

As for the edits under discussion in this section. I'd like to second Will's point that there has been an undercurrent of opposition in the editorial discussion here anytime we have examined the affiliation of authors conducting research into TM. I am gratified that Will has made a careful study of the available sources, and determined that 80 or 341 studies published were authored by persons unaffiliated with TM. Since, as Olive confirmed above, TM is not a wholly scientific enterprise, it would seem relevant to state that a great number of researchers in this area are affiliated, either as practitioners or institutionally, with TM. Would anyone like to propose language for the inclusion of this statistic? Civilizeme (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• To all parties, just a reminder to please limit your comments to the content and avoid making comments about the behavior of other editors. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that there has been recent ArbCom activity on the question of neutrality on this page ; I'll take my time in processing all that! Thanks for the heads-up, Keith. Civilizeme (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the statistic that Will generated as a point of information, that 80 of the 341 published studies were conducted by unaffiliated researchers, that statistic could not be included, so there's no use in proposing language for its inclusion. We need to use, or paraphrase closely, language from reliable sources. Will quoted a source above that used the word "devotees," and BTW I apologize for objecting to the word when I wasn't aware that the word came directly from the source. I should have known that Will wouldn't use a word he didn't have a reliable source for, but olive objected to it so strenuously I was momentarily confused. If the source says devotees, that's what we should say. Woonpton (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Will's information be a neutral compression of a large body of information which itself is sourced reliably? I presume he identified the affiliation of researchers using reliable sources. I have no objection to using the term "devotees," if quoted as in the source.Civilizeme (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though we have multiple secondary sources that refer to the connections of the study authors to TM, I don't think that WP policies would allow us to use original research to provide a specific number. The most direct way that we could use that list might be as the basis for an annotated bibliography of TM research in which we identify the various affiliations of the authors. That'd be a lot of work. Meantime, it's just a background source for us to keep in mind as we discuss and edit the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will here that we need to be careful to not present OR in the area of scientific studies. If we can find reliable secondary sources that say that 80 of the 341 published studies were conducted by unaffiliated researchers, then we can use those to compose some text. --BwB (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We have at least three sources that say the majority of the studies have been conducted by "devotees" or people with connections to the movement. That part isn't original research. Now, if anyone can find a list of the 200 institutions and 33 countries where these 600 studies are supposed to have been conducted, I'd be quite curious. My suspicion is that those numbers refers to the affiliations of co-authors rather than the actual sites of the research, but that's just a guess. While the number of studies is often used to promote TM-related enterprises, the details are left out.   Will Beback  talk  10:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say again, a source is just that, and its not necessarily truth or accurate. Call these researchers here anything you want as long as its civil, but lets not confuse what the press says with reality, and lets not confuse what we use to create an article with reality. One of the reasons NPOV is a cornerstone is because only with a cross section of sources does the reader get a neutral sense of what has been gathered into sources. That cross section is not truth, its verified and verifiable. While one person may be called an idiot in a source, another source may call the same person a genius. Neither is necessarily true, but both can be verified. (olive (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC))

Not all sources are the same. For example, we might find a source that says MUM is in Fairfield, Connecticut. Do we add that "verifiable" information to an article? The assertions of some sources can be verified, which enhances their value. Other sources make claims that can't be independently verified, so we rely entirely on the author and publisher. Getting back to the origin of this thread, we have some sources who say that the majority of papers have been written with the participation of TM insiders. As a "balancing point" to that, an editor sought to add the non-sequitor claim that the research has been conducted in over 200 institutions and 30 countries. We can easily see that the other sources are correct, but we can't make the same verification of the so-called rebuttal, which isn't really a rebuttal at all. "Jones says most vehicles are green, but Smith says that hundreds are sedans." The claim that TM research has been conducted at over 200 institutions in over 30 countries has been repeated dozens of times, with minor changes. What are the institutions? Does anyone have any idea?   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like writing a long comment, looking over it, editing it, inputting it, and then forgetting to save. Which is what I must have done yesterday because my latest pearls of wisdom are nowhere to be seen. But the jist of it was that we are vehemently arguing a relatively minor point. TG simply said that there is a source arguing that many studies have been conducted at independent institutions. The statement is properly sourced. The opposite POV is well represented. I do not see that we need to verify the exactness, or lack thereof of either POV, they are sourced. The statement, harmless in of itself, does not warrant removal, in my view.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this discussion going anywhere and I'm not sure its productive. It may require outside input via a noticeboard or meditation to be resolved.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree Kbob that mediation may be needed. I would also note that in the past I have asked for editors to consider accuracy in looking at sources as a important factor, but was either ignored or criticized for that position. I'll keep Will's comment in mind as we go forward.(olive (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

You are probably right, but there is something that bothers me, this is a relatively minor point and yet it seems we cannot agree, even on this. If we have to get outside input, so be it, but it's a bit disappointing. Also true, sources are important, in fact it's one of the few standards we do have and we can go by. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec - are you guys actually suggesting that we restore the material TG added, which nearly duplicates text already quoted in the section, and which, in the source, is not used to rebut the assertion being made about the affiliations of the researchers?   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My comments are general. Theres' a lot of ideas being tossed around. Where do you see I support using redundant content? if you see it let me know, I'll be happy to strike it as a comment that was misunderstood.(olive (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

BTW, In case editors here aren't aware, Schneider's view is now included in the first sentence:

• Leading individuals and organizations associated with TM cite the existence of many studies, "more than 600 published research studies, conducted at over 200 independent research institutions in 33 countries", to support TM-related concepts. The quantity of studies have been cited to support the political programs of the Natural Law Party, the tax status of a TM institution, the use of TM to rehabilitate prisoners, the teaching of TM in schools, the issuance of bonds to finance the movement, as proof that TM is a science rather than a religion,, to show the efficacy of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, and as a reason to practice TM itself.

So his view hasn't been discarded.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To Olive and Luke -- My duplication of the point already made in the first sentence regarding 200 institutions was inadvertent. Once I realized my mistake, I disagreed with Will regarding its location. But then Will sent me the WSJ letter in which David OJ makes the same point, so I added a few words to OJ's rebuttal. So it seems like the point is now sufficiently made in this section, though I continue to disagree with the use of newspapers as sources, and with having two separate sections in the article on research quality. Will, regarding your representation of Schneider in the first paragraph, I feel like that's another instance of original research -- of you adding your own observation to this article. I don't think it's appropriate to say that Schneider is making that statement to "show the efficacy of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health." The source is a research review. The whole review is characterizing research on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Schneider is giving the info about the number of institutions as background info on this research. I feel like all of these are your own observations, including the very first word "Leading." TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony Nader, John Hagelin, Girish Varma, David Leffler, the Maharishi Foundation, Bob Roth, Stichting Maharishi , Ashley Deans, MUM, Natural Law Party, Orme Johnson - is there anyone here who wants to argue that these are not among the leading individuals and organizations in the movement? As for the summary of Schneider's assertion, here's what he says:

• Over the last 30 years, hundreds of scientific studies on Maharishi Consciousness-Based Health Care treatment and prevention modalities have come from researchers in >200 research institutions and universities in three dozen countries around the world.21-25

Which we summarize as:

• The quantity of studies have been cited ... to show the efficacy of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health,...'

I think that is correct. He is saying that hundreds of studies, apparently the same set as being discussed by others, have been conducted on MVAH, which we know includes TM etc.   Will Beback  talk  11:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Non balanced POV about the question whether TM is rooted in Hinduism.

The totality of the following paragraph, including the way it refers to Maharishi's book is a point of view. The point of view presented, the one of Kenneth Boa perhaps, is that TM is rooted in Hinduism.

According to religious scholar Kenneth Boa in his book, Cults, World Religions and the Occult, Transcendental Meditation is rooted in the Vedantic School of Hinduism, "repeatedly confirmed" in the Maharishi's books such as the Science of Being and the Art of Living and his Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. Boa writes that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi "makes it clear" that Transcendental Meditation was delivered to man about 5,000 years ago by the Hindu god Krishna. The technique was then lost, but restored for a time by Buddha. It was lost again, but rediscovered in the 9th century AD by the Hindu philosopher Shankara. Finally, it was revived by Brahmananda Saraswati (Guru Dev) and passed on to the Maharishi.

For NPOV, we need a corresponding paragraph that presents the other point of view. There are plemty of references that explains why TM is not rooted in any religion. Maharishi has never referred to Krishna as an Hindu God because Maharishi sees Hinduism as a modern religion that did not exist at the time of Krisna. Maharishi has been explaining TM to Hindus as much as to Christians. If it is rooted in Hinduism, why it needs to be explained to Hindus?

Better, we should totally change the paragraph so that it uses references that presents a balanced POV from the start, a paragraph that would not need to be contradicted after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.29 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph is part of the description of the origins of the technique. The main discussion of the religious/non-religious issues is covered in the "Religion" section. It cites the Maharishi and others on the topic.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the opinion of a religious scholar that himself uses the opinion of Maharishi to build its thesis without even mentioning the original POV of Maharishi is not at all NPOV. I bet the religious scholar does not even believe that TM was thought at the time of Krisna. He might not even believe that Krisna existed. So, in which ways this is informative about the true origin of TM? Obviously, the whole argument here is not about the true factual origin of TM, but about whether TM comes from modern Hinduism. Therefore, it should be presented in the religion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.38 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to delete this thread two times because, after looking more carefully at the article, I believe it is a deadend in the following sense that the other editors have the definitive intention to present TM as a pseudoscience and an offspring of the Hinduism religion. Since they insist, I will complete my contribution to this thread. TM is not pseudoscience. It is very easy to see it. For example, they cite a 2007 cochrane review to support the claim that research on TM is not reliable ( reference 18: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf ). However, here is the summary of the results in this review for the "Evidence on the Physiological and Neuropsychological Effects of Meditation" specifically for TM:

Direct meta-analysis showed that compared to NT, TM® did not produce significantly greater benefits on blood pressure (SBP and DBP). However, there was significant improvement in LDL-C levels and verbal creativity with TM®. When compared to WL, TM® produced significantly greater reduction in SBP and DBP. Before-and-after studies on TM® for patients with essential hypertension indicated a statistically significant reduction in SBP and DBP after practicing TM®. The heterogeneity present for the comparisons evaluating blood pressure changes and cortisol levels suggests that there were important clinical differences among the studies; however, the small number of studies precluded subgroup analyse.

NT stands for No Therapy. Basically, on many respects, TM had significant positive physiological benefits. If this is not enough, there was a subsequent meta analysis done in 2008 by independent researchers on the effect of TM on blood pressure and cardiovascular desease (also the studied benefits of the previous review) and the significant benefits of TM were confirmed (see http://www.nature.com/ajh/journal/v21/n3/abs/ajh200765a.html ). The authors of this review expressed the fact (in news clips) that the studies on TM were of high quality. In this context, who care what the astronomer Carl Sagan says. He is not a doctor. He does not know much about clinical studies.

I emphasis that this is only an example. I could do the same about so many other parts of the current article. It is totally biased. It is so clear that the current editors (the majority of them anyway) have the fixed agenda to present TM as a pseudo science and an offspring of the Hinduism religion, which it is not. Anyone is going to lose its time trying to reason with them. 67.230.154.70 (talk)

It's not for us to decide whether TM is a panacea, a pseudoscience or anything else. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  03:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is useless to argue with people that have a fixed agenda. 67.230.154.70 (talk)

One of the rules we have here is "assume good faith".   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is useless to argue with people that have a fixed agenda. 67.230.154.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC).

I feel like you've raised some excellent points. And have clearly articulated them. Putting aside the Hinduism issue, I think you make a good point about pseudoscience. You assumed, like most readers would, that the points in that paragraph are intended to support Sagan's view that TM is pseudoscience. The problem is that Sagan never says why he thinks it's pseudoscience. He makes an unsupported assertion, which has no only been placed in the article but also in the lead. And the way that it's juxtaposed in the lead with one-sided points about the research suggests, as it did to you, that Sagan is referring to the research. Of course there are thousands of sources that make the opposite point — scientific studies, research reviews, mainstream media — that the research isn't pseudoscience. The unsupported claim that it's pseudoscience is a minor point of view that should be excluded, per the Misplaced Pages core policy of WP:NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We could argue from logic over whether there are pseudoscientific or Hindu elements of TM, but that'd be pointless and it isn't how Misplaced Pages works. Points of view should be presented in a neutral fashion, with weight proportionate to their prominence. The Sagan book, although written over a decade ago, is ranked by Amazon at #2,349 in popularity. By comparison, Science of Being and Art of Living #23,808, an order of magnitude less popular, and Catching the Big Fish has an even lower rank. That's just one metric. Perhaps Google News would reveal that Peter Russell and Bob Roth are more prominent than Carl Sagan. We can't delete important points of view just because someone here thinks they're "wrong".   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sagan is hardly a lone voice in the wilderness in characterizing TM as a pseudoscience. Just put "transcendental meditation" and pseudoscience in a Google Books search. You will see dozens of reliable, secondary sources saying the same thing. We should add these sources. Fladrif (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And not one would meet MEDRS. Science has its own standard in Misplaced Pages for RS -- peer reviewed research, meta-analyses, research reviews. Not popular debunking books. Why would the AMA publish pseudoscience? There is such a major double standard here. Editors have required that no individual studies be used as a source, even though MEDRS allows it. And at the same time, editors add popular media as sources, which MEDRS explicitly disallows. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The purely medical aspects of TM are perhaps best handled in the MVAH article. The TM movement promotes the technique as offering many benefits beyond the field of medicine. There's no indication that Sagan was addressing the issue of blood pressure, for example.   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The scientific research medical and otherwise done to the TM technique is a prominent aspect of the information surrounding the technique and such information properly belongs in the TM technique article.

Sagan makes a general comment about TM which is fundamentally flawed since a meditation technique cannot be science, pseudo or other wise. Can the underlying theories of the technique be described a science is another question. However Sagan doesn't address anything so specific. We are using some very weak content here. Does it help the article ? Give the reader good information?(olive (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

I would argue the opposite. The contention that TM is a technique, nothing more, nothing less, and that it thus cannot be categorized as religion or pseudoreligion, science or pseudoscience, fish or fowl is logically unsupportable. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Sagan, or with any other source being cited for any other proposition in the article, a technique, a tool, does not exist in a vacuum. A technique or tool for what? To what end? Which is promoted to accomplish what? By what means? Pursuant to what theory is is supposed to work? A hammer is a tool. Look at the article for hammer. It is a simple tool. But the article discusses for what, and the physics by which it does the job. Look at the article for patent medicine, discussing it as a mixture of pharmacology, sympathetic magic and fraud. One would not seriously contend that "it's just a bottle of elixer; you can't call it either pharmacology or sympathetic magic or fraud". One cannot divorce the technique from the purposes to which it is put, the basis on which it is sold to the public, and the underlying theory or theories as to why it is supposed to work. If we were to buy into this argument, the article would be a single paragraph in length. Fladrif (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If editors here want to restrict the article to just the "Transcendental Meditation technique", as I've heard here repeatedly, then we should move the article to that title.

Chiropractic therapy is a technique, Kirlian photography is a technique, dowsing is a technique. Those techniques may not be pseudo-science, but the claims made about them can be. It's not for us to judge. Sagan is a prominent point of view. NPOV requires that we include such views.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@67.230.154.70 One minor correction to "It is so clear that the current editors (the majority of them anyway) have the fixed agenda to present TM as a pseudo science..." I believe only two of the current editors have this POV (judging from this Talk page; the others left months ago). Their relatively uninformed POV, relying as it does on sources (like the otherwise wonderful Carl Sagan) who express authoritative-sounding opinions that are not based on a deep understanding of the subject matter, irritates me as well.

But I strongly believe you're missing an important fact: it is obviously not good to have only the TMM POV represented in TMM articles. There actually are several other POVs that are represented by people who are very familiar with TM/Maharish/the TMM, not to mention the general public (who seem to object to course fees far more often than to perceived religious or pseudoscientific content, judging from inquiry email received by Natural Stress Relief, a competing organization).

It may be true that we do not have a good balance in knowledge about TM. But Will and Fladrif do a conscientious, dedicated. and admirable job (and donate a lot of their time) as editors to ensure that the articles will not represent only one POV. IMO, we owe them thanks for their work and for not leaving when the others did. David Spector (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to make assertions about the POVs of editors here please provide proof. I, for one, don't recall ever expressing an opinion on the matter. That said, thanks for acknowledging the effort it takes to keep these articles from having only one POV.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@David Spector: My judgment was based on the content of the article. If there are editors that sincerely try to present all published viewpoints for what they really are, it simply does not show up. Instead, it seems that the editors are using published statements there and there to support their own personal interests or beliefs. The statement of Carl Sagan is only one example. There is nothing wrong in presenting the viewpoint of Carl Sagan, but it must be done at the right time in the proper section or paragraoh. All the skepticism should be all put together in a section about skepticism (on TM) because this it is what it is about. For example, it makes no sense to use a primary source (the direct research of Carl Sagan) to oppose a secondary source, a meta analysis, which has already compiled and analysed so many primary sources. It would make no sense, even if the primary source was a scientific paper because it is not our job to redo the work of the secondary source. It certainly makes no sense at all when the primary source (the direct research of Carl Sagan) is not even acceptable as a scientific paper. It is terrible that we have to lose time arguing about this. Why? Because meanwhile even worst issues about lack of NPOV are going on and we are losing track of them. For example, consider again the paragraph that I was referring to:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, while over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. At the same time, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety. TM has been called a pseudoscience by astronomer Carl Sagan.

I believe the 2007 review mentioned in the second statement has been criticized by TM researchers because it was not fair toward TM. Nevertheless, if you read the paragraph that I have extracted from this review, it actually points out that TM had many significant physiological benefits. Therefore, it makes no sense to use this review to oppose the first statement. Moreover, if the editors had done a good job, they would have seen that we have a 2008 meta analysis specifically about TM, which confirms the good physiological benefits of TM, which were already seen in this 2007 review.

BTW, the review was not a review on Transcendental Meditation, but a review on meditation in general. Therefore, the "Transcendental" in the second statement is incorrect and this shows how much the editors are biased. However, I insist that taking out the "Transcendental" would not address the issue because it is the whole sentence that is misplaced. The use of a conclusion about all meditations to oppose a statement specifically about TM makes no sense. It is is just another example of what I mean when I say that the editors use published statement to support personal interests or beliefs.

Again, I am not against that we present a published POV, especially not the POV that research on meditation (in general) needs to be improved, not at all. Everybody, especially TM researchers, agree with that conclusion. In fact, there was a subsequent review of research on meditation (in genereal), which draw the same conclusion and one or two of the authors were TM researchers. This statement is not about TM. Still, there may be a way to include it in the article, but not to oppose statements directly about TM, especially not when they are supported by secondary sources. Now, after this misplaced statement, add the statement of Carl Sagan and you obtain a completely biased paragraph. The whole article is like that, but especially the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.154.96 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear anon - could you please register an account if you're going to be discussing this article or making significant edits? Since you have a dynamic IP it's hard to know if we're responding to the same person each time. Registration is free and provides several benefits, including greater privacy.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with request that you use or obtain an account. David Spector (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please get an account. I'm less than impressed with accusations of bias from an anonymous editor posting from a TM-Org affiliated IP Address, touting the research "we" have confirming the beneficial effects of TM. Who is "we"? No bias there, eh? Your mischaracterization and misnterpretattion of the AHRQ meta-analysis is a rehash of arguments that have been made here since it was issued by TM-Org employees in an ultimately unsuccessful effort ot either exclude it from the article, or to twist its conclusions to say exactly the opposite of what it actually concludes. Please read the archives - try AHRQ or Ospina-Bond. Fladrif (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with your analysis. In fact, it's almost self-evident. Writing like this is why I know these editors to be essentially anti-TM in attitude, in spite of their consistent denials.

Furthermore, they use WP policy selectively as a weapon to bully the pro-TM editors. That isn't right. They force the pro-TM editors to engage in the same unproductive wikilawyering and arguing.

Meanwhile, neutral editors (like me) don't stand a chance in the crossfire. I don't try to do more than typos and grammar.

In spite of all this unfortunate environment, I feel that it is much better to have a dialog (no matter how drawn-out and traumatic) rather than none at all (with skepticism about TM barely mentioned), which I believe would happen if the gadflies left. Before they arrived, the pro-TM editors put subtle pressure on me to withdraw my paragraph about disaffected TM teachers who offer alternative instruction in transcending without the high prices and/or mysticism. I could have expanded that paragraph with facts such as the routine intimidation of renegade teachers by MUM lawyers, putting many out of business merely for putting in practice, courageously, what Maharishi asked them to do: bring TM to the world. David Spector (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources on these assertions, then provide them. Whether or not you regard it as bullying or wikilawyering, and whether or not you agree with the policies, those are the core policies of Misplaced Pages. Personal knowledge and unpublished primary sources are interesting, but aren't useable in Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether or not they are true and accurate. Fladrif (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect to accusations of bias, (to say nothing of repeated accusatons of ignorance ) I will repeat what I said on your talk page. If you have a problem with anything I or any other editor has posted, or think it violates in any repect the letter or spirit of the ArbCom decision or any policy of Misplaced Pages, you are free to pursue it in whatever forum you deem appropriabut article talk pages is most assuredly NOT the appropropriate forum. Fladrif (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Fladrif is a fine one for championing WP policy. David Spector (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

David, could you please leave ad hominem remarks somewhere else? Article talk pages are just for discussing improvements to the article. If you need to discuss editors then their talk pages are good places for that. This comment does not seem likely to further this thread towards helpful edits.   Will Beback  talk  11:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, the anonymous editor makes excellent points. Please don't just ignore them. Perhaps lets focus on the paragraph in the lead that supposedly summarizes the scientific research. As I've pointed out before, and as this anonymous editor is pointing out, it violates WP:LEAD. In the past I've proposed different wording. Maybe the anonymous editor could propose some text to replace that paragraph -- text that summarizes the whole research section rather than highlighting two particular reviews. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Timidguy Agree. @Fladrif "I'm less than impressed with accusations of bias from an anonymous editor posting from a TM-Org affiliated IP Address." Please explain. 67.230.154.96 translates to Primus Telecommunications Canada, which, I believe, has not been identified as TMM-related. David Spector (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Primus is a TMM-related company.Fladrif (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Flad, how is Primus a TMM related? --BwB (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the ISP discussion off of the article talk page, please.   Will Beback  talk  13:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? There used to be a lot of such discussion here, about which, I believe, you never objected. Fladrif raised the issue without a source. Just applying your keenness for WP policy. You don't seem to like it. David Spector (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have generally tried to keep off-topic issues off of the talk pages. Editors have talk pages to discuss issues like this. When I had a question for Fladrif about it I went to his page to ask it. Otherwise we get carried away by unproductive tangents like most of this thread.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting, David, that you seem to admire the "courage" of those teachers who followed Maharishi's direction to "bring TM to the world", but are in no way critical of these same teachers NOT following Maharishi direction to charge $2500 for TM instruction in the USA. If I understand correctly, the technique that NSR teaches is not TM,(at least this is a point made on the NSR web pages ) so it looks like said "disaffected TM teachers" are not teaching TM and thus not doing "what Maharishi asked them to do: bring TM to the world". Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point you were making above. I know this off Wiki topic, but David's comments intrigued me. --BwB (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, our low price is at the heart of the NSR philosophy. But I agree: off-topic. You are most welcome to learn about our POV by discussing this with me directly via email (use the Contact Us form at www.nsrusa.org). David Spector (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No thanks David. it was just a comment in passing, a spur of the moment thought. Not something I want to discuss at length now. --BwB (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Draft sentences for science summary of lead

Since the current paragraph on the science violates WP:LEAD, as mentioned above and in past discussions, here's a proposed draft intended to be a summary of the science section of the article.

Current version:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. while over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. At the same time, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety.

Proposed version:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, with over 300 studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. These studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. Some studies suggest that the physiological changes and health effects are the same as simple relaxation, while others indicate a greater effect. Most of the research is preliminary and therefore inconclusive, though recent research reviews have concluded that TM lowers blood pressure a small but clinically significant amount.

Seems like that pretty much covers it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Starting with the beginning, what is the source for "over 300 studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals"? the phrase "These studies have found specific physiological changes,..." implies that all of the 300 studies have made that finding. Is that true? Is the "clinical research" different from the 300 studies? If most of the research is preliminary then maybe we should say that first, next to the statement that TM is the most widely researched techniques. When we mention the recent reviews, is that a comprehensive summary?   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I much prefer the current version. First of all it summarizes the best available evidence. The group at WP:MED will agree if you ask them. I do not see how it violates WP:LEAD? I think one could say that independent studies have NOT found specific physiological changes compared to relaxation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Here's a new version based on your very good feedback.

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, with over 200 studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. Some studies suggest that the physiological changes and health effects are the same as simple relaxation, while others indicate a greater or different effect. Three research reviews/meta-analyses from 2007-08 said that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount, with two of them finding it to be clinically significant.

I think that addresses your points. Doc it violates WP:LEAD because it doesn't represent the whole research section of the article, it only represents one point of view, and it's not more general than the article itself, which is what WP:LEAD advises. There are research reviews which indicate a greater or different effect from relaxation. TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those revisions, which raise questions of their own. Where are we getting the "200 studies" number from? Is it just a round number we picked out of the air? do we need to give a number at all? If we do should we mention the number that were not published in peer reviewed sources? What is the difference between studies and clinical research? It says that studies have found one thing and clinical research has found another. Aren't they the same thing? We say that there were three reviews in 2007-2008. Why those dates? A clearer way of wording it would be something more like, "two out of three reviews in 20XX found clinically significant..."   Will Beback  talk  11:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I moved some material around in the "Research" section because it was getting repetitious. After moving like material together, I then deleted a some redundant bits and made a few other textual changes.   Will Beback  talk  12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Will that the 300, 600 or 200 numbers are only used in TM promotional material. I think that when we cite material, we should keep in mind the original intention of the authors and this should be considered when we evaluate the prominence that we can give to this material. In this case, it is promotional. One must use the material in promotional site in a careful way and be selective. To support that these numbers are important for any other reason than the promotion of TM, then we would have to find a citation that present these numbers in such a context. For example, if a governmental agency kept this kind of statistics, then it will prove that this kind of information is considered important in general.

BTW, I insist that we cannot go in the opposite direction and include in the article the thesis that these numbers are used for the promotion of TM. We all know that it is true, but this is not the criteria for inclusion in the article. To mention such a thesis, we would have to find a noteworthy publication that makes a case about it and we should do it in a way that respect the original intention of the publication. Moreover, even if we find such a publication, this kind of controversial issue would not be appropriate in a paragraph about the research on TM because it is about the way it is used, not about the research itself.

I still believe that we should have a section on scepticism about TM. This kind of issues will fit there because this is fundamentally what it is about. The fact that TM uses these numbers for promotional purpose is not a big deal. It's normal. An inclusion of this thesis in the article, even if we know it to be true, is a sceptic attitude. I will give you an analogy. A married man visit a woman friend in the evening. His wife is aware of it, etc. There is nothing there. However, if you write this fact in a paper about the man without any explanation, then it can be interpreted differently because people will rightfully think "if it is mentioned in the article, it is something important and there must be something else, perhaps illicit, going on." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.154.243 (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposed language fundamentally mispresents the conclusions of the meta-analyses. Fladrif (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New version:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. The most research rmeta-analyses found that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.

This attempts to meet Will's points, and also addresses Doc James's, whose comment made me realize that we don't currently have any info in the article on the comparisons with simple relaxation. Will, regarding the distinction between studies and clinical research: there are two types of research, one called basic research that looks at physiological changes. Scientists find this interesting and meaningful in and of itself. Any health implications are conjectural and peripheral. Clinical research looks at specific health and cognitive applications. There was a large amount of basic research in the 1970s and 1980s by many different scientists. There was also some clinical research. In the last couple decades or so, there's been much more clinical research than basic research.

I think the IP has a good point. Will, please address it. Per the IP's comment, I've moved the material on promotion to make it less prominent. But it probably should be deleted as a violation of WP:SYNTHl TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(i) You have not answered my objection. The proposed language fundamentally, and in direct violation of WP:MEDRS misrepresents the findings of the meta-analyses. Fladrif (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• The most research rmeta-analyses found that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.

Is there a word missing?   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Yes. I meant "The most recent research meta-analyses." Here it is with correction:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies on the physiological effects have found specific changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. The most research rmeta-analyses found that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.

I made a slight change in wording to try to distinguish between the basic research and clinical research. It occurs to me that it still doesn't encompass behavioral research, such as criminal rehab, but maybe the word "mind" covers that. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. As a long-term contributor to this ever-changing project, I have a bit of an allergy to the term "recent". Many editors delete that word on sight because it becomes dated so quickly. Further, we're interested in all reviews, not just the most recent.   Will Beback  talk  11:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS says to use the most recent research reviews. But it doesn't really matter, because the three meta-analyses that have been done have all found lower blood pressure. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...the three meta-analyses that have been done... Only three meta-analyses have been done? And they all agree on significant results? Giving the same outcome as mere restfulness isn't quite the same as showing a special outcome. Is this the best approach to summarizing all research on TM?   Will Beback  talk  11:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The three meta-analyses did not find that TM reduces blood pressure. First of all, that misprepresents what a metaanslysis is. Second, it misrepresents what the metaanalyses actually did find. Third, it is cherry picking Fladrif (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We summarize the best available research in the lead. That is what we have done and that is what we should continue to do. I have separated the bit about the number of studies from the actual conclusions of the few good reviews. In sciencentific conclusions we do not care about the number of studies done or how often something is used by the lay public as this has no direct bearing on the conclusion. A lot of bad studies combined together never equals one good study. The null hypothesis is assumed until evidence shows otherwise thus "Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc, if you're quoting a guideline, I'm not familiar with it. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be more general and and summarize, not simply present two specific reviews. Perhaps most problematic, it presents only one point of view. This violates the core Misplaced Pages policy of WP:NPOV. The version that we pretty much agreed upon (except for the blood pressure part) does that. Instead of mentioning a particular review, it states the conclusion of that review and many other reviews: that firm conclusions can't be drawn and that more research needs to be done. The studies themselves generally say that. This is a general, all-encompassing statement. In addition, there are scores or perhaps hundreds of research reviews that discuss specific studies and say that the results are suggestive. And some of those reviews are in this article. Plus, there are the 2007 and 2008 meta-analyses published in Current Hypertension Reports and American Journal of Hypertension that do draw a conclusion. Will, I don't know of a meta-analysis that compared TM and simple relaxation. Which one are you referring to? There have been 7 meta-analyses on TM and blood pressure, 5 of those in AHRQ. Of the 7 meta-analyses, 5 have found a reduction. Here's a new version that for now leaves out blood pressure:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but further research is needed.

What do you think? It's more general, represents the entire section, and literally quotes AHRQ's bottom line. And in this revised version ends with an additional qualifying phrase from AHRQ. Please, I'm trying hard to accommodate everyone. TimidGuy (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly objectionable there, but my eyes glaze over every time we start talking about studies so I'm not the best judge. I have a small concern with the last clause: "but further research is needed". That seems to be either a uselessly general statement that might apply to almost any research topic, or an opinion, in which case it should be attributed. Maybe, but reviewers say that further research is needed", or something like that. Or leave it out. Also, I suggest we move the first clause to another paragraph. The popularity of the technique and the amount of research are probably connected to some degree, but not directly. We already say that 4 million people had learned TM by 1998, and the popularity clause is more closely related to that. We could merge them in a different paragraph.   Will Beback  talk  11:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That first clause might also be suitable as part of the lead. Perhaps "Transcendental Meditation, or TM, was introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and is now one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques."   Will Beback  talk  12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that there are too much research that is not preliminary for the second sentence to be used as representative of the various conclusions in the available meta analyses. I would suggest

TM has been reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Some meta analyses with strict standard for clinical research excluded most of the research on meditation and thus could not draw any conclusion. Others, less restrictive, have found specific physiological effects. Clinical studies have suggested a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but the authors added that further research is needed.

Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with what we have now and see no reason to change it. It summarizes the position of the majority of the scientific community. That evidence does not support TM having a positive effect on health. If we add anything we should add "Meta-anlayses of the research found that the effects of TM are no greater than health education regarding blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, or level of physical activity in hypertensive patients." We could also ask over at WP:MED how to best summarize the research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "It summarizes the position of the majority of the scientific community." It may be true. I don't know. In any case, this is not the way we determine what is included in a Misplaced Pages article. We must refer to the secondary sources on the subject, in this case, the systematic reviews on meditation and TM. All the POV supported in the various secondary sources must be presented in the article, not just one. Each POV should be given a prominence that is proportional to how much it appears in the various systematic reviews. We should not try to focus on one POV because we think we know that it is the POV of the majority of the scientific community. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, back to TimidGuy last proposal, if we can have a consensus on this paragraph as being the complete summary of the research on TM in the Intro, I am willing to accept it with the first clause removed as suggested by Will BeBack. Will Beback further noted that the last clause is not attributed. I can add that the second sentence is also not attributed. Usually, controversial statements should be explicitly attributed such as "A report on one meta-analysis prepared for the AHRQ stated ..." It would be much better to attribute them, if possible. However, here because TimidGuy succeeded to find a wording that is not too controversial, I would tolerate these clauses without attribution. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noted that the 2007 report submitted to the AHRQ, has been the subject of a paper in a peer reviewed journal. The report and the paper are different, even though it is the same meta-analysis. The peer-review process made a difference. In particular, I could not find in the paper the statement that TM has no advantage over health education regarding blood pressure, body weight, etc. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Page 19 of PMID: 17764203 "TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients" This AHRQ report represents the consensus of the majority of the scientific community and thus is give more weight. It is one of the few studies which is independent of the TM organization itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked PMID: 17764203 and PubMed says that the journal is Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). I looked further and the publisher is the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, a US agency. I tried to find information about this journal. Usually, a journal is proud to say who is the chief editor, the editors, what is the peer review process, what are the criteria to respect for submission to the journal, etc., but could not find anything. Journals usually have a web site where all this information is available. Is there another name for this journal? Also, the term "report" is usually used for non reviewed publications. You know when you are a Ph.D. student and you need to have publications before you get your degree, which is the case in some universities, they tell you that a report does not count as a publication. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the argument here that a publication of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an "EPC Evidence Report", is not a reliable source for medical information?   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. I do not like to suppress sources. The point is that when we have two publications for a same meta-analysis, one as a report and the other as a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, then one must ask why a supposedly important statement would be in the report and not in the paper? Maybe the statement was not so important, after all. Note that the university that hosted the research, I guess received the funding for it, is the same for the paper as for the report, totally independent from TM. All the authors of the report with a Ph.D. degree, except one, were also authors of the paper. The paper had four additional authors with a Ph.D. degree. In addition, the paper had a full review process. It seems to me that the paper had only a chance to be less biased than the report. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then, you're not arguing that the AHRQ report is unreliable. Are you arguing that both the versions are biased, and one is less biased then the other? If so then what is the nature of this bias, and what evidence is there for it?   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this input Edith. For a non-scientist, I am finding this discussion very interesting and I am looking forward to you answer to Will's question above. --BwB (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's any more to be said about claims of bias by the AHRQ then we should air them now. Maybe it was just my misreading of ESL's statement?   Will Beback  talk  12:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My statement that "the paper can only be less biased than the AHRQ report" was not hiding anything. It meant exactly what it says. I only wanted to compare the relative weight that we must give to the different reliable sources. It was just a comparison: when you say X is smaller than Y, you don't say anything about the value of Y in itself. The peer review process is fundamental in science, as one can see by searching Google with "peer review in science". In addition, having editors that are independent from governmental agencies and other institutions, such as it is the case in standard journals, can only be a good thing.

With regard to the independence of the authors themselves from specific institutions, we should consider all possible biases. Therefore, it is excellent that a publication has some authors that are pro-TM and others that might have a more sceptic attitude. This balanced situation has been the case for so many studies on TM. There are also a few studies where none of the authors were affiliated with TM, which is significant when the conclusion is pro-TM. Also, let us keep in mind that a peer-reviewed publication includes the indirect contributions of the independent reviewers. The reviewers do not only check the paper for correctness, but also they help in removing partial or unclear statements (i.e. that can easily be misinterpreted) from it. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So, just to make it clear then, you're saying that the AHRQ is not biased. Is that correct? If not, please explain the nature and evidence of this bias.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I would agree with those changes. You and I have agreed on this compromise version, with Doc and Edith holding out for versions that weigh one or the other point of view more heavily. I say we go with this compromise version for now. Doc and Edith, in the spirit of compromise would you go along with making this change? Per NPOV it has to change because there are many points of view that are not now represented in that paragraph. The beauty of the draft version is that it is something that almost everyone would agree with, including the researchers themselves. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I do try to be agreeable. We agree to..? rewrite the lead sentence to incorporate the first clause as proposed above, attribute the last clause per above, and otherwise use the text as last proposed? Sure, sounds good to me.   Will Beback  talk  11:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New version to be included in the article since it appears to be supported by a majority:

TM has been reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but the authors say further research is needed.

This might be temporary, until we agree on another version that we feel is more representative of the different POVs found in the available reliable secondary sources. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

These paragraphs were removed:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, with over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals.

A 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for the treatment of anxiety.

Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No consensus for the above change. We should provide the conclusions of the best available independent evidence. Effects of TM have not been reliably found. We should add "TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients" back in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Best" and "independent" are words that rely on opinion per the TM articles. The lead should summarize what is in the article which is a more objective criteria for wording and complies with WP:Lead.(olive (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

The edits made are not to what I agreed with above.   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We could ask for outside opinions. I think those at WP:MED already indicated though that AHRQ was by far the best source available. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Will, please tell me if this accurately represents your suggestions:

TM is among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being.

And relocate the current first clause as you described. Does that do it? Seems like we pretty much have a consensus except for Doc. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is not just me who disagree with changing it. Many of the editors over WP:MED agreed with the current version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Doc James. I do not agree with the proposed changes. The current text is the result of long discussion and consensus on this board and on the WP:MED board, and accurately and appropriately represents the state of the research as assessed by the highest and most reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. It should not be changed in the manner proposed. Fladrif (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd really rather defer to others on most of these study issues. IIRC, James is the only one here who claims any medical and scientific training, and so I'm happy to let him figure this out. In layman's terms, it looks like this issue has to do with giving equal weight to reviews of unequal quality and prestige. I'll agree to whatever you folks work out.   Will Beback  talk  12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What is now in place in the lead now is not acceptable. It does not summarize the content in this article on the research and therefore presents a biased slanted view. Further, I don't see agreement for the change. Finally, editors here carry weight in terms of their opinions and must not be overlooked in favour of views of editors who may not have knowledge of the article. With all respect to Doc James, input from all editors both on the Notice boards and on this article must be considered in order that we have NPOV. If the paragraph in the lead does not move to more neutral wording we should move to mediation.(olive (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

I must agree, especially with regard to research. Right now, what we have about research in the Intro is a statement about the number of studies, journals and institutions followed by statements from two reviews that say that the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality and TM is not better than relaxation therapy. The first statement, supposedly pro-TM, in fact only says something about the number of publications and their quality (indirectly by referring to the number of journals and independent institutions.) Therefore, the intro contains two POVs about the quality of the research, but only one POV about the effectiveness of TM or lack thereof. The effectiveness of TM (or lack thereof) is the central issue. The quality of the research is important, but complementary. We should also have two POVs about the effectiveness of TM, in accordance with WP:NPV.

Currently, some argue that the AHRQ and the Cochrane publications can be the only sources about the effectiveness of TM. This is ridiculous. It is obviously against WP:NPV. How is it possible that we are even arguing about this? These two publications were only about meditations in clinical settings, you know, for people that go to a clinic to treat some health issue. This is not representative of the common settings were TM is used. In addition, the AHRQ report was not even peer reviewed and, again, having editors that are independent from governmental agencies and other institutions is only a good thing. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent)We have many times gotten outside opinions. We have reached the current version based on outside opinion. If you do not like the conclusions here please ask on one of the boards such as Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or at WT:MED. We have gone over this many times. I have also made this suggestion many times. We know the opinions of everyone here without really even asking. Yes we know the TM organization disagrees with the AHRQ report and Cochrane. They however much more closely represents the opinions of those not related to the TM movement ( as they are published by those not related to the TM movement and are some of the most highly respected publication in the world ). When it comes to health claims the opinion of the majority of experts in the field of health is who we shall summarize.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for further comments here Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#AHRQ_and_Transcendental_Meditation Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary for lead

What about the following to summarize the research?

TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Systematic reviews have found that it has specific physiological effects and a range of benefits on health and mental well-being. The TM organisation says that this research includes more than 200 scientific studies published in peer review journals. However, in clinical settings, a 2007 review of meditation reported that the definitive effects of meditation as an healthcare practice cannot be determined as the field of research on meditation techniques and their therapeutic applications has been clouded by a lack of methodological rigour. Similarly, in an systematic analysis of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders, a 2006 Cochrane review found that only two randomised controlled studies were eligible for inclusion. Only one of these two studies involved TM. In this study published in 1980, TM showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy. The review states that no conclusion can be drawn.

It gives a lot of weight to the recent analyses of meditation in healthcare settings, but it was the only way to include the AHRQ and Cochrane reviews while provoding crucial information about them. I wanted to include them in the hope to achieve a consensus, even though this is undue weight toward the clinical settings. In the Cochrane review, the fact that only two studies were eligible is their most important conclusion. It is the first thing mentioned in their conclusion and it is obviously something that must be known. The fact that TM was comparable to relaxion therapy in one of the studies is secondary because, ultimately, the authors conclude at the end that the small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Too wordy in my opinion. How much research has been done is secondary to the actual result and quality of said research. These need to be addressed more directly.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you accept that we do not worry too much about the style at this stage? I agree it is too wordy, but I think we must focus on having an agreement on what is being said, without worry too much about the style, at this stage. Within some limits, I would not worry too much about the length of the paragraph either. If we can agree explicitly on one paragraph that sum up the research, this will be a great accomplishment, a basis for a more condensed version in a different style. If you want, do propose a different wording. I might not agree, but at the least we will see the issues are only at that level.

With regard to the numbers of studies, we attribute it to the TM movement. I agree that it would not be acceptable to say "There are more than 200 ...", not because it is false, but because truth is not a valid criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. The criteria is verifiability, relevancy, etc. What is relevant and verifiable is that "The TM organisation says that there are more than 200 ...". It gives a context for the discussions of the research after. This being said, if we can agree on the remainder of the paragraph, I would not mind that much that we don't include such a statement in the lead.

In general, I believe that most statements that are pro-TM or con-TM should be explicitly attributed to their source in some way. The exceptions are statements which fairly represent the main conclusions in peer-reviewed journals, but then we must be careful to pick statements that are as impartial as possible to present these conclusions. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Further summary

How about this to sum up the research:

Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigour. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to suppress any POV with a reliable source. Provide reliable sources and if they are notable, clearly representative of a large group, we will include them. I am an inclusionist. I love to include POVs. I see no problem there. It is fun. Beside, if they really have a notable and reliable source, the information is already out there. Nobody gains anything to try to discard them. It is more interesting to include them. What I am against is when people feel so strongly that some POVs should not be represented in an article or incorrectly attributed so as to discredit them. This is an article about TM ! Why do want to exclude all the studies that have some authors that are working for the TM organisation? Perhaps you would change your mind and accept to include them, if we attribute them to the TM organisation. This would also not be acceptable. They have been published in peer reviewed journals, with an editor that is not working for the TM organisation and with reviewers that are not working for the TM organisation, not to mention that often they also have authors that are not working for the TM organization. Please consider again the proposals above, including the one of TimidGuy. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And how about my proposal above... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, if it was not for the Assume Good Faith policy, I would have thought that this paragraph was only sarcasm on your side. Well, we must start somewhere. Since Will Beback ultimately relies on scientists for the final decision for anything that involves research, it is good that you are actively involved in the discussion. So, we can start from where you want. However, I would not start on it without making sure that at the least TimidGuy also thinks it is a good idea. The first step would obviously be that you provide the papers and even the exact paragraphs that you use as sources for each POV you have in this paragraph. We will make sure that they are properly attributed and they respect what was really meant in the sources. We will need to add additional POVs. At the end, we might have something interesting. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph actually summarizes the research very well. All this content is already in the article. I do not see the previous suggestions being referenced.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if we reference the previous suggestion, that will help you. Why didn't you say it before? Should we proceed this way with the previous suggestion? As I said, as far as I am concerned, we can start where you want. You are trying to get a consensus, right? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but a consensus that stretches beyond this talk page to the whole Misplaced Pages community. We had other weight in to get to where we are now. We cannot change the substance without getting their opinions again.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc, your summary isn't at all accurate. I know of only three RCTs comparing TM with relaxation: Raskin and two by Schneider. Raskin found both TM and relaxation therapy reduced anxiety. And two high-quality (per AHRQ) RCTs by Schneider that found that TM significantly reduced blood pressure compared to progressive muscle relaxation. On what basis do you say that there's no benefit beyond relaxation? TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on Cochrane and AHRQ. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the main conclusion of the Cochrane review: "Only two randomised controlled studies were eligible for inclusion." This is the first sentence in the conclusion. This is also what is the most striking about this review. The author's conclusion is that "no conclusion can be drawn." Clearly, if no conclusion can be drawn, they have no evidence (in accordance with their standard) for the statement that "there's no benefit beyond relaxation." So, it is only in reference to Raskin that they mention something about TM and other approaches. The exact statement in Raskin is "TM showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy." I think you confuse "electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy" with "relaxation". They are not the samething. So, after adjusting the first statement to its correct source, we have this new version:

In a 1980 study, TM showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigour. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.

I do not agree with the paragraph yet, but it is a step ahead. The first sentence is attributed to Raskin, since it makes no sense to attribute it to the Cochrane review, which explicitly says that it cannot draw any conclusion. The second sentence seems to come from the AHRQ meta-analysis. We should perhaps add the main conclusions of the Cochrane review as well since it will give a much required context to the first sentence in accordance with WP:MEDRS. The conclusions of pro-TM recent meta-analyses should also be added as well in accordance with WP:NPV and WP:MEDRS.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In science the null hypothesis is assumed until prove otherwise. Thus we can say evidence does not show a benefit beyond relaxation ( the null hypothesis ) until evidence says it does. What I propose is that we each put together our best summary of the science for the lead with refs than create an RFC and give the wider community a chance to comment.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan sexual orientation

Sexual orientation hardly seems relavent to comments about TM. Although Sullivan openly discusses sprituality and gay orientation does he discuss TM and being gay. This section reads oddly to me as if we are trying to make some kind of point. A person's sexuality isn't our business nor should it be implied that it is. At any rate this is just a comment we might want to consider. I don't see it as critical, just odd.(olive (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

I suppose that, to the extent Sullivan's comments are intended to convey his opinion, as a layman, that the practice of TM is not incompatible with his practice of Roman Catholicism, the editor who added this thought it was fair game to raise the question of whether, as an openly gay man, he is actually practicing Roman Catholicism. I take it that to be the point of whomever added the description of Sullivan. Perhaps I misunderstand. That being said, I find it an odd distraction, and would not have made that addition myself. The question raises for me a more fundamental point. Andrew Sullivan is certainly a notable person, and he frequently writes about issues of religion, but he is at base a political commentator, not an expert on religion and certainly not a spokesman for the Catholic Church. His personal views, expressed in a blog, about the compatibility or lack of compatability between TM and his faith as he understands and practices it, are precisely that - his personal views about his personal views - and nothing more. He says as much, criticizing the Catholic Church for not being quite so catholic as he. Other than that he has a soapbox, are his views about his own religous beliefs, which he admits to being at odds with official doctrine on a number of points, any more relevant than yours or mine I question whether this is relevant or notable within the context of this article. Perhaps the better course is simply to delete the passage entirely. Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan is being used as a source for what is acceptable within the Roman Catholic faith. His homosexuality is not a minor part of his persona. It is major part of his commentary on his blog, much more than his religious affiliation. As Fladrif says, the fact that he also (apparently) considers homosexuality to be compatible with Catholicism is relevant because he does not hold conventionally orthodox views. We could add a sentence on the issue if that's too cryptic, but that might be giving Sullivan too much weight.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Will, you deleted all references to James Randi being a magician. That, too, is an important part of his persona. How are the two situations different? TimidGuy (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The two situations are quite different. Randi's former career was as a magician. So was Doug Henning's. One of them was a believer while the other is a skeptic, which indicates the job does not necessarily affect one's view of TM. Granted, Harry Houdini was also a skeptic when it came to spiritual issues, but we clearly identify Randi as a skeptic so it isn't a hidden POV. Obviously, a sexual orientation is different than a job. Sullivan is being presented as someone with a significant view on the relationship between TM and Catholicism. But his view that his sexuality is compatible with Catholicism is a minority view that is not shared by the vast majority of officials of the church. It is literally "unorthodox". Likewise, we identify the job title of Jaime Sin because that job (unlike Randi's former career) is relevant to the significance of his view. There are other ways in which we could indicate Sullivan's lack of orthodoxy, but all of them would require more verbiage. If you'd like to propose some language to that effect I'd be interested.   Will Beback  talk  11:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just remove the Sullivan POV entirely. I agree with Flads comments above "Perhaps the better course is simply to delete the passage entirely." --BwB (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We are making jumps in logic that constitute OR when we say, "But his view that his sexuality is compatible with Catholicism is a minority view that is not shared by the vast majority of officials of the church. It is literally 'unorthodox'. as an argument for including this information. I guess I would say, so what if his views are un orthodox on Catholicism and homosexuality... We can't then say, lets extend this view by association to TM...If he talks about TM and homosexuality great, include it, if not doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Its not a big deal, but just seems very incorrect per Misplaced Pages.(olive (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

Not really. Sullivan's views on what is and is not compatible with Catholicism are, by his own acknowledgement, unorthodox, unofficial and frequently in direct contradiction of church teaching. He's not claiming that the practice of TM is compatible with orthodox Catholicism; he's claiming that its compatible with his own beliefs. He specifically complains that the church is not as open to things like TM as he thinks it ought to be, acknowledging that his views on TM's compatibility with Catholicism are unorthodox as well. Fladrif (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, Sullivan comment - in or out? --BwB (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the Sullivan content. The concern is whether his sexual orientation is needed and is pertinent contextual information. One wonders if in all instances where we use the opinion of an individual we should add the their sexual orientation. Aren't we getting a little personal. Their orientation may very well influence them, but its always a jump for us to say so unless the sources makes that direct connection. Catholicism isn't the issue here nor is unorthodoxy. What is is TM, and sexual orientation.(olive (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

Is a sexual orientation more personal than a religious affiliation, or a mantra? How relevant to his opinion is the fact that he is "a political commentator for The Atlantic" Does being a political commentator give one expertise in this field? We cite James Wolcott in support of the material, but Wolcott is also notable, and says he practices TM too. He welcomes Sullivan to the "broad-minded, multi-denominational coalition of bliss bubblers", and tells him that he will now have to accept David Lynch as his personal savior, prance to the "rainbow melodies of Donovan", appreciate Moby, and "nod knowingly" at every mention of the unified "field". Does that material belong here or should we put it in the movement article instead?   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to cite Sullivan's sexual orientation than we may also need to cite the sexual preferences of authors mentioned in the article. Or we risk using OR to discriminate against a gay man, create undue weight and POV.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that there is the same kind of relevance with other commentators. As I wrote before, saying he is an openly gay Catholic is a short-hand way of showing that he does not agree with all of the church's teachings. The Sullivan bio says "Sullivan identifies himself as a faithful Catholic while disagreeing with some aspects of the Vatican's position." We could use that as a more verbose way of making the same point, though that particular sentence is unfortunately not sourced directly. What should we do with the Wolcott material?   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Catholic church opposes homosexuality.The Catholic church "teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care." TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the same as Sullivan's position. Not even close.   Will Beback  talk  12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by continued references to Sullivan and Catholicism. Is the article in question about Catholicicsm...Nahhhh. Its about TM.

I completely disagree with using so called short hand which sounds more like jumps in logic and drawing conclusions. Gay priest, is short hand for not agreeing with the church's teachings... No. I don't see that. A gay priest might or might not agree with the RC Church's teaching, unless gay people choose their gayness despite whatever is taught. Is there anybody here uneducated enough or prejudiced enough to believe that. Gayness is not a choice. Choosing to support doctrines is.

If its clearly a pertinent aspect of the context of Sullivan's comment on TM, and I don't see that, we need to spell it out. I don't think the short hand version gives the reader any real or accurate information.(olive (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

Olive, we're discussing a section of the article that mostly addresses the issue of the compatibility of TM with Christianity. I believe you added or wrote a good part of it, and we've discussed it extensively, so I'm not sure why you're expressing disbelief about its contents. The Catholic Church believes that homosexual activity and same-sex marriage are sins. Sullivan does not. He believes that he can engage in activities prohibited by the church and still stay in full communion, if I understand correctly.

We're not citing Sullivan because he's a political commentator or because he's gay. We're citing him because he's written extensively about religion, albeit from an unorthodox perspective. If we can find another way of conveying that he is not a conventional Catholic then I'd be fine with that instead, but I haven't seen any proposals.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase. First, Walcott is not a good source. It is a blog, a self-published sourced. Since Walcott is a notable person published in secondary sources, his blog can be used as a SPS about what he says about himself. He is being cited as a source for what Sullivan - a third person - belives. That is not permitted. The source does not qualify. Second, as to Sullivan, same standard. He can be cited for what he believes. His blog can't be cited as a source for what the Catholic Church teaches or what it thinks. He doesn't claim that it is. My impression is that the sentence was added by one editor to suggest that TM is compatible with Catholicism, and the bit about his sexual orientation by another editor to suggest that whatever he thinks ain't the official line. The source is being misused and the text very misleading. Sullivan can't be cited as a source for what is or isn't compatible with orthodox Catholicism. He explicitly says that his own views aren't the official line, and he wishes that the official line was as open minded as his on things like TM. His other writings are quire direct in describing both his affection for, and alienation from, the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons, it position on homosexuality being only one of them. Are his personal views notable or relevant for purposes of this article? I'm inclined to say, "No". Fladrif (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point about Wolcott - we can't use him as a source for Sullivan. I'm not sure if he's even serious about himself being a TM practitioner, seeing as he is so dismissive of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

how about we just remove the Sullivan text and end the debate? --BwB (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That'd be simplest solution. It's just a blog posting, after all.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Study by Smith

This addition by Fladrif is problematic for a number of reasons. It reports the results of an individual study (no therapeutic effect) done in 1976, a violation of MEDRS. (Please do let me know if we are now going to start adding individual studies to the article.) Second, the source doesn't accurately characterize the study, which looked specifically at anxiety and found that "Results show 6 mo of TM and PSI to be equally effective" in reducing anxiety. Third, the study wasn't properly double blinded, according to AHRQ, which didn't find a single controlled study to be properly blinded, and Smith's was one of the ones they looked at. If we hold this study out as an example of double blinding, then we should probably also mention the AHRQ evaluation of it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the results aren't that important, and I have no problem with removing the parenthetical. The salient point is that here was a study of TM 35 years ago that used a placebo / control group, and the source indicates that there were other such studies. As I understand it, the control group approach for the study was designed to address the fact that anyone learning TM is taught, as part of the standard teaching procedure, that it will have, and they can expect to experience a variety of beneficial effects. The studies are then trying to measure to what extent these effects are experienced or realized. So, how do you control for the possibility that the results measured from the group so instructed is nothing more than a placebo or expectation effect? Smith's solution was to instruct the control group to simply sit quietly for 20 minutes twice a day, and that by doing so, it will have, and they can expect to experience, the same beneficial effects as the TM group was being told about. So, both groups are holding Dumbo's feather. The study concluded that there was no difference between the two groups in reducing anxiety. Sitting quietly twice a day with the expectation that it will reduce anxiety has the same effect as practicing TM. Is that really double-blinding? I can see the argument that it isn't really. The TM group clearly knows they are being taught TM. But, it strikes me as a rather obvious way to create a control group that addresses the placebo effect, so claiming that it is impossible to study TM with a control group is a dubious proposition at best. Fladrif (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Fladrif, for making that change. I'd really enjoy discussing further these points about blinding, but don't have the time. I do think we should have something to indicate the AHRQ view of the double blinding in this study so that the reader doesn't assume it was double blinded in the usual sense. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fees in lede?

I am not sure if it is necessary to mention fees in the first paragraph of the lede. Do others have any thought on the matter? --BwB (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Anywhere in the intro is fine with me.   Will Beback  talk  12:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of mentioning the price? It is not very useful to mention it. We do not sale TM. I agree that there is a controversy about whether TM should be more affordable. Mentioning the price anywhere in the lead imply this controversy because it achieves no other purpose. I don't think this controversy has a place in the lead. In any case, to include this controversy, we would have to provide citation and a balanced view. 67.230.154.243 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to cite things in the intro, as they should be already cited in the text. If we say that there is a controversy, what would be the "balanced view" - that there is no controversy? Also, we're not trying to provide "useful" information. We're just trying to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. And this issue has been widely reported. It's already been discussed at great length over the past year. I suggest visiting the talk page archives.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was so clear already, why was it added only recently by you and was not there the last few months before that? Any way, I received an (automatic) request to create an account and since my original intention was only to make a few contributions, not to be a permanent editor, I will have to say bye bye. Sorry, if I do not reply to any further comment about these contributions. 67.230.154.243 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following text for the lede re fees: "Fees are charged to learn Transcendental Meditation, which vary by country." OK? --BwB (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That omits important issues. If we followed that pattern, we might say about the research, "Research has been conducted on TM, and the results have varied." That wouldn't tell the read much, nor does that suggestion, which seems to ignore the past months of discussion. Raising the same issues over and over isn't helpful editing.   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What "important issues" are omitted? We are telling the reader that TM is not free, that one has to pay a fee to learn and that the fee varies by country. Then we give more detail in the appropriate section. I just think it unnecessary to mention the fees in the opening paragraph of the article, but I am not going to fight about it further. --BwB (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't care where in the intro we mention the fees controversy, but we should include it because it's one of the more prominent controversies about the technique. Which we all know because we've discussed this already - remember?   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal of BwB is an improvement. I am not sure that even mentioning the fee at all in the intro is justified. Can someone provide reliable sources to support that we give so much weight to the fee? This info is supposedly important because of an important controversy. If that is the case, we need reliable sources for the controversy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mantra Meditation

Can we replace the statement "The TM technique is a form of mantra meditation" in the first paragraph of the lead by "TM is a trademarked meditation technique"? The same paragraph says that the TM procedure involves a mantra, so "mantra meditation" is repetitive. Moreover, the expression "mantra meditation" is not commonly used to describe TM. I sympathize with the desire to characterize TM in the first sentence, but, unless we agree to use the sentence "a simple, effortless and natural technique" as a way to characterize it, I think the best we can do on this respect is to say that it is trademarked.

Some reviews of research on meditations used the category "mantra meditation", but this has raised controversy. The procedure itself appears more important as a way to characterize a meditation. For example, Lutz, Slagter, Dunne and Davidson define two categories of meditation to help research on meditation, but do not mention even once the word "mantra" (see ref 1 just below). Instead, the categories are based upon whether focused attention or open monitoring is required. Later, Travis and Shear added a third category of meditation, automatic self-transcending, and a way to distinguish these three categories using EEG pattern (see ref 2). Again, the use of a mantra was not used to distinguish these three categories.

ref 1: Lutz A, Slagter HA, Dunne JD and Davidson RJ, "Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation", Trends Cogn Sci. (2008).

ref 2: Travis F and Shear J. "Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending: Categories to organize meditations from Vedic, Buddhist and Chinese traditions", Consciousness and Cognition (2010). 67.230.154.243 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How is being trademarked more important than using a mantra? The trademark is a minor commercial and legal issue that does not affect the meditation itself. Guru Dev did not rediscover a trademarked meditation technique, and MMY did not teach a trademarked technique in the 1950s. The trademark has received relatively little attention, except in the context of the general commercialization of the teaching process. What you've listed above sounds like it might be the basis of a paragraph on the nature or characterization of the technique, but I don't see it as a reason to change the lead. There are countless sources that describe the TM technique as involving a mantra.

PS: Could you please register an account?   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Trademarked is not more important, but we mention the use of a mantra explicitly in the next sentence, so in that context mentioning the use of a trademark is more useful. At the least it adds something. If we do not even agree on this minimal characterisation, which I can respect, then we can say "The TM technique was introduced ..." and skip the "mantra meditation" or any other characterisation. "Mantra meditation" is simply a bad way to characterize TM. It is not commonly characterised in this way. Sorry, I am not replying anymore. These were just a few contributions. I do not intend to become a permanent editor. 67.230.154.243 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You probably have more experience and knowledge in this field than I do. But in the dozens or hundreds of articles I've seen in popular and scholarly publications, "mantra meditation" seems to be a common categorization applied to TM. While I'm sure there are publications that don't use that term, of those that describe what kind of meditation it is, "mantra meditation" looks typical. Even Fred Travis has categorized TM as mantra meditation.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is not finished. Please provide the reference to Travis, so that I can see the context. We have other issues that are going on, so it goes slowly, but this does not mean that the question how to best qualify TM when it appears first in the Intro is not important. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Constructed POV about the use of research

The following sentence is a POV that is built by combining many separate published material. It is a synthesis. In fact much of the cited material is pro-TM. So, clearly this is original research. We need a citation for that constructed POV. Moreover, even if we find a citation, it is not directly about the research, but about how it is used, so it does not fit in the Researh section.

The quantity of studies have been cited to support the political programs of the Natural Law Party, the tax status of a TM institution, the use of TM to rehabilitate prisoners, the teaching of TM in schools, the issuance of bonds to finance the movement, as proof that TM is a science rather than a religion, to show the efficacy of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, and as a reason to practice TM itself.

67.230.154.243 (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a POV, it's facts. The entire article is made up of facts combined from separate publications. How the research is used is just as important as the contents of the research. We have many sources that discuss how frequently cited these sources are in various contexts. This was discussed before - could you please try to read some of the recent discussions, at least, before demanding that we re-write the article?   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No its a POV, an original research, not a very deep research, but yet an original research. The subject of TM is noteworthy. We have plenty of publications specifically on TM to prove it. The subject "The research on TM is used to promote TM" is not. You created it by combining publications that are not at all about it. Most of these publications are pro TM and certainly this subject is not a part of these publications. 67.230.154.243 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the POV? That the movement cites the research to support a variety of endeavors? We have sources who say that directly, and we have numerous instances to illustrate that. SeeTalk:Transcendental Meditation/promotion of studies These are just a few.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't say it explicitly. They might say there are many studies on the benefits of TM, but they don't say the TMM uses these studies to promote TM. This is day and night, completely different intentions, almost opposite. The statement that TMM uses these studies to promote TM is your original research, trivial, but still original research. A trivial original research is not more acceptable than a non trivial one. If it is non trivial, at the least the purpose of the editor was perhaps only to present its own non trivial research for its intrinsic value. If it is trivial, what is the purpose of including this original thesis? In any case, trivial or non trivial is irrelevant. The fact that the editors think it is important is also irrelevant. Original research is simply not allowed. 67.230.154.243 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do say it. Explicitly. The TM Org uses these studies to promote TM in all of the ways enumerated. It is a fact, not an opinion, and more than adequately documented and referenced. This section is neither original research nor pushing a non-neutral POV. As Will suggested earlier, please read the discussion archives if you are unfamiliar with them. Please read the sources, which you have not bothered to address. Read the ArbCom decision, whether or not you were party to it. Please get a user ID. Fladrif (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• MIU officials have hundreds of charts, graphs and scientific studies to validate such claims.
• Although promoters claim 500 studies back up transcendental meditation, no one has committed money.
• Administrators defensively pull out study after study to bolster their claims about meditation's ability to help people transcend normal states of consciousness and even increase their I.Q. scores.
• TM counters with a massive four-volume series of "scientific studies" proving that TM's effects are objectively verifiable...
• The platform is heavily footnoted and notes that more than 500 studies, conducted at more than 200 independent universities and research institutions, have been conducted on the benefits of TM.
• Ask why, and you'll be told about some 500 studies over the last 20 years, all testifying to the efficacy of TM in relieving anxiety, depression, insomnia and a number of other stress-related conditions.
• ...the Maharishi School asserts that more than 500 scientific research studies support the benefits of transcendental meditation and other offerings of the Maharishi School...
• Although the movement quotes the "600 studies" in its favor, some have been criticized for bias and a lack of scientific evidence.
• According to the Maharishi and his researchers - who frequently cite published scientific studies - the number of meditators needed for peace is the square root of 1 percent of a given population.
• In fact, the movement has cited 508 individual scientific studies conducted since the 1970s, measuring psychological and physiological differences between meditators and non-meditators.
• At least 600 "research studies" into TM have been conducted in the last four decades, according to Maharishi's promotional literature... These are offered as proof that TM is valid and its effects measurable.
• Nearly every conversation, whether it concerned elementary-school academic performance or cholesterol or crime-rate reduction, at some point included the phrase "There was this study.... "

And so on.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I do not disagree with all these facts, but, I insist, the corresponding documents are not explicitly saying that the TM organisation uses the studies to promote TM. It would make no sense that they do so because it is a statement that would be pointless for them to make. They are mostly pro-TM documents. I personally conclude from these facts and documents that the TM organisation does use these studies to promote TM. However, the fact that I agree with it or that anyone else agree with it is irrelevant. It remains a conclusion that is draw from these facts. This distinction is very important. It makes a big difference. The criteria for inclusion of a POV in an article is not truth. Your argument is used to convince us about the truth of the statement that TM uses these studies to promote TM, but this is not a criteria for inclusion. You must provide a citation for the statement, not to prove that it is true, but to prove that it is noteworthy. You have absolutely no citation at all to support that this statement is noteworthy. I am not playing with the policy to defy its purpose. To the contrary, the purpose of a citation is to guarantee that any POV included is not only true, but also noteworthy. I understand that you are convinced that it is important to mention it, that it is noteworthy, but I am not and what we must use to determine if it is noteworthy is the existence of a citation for it. There is no statement expressing in any way this POV in the published literature and therefore it should not appear in the article. 67.230.155.10 (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The text currently says, Leading individuals and organizations associated with TM cite the existence of many studies,... to support TM-related concepts. That is amply supported by the excerpts posted on the subpage. The excerpts above show that those citations have been frequently noted in independent sources, which shows the notability of the material.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the unamed IP user how his theories apply to this sentence:

• Research on Transcendental Meditation has been published in medical journals such as Archives of Internal Medicine (a journal of the American Medical Association), Stroke (a journal of the American Heart Association), Hypertension (a journal of the American Heart Association), the American Journal of Hypertension, the American Journal of Cardiology, and the International Journal of Psychophysiology.[128

It seems pretty similar.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In this sentence, the quality of the research is promoted. The sentence does not say at all that the TM organisation used this research to promote TM. It does not even say that the TM organisation promotes the research on TM. One can conclude from it that the TM organisation does promote the research on TM, but it does not directly say it. Again, this distinction is practical and significant. This is not playing with the policy. In a previous sentence, you say that " is amply supported by the excerpts posted on the subpage", but it is not, not in the way that is requested in the Misplaced Pages policy. When a person uses "charts, graphs and scientific studies" to promote TM, this person is not saying "the TM organisation uses scientific studies to promote TM products". The purpose of using charts is most likely to promote TM, whereas the purpose of the latter statement can be completely different. Perhaps the purpose is to bring out scepticism by pointing out that the TM organisation has a possible motivation to bias the research. This would mean that we are using pro-TM material to support a con-TM POV, which obviously does not respect Misplaced Pages policy. We all can guess that your purpose is not pro-TM, which is fine. It does not matter. We are not there to evaluate the intention of the editors. The policy is there to protect against any possible constructed POV of the editors, irrespectively of their intention. To respect this policy, it would be sufficient that you provide a direct citation for the otherwise constructed POV, say a statement by Carl Sagan that says explicitly "The TM organisation uses studies to promote TM products", assuming that such a statement exists and is verifiable. This would be completely different because now we would be able to attach the POV to Carl Sagan, a notable sceptic. As it is now, the statement is a constructed POV that is not attached to a person or an organisation. Some statements do not need to be attached to a person or an organisation. You can find explicit citation for these statements almost everywhere. "Obama is the president of the United State" is an example. Obviously, your statement is not in this category. You don't find the statement "... the use of studies by the TM organisation to promote TM products ... " everywhere. The way I see it, you will have to look carefully to find such a statement, and then we will need to know who or what organisation has this POV. I am not saying that scepticism does not exist and that it is not important to mention its existence, but you must provide valid citation for it, not try to actually create it or suggest that it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.10 (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not there to evaluate the intention of the editors. Yes, that's right. Could you please stop discussing the alleged motives of editors here and assuming bad faith? WP:AGF It makes it unpleasant to engage in discussion.   Will Beback  talk  05:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

IP editor makes interesting and subtle points here, which need to be addressed. Agree with Will, we need to focus on content not the other editors. I think the basic question IP is raising is whether or not the point about TMM using research to promote TM is POV or synthesis. --BwB (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The argument is not subtle, and it ceased being interesting. That the TM Org uses its research to promote its programs is neither POV nor sythesis. It is precisely what the sources say. Explictly. Is there a rational, fact-based POV that the TM Org does not use the research to promote its programs? Of course not. Fladrif (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation does not say it explicitly. Or, using your style: it does not say it. Explicitly. I clearly proved this point. It is not subtle. It is obvious. Regarding your question, indeed we cannot argue to support the POV that "the TM Org does not use the research to promote its programs." However, this is not why we cannot include it in the article. We cannot include this POV in the article because we have no citation for it, but we are not including it, so this is not the issue. The issue is that you include the opposite in the article and do not have a citation for the opposite either. Misplaced Pages is not about truth. You try to argue that we cannot reject the inclusion of the statement because the opposite is false. An excellent logic by contradiction, but a logic that applies to truth and false statements, which is not the criteria for inclusion. Please stop arguing for the truth of the statement you want to include. We all agree that the facts reasonably support its truth. This is not the issue. 67.230.155.14 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

These are offered as proof that TM is valid and its effects measurable.

Isn't that what we're saying in the article?   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Global Good News

I have a question about a source that applies to many articles, so I've posted it at the project talk page. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement#Sources: Global Good News. Please reply there.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Health effects

Here we state

TM has been found to produce a set of characteristic responses such as reduced respiration, decreased breath volume, decreased lactate and cortisol (hormones associated with stress), increased basal skin resistance, and slowed heartbeat. The mechanism for the effects of TM has been explained by proponents as being due to greater order in the physiology, decreased stress, and growth of creative intelligence.

however the references are not appropriate for the text. One study states that it is looking at "psychiatric issues, and specifically substance use disorders" and the other concludes "The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials."

Finally these are not actually health outcomes (reduced respiration, decreased breath volume, etc.) but are physiological changes. These two things are different.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For those following along at home:

• Dakwar E, Levin FR (2009). "The emerging role of meditation in addressing psychiatric illness, with a focus on substance use disorders". Harv Rev Psychiatry 17 (4): 254–67. doi:10.1080/10673220903149135. PMID 19637074.
• Canter PH, Ernst E (November 2003). "The cumulative effects of Transcendental Meditation on cognitive function--a systematic review of randomised controlled trials". Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 115 (21-22): 758–66. doi:10.1007/BF03040500. PMID 14743579.

I'd agree that slower breathing does not equate to a change in health.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are physiological effects, and should have been in a separate section. I'd been intending to do that. I think the references are appropriate. These are research reviews. They summarize the physiological effects before looking at clinical research in particular areas. There have been many replications of these physiological effects, and note that these two research reviews simply state them as facts. if we're gong to question sources, I think we should start with the instances where popular media are cited in violation of MEDRS. TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning sources, just how we describe study outcomes. As for critical views, "a cat may look at a king". ;)   Will Beback  talk  11:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Other religions?

We have an addition to the text - "Douglas Cowan, a Professor of Sociology & Religious Studies, gives Transcendental Meditation extensive coverage in Cults and New Religions along with Scientology, Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU), The Children of God, Branch Davidian, Heaven’s Gate, and Wicca."

Since this is an article on TM, it is sufficient that state that "Douglas Cowan, a Professor of Sociology & Religious Studies, gives Transcendental Meditation extensive coverage in Cults and New Religions". I am not sure what the additional text adds. --BwB (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It gives context to what the author is comparing it too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely the fact that TM is discussed in a book called "Cults and New Religions" is enough to tell the reader that the author considers TM to be in a cult. Is that not why the sentence and source was added in the first place? --BwB (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the POV word "extensive" in the text. --BwB (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a big cans of worms and if we get into this we'll have a hard time limiting the breadth to a single sentence. While not ideal, I suggest we defer this to sometime long in the future. ;)   Will Beback  talk  09:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could remover the recent addition, and then park the discussion for another time? Why would we accept this edit and then put a discussion on hold? --BwB (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Because getting into this means getting into the contentious issue over what we should say about TM being categorized as a cult, for which there is no easy answer. As for deleting it, it's properly sourced and relevant, so I don't think that deleting it is the right answer either.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What if others feel deleting it "is the right answer"? If we are not willing to discuss this now, then better to remove the edit that opened this "big can of worms", sourced or not. --BwB (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If editors agreed to add "Obama is a fascist" to that bio, would it be the right answer? No, it still wouldn't be acceptable. Consensus doesn't trump WP:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Will, the point I am making is that you felt that this is a "big can of worms" and wanted to park the discussion until later. However, it was Doc's edit that prompted me to ask editors if his addition was necessary. While you seem to be asking others to limit the breath of this discussion, you have not addressed Doc's specific edit. The fact that TM is discussed in a book called "Cults and New Religions" is enough to tell the reader that the author considers TM to be in a cult. --BwB (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll let James defend his own edit. He appears to be doing research on the topic and he may end up revising the sentence in the process anyway.   Will Beback  talk  12:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to clarify your position here, Will. You have made the statement "This is a big cans of worms and if we get into this we'll have a hard time limiting the breadth to a single sentence. While not ideal, I suggest we defer this to sometime long in the future." But at the same time you do not seem anyway concerned about James' edit or that he seems to want to do "research on the topic", indicating a desire to open the "big cans of worms". Do you want further developments in this area of not? --BwB (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to spend a bunch of time arguing over small matters. I do want to see the coverage of this topic improved to better reflect all of the significant views and facts.   Will Beback  talk  09:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a major textbook in this field of study. We should probably add more information from it as it represents a independent opinion of the organization. Will work on this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of a old review in an attempt to refute a Cochrane review

In this paragraph:

A 2006 systematic review by the Cochrane collaboration found that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders. The review found that, as of 2006, two randomized controlled trials had been done on this topic, one of which was on TM, and concluded that meditation is equivalent to relaxation therapy. Other research reviews cite a 1989 meta-analysis of 146 studies that found that relaxation techniques for anxiety had a medium effect size and that Transcendental Meditation had a significantly larger effect.

we have an 1989 review used in an attempt to refute a Cochrane review. The 1989 research is not relevant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The authors of the 1989 review were Kenneth R. Eppley, Allan I. Abrams, and Jonathan Shear. Eppley is a theoretical physicist and a longtime TM practitioner. Abrams has taught in the Department of Education, Maharishi International University. Shear apparently taught at MUM in the 1970s, and was later a Professor of Philosophy in Virginia. It's not clear to me that any of them have expertise in reviewing clinical trials.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The material is cited to research reviews that were published in 2006 and 2008. The Cochrane review looked at a study from 1980. (They apparently missed a 2001 RCT that included anxiety, since it's not in their list of excluded studies.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the issues may be that we're highlighting this 1989 review. Do we do the same to the 1980 study? Can we summarize the recent reviews without getting into decades-old papers?   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "Research has found that Transcendental Meditation reduces anxiety. Some research suggests that the effect is the same as other relaxation techniques, while other research suggests a greater effect." And we would add a further citation to a research review that covers the three 2001 RCTs on anxiety. This also has the advantage of reducing the word count, something that we could do throughout the research section. And it complies with MEDRS because it's exclusively citing research reviews from the past 5 years. TimidGuy (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets go with the wording of the Cochrane review which is the best available evidence on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Will, are you going to respond? I made a good faith attempt to revise according to your comment. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So long as someone with actual scientific training is willing to work on this, I'm delighted to stay on the sidelines. I'll go along with whatever you folks agree on.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Is being discussed further here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Another good source

There are a bunch of great book we can access through google that discuss TM from an academic perspective such as this one:

Bainbridge, William Sims (1997). The sociology of religious movements. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-91202-4. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bainbridge has been used in the article. Maybe give it a check.(olive (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

As I noted in a long ago discussion, Bainbridge looks like a great source that we should use more extensively.   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another book with interesting coverage of TM is:

• Wallis, Roy (1984-01). The Elementary Forms of the New Religious Life. Routledge & Kegan Paul Books Ltd. ISBN 0710098901. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Wallis was a sociology chair at the University of Belfast. Unfortunately, it's a bit old.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps these books would be better used in the TMM article, especially a book titled "The sociology of religious movements" Is this article not about the TM technique? --BwB (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about TM not just the TM technique. It should give an overview of the subject matter.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc, what do you mean by "TM" then? --BwB (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If folks want to limit the scope of this article then we ought to change the name to "Transcendental Meditation technique". I think that would be a good idea.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition of TM from the EB is "spiritual movement that was founded by the Indian teacher the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917?–2008).", the OED has " e. transcendental meditation: a method of relaxation and meditation based on the theory and practice of yoga popularized in the West by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; abbrev. TM (see T6a); hence transcendental meditator. A proprietary term in the U.S." So it is both a movement and a technique and is used frequently to mean a combination of the two.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Over 200 scientific studies

• Over 200 scientific studies published in peer review journals have examined the effects of the technique.
  • http://www.mum.edu/tm_research/ MUM official web site with bibliography of the 200+ studies

Looking at the linked page, I don't see any mention of "200 scientific studies published in peer review journals". Instead, that page says: "The research studies below were selected from over 350 published studies (see Bibliography) conducted at a wide range of independent research institutions." How do we get 200+ peer-reviewed studies from the 350 published studies mentioned in the source?   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that page had said something to the effect of 200 but is likely in the process of being revised and updated. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It was added just a few weeks ago by Keithbob. The Internet Archive doesn't have anything for that page after 2008 (when the contents were quite different). So, what do we do with it? Maybe KB can explain his edit.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the text in the lede to reflect ref. --BwB (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You changed it to read:

• Many scientific studies published in peer review journals have examined the effects of the technique.

The source says:

• The research studies below were selected from over 350 published studies (see Bibliography) conducted at a wide range of independent research institutions.

The source doesn't mention anything about peer-reviewed journals and doesn't even say that they examined TM. Didn't the ArbCom say something about summarizing sources accurately?   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe continuing updating is taking place on these research pages.. Now it says peer reviewed. TimidGuy (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee, that's awfully convenient. Fixing the source to match the assertion. Maybe we shouldn't be using sources that change so frequently and easily.   Will Beback  talk  09:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

When this first came up a number of days ago, I happened to see the webmaster and suggested that the research pages needed to be updated. He said he would discuss it with Fred Travis, who's dean of the graduate college and who makes these sorts of decisions based on the evidence. They copied me on an email in which they decided on particular changes, including the figure of 350 peer-reviewed studies. So I knew it was their intent to change it. When you mentioned it yesterday, I realized that the webmaster had updated the figure but mistakenly left out peer review. He may not even have realized the difference between peer reviewed and published studies. So I suggested that he look back at the wording of the original email. He did so, and made the fix. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming clean on this. But if we are basing the article on sources that say what editors here tell them to say then we've got a fundamental problem. From now on, I think we need to be much more wary of using TM.orgMUM.edu and its anonymous webmaster as a source and must attribute any material taken from it. I'd suggest that we also archive any pages that we do cite for verifiability.   Will Beback  talk  10:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The outrageousness of this transcends credulity. Editors driving content at self-published sources and then pressing to use those sources in articles. This is completely beyond the pale. We have to very seriously question whether any TMM official site can be used for anything, as the process for inclusion of content on those sites has been fundamentally corrupted. It also re-raises issues addressed, if only obliquely, in the ArbCom decision, but those are for another forum.Fladrif (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to remember how it came to my attention. And I recall now that it was as a result of my work on the science paragraph in the lead. I clicked on the link and saw that the information was outdated. What is so outrageous about finding outdated information on the university's website and mentioning it to the webmaster? What should I have done? What would you have done? Is outdated information supposed to be left in place so it will conform to what Misplaced Pages says? Yes, this is relevant to Arbcom, specifically their injunction regarding AGF. TimidGuy (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And where did I press to use that source? In fact, the revised version of the lead that we agreed on excluded that information. TimidGuy (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it was me, a pro-TM, that (in the recent history) first suggested to remove it from a given paragraph in the lead! We understand that, with regard to the number of studies, we can only write "The TM organisation says that there are ....", and not "There are ...", that is, such a POV must be attributed to its source because it is not as if it appeared in some governmental statistics. Even if it was found in a governmental web site or some other independent source, one could still argue that it should be attributed because we cannot suggest that Misplaced Pages considers that this statement is important or that it is universally considered important. However, once the statement is clearly attributed, I don't see where is the problem. In fact, it can be a nice way to introduce a paragraph about the quality of the research. A quality assessment becomes even more relevant in that context. It can be totally impartial. It can also be biased either way depending on the context. In particular, I can easily see a way to use this statement to serve the purpose of the con-TM and that is why I suggested to remove it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the citation entirely. It's obviously not reliable in the conventional sense of the word - it changes too frequently and easily. It's not even clear if it represents the "movement", or is just whatever the anonymous webmaster decides to put in on any given day. This, and other movement sources, should probably only be used with care and attribution.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes as some of those who are editing here have close affiliation with MUM what MUM publishes directly would be self published and thus the text must follow WP:SELFPUB.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of debate whether the MUM site should even be used as a source for the TM article and other non-MUM topics. MUM is not TM, so the exemption for self-publication may not apply. TM.org would be the relevant self-published site.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed one unnecessary citation, and attributed the rest. I also replaced the undependable direct links with permanent web citations. This matter calls into question the integrity of MUM and of editors here. Among other things, it demonstrates why people should avoid editing topics where they have a conflict of interest.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact what should be considered here is the honesty of a single editor. He asked a web master to clarify content on a web site. Is anyone here naive enough to think that universities do not on a day to day basis monitor the accuracy of their web sites. Was including peer review inaccurate. Any one take a look at UCLA and wonder about advertising. A dishonest editor would not have admitted to what TG did. He didn't have to say anything. Per the Arbitration I would suggest that editors AGF and not use the actions of one editor to gang up on a whole group of editors, creating by doing so a toxic environment That looks odd to me, and one wonders about motives.

That said Will makes a good point. The definitive information on any university must be itself. MUM is an accredited university that uses the TM technique as a supplement to the usual courses. TM.org is the official site of the TM organization. For Misplaced Pages purposes we should probably delineate the two. Content that references the university can be used to describe the university about itself. Content that references the organization should probably come from the TM.org site. Attribution in the text of the article provides context, letting the reader know where the information comes from and allows the reader to make decisions.(olive (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

"...one wonders about motives" Yes, one does wonder about motives. This concerns several editors, starting with the one who won't explain why he added material that didn't appear in the source, and extending to those defending this behavior. I'm not aware of any error in the previous version of the cited webpage, so the argument that it was spontaneously corrected doesn't fly. We have TG's own statement that he initiated the change, and that when the webmaster didn't make the change needed to support the material already in this article TG contacted him a second time to tell him to get it right. TG only admitted what he'd done after days of questioning. Telling a webmaster what to write on a webpage being used as a source so that it supports what an editor wants to add to the article is tantamount to fraud. Please don't ask us to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's hard to trust sources that are so easily manipulated, and editors who feel so comfortable doing whatever is necessary to triumph in an editing dispute.   Will Beback  talk  04:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You must assume good faith when you interpret facts (the actions of another editor). You don't, so you violate Assume Good Faith. Actually, you even admit that you violate this policy when you argue that it is difficult to do otherwise. Please, realize that it is only difficult for those people that do not assume good faith when they interpret facts. If you assumed good faith to begin with, your interpretation of the facts would be different and you would find it easy to continue to assume good faith. You have to break the cycle that brings you to violate the policy. I do not know how to help you to get out of this cycle. As you say, it is not easy, I sympathise with you, but it remains that you are in serious violation of an important policy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Will... I'm going to suggest that you do not fall into a pattern again of accusing all editors when you perceive one editor has made a mistake. I am neither supporting nor condemning TG. Its not my business to do that. I'm stating the obvious. TG did not have to admit to anything, but he did despite days of questioning which sounds outrageous to me. This is not a court and you are not the prosecuting attorney. TG is not a prisoner of war but you sure a heck make it sound that way. Lets move on please.(olive (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Olive I suggest you do not fall into the pattern of accusing me of things I haven't done. I never accused "all editors" of anything. I'm not going to move on until we've resolved the problem of using sources that are influenced by editors here.   Will Beback  talk  18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@Olive, actually I am going to make a judgment on TimidGuy: he did nothing wrong, he seems to be one of the most honest editors I ever seen. Will BeBack had nothing to generalize. Yes, sure we can forget about it and move on.

@Will BeBack, as long as you evaluate the reliability of web sites, not editors, especially not their actions outside Misplaced Pages, you are within the policy. An editor can include his own research in Misplaced Pages if it is published in a reliable source, so certainly he can communicate with an editor (the webmaster in this case) for such a source. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether TG acted in good faith or not doesn't matter, so sure, let's assume good faith. For the record, I assume TG acted in good faith. But if a driver accidentally runs over a pedestrian there's still a problem, even if they meant no harm. The process here seems to be that Editor A added material that wasn't in the source. Editor B noticed this and asked about it. Editor C arranged to have the source changed to match the assertion made by Editor A. Editors D & E came to the defense of Editor C and criticized Editor B. I think this is a problematic set of events.   Will Beback  talk  20:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fix, please

We have just made correction to a section of the “Transcendental Meditation Movement Article” regarding an erroneous remark that the Spiritual Center of America had lost its tax exempt status. In fact, as we saw, the SC remains a tax exempt institution, as the court simply ruled that the SC was not entitled to exemption from property taxes but never challenged the SC's non profit status. This was graciously corrected by Will. The same thing needs to be done in this article, in the sections “Transcendental Meditation Movement” and also in the section "Research funding, publication, and promotion".

The Section “Transcendental Meditation Movement” states “Two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council) in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied tax exempt status because they were found not to be educational organizations. In fact a reading of both sources reveals that only exemption from property taxes was at stake, not the tax exempt status of the organizations as a whole. Therefore the sentence should be corrected. Additionally, as in the "Transcendental Meditation Movement" article itself, one of the sources used for reference is a personal blog. This too should be corrected.

Additionally, in the section "Research funding, publication, and promotion", it is stated that the scientific studies on TM have been used to 'assert the tax status of a TM institution, ' Again, the source refers to the case World Plan Executive Council-United States, et al., v. County of Ramsey which dealt exclusively with property tax exemption and not the tax exempt status of the organization as a whole. I think it should be corrected. Thanks to whomever undertakes this.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which source is a personal blog?   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you must have meant the Rick Ross site. I'd have thought that you would know by now the difference between a source and a convenience link. See WP:Convenience link.

I've corrected the text to make it clear that the issues were with property tax exemptions.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the changes and fixing the citations. I'd like to see the sentence a little bit clearer still: Your wrote that WPEC and the SC "were denied property tax exemptions because they were found not to be engaged in educational activities". I don't think that was really the case. with the SC the court found that the educational activities were not sufficient because they did not involve the entire property, while the state of Minnesota seems to have a different standard and will grant tax property exemptions only to a 'purely public charity', which they decided WPEC was not. You might wish to say something like the educational activities of the organizations did not did not reach the threshold of a purely public charity in one case, and did not involve to the entire real estate in the other --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To avoid being too verbose, how about just saying "were denied property tax exemptions because they were found not to be engaged in sufficient educational activities"?   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But this suggested text Will is not correct in both cases. Can we not tell it like it is? --BwB (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How so?   Will Beback  talk  05:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Luke tells us "Minnesota seems to have a different standard and will grant tax property exemptions only to a 'purely public charity', which they decided WPEC was not." So we can say what you propose for SC, but not Minnesota. --BwB (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "because the percentage of their property being used for educational or charitable purposes didn't meet the threshold set by the state"? TimidGuy (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Same thing with fewer words: "because they didn't meet the relevant requirements."   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read everyone's suggestions and, while I admit that my sentence is a bit verbose, as Will said, I think it is more precise and more neutral than Will's. For that reason,, I still would rather see that one than any shorter one suggested so far. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that your version is more precise, though I'm not sure for the need for greater precision. But I don't quite see how the extra words make it more neutral. It seems like adding more words gives this more weight, which might be less neutral.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that your sentence works well enough in regards to the SC ruling, but as for Minnesota, being a public charity and conducting educational activities are not the same thing at all, and the public charity standard is much stricter, limited to property tax exemptions, and would never be used to determine the tax exempt status of any organization (unlike the standard of educational activities, which might apply to both, up to a point). In my mind saying the the organizations were not conducting sufficient educational activities might be extended by the reader the a view of organization in general instead of just applying it the narrow realm of property exemption. So it seems less neutral to me, if you will.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That still sounds to me like they "didn't meet the relevant requirements", which seems broad enough to cover almost anything. But if you can write a short, succinct description then go ahead. The detailed version belongs in the TMM article.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Procedure and process:Clarify

As I remember, per a previous discussion on adding content without first discussing it, I'd like to clarify the process and procedure here for adding content and for making other substantial changes to the TM articles. Discussion and agreement first, or add whatever one wants. I'd like to suggest that no one add further content until a procedure has been agreed on. Thanks.(olive (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

I proposed that but there wasn't much interest. I don't think we should have a moratorium pending the possibility of such an agreement, since I don't think one is likely.   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Olives suggestion is a good idea for content edits. For grammar, punct., and other minor edits, no discussion. --BwB (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If one is adding info from high quality sources I do not think discussion is needed. Otherwise we might need an RfC for everything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Olive that we have a serious problem now because one side waits before including info from reliable secondary sources or to edit info already in the article that do not respect these sources while the other does not. The pro-TM editors appear to wait because they expect an agreement in the talk page. The other editors feel that they have the best understanding and evaluation of the sources and, on that basis, feel that they do not need to wait. As a result, the article is currently totally biased, does not respect the WP:DUE policy, etc. On the other hand, if the pro-TM editors were to adopt the same attitude, we would get into an edit war. This is a serious problem. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We have these edits here which does not fit the pattern you elude to :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'd say there's a fair amount of this kind of addition from most everyone. Nothing wrong with it. From my side I want to clarify and record our agreed upon process as we go forward. (olive (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Edit conflict: This was the procedure used in past times on these articles and it was slow but worked with the support of all editors which we had for a fairly long period of time. However, I'm fine with editors adding content they feel is neutral and observes WP:Weight as long as this is a consistently adhered to (by all editors) procedure.(olive (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Oh wait! Isn't that called collaboration.. :o)(olive (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

If you want to use past activities as a precedent then you'll need to provide some diffs and talk page archive links as evidence.   Will Beback  talk  18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@Olive, I had in mind, for example, the fact that, beside this very recent addition about reduction of blood pressure, we did not add any info about the measured effects of TM in the Intro, which is the most important. We say that there are studies, but we don't mention the conclusions of these studies, except this recent blood pressure addition. The only thing that is said about these studies is that no conclusion can be drawn or that TM has no effect, except this recent blood pressure addition. Research did not only show that TM reduces blood pressure. Obviously, we are waiting on important issues. I was not judging or criticizing. It was just an observation. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rearrangement of lead

I appreciate Doc's efforts to rearrange the lead so we have four paragraphs. I've attempted to do more in that direction. I'll continue tomorrow.(olive (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

References

1. Evidence that Fladrif is uncivil.
2. Unseemly behavior of Fladrif.
3. Ospina p.4
4. Murphy M, Donovan S, Taylor E. The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation: A review of Contemporary Research with a Comprehensive Bibliography 1931-1996. Sausalito, California: Institute of Noetic Sciences; 1997.
5. Benson, Herbert; Klipper, Miriam Z. (2001). The relaxation respons. New York, NY: Quill. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-380-81595-1.
6. Sinatra, Stephen T.; Roberts, James C.; Zucker, Martin (2007-12-20). Reverse Heart Disease Now: Stop Deadly Cardiovascular Plaque Before It's Too Late. Wiley. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-470-22878-4.
7. Travis, Frederick; Chawkin, Ken (Sept-Oct, 2003). New Life magazine. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
8. MUM official web site with bibliography of the 200+ studies
9. Ospina p.v
10. Cite error: The named reference Cochrane06 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. Cite error: The named reference Dakwar09 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
12. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wien Klin Wochenschr. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

RfC: How to best summarize the scientific literature on TM

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

We have been having an ongoing disagreement over how to best summarize the scientific literature on TM. I have proposed the following to replace "Scientific studies published in peer review journals have examined the effects of the technique. A 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for the treatment of anxiety." Others may also make proposals. Recent discussion have taken place: RS Noticeboard, ArbCom case, and on the TM talk page.

Addendum added by involved editor: All commenting editors please make sure to read the research section in the article to make sure proposed leads summarize that section per WP:LEAD(olive (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Suggestion 1

Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigor. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.

1. Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP. (June 2007). Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research (PDF). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. p. 4. A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. ^ Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N (2010). "Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 6: CD006507. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2. PMID 20556767. For this study there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the drug therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -2.72, 95% CI -8.49 to 3.05, 15 patients). Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -0.52, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.84, 17 patients). There was also no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group in the distraction test (MD -8.34, 95% CI -107.05 to 90.37, 17 patients).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. ^ Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M (2006). "Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1): CD004998. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2. PMID 16437509. The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M; et al. (2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 4. PMID 17764203. A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M; et al. (2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 1–263. PMID 17764203. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
6. Canter PH, Ernst E (2004). "Insufficient evidence to conclude whether or not Transcendental Meditation decreases blood pressure: results of a systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Journal of Hypertension. 22 (11): 2049–54. PMID 15480084. All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
7. Canter PH, Ernst E (2003). "The cumulative effects of Transcendental Meditation on cognitive function--a systematic review of randomised controlled trials". Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 115 (21–22): 758–66. PMID 14743579. All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures... The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Comments from involved users

1. I feel this is an better summary than we currently have. It is the best avaliable articles on the subject matter at hand. I have added the lines of texts used under "quote" in the references to make it easier to determine how each sentence is supported.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
2. I'm no scientist, but I have read some of the cited papers. This draft seems to be a good summary of their relevant findings. The choice of studies appears to be in keeping with the guidelines at WP:MEDRS, using the best available sources while avoiding excess weight on fringe views. This draft is easier to read than the existing text in the intro and would be a significant improvement to the article, from what I can tell. I hope this is something that can be resolved without turning it into a major fight.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Doc, you can't make stuff up, as you have. And you can't completely ignore NPOV, as you have. Please show me the clinical research that compares Transcendental Meditation with relaxation. There are only three randomized controlled trials in the citations you give that compare TM with relaxation, and the AHRQ meta-anlaysis of two of them found that TM had a statistically and clinically significant effect on blood pressure compared to relaxation. The only generalization one could make about relaxation based on the research you cite is that TM has found a health benefit compared to relaxation. TimidGuy (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Ah these are two of the most prestigious research organizations in the world. They are systematic reviews of the literature. They looked at nearly everything that was published. I provide direct quotes from all the sources to support these statements.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   I don't understand. For example, you quote a finding that uses health education as a comparator. How does that allow you to make a generalization regarding relaxation? TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Agree and changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   The problem remains that there's no support for the first statement, and the second is one-sided, as is the rest. Remember the feedback that we got at RSN. The lead is supposed to be a fair summary of what's in the article. This is not. TimidGuy (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Let agree to disagree and wait for outside opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   This isn't rocket science. The lead must summarize what's in the article. If it doesn't, it must be considered poorly written in a technical way, and can end up, as is the case here, being biased because it omits information. Simple.(olive (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

4. The first and second sentences use the same sources (the first and the fourth references are about the same meta-analysis, a meta-analysis done for the AHRQ). The first sentence is only an interpretation against TM of the second sentence: if no conclusion can be drawn, then no advantage has been found. However, only the second sentence is the main conclusion of these sources. In particular, the AHRQ meta-analysis was also published in a peer-reviewed journal which did not mention at all that TM has no advantage over other approaches. The two references provided by Doc James for the AHRQ meta-analysis were not peer-reviewed. If the first sentence was an important conclusion of the meta-analysis, why it is not included in anyway in the peer-reviewed version? Similarly, the Cochrane review only says that no conclusion can be drawn. Doc James refers (not even correctly) to a conclusion of a 1980 paper that was included in this review, but it was not the conclusion of the review. The last sentence is a subjective point of view that is highly controversial and assume that the peer-reviewed journals, the editors and the reviewers, did not properly review the studies on TM that were submitted to them. Though it may happen, it may happen against as much as in support of TM. A response was published (I think in the same journal) to rebut this controversial viewpoint. This controversy has no place in the Intro, even if we presented the two sides, certainly not if we present only one side. The main problem, however, with this proposal is that it excludes important point of views about the physiological and health effects of TM that are found in other reliable systematic reviews that are published in peer-reviewed journals. It is totally one sided. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

One again all sources that I have used are from the most highly respected evidence based research organizations in the world. I do see that the science is being less and less well represented in the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The AHRQ should not have more weight than other respectable peer reviewed journals. In fact, since it acted as the editor while it was the source of funding for the report and moreover used a non standard peer-review process, it should have less weight. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Comments from uninvolved users

Sources appear to be of the sort promoted by MEDRS and the summary neutral. I support the change, as it is much clearer than the original text and provides an accurate summary.Yobol (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to the addendum added by another user, I agree that the proposed suggestion #1 does not follow explicitly WP:Lead in summarizing the research section; clearly the way to resolve this problem is to update the research section to follow it. I agree with the proposer of the RfC that most weight in research section should come from large, independent reviews (i.e. Cochrane reviews, the AHRQ review) with less weight to other smaller reviews. Yobol (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we change the article to suit a lead? (olive (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

No, I'm suggesting that the article needs revision, and this lead would be a good template for that change. Yobol (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that's backwards. We need to look at the research in a holistic way, be aware of it, in its entirety then draft the article. Choosing a lead with out that knowledge can only create inaccuracy and subsequent slant and bias. A lead can only be a template if we have a comprehensive view first. (olive (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

All medical issues, per MEDRS should be based on high quality reviews (such as Cochrane, etc). That is the comprehensive view. Both the lead and the article can be adjusted at the same time.Yobol (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In support to Yobol, I must say that a Misplaced Pages article is not static and both the Intro and the body of the article can change. I don't think we can use WP:LEAD to fix the content of the article. In support to Littleolive, I must say that, in general, it is common to first write the body of an article, without worry about the Intro, and write the Intro after. Therefore, I would suggest that those who edited the Intro against WP:LEAD in the past should not repeat that again.

Where Yobol does not have a point at all is when he says that we should exclude the meta-analyses that are not published in Chochrane review or the AHRQ. In particular, this excludes peer reviewed journals that cover traditional medicine. Modern medicine is more recent and thus complementary in a sense to traditional medicine. Traditional medicine might not have a large weight in some specific governmental agencies and in large pharmacological corporations, but it has a large weight in the population and is supported by very respectable governmental agencies. It is used a lot. It makes no sense in an article about TM not to give an equal weight to these other reliable peer review journals. Besides, excellent meta-analyses, other than those in Cochrane Review and AHRQ, were published in journals covering a more general area than traditional medicine. Why should we exclude any of these excellent meta-analyses, which also respect WP:MEDRS? The specific scales used to exclude studies in Cochrane and AHRQ are not MEDRS policy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes though I would start with the lead and than move onto the body of the text.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

At no point did I say we exclude everything except Cochrane and the AHRQ analysis. I said the highest quality secondary sources that are independent should be given the most weight (both in terms of coverage and our wording and summary) and form the framework of the section on medical researech; other MEDRS compliant secondary sources should be added to supplement this, with due weight (if they are not independent, if they are smaller, etc.) Yobol (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This proposed text summarises the article content accurately and is more compliant with WP:MEDRS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being.

Suggestion 2: Comments from involved users

1. The first ref by Murphy is from 1997. The Dakwar ref looked at "The emerging role of meditation in addressing psychiatric illness" not physiological effects. The next ref says that physiological effects are NOT supported by the evidence. "The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials." The Anderson ref was funded by an unrestricted gift from Howard Settle a well known TM supporter and thus not independent. The conclusion of the peads study with respect to ADHD is refuted by a 2010 Cochrane review mentioned above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Fine, we can use Ospina for information about the extent of the research. Canter and Ernst say that there are physiological effects. Their conclusion about cognitive function is unrelated. There are many additional sources for physiological effects. If funding disqualifies a study, then we'd have to remove all the findings regarding the pharmaceutical research. The Peds mention of ADHD research isn't mentioned in this article. It cites the other findings. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

   Were do Canter say physiological effects? I provided their text above were they said it was do to "expectation effect" . This version totally misrepresents the references used and the sum of the scientific literature. It emphasizes point that are neither here no there (the amount of research done) without sufficiently emphasizing it actually conclusions. This reads too much like a TM press release. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

2. This looks good to me. The first and second sentences are supported by the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews. The second sentence corresponds to the main conclusion of these reviews. The third sentence is supported by other reliable systematic reviews. The whole paragraph is simple and cover all point of views. Doc James is incorrect when he says that the main conclusion of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews is that TM is not better than relaxation. He argued before that, if no conclusion can be drawn, then no advantage has been found. This argument uses an absence of conclusion to actually suggest a negative conclusion on TM. In one study included in the Cochrane review TM showed effects comparable to biofeedback and relaxation therapy. This was a 1980 study. It is not a conclusion endorsed in the review, which endorsed no conclusion. More recent systematic reviews (and studies included therein), which did not use the strict criteria used in the Cochrane and the AHRQ reviews, support the third sentence. These other reviews are peer-reviewed. Some of their authors were independent from the TM organization. Certainly, the reviewers and the editors were independent of the TM organization. These are thus independent peer-reviewed reliable sources. The criteria of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews are not Misplaced Pages policy. They are supported by one point of view and cannot be used to exclude other point of views and thus violate Neutral Point of View and Reliable Source . They should not be used by an editor to create its own interpretation of the sub-policy WP:MEDRS for medical claim, which does not specify any specific criteria to assess studies, but suggest that we rely on recent systematic reviews instead. Not all of them use the criteria of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews. It is not the job of the editors to assess the criteria used in reliable peer reviewed systematic reviews. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 2: Comments from uninvolved users

Problems with Research quality

We have this line starting the section on Research quality:

Various research reviews have identified some studies as being well-designed, rigorous, or high quality.

The first ref looks at a limited amount of research. The second ref is not completed and older. They contradicts the AHRQ review which covered all of the research. Therefore the AHRQ's conclusions should come first per WP:DUE. Attempted to change this but was reverted.

Here is more info for the second ref "An Analysis of Recent Meditation Research and Suggestions for Future Directions Shauna L. Shapiro and Roger Walsh 86 url=http://www.brittonlab.com/publications/Shapiro,%20Walsh,%20Britton%2003.pdf "It is not indexed in pubmed. The paper does not actual say the research is rigorous but "The results of past research are qualified by their limitations in methodology. We suggest the following criteria to insure future rigorous designs:" So it says the research is infact not rigorous.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That review was published in two different publications, including The Humanistic Psychologist, an APA publication. It characterizes one of the studies as being rigorous and all of them, other than those included in the introductory, historical section, as being well designed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide the exact text from the ref. Which review was published in two sources? Can you give a PMID. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The AHRQ report is in fact peer reviewed

We have heard over and over that the AHRQ is not peer reviewed. This is a claim that is pushed by the TM movement in an effort to discredit this major scientific report. It is however wrong as on page 25 of the report it states:

Peer Review Process

During the course of the study, the UAEPC created a list of 18 potential peer reviewers and sent it to the AHRQ TOO and NCCAM representatives for approval. In May and June 2006, the individuals on the list were approached by the UAEPC and asked if they would act as peer reviewers for this evidence report. Seven experts agreed to act as peer reviewers (Appendix A)* and were sent a copy of the draft report and guidelines for review (Appendix D6).* Reviewers had one month in which to provide critical feedback. Replies were requested in a word processing document, though comments were also accepted by email and telephone. The reviewers’ comments were placed in a table and common criticisms were identified by the authors. All comments and authors’ replies were submitted to the AHRQ for assessment and

approval. As appropriate, the draft report was amended based on reviewer comments and a final report was produced.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. And, while I am not, at the moment, inclined to go througn the archives to check this and provide a diff, my recollection is that Timid Guy acknowledged that the AHRQ meta-analysis was peer reviewed, but complained that the comments from TMM-associated members of the peer-review panel were not accorded sufficient weight prior to publication - arguing that, IIRC, (and, quite frankly I am 110% certain that I do recall correctly) those two reviewers should have had what amounted to veto power over release of the meta-analysis. Fladrif (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There've been so many discussions of this review... But this might be the one you're thinking of: Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 18#Ospina/Bond report, et seq.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Memory....All alone in the moonlight...... Yeah, that is exactly what I had in mind. Sadly, I recall that there is more, in other tendatious threads, to the same effect, but that will suffice. Fladrif (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The AHRQ/Ospina papers have been discussed on at least a dozen archived talk pages. I'm afraid that whatever consensus is achieved here in this current discussion won't last, and within a couple of months there will be changes to it and a fresh set of discussions. It's hopeless.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The supression and gross misrepresentation of the AHRQ meta-analysis is what first attracted my attention to these articles in early 2009. But, as I documented at ArbCom, this pattern began back long before Misplaced Pages ever darkened my door (or I darkened its door, depending on one's perspective) - from the moment the analysis was issued. In over a year and and half since I have been looking at these articles, nothing has changed. Not discussion of MEDRS, not Project Medicine, not COIN, not even ArbCom has slowed downed the effort to completely misrepresent what it found. I agree. It is utterly hopeless in the face of determined and relentless POV pushing. Fladrif (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. It's me that wrote in the Notice Board that AHRQ was not peer-reviewed. I guess that I did not register this info when I looked at the report. However, this mistake was doomed to be rebutted. If it can be used for any propaganda, it is only against the TM organisation. This being said, it does not change much the main issue. If I am not mistaken this time, a report on the meta-analysis has been prepared for the AHRQ which also acted as the journal that takes the final decision. It seems to me that it is only for the better that this meta-analysis has also been the object of a paper, which has been sent for review to an independent journal. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Huh? The journal this was published in is the journal of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHRQ) Were are you getting the claim of another journal from? This is an independent organization. They have not republished it in a separate journal.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know why ESL is using words like "propaganda" to refer to a peer-reviewed meta-analysis. I asked before if there wa any reason to think there was bias on the part of the AHRQ, but didn't get a response. Can we settle this once and for all?   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Will, the term propaganda was used to refer to my mistake, not to the meta-analysis. I said that it can hardly be used against the AHRQ because it was so easy to rebut. Also, it's not me that first used this term. Yes, please let's move on with the current issue, which is the meta-analysis that has been prepared for the AHRQ and its main conclusion. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Doc James, the reference was provided in Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#AHRQ_and_Transcendental_Meditation where the same issue is discussed. Here is the PubMed number PMID: 19123875 . When you say that the AHRQ is an independent organisation, what do you mean? Even the big corporations are independent organisations. Independent from what? To say that it is an "independent organisation" means nothing in itself. In my case, I meant that the other journal (see the reference) and the AHRQ are independent organizations, independent from each other. I also meant the other journal is not connected in anyway with the host university or the authors through governmental funding or any funding. Therefore an additional peer-review through this journal is significant.

@Will, don't accuse me to say that the AHRQ, which acted as the editor, or a related agency has funded the research at the university. I don't know that. I am just saying that we know that the other journal is only a journal: it does not have other functions. Don't accuse me to say that the AHRQ editors are indirectly funded by big corporations. I don't know that. I heard in popular media, as every one else I guess, that these corporations give a lot of money in different ways to people and agencies in the government, but I have no idea about what is going on personally. The only thing I say is that an additional review in an independent journal can only be a good thing. Please do not take it as an accusation against the AHRQ. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a different paper published by the same people looking at characteristics and quality. It is not the same paper published in an independent journal. Thus it is not an independent peer review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is a different paper, but I assume that it is the same meta-analysis, the same quality assessment and thus the same results. Only, the wordings, the way they discuss the results, things like that are different. This allows us to see what is fundamental to this meta-analysis and what is not. Are you saying that they did a different meta-analysis with different quality assessments immediately after? It is very unlikely, but even if that was the case, the argument would not change much. It is still a systematic review of meditation. The conclusions that depend on the details of the quality assessment criteria are less fundamental and cannot be stated out of context, the context being the quality assessment criteria. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While it is the same data set it asked different questions of this data set. It is NOT the same meta analysis but is rather systematic review.

This study is based on a comprehensive evidence-based report available online at www.ahrq.gov: Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, et al. Meditation practices for health: State of the research. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2007;155:1–263.

This study was a systematic and comprehensive review of clinical trials indexed in the scientific literature that have evaluated the effects of meditation techniques.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It had 7 reviewers. Usually the peer reviewers have the opportunity to evaluate whether the study authors appropriately implemented their suggestions. That step didn't happen with AHRQ. Instead, there was an internal review. It was a woman with a master's degree in public health, no training in the sort of analysis used in this review, and no experience with clinical research. In every case where the study authors didn't implement the suggested change, she didn't ask for further revision. She basically rubber stamped it. Notably, at least 4 of the 7 peer reviewers said that the authors shouldn't use double blinding as a standard of assessment. Even Canter & Ernst say "It's not feasible to blind participants" and didn't require that studies be double blinded when assigning Jadad scores. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And you have a ref to support this? There are more problems with the research than the lack of double blinded studies. This is BTW all the mantra meditation research not just the TM stuff. Only 2 double blind studies. Only half reported funding. Only 3 had appropriate concealment. And these are the randomized ones. It is obvious to a 10 year old that the research base is poor. Well it seems that TM publishes a huge amount which they like to brag about little of the work has any real scientific substance to it.

Pg 65 Table 11. Methodological quality of RCTs of Mantra meditation
Randomization; n (%) All
Double blinding; n (%) 2 (1.2)
Appropriate randomization; n (%) 15 (13.3)
Inappropriate randomization; n (%) 3 (2.7)
Description withdrawals; n (%) 50 (45.0)
Total Jadad score (max 5); Median (IQR) 1 (1, 2)
Number of high quality RCTs (Jadad scores ≥3); n (%) 13 (11.6)
Appropriate concealment of allocation; n (%) 3 (2.7)
Funding reported; n (%) 49 (44.1)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

@Doc James, using only the problem with the double blind requirement, TimidGuy made a strong point that the AHRQ did not adhere to standard peer-review practices. Clearly, other issues in the methodology used in this meta-analysis have escaped attention. All these issues have culminated in the evaluation that you presented above. This alone would require that we do another meta-analysis, but this time under standard peer-review practices. It is certainly a good thing that, as a minimum, a different review (even though based on the same report and meta-analysis) has been published in a journal that uses standard peer-review practices. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The review you mention only deals with the quality of the research not the results of the research. Same data different questions being asked. TimidGuy has not provided sufficient sources for his conclusion to be accepted as valid. We do know that peoples who lively-hood and identity depend on TM disagree with a major report that found it either ineffective by and large for improving health outcomes or that there is insufficient evidence to support the claims of improvement.

I have asked TimidGuy for references to support his opinion... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy mentioned that four reviewers had comments about double blinding, but I only see two reviewers and a technical expert mentioned in OJ's rebuttal. What are the names of the reviewers and where are there complaints recorded?   Will Beback  talk  08:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@Doc James, you are right when you say that, in the paper, they decided not to review the efficacy of the different techniques shown in previous meta-analyses and studies, but to focus on the characteristics and the quality of these studies instead. To rephrase my argument accordingly, they focused on characteristics and quality only because, in the context of the AHRQ report, they found that this was the most important. I must say though that I realize that this was not the strongest of my arguments to show that the sentences you pick have a low weight. The strongest and more direct argument is that, in the AHRQ report, when they summarize the efficacy of the different techniques, they only say that meta-analyses show TM and other techniques significantly reduce blood pressure. They had nothing else to say about the efficacy of TM in this summary. I know, you don't care. Instead, you just want to look for your POV in the report because pushing this POV is your objective. You find it somewhere in some section of the report and you feel this is the important thing that must be said in the Intro. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment on blood pressure in the lead

The report states on page 4:

We summarized the evidence from RCTs and NRCTs on the effects of meditation practices

for the three most studied clinical conditions identified in the scientific literature: hypertension (27 trials), other cardiovascular diseases (21 trials), and substance abuse disorders (17 trials). A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of

physical activity in hypertensive patients

Why have we removed comments regarding this from the lead? A comparison to health education seems more appropriate a conclusion than to no control:

TM® (no control)

Blood pressure. Three before-and-after studies295,311,319 totaling 58 participants provided data on the effect of TM® on blood pressure (mm Hg) in hypertensive populations (Figure 32). The combined estimate of changes in SBP indicated a statistically and clinically significant improvement (reduction) favoring TM® (change from baseline = -10.95; 95% CI, -17.52 to - 4.39). There was substantial heterogeneity in the study results (p = 0.16; I2 = 64.1 percent). The combined estimate of changes in DBP also indicated a statistically and clinically significant improvement (reduction) favoring TM® (change from baseline = -6.86; 95% CI, - 169 10.54 to -3.19). There was moderate heterogeneity in the study results for DBP (p = 0.16; I2 = 46.3 percent). All three studies were of low methodological quality; moreover, the potential biases inherent in the before-and-after design may be responsible for the variability of results. Similar interventions, durations (not reported by Benson311), and study populations were used in the three studies. Though all three studies examined hypertensive patients, the baseline measures suggest that the DBP of participants in the Benson311 study (mean DBP 94 ± 9 mm Hg) was

lower upon entrance to the trial than the other two studies (minimum 90 mm Hg).

The conclusions regarding the comparison to health education was based on 337 participants while the data on no control was based on 58.

We could change it to "While TM lead to blood pressure improved in uncontrolled trials it made no significant difference when compared to health education". But I still thing what I have suggested above in the RfC is better.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is also critical that, if any mention is made of supposedly favorable findings of the AHRQ meta-analyisis as to TM, that prominent mention is made that those findings are based on what the analysis characterized as studies of poor quality. To do otherwise is grossly mispresentative of the study. Fladrif (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@Doc James, I know that the sentence "TM® had no advantage over health education ..." is in the AHRQ report. I also suspect that this sentence represents particularly well your view on the research on TM. However, we cannot pick any sentence we like in a reliable source and include it in the article, especially not in the Intro. In the Intro, we must make sure that we write the sentence that is the most representative of all relevant reliable sources. Otherwise, it could become cherry picking. This sentence does not have enough weight (in the relevant sources) to be included in the Intro for two reasons.

First, the most important conclusion in the report prepared for the AHRQ was already included. This conclusion is that most of the studies had a poor methodology and it is difficult to draw conclusions. The sentence that you picked in the report adds nothing to this conclusion. It says less. It can be trivially deduced from it, as you actually pointed out to me. Certainly, this sentence can be more easily interpreted against TM and it seems to correspond to your view. We cannot pick a sentence in a source, which adds nothing to its main conclusion, just because it corresponds to our POV.

Second, we can further explain the small weight of the picked sentence. In principle, it could be that the community of experts in the area feel that this particular sentence is important to mention because it is easier to interpret it against TM, just the way you want, or for some other reason. Fortunately, the same meta-analysis was also published in a peer-reviewed journal independent of the AHRQ. The second part of the argument is that, if this particular sentence was as important for the community of experts in the area as it seems to be for you, it would also appear in this paper, which considered the exact same meta-analysis, had the same Ph.D. authors, except one, and three additional Ph.D authors. It's the same meta-analysis prepared for the AHRQ, but sent to an independent journal, not to the AHRQ. This independent paper contains nothing about Transcendental Meditation Vs other techniques. So, though I am sure it is important for some experts in the area, this sentence is not a consensus, only a non impartial interpretation of some experts, which we can only see in the reports prepared for the AHRQ.

Don't misinterpret me. I am an inclusionist. I am sure we can find a way to include it in the remainder of the article, but we will need to provide the proper context and it is not possible in the Intro. We want to include all notable viewpoints, but we want to make sure that they are properly attributed. You don't have a case to support that it is a consensus amongst all the authors, reviewers and editors that considered the meta-analysis. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thus the request for comment above... To clarify the same meta analysis was NOT published in any other journal as claimed above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The information is in the abstract. They must have combined the outcomes of the various meta-analyses and determined that there was an overall significant reduction in blood pressure. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a quote from the text that supports your opinion? I agree that the meta analysis found improved blood pressure compared to progressive muscle relaxation and compared to no control however did not for health education. It also found that TM had no advantage over health education to improve measures of body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients. All these conclusion are based on poor quality evidence involving small numbers of people.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is in the summary of the results of the structured abstract. It says:

Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure.

This summary of the results is for all the topics covered in the report. Your sentence "TM has no advantage over health education ..." is not in this summary. It appears in the section Topic III. If your TM vs health education sentence had the same weight, it would have been in the main summary together with the other sentence. This is a third argument (in addition to the two arguments that I presented above) that shows that your sentence has low weight. If any sentence about blood pressure should appear in the Intro, it is the one that says that Meta-analyses showed that TM significantly reduced blood pressure. It is the only statement about TM that we can find in the main summary of the result. However, I do agree that the main conclusion of this report is certainly not that TM reduced blood pressure. In fact, the statement begins by saying that the Meta-analyses are of low-quality, etc. We cannot attribute this statement to AHRQ. Just to be clear, we could rephrase it this way:

The previous meta-analyses, which showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure, were based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants.

Also, here is a sentence from the conclusion in the structured abstract

Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results.

The main conclusion of this report and the way it describes the blood pressure studies in its summary of the results is not pro-TM at all. However, it is the POV of the source. There are other sources with different POVs. Our job is to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant POVs that have been published by reliable sources. In particular, the idea is not to make a synthesis of all POVs. We cannot also claim that a POV is the POV of the community at large because we believe that two or three secondary sources are representative of this community when there is a different POV that is also published in many reliable secondary sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is from the abstract not the summary. I have previously provided the content of the summary which is reflected in the RfC above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we add a few sentences on the best practice standard used in Cochrane and AHRQ?

I feel that this will provide a context for a discussion on the quality of the research. Many readers might naively think that this standard consist only of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) or know even less about it. Of course, it's more than RCT. The need for RCTs was known much before, even in the 1980's. This best practice requires that the controlled conditions are as close as possible to the evaluated conditions, much closer than in RCT only. For example, the subjects should not be able to find out in which of the two conditions they are. The person who makes the measurements also should not know in which of the two conditions a subject is. This is double blinded RCT. The best practice requires even more than that. Anyway, we would have to take this directly from a reliable source. I think the reviews themselves explain it. We might not need other sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We have the section on "Research quality" already were this is discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with this 2008 meta-analysis?

Besides the fact it is not published in Cochrane or AHRQ and that it conflicts with their conclusions, what is wrong with http://www.tmcentrum.cz/image/metaanalysis_anderson.pdf . The authors work for independent organizations. The journal was American Journal of Hypertension. Here is the summary of the results from the paper:

Nine randomized, controlled trials met eligibility criteria. Study-quality scores ranged from low (score, 7) to high (16) with three studies of high quality (15 or 16) and three of acceptable quality (11 or 12). The random-effects meta-analysis model for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively, indicated that Transcendental Meditation, compared to control, was associated with the following changes: −4.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), −7.4 to −1.9 mm Hg) and −3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, −5.4 to −1.3 mm Hg). Subgroup analyses of hypertensive groups and high-quality studies showed similar reductions.

It is interesting to note that 7 out of the 9 eligible studies controlled for Health Education. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Was funded by a well known proponent of TM "This research was funded, in part, by the HCF Nutrition Foundation and by an unrestricted gift from Howard Settle. During a 1-year study period J.W.A. received partial salary support from Mr Settle." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I looked up the HCF Foundation. It's the lead author's own small foundation. The initials refer to its purpose, which has something to do with studying dietary fiber and diabetes if I recall correctly. As for who funds the foundation, that's harder to tell.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

@Doc James, this meta-analysis provides a second opinion different than the one that was funded by the AHRQ. I guess that you saw the connection with Howard Settle and the HCF in the paper itself. So, the editors and the referees were aware of this and must have been very diligent about it. The point is that this meta-analysis has the advantage that Howard Settle and the HCF were not the editors. On the other hand, the AHRQ acted as the editor and provided the funding, both. The editorial process, the choice of the referees, the peer-review process itself, etc. is much more important than the funding. A declared funding from interested organisations is one element to consider, but are you saying that the three authors, the referees and the editor of a prestigious independent journal were all corrupted? I would say that the AHRQ situation is more problematic. We have at the least a case to include both with equal weight, especially when discussing blood pressure. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We will once again have to agree to disagree and wait and see what the community of Wikipedians have to say on the matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking that both sides must try to get as much votes as possible to support its POV, no matter how much the voters know about the sources, how much they can understand them? Even though I could win it, I am not playing that game because it is a terrible POV pushing. I assume that as an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, you understand now that it does not work that way. Both sides will have to agree enough to create a nice, informative, neutral article on TM. The outside opinions are just there to help us in this process. I welcome them, but I feel that you know very much the current sources, you are a MD, so you know how to read papers, etc. whereas an external editor might not be as knowledgeable and familiar with the sources as you are. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be loathe to completely exclude a journal article from any wikipedia article based solely on its funding source; if the journal article is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal and the authors are otherwise independent and there is no evidence of undue influence on the authors, then it probably should be included in the research section. Am I missing something? Yobol (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is already included in the research section and no one here is discussing removing it. However due one of the a researchers being funded by Howard Stern and the fact that the study was funded by this well known proponent of TM its conclusions do not belong in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, I was confused about whether this discussion was about removal from the article or was about the lead. I would agree that studies where the authors are actively employed by TM groups as longstanding practice should probably be avoided in the lead, especially given independent analysis showing possible bias in results in research from this group and doubleblinding is already difficult to obtain; but in this case only part of the salary of one of the researchers is paid (and that researcher appears to be an otherwise active member in good standing in the academic community), so it seems more of a judgment call here. I have no strong feelings either way. Yobol (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) If the community supports one version over another with the only people disagreeing with the changes being a group with ties either financially or personal to the topic at hand than yes we will go with the version supported by the wider community. One does not need consensus of all editors involved. Reading some of the comments here I think this might be a situation in which a consensus may not be possible.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Independent source that gives the number of studies done

For mantra meditation 141 RCTs and CCTs were found during a systematic review. This is much less than the questionable claims of the TM literature. TM is a subgroup of mantra meditation so the numbers for TM might be slightly less. 111 of these were RCTs. PMID: 19123875 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for these numbers ! They do not contradict the numbers in the TM websites because peer-reviewed journals will publish NRCT, even non controlled trials, if the findings provide useful indications for further research. Still, I feel these numbers are interesting. Can you find the exact numbers for TM? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like 60 trials total on TM.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean RCTs and CCTs. It's possible, but I am not so much informed about these kind of statistics to make a judgment. I know that there are nine RCTs on blood pressure and it is one of the most studied health effect. Do you have the source, the page? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just a summary of the appendices in their 2007 review. Which covered the period through September 2005, excluded studies not done on adults, and missed 90 relevant studies on TM. And of course we have Canter & Ernst's independent tally of over 700 studies. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Temporary summary of research in the Intro

I am proposing that for now we use the following as a summary and focus on the research section itself.

In the 1950s, the Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) had presented itself as a religious organization. By 1970, the organization had shifted its focus on scientific research. Today, TM is reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. However, a 2006 Cochrane review on the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders found that only two studies were eligible for analysis. It further noted that in one of the two studies TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy, but said that no conclusion can be drawn. A 2007 review reported that meta-analyses show transcendental meditation and other techniques significantly reduce blood pressure, but following its own meta-analysis concluded that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality.

It contains only Cochrane and AHRQ, but it is temporary. We will make sure that WP:LEAD is respected, but first let us make sure that we agree on the research section. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that that is not exactly the conclusions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As Doc says, this is an inaccurate and incorrect summary which misrepresents the results of these studies, and attempts to cherry pick positive things out of the text rather than accurately summarizing the conclusions of the researchers themselves, in direct violation of WP:MEDRS. That is not, to my view, the only problem, but it is more than enough to reject this outright. It is unacceptable, even as a "temporary" proposal. I know of no acceptable editing practice in Misplaced Pages to propose "temporary" text that is fundamentally inaccurate and misleading. The current text in the article is accurate and appropriate. Fladrif (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I say "the current text", I guess I have to revisit that, because ESL has been furiously rewriting the article, without discussion or consensus, and in ways which seriously misrepresent the research. So, when I wrote "the current text" I had in mind the stable version before this tendatious rehashing of arguments long settled. Fladrif (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an impartial account of Cochrane and AHRQ which can be found in their summary of results and conclusion. It's not cherry picking at all. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This proposal seems to have the problems that the formal proposals above seek to avoid.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to return to the RfC started above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The research section in the lead isn't accurate. More discussion needed.(olive (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

Disagree everything in the lead if referenced to the best quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My proposal above is referenced to the same sources and uses their main conclusions and results as stated in the abstracts. The exception is TM vs relaxion therapy, but we could take it out. Moreoever, there are other POVs in highly respectable peer-reviewed journals, which are also among the best sources and therefore should also be added in accordance with NPOV. This proposal is much better than what is currently in the lead, but it is still missing other important POVs. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. One needs an appropriate comparator. Health education is reasonable. No control is not reasonable. The number for PMR were much smaller than for HE. If you still disagree with me you may request a third party opinion at the one of the notice boards or at WP:MED.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Best quality sources" is a judgement call and not agreed upon here. As well, the lead and how it is written is a technical writing concern. It must summarize what is in the article. Then, it must do so to comply with WP:NPOV, without bias. Discussion of the sources needs to take place, but per what is added to the article. Although WP:IAR, we might as a group decide to do something unusual in the lead, good writing style anywhere dictates a lead or intro to a paper or article summarize clearly what is to come in the article, and is an aspect of writing style and not a negotiable point of we want a good article. So yes, the lead needs work., and the research aspect of it is not acceptable at this point.(olive (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

You will need to convince Misplaced Pages editors who are not practitioners of TM the validity of your argument. So far you have not done so per discussion at the reliable source notice board, the RfC above, and the Misplaced Pages Med talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

MTV article

• Earlier, Lynch himself had come out onstage to address the crowd — if "address" is the word. Actually, the director had no set speech to give; he only took questions from the audience. This brilliant stratagem allowed him to talk about whatever he wanted, pretty much, and he used his answers to the various inquiries to extol TM's usefulness in relieving stress and unleashing what would probably have to be called positive consciousness. ("Negativity blocks creativity," he said. And "Know everything within and you'll know everything without.") TM has its detractors — killjoys who call it an exploitative cult. (You can Google them.) Lynch, however, has clearly found the practice of meditating for 20 minutes, twice a day, to be valuable in his work, and he would like to see TM taught in schools — as it is, of course, at Maharishi University.

And editor is adding assertions to the effect that Lynch himself said that "TM has its detractors — killjoys who call it an exploitative cult." However I think it's clear that the author places Lynch's comments in quotation marks, and that sentence is not marked that way. I'm not sure that MTV.com is the best available source on this issue, so I recommend deleting it. But if we keep it we should make sure it's correct.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we directly quote a source then we need to place quotation marks around the text otherwise we're plagiarizing it.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no response, but the editor removed the material.

However more new material is being added to the lead that isn't in the article. I suggest we should put the material in the article first and then add it to the lead.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor was me. I was just looking at some statements from high profile TM exponent about the detractors. I thought I had one, but I realize that I was mistaken. I guess I am mistaken from time to time. Apparently, there is none - they are ignored. Besides, the style "killjoy ... " does not fit with Lynch. This being said, I feel the rule of working on the article and keeping the Intro in accordance with WP:LEAD is not enforced amongst us. You right though, I think we should enforce it. So, we will not use the Intro as a template for the article as some suggested and we will maintain this Intro in accordance with WP:LEAD. Thank you Will, to remind us. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the lead shouldn't be used as a template for the rest of the article. When we're revising the article it's natural to work on different parts. But I don't think we should be adding brand new material to the lead that has never been added to the body.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They are two ways of violating WP:LEAD, but I think the use of the Intro as a template is worst. It means that you even organize the Intro in violation of WP:LEAD. You have no problem with it I guess because it pleases you. However, in view of the recent edits, it is clear that the Intro is much more arbitrary at any given time than the article itself and, therefore, we should not use it as a template. Certainly, we should not edit it further as a template and violate WP:LEAD even more. Otherwise, unlike what you suggest, it would just be natural, much less complicated, if we allowed this template to add additional materials. My point was that you indirectly reminded me that we should not do any of this because it violates WP:LEAD. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which template you're talking about. WP:LEAD is a guideline. We can violate if there's a good reason. Very few articles follow it precisely.   Will Beback  talk  04:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question - TM in schools

I wonder if what we are saying about TM being taught in some public and charter schools in recent years is really accurate. A superficial review of the sources seems to indicate that TM is being offered as an option - one of many - during "Quiet Time", but I get the impression that TM is actually being taught outside the schools, and outside of regular school time, and that a big deal is made out of the fact that the puja ceremony - which is the center of much of the controversy - at which the student is given his or her mantra, is never conducted on school property or during school time. Have I missed something in the sources saying that TM is actually being taught in these schools, or do we need to tweak the text a bit to say that it is being practiced in public and charter schools, rather than taught? Fladrif (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted a citation request tag on a related issue. In the lead there's this sentence:

• In recent years, TM but not SCI has been taught in schools.

Yet we don't mention anything about SCI being taught (or not) in schools in recent years.   Will Beback  talk  07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole Intro, which reliable sources should be used, etc. needs to be revised. It's not the time to consider the details of a particular sentence. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Olive has fixed the part that I was concerned about so I'm satisfied. (Thanks!)   Will Beback  talk  11:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are concerns with the lead, and it would be helpful to focus on one part at a time. Flad makes a very good point, though. I'm not in a position to check all of the sources but I think using "practice" instead of teaching would cover both practicing in the schools and teaching the technique in the schools, so I would be happy to have it changed.

As an aside in most schools SCI is not taught only the technique is, and the sources don't say SCI was taught, but proving a negative is not an easy task and I doubt at this point trying to source "no SCI" is a waste of time and energy . As Edith S L says there are larger issues(olive (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

1. Murphy M, Donovan S, Taylor E. The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation: A review of Contemporary Research with a Comprehensive Bibliography 1931-1996. Sausalito, California: Institute of Noetic Sciences; 1997.
2. Benson, Herbert; Klipper, Miriam Z. (2001). The relaxation respons. New York, NY: Quill. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-380-81595-1.
3. Sinatra, Stephen T.; Roberts, James C.; Zucker, Martin (2007-12-20). Reverse Heart Disease Now: Stop Deadly Cardiovascular Plaque Before It's Too Late. Wiley. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-470-22878-4.
4. Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, et al. (June 2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evidence Report/technology Assessment (155): 1–263
5. Cite error: The named reference Dakwar09 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Wien Klin Wochenschr. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ Anderson JW, Liu C, Kryscio RJ (2008). "Blood pressure response to transcendental meditation: a meta-analysis". Am. J. Hypertens. 21 (3): 310–6. doi:10.1038/ajh.2007.65. PMID 18311126. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. Black DS, Milam J, Sussman S (2009). "Sitting-Meditation Interventions Among Youth: A Review of Treatment Efficacy". Pediatrics. 124: e532. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-3434. PMID 19706568. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
9. Cite error: The named reference The Humanistic Psychologist 2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• Start-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Start-Class Transcendental Meditation movement articles
• Top-importance Transcendental Meditation movement articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment