Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Other subpages:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources

Meaning and sound value

A quick look at the sound value section shows a number of conflicts with mantra-shastra and with the talks of the Maharishi. Let's go through this one paragraph at a time and try to improve the errors in a factual and readable way. I'm afraid what's happening here is we're getting a lot of "Maharishi said" type statements and it's clear not everything he is stating is actually factually correct.

This would be a good place to introduce the meanings behind the mantra, perhaps even give an example to demonstrate.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Kala, Just curious. You've made many authoritative-sounding statements; here you've referred to mantra shastra and talks of Maharishi as though you were familiar with them. This familiarity is unusual, as most people have not been exposed to this particular knowledge. I have been very open here about my background (a summary is on my User page). It would be interesting, and possibly helpful, if you shared some of your relevant background. Myself, I'd love to have an off-WP discussion with you about bija mantras, since I use them with hundreds of clients. I know you don't feel welcome here because of all the criticisms (you're not yet an expert WP editor), but I for one appreciate the range of points of view represented by all the active editors here. David spector (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mantra shastra was not taught that much several decades ago. It's become more common now. I was fortunate enough to train under an expert decades ago. It's definitely something critical to understand before giving them out to clients. And then one should possess a high level of initiation into the actual original practices.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Current Refs which Violate WP:FRINGE

A list of current scientific papers which violate the WP:FRINGE in the entry Transcendental Meditation.

Some guidelines in removal and editing from WP: FRINGE (emphases, mine)

"Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising."

Independent sources

"While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. If independent sources only comment on the major points of a fringe theory, an article that devotes the majority of its space to minor points that independent sources do not cover in detail may be unbalanced. "

"Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance."

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas.

"Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable.

Papers are listed by relative appearance in the entry. May not include all non-compliant citations. "Other" non-compliant magazine articles, etc. to be listed separately.

Study or Paper name	Independent?	Reasons/Other
Morris, Bevan (1992). "Maharishi’s Vedic Science and Technology: The Only Means to Create World Peace". Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science 5 (1–2): 200.	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM president, profs and/or affiliates
Travis, Frederick; Chawkin, Ken (Sept-Oct, 2003). New Life magazine.	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Travis F, Haaga DA, Hagelin JS, Tanner M, Nidich S, Gaylord-King C et al. Effects of Transcendental Meditation practice on brain functioning and stress reactivity in college students. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2009 71(2):170-176	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Travis, Frederick; Chawkin, Ken (Sept-Oct, 2003). "Meditation Can Change The World". New Life magazine.	NOT Independent
Schneider, R.H. et al., "A randomized controlled trial of stress reduction for hypertension in older African Americans", Hypertension 26: 820–827, 1995	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Wallace, R.K. et al. "The effects of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on the aging process", International Journal of Neuroscience 16: 53–58, 1982	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Orme-Johnson, D.W. and Herron, R.E., "An innovative approach to reducing medical care utilization and expenditures", The American Journal of Managed Care 3: 135–144, 1997	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Alexander, C.N. et al., "Treating and preventing alcohol, nicotine, and drug abuse through Transcendental Meditation: A review and statistical meta-analysis", Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 11: 13–87, 1994	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Wallace RK. Physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation. Science 1970;167:1751–1754	NOT Independent
Wallace RK, Benson H, Wilson AF. A wakeful hypometabolic physiologic state. American Journal of Physiology 1971;221:795-799	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Wallace RK. The Physiology of Meditation. Scientific American 1972;226:84-90.	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Dillbeck, M.C., and D.W. Orme-Johnson: 1987, "Physiological differences between Transcendental Meditation and rest", American Psychologist 42, pp. 879-881	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Travis, F.T. & Wallace, R.K. (1999). EEG and Autonomic Patterns during Eyes-Closed Rest and Transcendental Meditation Practice: The Basis for a Neural Model of TM practice. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 302-318	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Stress Reduction for Hypertension in Older African Americans, Robert H. Schneider et al., Hypertension, 1995, 26: 820-827	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Stroke. 2000 Mar;31(3):568-73.		Author names missing, needs verification
David W. Orme-Johnson, Vernon A. Barnes, Alex M. Hankey, and Roger A. Chalmers, "Reply to critics of research on Transcendental Meditation in the prevention and control of hypertension," Journal of Hypertension 2005, 23:1107–1110	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Schneider RH et al.. "Long-Term Effects of Stress Reduction on Mortality in Persons >55 Years of Age With Systemic Hypertension" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-09-12.	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Schneider RH et al.. "A randomized controlled trial of stress reduction in African Americans treated for hypertension for over one year". Retrieved 2006-09-12.	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Effects of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation on Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Subjects With Coronary Heart Disease, Archives of Internal Medicine, Maura Paul-Labrador et al.,, Vol. 166 No. 11, June 12, 2006	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Orme-Johnson DW, Schneider RH, Son YD, Nidich S, Cho ZH (2006). "Neuroimaging of meditation's effect on brain reactivity to pain.". Neuroreport 17 (12): 1359–63. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000233094.67289.a8. PMID 16951585. PMC PMC2170475.	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
VOLUME 21 NUMBER 3 | AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, pp. 310-316	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates; financial ties
Anderson, p. 313	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates: financial ties
Integrative Cancer Therapies (Vol. 8, No. 3: September 2009)		Author names missing, needs verification
Nidich, S.I. and Nidich, R.J. Increased academic achievement at Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment: A replication study. Education 109: 302–304, 1989.	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Intelligence (September/October 2001), Vol. 29/5, pp. 419-440		Author names missing, needs verification
Eppley K, Abrams A, Shear J. Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1989, 45: 957-74	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
SI Nidich, MV Rainforth, DAF Haaga, J Hagelin, JW Salerno, F Travis, M Tanner, C Gaylord-King, S Grosswald, and RH Schneider. A randomized controlled trial on effects of the Transcendental Meditation program on blood pressure, psychological distress, and coping in young adults. American Journal of Hypertension. 2009, Vol 22(12):1326-1331. doi:10.1038/ajh.2009.184.	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Mason LI, Alexander CN, Travis FT, Marsh G, Orme-Johnson DW, Gackenbach J, Mason DC, Rainforth M, Walton KG. "Electrophysiological correlates of higher states of consciousness during sleep in long-term practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation program." Sleep. 1997 Feb;20(2):102-10.	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Travis, F. T., Tecce, J., Arenander, A., & Wallace, R. K. (2002), Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. Biological Psychology, 61, 293-319	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Travis, F., Arenander, A., & DuBois, D. (2004). Psychological and physiological characteristics of a proposed object-referral/self-referral continuum of self-awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 401-420	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates
Wallace 1993, pp. 64-66	NOT Independent	MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates

Agree and removed most of them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Jmh649.

It appears some of the refs have been entered to deliberately conceal TM Org affiliated authors. For example:

Study Name / Authors	Independent Source?	Reasons / Other
Paul-Labrador M, Polk D, Dwyer JH, et al. (June 2006). "Effects of a randomized controlled trial of transcendental meditation on components of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with coronary heart disease". Arch. Intern. Med. 166 (11): 1218–24. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.11.1218. PMID 16772250.	Looks OK...or does it? (see below)	Superficial examination of citation makes it only appear Independent.
Maura Paul-Labrador, MPH; Donna Polk, MD, MPH; James H. Dwyer, PhD; Ivan Velasquez, MD; Sanford Nidich, PhD; Maxwell Rainforth, PhD; Robert Schneider, MD; C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD "Effects of a randomized controlled trial of transcendental meditation on components of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with coronary heart disease". Arch. Intern. Med. 166 (11): 1218–24. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.11.1218. PMID 16772250.	Bold-faced authors were truncated and all have TM Org affiliation, therefore this cite is Non-Independent	Study has TM Org/ MUM.edu conflicts
Nidich, S, Fields, J, Rainforth, M, Pomerantz, R, Cella, D, Kristeller, J, Salerno, J , Schneider, R, A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effects of Transcendental Meditation on Quality of Life in Older Breast Cancer Patients. Integrated Cancer Therapies 2009, 8(3):228-234	NOT indepdendent	Numerous MUM.edu and TM-Org affiliates

--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is a review I am okay with mentioning it. Many medical papers have extensive conflicts of interest. If you can provide a reliable source that shows the Anderson paper has COI we could add this point.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The paper linked above is not the article referenced in the article. The paper linked above is not a review; the paper by the same lead authors linked in the article is. Woonpton (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Health effects

We have a great review of TM from 2007. Will be rewording much of this section to comply with the most recent research.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good start. The next step is to significantly cut back on the text which relies exclusively on the citation of primary sources and overwhelm the relative handful of reviews that are the only appropriate sources to be used here. Thanks for getting involved.Fladrif (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be good of you could give the editors here a look at what will be posted before you make radical changes in this article. This is a highly contentious article, and including the editors who consistently work on this article would be an appropriate and is the accepted procedure on these pages. Thanks(olive (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Since I know you were participating on the Fringe and RS Noticeboards, as were most of the regular editors of this article, you can hardly claim to be suprised by these edits. The consensus of the previously-uninvolved editors that this was the appropriate approach to address the interrelated POV, Fringe, RS and COI issues with these articles was as close to unanimous as anything I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia, and it was a fairly large group of editors. Or is this yet another example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?Fladrif (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If this material had been discussed before it was added then we might not be in this mess.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Faldrif. The notice board discussion, and it is a discussion, is on the ME studies not the TM studies. Whether I am surprised or not is not an issue. Changes on a contentious article should be discussed.

If you want to discuss what is on going on the Fringe Notice Board that is another, and separate discussion.(olive (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

You know that is false, so why are you making this claim? The problems with the health-related research on TM were specifically discussed on those noticeboards, as well as the problems with the ME research. The discussion of this article included specifically the improper weight and reliance being put on primary studies by TM-Org affiliated authors, and the fact that the Ospina_Bond meta-analysis is the kind of source that is properly used in preference to those sources, and should be prominently featured and the primary sources not used in an attempt to "rebut" it. Fladrif (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a link above, but it may have been missed. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Transcendental_Meditation.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif. The initial post on the Fringe NB is on the ME studies, and is ongoing. I did not even consider the posts on the Wikiproject Medicine page as Noticeboard posts. Whatever changes are suggested to this article and to any of these article because they are contentious should be discussed. I would ask that any new editors please abide by that convention.(olive (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

The Wikiproject Medicine page functions as the noticeboard for issues related to WP:MEDRS. From my experience with this and related pages, the "convention" of discussing edits before making them is not widely followed. WP:BRD is another convention, and perhaps as well suited.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Replacing old primary research with recent review articles is not controversial. As the health effects falls under WP:MED the refs should follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is contentious. Making massive changes as is being done is not the norm. However I am one editor so there is very little I can do in the face of such aggressive editing.(olive (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

I note that you have an admitted COI Little Olive Oil along with TimidGuy. Perhaps it would be best for you to just observe? I'd hate to see your IP get blocked or something like that.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only was this discussed at the Medicine page, it was also discussed in great detail at the Fringe Noticeboard. You actively participated in that discussion. Between those two Noticebards, I count six uninvolved editors and four involved editors who are unanimous about the appropriateness of this approach to the TM Medical research material. Zero uninvolved editors agree with you or TimidGuy on this. You cannot seriously contend that this was not discussed at length, or that you were unaware of it. To claim that this wasn't discussed there is simply false.Fladrif (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No Fladrfi. I did not see it that way. I saw this discussion as ongoing and whose focus despite the mud throwing to be about the ME effect. I also was aware of this comment by a knowledgable editor who actually looked at the ME studies and seems to be saying they are relaible. [2] I felt that this would be a legitimate discussion on the ME talk page. Sadly prejudice and bias dominate, and incivilities are accepted and condoned. (olive (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

There is nothing contentious here. We have reviews that cover the health aspects of this topic. We reflect here what these reviews conclude. Easy yes? The review BTW deal specifically with TM.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead your addition to the article does not, in fact, summarize the state of research on the TM technique or the research in the article as should happen in a lead, but is a meta study which summarizes a few studies. A very different thing. Further this is not a medical article although yes, there is research on the health effects. Your addition of such content to the lede of an article that is contentious (please read the tag at the top of this page) is not the standard . However for the moment I won't remove it for discussion, but instead will hope that with more knowledge of the area you are dealing with, you will change it yourself.(olive (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Is there a recent comprehensive review published in the peer reviewed scientific literature that disagree with the 2007 review referenced in the lead?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Before Jmh649's edits, just under half of the article was devoted to the medical research. Now it's about 20%, still a significant part of the article. There's no reason the medical research should not be mentioned in the intro. Wherever medical research is discussed, we should follow WP:MEDRS.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus at the numerous places were this is being discussed is that the health section should be based on scientific reviews of the literature. I have left in a couple primary research studies but feel by and large my changes conform with the current community consensus.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The content in the lede as I said in no way reflects the research on the TM technique. A lede does not require a review based on a few studies. But per WP:lead serves "both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article" The lead should per this definition reflect and summarize the state of the research as a whole, and what is in the article as a whole. It doesn't and should be rewritten or removed. (olive (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

(undent) Which part of the lead do not reflect the article as it now stands?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several hundred peer reviewed studies on the TM technique most of which found benefits. The second paragraph describe only a meta study and creates the impression that there are no health benefits. This is not NPOV, and creates a bias in the article. The lead must accurately summarize the research and the research in the article to comply with lead. As it stands right now it doesn't and must be changed per WP:Lead section and WP:NPOV.(olive (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

The lead should summarize the article, and the article should be consistent with WP:MEDRS, WP:NOR, and other policies and guidelines. We're not here to summarize all the research conducted. Reviews and meta-analyses serve as secondary sources by separating the wheat from the chaff.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

When I say summarize the research, I mean should accurately reflect the research and must summarize the article, nor does one meta study serve to summarize what is in this article. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough..(olive (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

It can either be removed or rewritten,unless I'm missing something. (olive (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Nice job, Doc. I do think this is quite an improvement. I wonder if we could somehow note the scope of AHRQ -- that it covered studies on adults done through 2005 and excluded research that wasn't on adults. There was a review in Pediatrics last September on meditation interventions among youth. Seems like we could include that in the article, since it covers the area outside the scope of AHRQ. (David S. Black, Joel Milam and Steve Sussman, Sitting-Meditation Interventions Among Youth: A Review of Treatment Efficacy, PEDIATRICS Volume 124, Number 3, September 2009) TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy, can you point to a PDF or copy of this article in full? It's impossible to determine what, if any, impact this has in regards to TM. Thanks.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The review quoted in the lead does accurately summarize the research. I do not understand the issue? Do you have another scietific review that disagrees? I think Timids suggestions are good. Fell free to add the review from pediatrics. Will look at it latter today.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how we can say the review in the lead summarizes the content below taken from the article. The review in the lede accurately describes itself and one other paragraph but goes no further than that.(olive (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

A 2008 review however found a 4.7 mmHg systolic blood pressure and 3.2 mmHg diastolic blood pressure decrease in those who practiced TM verse a controls group.[53] Using a quality scale, the researchers found that of the nine studies evaluated, three were of high quality with a score of 75% or greater, three were of acceptable quality, and three were of suboptimal quality.[54] In a 2005 done by the Maharishi University of Management which looked at stress reduction with the Transcendental Meditation technique and mortality among patients receiving treatment for high blood pressure found a decrease in mortality of 23%.[55] Another study published the same year by the same group found the Transcendental Meditation technique may be useful as an adjunct in the long-term treatment of hypertension among African-Americans.[56] In 2006, a study involving 103 subjects published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that coronary heart disease patients who practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique for 16 weeks showed improvements in blood pressure, insulin resistance, and autonomic nervous system tone, compared with a control group of patients who received health education.[57] Also in 2006, a functional MRI study of 24 patients conducted at the University of California at Irvine, and published in the journal NeuroReport, found that the long-term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique may reduce the affective/motivational dimension of the brain's response to pain.[58]

Will add in the other reviews and remove the remaining primary research.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see several non-compliant, biased BP research is being re-added. I thought we weren't going to add non-compliant non-Independent sources? Several studies have TM-related authors. The Anderson study is funded by a TM sponsor (they funded his salary). Should this be included? There's also a poor quality study which compares SBP to health education! I thought we were getting away from junk science and TM Org affiliated research, no?--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreement here among some editors has been to remove primary sources. Per Wikipedia, independent studies refers to publications, rather than researchers. From WP:RS "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources." I believe the studies that were or are in place were peer reviewed which means they were independently published from the TM org. If they are now being removed it is because some editors believe peer-reveiwed, primary sources are not compliant per Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Thank you will take this into account. The AHRQ is a world leader in quality research which is why it is used as the main summary of TM results on health in the lead. Hope this answers Olives question.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

A lead is a lead and introduces the content in the article . I don'r believe we can choose a source and say this one is better so we leave out the rest of the information, I understood you to say you would be adding summaries of the other reviews, or did I misunderstand. As well, the content in place now is a repeat of what is in the article. It probably should be summarized, and then a summary of the rest of the content in that section added to it. I'm happy to work on this later, unless you prefer to do it At any rate, some comments.(olive (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

When one deals with health care / medicine one used WP:MEDRS not WP:RS. One also needs to take into account the authors and who published it as part of the WP:V policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making, but I would agree that WP:MEDRS must be taken into account when dealing with health, but as well policies and guidelines must be use in intelligent concert, and Policies are the trumping guides on Wikipedia. That said, I would agree that noting the researchers may be important in health studies. As an aside studies that are peer reviewed are not published by the authors, but are independently reviewed and published. I will redo the paragraph noting the authors.(olive (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

• Similar results in two reviews led to conclusions based in one review, on a poor methodological base, and in the second based on stated, poor, good-quality evidence, that there is not enough evidence to conclude meditation (that includes TM) in the first case, and TM in the second case, has health benefits.

Is that the clearest writing we can manage? For a summary, it's pretty convoluted.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The overall treatment now seems disproportionately long for the intro, 1/3 of the words. Can't we come up with something more like, "Reviews of studies on the health effects of TM are ambiguous. Some show reductions in blood pressure while others show no significant results." Or something like that?   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Since what is in place now is shorter than what was there earlier, I'm not sure why the new concern, but please feel free to do whatever you want with it as long as its is neutral.(olive (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

My concern is that the current material on the health effects is too detailed (and too hard to follow) for a summary. I can't make heads or tails of the first sentence.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed the primary research from the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a biased and inaccurate view of the research. I won't argue it further at this point ... Just very disappointed that this article will have this kind of inaccuracy. Too bad.(olive (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

Kala were in the Anderson study does it say there is sponsoring from TM? I looked at the published paper and do not see this mentioned.

Olive if you think the current version is inaccurate please provide lines of text and refs from reviews that support your point.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the issue with the Anderson review is connected to the disclosure at the very end.

Acknowledgments: This study was designed by J.W.A. who conducted the literature search. Statistical analyses were done by C.L. under the supervision of R.J.K. The study rating system was developed by J.W.A. with input from R.J.K. Studies were scored independently by three individuals (J.W.A., R.J.K., and Manan Jhaveri), and consensus values were established by conference discussion. J.W.A. drafted the manuscript and R.J.K. and C.L. reviewed and provided input; all authors reviewed the final manuscript and agree with the content. 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. Mr Settle had no input on any aspect of the study and received a draft copy as a courtesy but had no input on the content of this manuscript. J.W.A. has no other connections to groups related to Transcendental Meditation and declares no other financial interests or conflicts related to the subject of this manuscript.

Howard Settle is a major benefactor of the TM movement. He and his wife created a multi-million dollar foundation in 2008 which grants stipends to subsidize people to go to Fairfield, Iowa and participate in the group Yogic Flying sessions at the Golden Domes on the Maharishi University of Management campus. Those grants are credited with helping the U.S. achieve invincibility.[3] I don't know what the ethical standards are for this type of compensation by interested parties, or if the journal editors were informed as the Settle's connection to the movement.   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are actually two "Anderson studies". The first appears designed to counter the Ospina-Bond review, and includes prominent MUM.edu researchers/affiliates, along with an MUM statistician IIRC. The later one by Anderson cherry picks, I believe 9 studies, all of which utilize poor controls (a common TM research shortcoming). Thus it's impossible to know if these are expectation effects due to TM indoctrination and instruction, placebo or actual benefits of TM.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree and added.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

violation of MEDRS in History section?

This has been raised before. Will Beback put the following text in the history section after I had deleted it per MEDRS: "In 2009, Robert Schneider of Maharishi University of Management presented the results of a nine-year study on African Americans at a conference of the American Heart Association. Schneider reported a nearly 50% decrease in heart attack, stroke, and death among those who practiced TM.[93]". Now that we're applying MEDRS, I'd like to ask again whether it's appropriate to have this in the article, since MEDRS proscribes conference presentations and popular media. TimidGuy (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be excluded, as should mention of the published study, as it violates WP:FRINGE, WP: MEDRS and is a primary source. It's just more TM junk science, utilizing health education as a poor control.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no published study and when there is that becomes another issue open for discussion if necessary.(olive (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

That was actually added by Olive,[4] though I'd also supported it and rewrote it. I'm glad to see this article come into compliance with WP:MEDRS.   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic is here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

Not sure how health claims of health effects belong in a section on histroy?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Seven states of consciousness

The section titled "Seven states of consciousness" is an explanation of the Maharishi's overall view of consciousness, which is outside the scope of this article. Only one sentence connects TM to it. I suggest we move this section to the Maharishi bio, and keep the sentence about TM in the "Views on human development" section.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In actuality no. Experience of higher states of states of consciousness according to Maharishi can be the direct result of the TM technique. It seems as if a section on the seven states of conscious or higher states of consciousness goes in and out of this article as if a style in each new season. Whether that content goes in or out is immaterial to me at this point, but perhaps we should discuss this more so that we can come to some definitive position on this. If its removed the reasons should be clear and agreed upon....(olive (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

The final day of instruction in TM includes an introduction to higher states of consciousness, so I would say that MMY's description of higher states belongs in the TM article rather than the MMY article. Also, my own fledgling experiences of higher states happened as a direct result of TM (on my teacher training course), not as a result of some magic influence from MMY. But what Olive or I say is irrelevent, since our statements are WP:OR. It should be easy to find references to TM sites (or sites about TM) that include mention of the 7 (now 8) states of consciousness. David spector (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is with how the material is presented. If a significant percentage of TM instruction is devoted to Maharishi's theory of the levels of consciousness then we should say so. That'd give it the right context to show how it's important to this article.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to achieve the highest levels of consciousness with TM alone, or are TM-Sidhi, etc, needed as well? If so, we should mention that as well.   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Its possible to gain the higher states of conscious ness with out any technique at all. Higher states are natural to human beings. However meditation techniques are said accelerate that process, and the TM claim is that the process is natural, simple, effortless, and systematic. We need sources so I'll look tomorrow.(olive (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

It is extremely questionable that there is any "higher" or special states of consciousness so these are all unsupported claims of TM promoters. One leading authority on this issue is the Cambridge Handbook on Consciousness where the authors discussed the research on TM and found no evidence of a unique state of consciousness during TM. http://cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521674126. Here is the specific chapter (by leading authors in the field) that talks about the state of TM consciousness research: http://compassion.stanford.edu/pdf/Dunne_Ch%2019%20Lutz%20Dunne%20Davidson-1.pdf

Nothing should be claimed regarding states of consciousness without the balance presented by this work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judyjoejoe (talk • contribs) 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes.The way to deal with this would be to have multiple viewpoints as long as the viewpoints are sourced and reference the TM technique directly. As an aside so called higher states have been described by many different meditation techniques. The words are different but he descriptions similar. It doesn't concern us here but these ideas concerning consciousness are not specific to TM. (olive (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

It's been long known that TM does not produce any higher or more integrated state of consciousness. I would remove the goofy table and include a sentence that does indicate that TM instruction states and TM advocates claim that TM leads to (as many as) seven possible different states of consciousness. But then I'd add the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness quote to qualify that this is not actually the case. This was actually known as early as the 80's in an early review which debunks major TM-related physiological myths that TM produced a state that was outside the wake-sleep cycle, most TMers were actually in descending stages of sleep.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can present both POV in the text - restore the sourced text that was there, and add the new material from Cambridge book?

I also has a question about the authors of the Cambridge book - what is their back ground? Are they associated with any type of meditation technique, or spiritual practice, etc? --BwB (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to put old, outdated, fallacious material from a dime paperback for TM fan's. I believe Campbell may be a TM affiliate and has no academic background in neuroscience.

The authors of the "Cambridge paper" are leading independent neuroscientists.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Cambridge book seems t have a strong Buddhist leaning. Does one need to have a background in neuroscience to be able to present the characteristics of higher states of consciousness? Is the bible outdated because it is "old"? --BwB (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Trademark

TM is a registered trade mark of the Maharishi as far as I am aware. Also why I added the little R to the lead so people understand that this is a commercial venture which made one man very rich. I do not have a huge problem with it being here as long as it is presented as the opinion of this group/person.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is the one man who was made rich? Please provide a reference to a reliable source. This is important new information you are presenting. David spector (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a great paper from the Times which explains in part just how much money the Maharishi made from TM. "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi | Times Online Obituary". I agree just how much money the founder has made from his movement would be an interesting topic to deal with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I split this topic because it doesn't appear connected. WP:MOS discourages the use of trademark symbols. We already mention that it is a trademarked term, so the symbol may not be necessary.

The founder came from a family of modest means. In the early 2000s the assets of the TM movement were estimated between $3.5 and $5 billion.   Will Beback  talk  03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree and feel free to amend the wording.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Assets of the TM movement" is not the same as "the founder made" or "made one man rich". Don't you see any difference between one man, a monk, who founded a movement, and that movement itself? Strange how there is so much displaced anger directed toward MMY, who lived to enlighten the world with little thought for his own comfort (at least, that's what I personally observed when I studied with him for seven months in 1971-1972). David spector (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Two points: First, while the assets may have been held by foundations and organizations rather than by the Maharishi himself, that doesn't mean he didn't control them. Second, the term "monk" as applied to the Maharishi doesn't tell the whole story. In the western Christian tradition, monks belong to religious orders and are obedient to higher religious authorities. Even independent monks typically live ascetic lives. Maharishi spent his last years in a "palace" built to his exact specifications. Every picture of the Maharishi in the last ten years showed him surrounded by hundreds of dollars worth of fresh flowers, and he bestowed gold and crowns on his senior followers. That's no disrespect to him. Anyway, a discussion of his personal wealth belongs on talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, not here, and discusion of the movement's assets belong in talk:Transcendental Meditation movement. As for this article, it's fair to say that the TM technique is at the heart of a multi-billion dollar movement.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the Times reference David? It makes it clear that he was an expert business man interested in making great wealth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc, I have just read the Times article. I wouldn't call it a "great paper"; as a summary of the TM phenomenon it has the usual mix of truth and distortions. Frankly, it leaves me wondering where the extreme polarization in the public attitude has come from. Maybe from MMY himself?

I agree that this whole discussion should be moved to the MMY or Movement talk pages, since it has nothing to do with the TM technique.

The article quotes MMY as saying about all the money coming in, “It goes to support the centres, it does not go on me. I have nothing. But my wants are simple. I do not drink or smoke. I have never been to the theatre or to the cinema.” This clearly supports my contention above that MMY himself was not rich, although I agree with Will's comment that he did indeed have complete control over all that money (as does the council of Rajas today). MMY himself did not live a lavish lifestyle, as he well could have, given the millions of dollars that were flowing in as early as the mid-1960s (as I understand it, the luxury cars he traveled in were a spontaneous donation from a rich appreciative follower; they were not purchased by the Movement). My perception from being associated with him for many years is that his devotion to popularizing and teaching TM was a devotional activity to help the world.

I also see clearly that he sometimes compromised his ethics (asking for large donations from wealthy people) to further his cause; I do not forgive him for this, because in the relative, no matter how noble the end, there is no justification for employing unethical means. But the whole idea of his 'trying to rape Mia Farrow' is ridiculous; neither Ms. Farrow nor the surviving Beatles really believe this now. There was a lot of panic going on, and it came from them, the course attenders, not from MMY.

While quoting Maharishi about his simple wants, the Times article goes on to make the following assertions:

• "...Maharishi over his lifetime developed a global organisation with nearly 1,000 TM centres, property assets valued in 1998 at $3.5 billion..."

• "Many were sceptical of the impish “giggling guru” who was by this time known for conducting his frequent evangelical tours in a Rolls-Royce. Private Eye ridiculed the mystic with a character named “Veririchi Lottsa Money Yogi Bear”.

• "Neil Aspinall, the Beatles' road manager, was surprised to find that the spiritualist employed a full-time accountant and was relentless in negotiating an additional 2.5 per cent when negotiating the rights for a proposed feature film"

• "In 2002 the Maharishi Global Financing Research Foundation issued the Raam, a 'currency', worth ten euros, dedicated to financing peace-promoting projects"

These points makes it clear that MMY was a very good promoter and businessman. Is this a crime? Why were people ridiculing MMY for making money to be used for spreading TM? Is it because previous meditation teachers had not done this? I believe there is nothing in the Vedic traditions of India that lists being poor as one of the requirements for a yogic life or for being a guru (teacher).

Frankly, in my own nonprofit, volunteer business selling meditation learning materials, if I could find some way to generate that kind of money, I would. With many millions of dollars I might accomplish the same level of instruction for the world as MMY. And I assure you, I'd be doing it for the world, not for my ego or for a lavish lifestyle. The only problem is, I'm not the man Maharishi was. I'm an ant compared to his greatness. Am I a fan? Yes. Do I share your criticism that the TM organizations charge too much for instruction? Yes, which is why I run NSR Meditation/USA and provide some competition for them.

I wonder why there is such an extreme polarization among the editors. So what if TG and Olive are on the staff at MUM? So what if I both love TM and hate some of the organization's policies? These are just affiliations and opinions. What I really don't understand is the negativity posed by some of the other active editors such as Fladrif and Kala. Both clearly want to improve the article. Yet they keep attacking many of the basic concepts of TM, particularly as they have played out historically. All the doctors who prescribe TM for their patients find good results, which is why they do it. Why does Doc James, an internist, who I would have expected to favor TM, oppose TM so much that he picks on ad hominem arguments like "this is a commercial venture which made one man very rich"? Why can't MMY be seen as a great man who did his best to help the world? If you compare TM with Scientology, don't you see a great difference? TM actually reduces anxiety and improves self-actualization. It actually refreshes body and mind. It actually works today in 20 or more inner-city high schools to eliminate fighting, weapons, and other distractions to learning. These benefits are IMO the most important facts to reflect in an article on TM, particularly since they are not widely known.

Finally, I would like to raise a plea for peace here on WP. I love WP, even its internally-conflicted policies (Be Bold compared with NOR) and its flawed administration (page deletions followed by reversals of page deletions; inconsistencies in applying policies equally to all articles) do not dim my love for WP. WP is an instant and in-depth source of knowledge. Yes, Doc James, it should never be used as a primary source; it should never be relied on for accuracy. But its value is indisputable.

WP editors should have conflicts, because, like democracy, out of conflicts come eventual solutions. But WP editors should always be peaceful, courteous, and collegial, and in this case that especially includes restraint in making direct edits and reversions (for my part, I am humble enough only to make grammatical changes). I must agree that the case made against TG and Olive gives me pause. These believers in the value of TM, along with all the other editors, should play by the same rules and not require interventions such as WP mediation. Shame on you! Instead of fighting amongst yourselves, you should be structuring fruitful discussions here, crafting the article topic by topic until everyone agrees, not that the article is a true reflection of TM, since the polarization of views means that there can be no such agreement, but only that the article fairly presents a balanced view of TM, including both positive and negative viewpoints. That is what WP demands, and this is what I implore. Banning qualified editors is a failure for the goal of improving the TM article (which still needs lots of improvement). Please don't fail; please work together. David spector (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The times is a sufficiently reliable source that it can be used to support the verifiability of the statements made regarding the movement. There are many views about TM and they should be presented in a neutral manner per WP:NPOV. I never said there was anything wrong with TM making one man rich. We are not dealing with just one facet of this organization but its many facets. No one seems to deny this that the Maharishi was wealthy. The Pope is also rich based on the earnings from religion.

What we are doing here is attempting to make sure that this topic follows WP:Policy, especially WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. As this makes WP a better encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Image

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

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

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

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

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

The website of the TM organization would own the copyright on the images. One would either need permission to release the image into the public domain under a creative commons license or take our own. The image can be uploaded here [5]. There is a little upload file on the left side. If you need further help let me know.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Scientific Research

Doc James recommended I bring this discussion thread from the Fringe theories/Noticeboard to here. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Woonpton, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Orme-Johnson's ..."critique doesn't contain any telling criticisms of the [AHRQ] meta-analysis...". As a WP editor, you have no legitimate basis for that conclusion unless you can source it to an RS. On the other hand, many editors have pointed to weaknesses of the AHRQ review, and there is an RS with a detailed critique of many of its weaknesses. That critique warrants inclusion in the article. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to relate a little story to all the editors I have met here in this recent discussion and a few others. I belong to several professional societies not associated with meditation research. Recently one of these societies conducted a poll of its membership on their experiences with WP. You might be interested to know that 27% of the respondents answered that they had edited on WP at one time or another, but only 5% of those continued to do so. Of the 95% who had ceased to edit, the majority indicated it was because of the editorial environment. Some of them included specific comments, ranging from "1. Not an accurate source of info, and 2. not interested; wrong venue for respected authority" to "37. It would appear that a select cadre of Wikipedia editors are manipulating the information there to dumb down, discredit, or otherwise impair points of view, paradigms, beliefs, knowledge, and/or information not matching their own. It is effectively an information controlling coup." These were some of the least critical answers. Furthermore, when all respondents were asked whether as a teacher they would allow Wikipedia to be used as a primary research source for students, 61% answered "No, not under any circumstances." This is the kind of reputation WP has gained. We might do well to ponder whether something going on here is not as it should be. In any case, if things continue the way they are going, WP will likely soon be universally rejected as a source of information worth bothering with. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is scary that 39% of teachers though that Wikipedia could be used as a primary source. I would hope none of the teachers would allow WP to be used as a primary source and 61% is an very low number.

I have invited you to bring this critic to the talk page of the TM article. BTW I read it and I am not sure what comments from it you see as critical and that you wish to add would you be able to elaborate?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will elaborate on the critical weaknesses described by Orme-Johnson as soon as I can find time. It will be a day or two. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries take your time. Post here and I am sure we can agree on something.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that WP will die, except possibly for lack of funds. I agree that many editors have quit in disgust; WP does not offer a friendly editing environment. I also agree with the criticism about control of articles by editors, but only for a relatively tiny number of articles; the majority are very useful and mostly accurate. Overgeneralizations about WP by professionals applying inappropriate standards to it are not helpful.

As to OJ vs. AHRQ, I think it would be great if we could resolve this discussion, as I agree that AHRQ's conclusion stands in opposition to the widespread perception over the last thirty years or more that there is much well-designed research supporting the reality (statistical significance) of the benefits of TM. IMO, the facts that their project was a metastudy, and that it seems to have been truly and completely independent of supporters or opposers of TM are of great relevance for the TM article. David spector (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

David it's important to understand that TM research was actually debunked by a landmark independent review in 1983. Almost all of the original claims: uniqueness, higher states of consciousness, EEG changes, deep rest, etc. were all shown to be untenable way back then. They were caught in a couple of, uh, mistakes as well. They were noted for exaggeration (a claim also noted on recent reviews) in their claims. That's one of the reasons TM has largely been ignored. It had a bad reputation. Another is, as early as the 1950's, scientists had the EEG records of traditional Indian Patanjali yogis in samadhi, and TM (or other relaxation response type meditations) didn't come anywhere close. Other than relaxation effects, which are common and not unique to TM, nothing remarkable has ever been really found.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The key in medical science as in all science is the findings need to be repeatable by independent third parties. I have not come across any independent primary research that has shown TM to be effective for any health condition. I of course am in know why and expert in this topic area and if anyone can provide the primary research would be happy to look at it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That TM research has been debunked and ignored is an incorrect generalization of rather large proportions as evidenced by 350 studies peer reviewed in reliable publications, repeated support by the NIH (28+ million dollars), collaborative research with multiple, highly respected medical schools and universities, and ongoing research such as this yet to be published study that has received world wide attention[6].

WP:Verifiable cannot be bypassed in favour of any guideline such as WP:MEDRS. Although I thank you for the effort that went in reworking this article, I find the article has major concerns. WP:Verifiable favours peer reviewed studies and peer review carries with it its own editorial oversight and review process. Peer reviewed sources are a reliable source. No editor opinion or notice board comments, no matter how strident and uncivilized, can supersede or override Wikipedia's policies. In stripping the article of the primary sources the article carries a non neutal POV in that it implies that very little research has been done on the technique a blatant inaccuracy, and as well implies that what has been done shows little if any benefits from the technique. That is also an inaccuracy. The article also goes on to describe the NIH grants but given the earlier lack of information on the studies, it is unclear in the article what the grants are for, if not for the multiple studies that are never mentioned.

Further peer review studies are acceptable in an article as long as they are being cited for themselves and are not being used to comment or extend beyond beyond the studies themselves, the editorial voice of the encyclopedia, or to make claims. Studies need to returned to this article. Which ones and how many is open for discussion. (olive (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

You would need to get consensus for this as it is not currently the opinion of the majority of editors. We already cover all these studies BTW as they are dealt with and analyzed in the 2007 review article. You can start a request for comment if you wish.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There are 300-350 studies. Perhaps you might want to look at those studies. Yes, consensus is important, but Wikipedia is both collaborative (consensus) and policy driven. Its core policies cannot be ignored or overridden unless there is some very good reason.(olive (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

312 were covered in the review so we have covered them all. What I have done is policy as well as consensus.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the core policies requires us to use primary sources. Just the opposite, their use is discouraged.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Little Olive Oil is beating a dead horse: not only are these blatantly primary sources, they're also "drawer effect" repeat studies operating on the gross assumption, if you repeat a study, or cherry-pick the right number of study or participant combinations, enough times, you'll be able to squeeze some stats out, somewhere. You can even create you own "review" the TM researchers have discovered (who needs those darn medical reviews?). Even if the problem of poor, deliberately deceptive control issues was pointed out, in a textbook in 1983, you can still try to get away with it in December 2009...if you point your study to enough media and web sources to cover your tracks.

The natural response of peer scientists is not to comment on such behavior, but to simply pay it no heed.

Wikipedia policy seems to follow this basic wisdom and ethic Little Olive Oil: it not only bears no or minimal mention, what mention it is given should be as brief and as simple as possible (e.g. if I was referring to the ME, I would only, at best, use the most recent cite and no others).

It's also important to remember, that the entry Transcendental Meditation, as a practice based on "Pure Consciousness", which is connected to quantum field effects, is thus a pseudoscience mysticism entry. As such, it follows under even a lesser level of editorial respect. I believe this is an important concept for you and your colleagues to understand.--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone has a new review article to add I say we go back to getting all article in this area to reflect the consensus " we do not use primary research or newspapers for health claims "Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the point. I've said this multiple times We aren't using these studies to make claims. They are descriptors of the different kind of research studies that have been carried out on the technique, the topic/subject of the articles. Again we aren't using the studies to make claims which is why they can be used. (olive (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

So are you suggesting mentioning that the studies exist, but not including their hypotheses or findings? Because those are "claims". If we're going to report their existence without reporting their claims, then we can summarize them easily with a line like, "Studies have been conducted on the physical effects of TM".   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article requires NPOV. The health effects section is not neutral because it is heavily based on two reviews that imply there are no benefits. Opsina Bond was a poor study because, as an example, it included multiple mediation types and even physical desciplines like qi gong. So attempting then to apply such a study to TM is highly inaccurate, and wholly problematic. Using the review in itself is a concern even if balanced by other studies, but using it as a major descriptor of TM research is highly non neutral.That isn't an accurate view of the research, and those two studies are heavily weighted in the lead compounding the concern. Neutrality and accuracy would be satisfied by describing a few various studies. WP:Verifiable says in describing reliable sources,"The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals...", so its obvious peer reviewed journals are compliant.(olive (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

The article requires NPOV, but that doesn't mean weighting positive and negative equally but describing a body of literature accurately and dispassionately. Ospina et al addresses several types of meditation, yes, but meta-analyses were conducted individually for the research testing each type and brand of meditation, so to say the meta-analysis can't be validly applied to TM is not accurate. There are results from the meta-analysis that apply directly, accurately, and validly to TM. A meta-analysis is a secondary source that summarizes a body of research and is the kind of source we should be using to characterize the research on the topic as a whole. There seems to be a misperception that this meta-analysis can/should be treated as just one of many primary sources that should be balanced with other primary sources whose conclusions differ, even though the differing primary sources have already been evaluated and disposed of in the meta-analysis. This isn't how it works. Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. WP:MEDRS. Woonpton (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) agree with Woons summary. This is a relatively simple point. And really there is not much more to be said here unless other "meta-analysis" can be found.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Woonpton's summary. Let's deconstruct the argument being made by olive. Olive contends that the is not neutral because it reflects the conclusions of sources which are, according to WP:MEDRS are the highest and best authority on these matters, and does not reflect the contrary conclusions of primary sources which, according to WP:MEDRS, should not be used in Wikipedia to attempt to rebut the sources which the article reflects. The highest and best authority according to Wikipedia - an independent meta-analysis - found that the vast majority of the sources Olive wants to use were so poorly conducted or documented that it is impossible for any independent third party to review them; and that, of the remaining 230 studies of TM, only three were of good quality. Of these, one short-term study involving a very small sample of subjects showed a statistically significant improvement in blood pressure versus health education; the other two longer-term studies showed no statistically significant benefit versus no treatment. The argument Olive advances is that the editors here shoud second-guess that conclusion, and instead weigh in on the merits of the 230 or more studies individually, picking and choosing which of those primary sources to feature, and what to say about them. That is diametrically opposed to how editors are supposed to function on these kinds of issues. Olive further contends that because the Ospina Bond meta-analysis analyzed several different kinds of meditation research, it is a "poor study". The argument is a non-sequitur. The scope of the study is the scope of the study; it is not for editors here to quibble with that and argue that the scope should have been different. The largest group of studies considered by far were the TM and TM-Sidhi studies - 230 of them. With respect to the different meditation/relaxation disciplines studied, the meta-analysis concluded that there was no basis in the research to support the superior efficacy of one method over another. Is the argument that it is unfair to compare TM to Tai-Chi, for example, because the latter involves physical activity and the former does not? If that is the argument, what is the implication that TM-advanced techniques involve yoga postures, and TM-Sidhi involves "yogic flying", both of which involve physical activity. TM Sidhi studies were among those examined in Ospina Bond. The argument that this and related articles should ignore MEDRS and allow individual editors to do original research based on Primary Sources to "balance" conclusions reached by the sources MEDRS says these articles must rely upon is without merit. Moreover, this argument has already been unanimously rejected by the uninvolved editors at the Fringe Science noticeboard and is long-established policy that is finally being applied consistently, neutrally and objectively in these articles. Fladrif (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, very little said reflects an understanding of my comments and or points, and is in good part on based on misreading and misunderstanding of policy and procedures on Wikipedia.

However unfortunate that is, it seems to be the agreed upon standard for inclusion or exclusion of material and I'm happy to concede to the group on this, at this point.(olive (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure if you think that MEDRS doesn't apply, that we're applying MEDRS incorrectly, or that MEDRS is wrong. If the latter, then you could go to that page and try to convince other editors to change it. Do you think that MEDRS applies to medical research on TM? If so, do you think it favors original studies over reviews?   Will Beback  talk  17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've stated my position multiple times. My points in no way suggest WP:MEDRS is wrong. My points include a more inclusive understanding and reading of the policy to which WP: MEDRS and any Wikipedia guideline is a secondary guide. WP:MEDRS was created as a protective guideline for health related issues . It was not created to exclude definition of topic areas, a misuse and misunderstanding of the guideline. With respect, since I have clearly stated these points several times, and since these points are being overlooked, I really have no further reason to engage in discussion at this time.(olive (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

It;s better to settle this while we have many eyes on this. We are discussing health-related issues. I don't know what is meant by "exclude definition of topic areas". What is the "definition of topic areas" in this case?   Will Beback  talk  18:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS says to use up-to-date evidence. Since Ospina Bond only goes through 2005, it seems like we could include some of the RCTs published since then, particularly the study by Paul-Labrador (published by the AMA) and the American University study, which had over 200 subjects. Paul-Labrador was included in the reviews by Rainforth and Anderson, but both only considered hypertension, whereas the findings in Paul-Labrador were broader than that. Three papers on the AU study came out in 2009, each looking at a different facet. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We do have comments on these papers aswell [7] [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the links aren't working, so not sure what is meant by comments on these papers.(olive (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Here is the pubmed link Persaud RD (2006). "Why meditate when you could just rest?". Arch. Intern. Med. 166 (22): 2553, author reply 2554. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.22.2553-b. PMID 17159024. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The American Univ. studies seem to be the most recent - 2009, and post-date the "Why Meditate" publication. --BwB (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If we include Paul-Labrador, we could summarize the exchange, since there's also a reply by Paul-Labroador to the comments. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sagan

I have moved this text to the TMM article as the statement is directly about the TM movement, not TM. --BwB (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"In 1997 Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World described the TM movement as "the most recent successful global pseudoscience"."

The TM movement includes TM and therefore is definitely applicable to this article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

His actual line refers to TM not the TM movement. However his overall comment is about the organization. Since we're placing it here, and since he has more to say, we can expand our summary.   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay let change it to that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reread the source and yes I used TM movement rather than TM to attempt to put what Sagan wrote in my own words.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(undent) Thank you Will that was my point exactly. The limited evidence is for TM they way it was worded may it sound like the review was limited when in fact it was an exhaustive meta analysis of all studies published until Sept 2005. There seems to be some issues with basic interpretation of scientific literature here. I have edited here in line with the consensus at [9] If an editor disagrees and feel they are not being heard / understood they may bring this to a RFC. We still have a range of articles in this topic area which need to be substantially changed to reflect WP:NPOV.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mainstream health newspaper? Unless I'm missing something. [10](olive (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Healthday news [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes changing the meaning of a study to its exact opposite verges on vandalism. I corrected its meaning with WP:AGF however had a 3RR warning placed on my talk page [User_talk:Jmh649#3RR]. As this seems to be an ongoing problem with this topic area a full review of WP:COI maybe required.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you've done . I added a concern about the ref. you have now added another reference completely. This is the original ref without the Health Day news you added. [12]. I also linked to an older version of a page of the original source to illustrate my concern. Perhaps you could explain the addition of Health day news to the original source. I may to be missing the connection.

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

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

Obsina Bond:

Conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TM ex members

Here is an interesting article about an ex member support group for TM. [13] The Skeptics Dictionary also has a great overview [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Minet.org is not reliable source since it is for the most part blog based. Skeptic's dictionary is also generally not considered reliable since it does not attempt to present balanced information. There are probably other reliable sources you can use.(olive (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Minet.org is NOT a blog. It used to be, years ago, a mail info newsletter you could receive via "snail mail" for the cost of mailing which once Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) and the web allowed uploading of the basic information, it was put online to help those who would be interested, or were perhaps, in recovery from TM and/or related programs. It was actually run by former teachers and/or governors of the Transcendental Meditation technique, some trained as licensed therapists. Please contact the site maintainers if you have any questions.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful about adding poorly sourced content. Space Skeptics is a blog. Content sourced to nonreliable sources sources will have to be removed Thanks (olive (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Sadly for your argument Little Olive Oil we can transfer the logical arguments from this source independently. Esp. since it deals with research fraud. They're clear for anyone to see. Do you need me (or someone else) to independently re-list them? The study in question was aggressively pushed to the internet according to my sources despite the fact that the study was coached (and numerous other improprieties the source points out)! It would be egregious to include such material in an encyclopedia article. What are you trying to hide other than your admitted COI?--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please get support / consensus for your assertions. Technically none of the sources from the TM organization should be used due to COI. At least these are third party sources.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. I believe the TM-Ex websites have been discussed before. Perhaps Will can remind us why the web sites did not meet Wiki policy for inclusion? --BwB (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BwB, it's not necessarily important that the TM-EX archive was discussed before, what's important to understand that it is not a blog, but it is an archive of a newsletter, by ex-TM teachers who had been through the TM expereince, for those in need of help or exit counselling. It would be best to look at it as a newsletter archive. It doesn't really have much new material added, except for therapeutic outreach.--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kala not compliant and pleasee take your COI issues to the Notice board. Other than the Minet souerce issue I'm nor sure what you are talking about.(olive (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes, maybe. But I think the Wiki policy issue was something to do with the fact that the newsletter was self-published. --BwB (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information about this organization is self published. As long as we attribute it is not a serious concern. If we removed all the self published TM stuff we would have nothing left.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We are using information from the organization to describe the organization which is Wikipedia compliant. Using a blog/newsletter with out the kind of editorial oversight that comes with reliable publications is not.(olive (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

I agree and this is what I have recommended below. These people are part of the organization and we should be using it to describe this organization.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. "These people" is not the issue. To describe the organization we go to the official sites of the organization. TM ex is not one of those sites and neither is Minet .org.(olive (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

It's actually even better: it's former documented members of the org Independently reporting back on the org. TM Org Independent metadata. 3rd party. Some of these people are still active as exit therapists. Who knows, they might be willing to give sworn affidavits on the MINET archive?

But I doubt we need it. In regards to the subject, it's still Independent, even if a self-published cult-abuse recovery rag. I mean how else to reach out? You publish in the back section of new age magazines and local new age newspapers, asking for those who need help to contact a certain newsletter.--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree Olive.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not advocating we use this site except maybe for the verification of the existence of this group. It however is useful place to find sources to improve this article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Minet.org fails WP:SELFPUB [15]

• “Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves”

(The article is not about MIN, so it fails that point and...)

• "It does not involve claims about third parties"

(TM and the TM Movement is, for all intents and purposes, a third party the MIN site makes claims about.)

As for the site itself, it fails WP:V [16]

• “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.”

(The site shows no sign of any editorial oversight, fact-checking or claims of accuracy…) (olive (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Minet has apparently been discussed before.[17] I don't have time now to read what's been said about it in the past. The issue would be whether or not it's self-published. If there's evidence of something like an editorial board then it probably would not count as an SPS. Again, I don't have time now to investigate. It might be easier to find another source rather than conduct these investigations. Space Skeptics does appear to be a blog and the authors don't appear to be recognized experts, so it shouldn't be used. Skeptics Dictionary is widely used as a source on Wikipedia, but its views should be attributed.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference

Unable to find this reference "In 1994, the Transcendental Meditation program became a part of the school day at the Fletcher Johnson Educational Center of Washington, D.C." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Pathways, Taking Care of the Student, Winter 2009, Cynthia E. Johnson,

What's the nature of this source? Is it a book or a journal or what?   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a magazine.[18]-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Does that free, ad-supported magazine have a reputation for fact checking or reliability? I see they they have a full page ad for TM training on page 36.[19] The article in question appears in a section titled "Community Forum", which implies it is not part of their regular content. At the end of the article, it says, "Please see the ad on page 36."[20] I'm inclined to think this may not be the best source available. It's used three times, once for a quote from a charter school principal saying that his wife realized TM had nothing to do with religion. Is that a notable opinion compared to the religious scholars and officials we already cite?   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen several reliable sources for information on Fletcher Johnson. I'm very busy right nw but if someone doesn't come up with one...I'll add one later.(olive (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the heads up Will, I have added a 2008 reference from Newsweek that substantiates the sentence.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Any objection to removing the other citations from this source?   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but why would you want to remove a weak secondary source, that is now supported by a stronger one?-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking more of the principal's wife's assertion that TM isn't a religion. That's pretty weak, considering that this is virtually a self-published piece. Are you defending this as reliable and independent source or not? I think we should just leave it out entirely. There are plenty of better sources.   Will Beback  talk  14:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will the self published stuff should be removed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that Fletcher Johnson info in several places in the past, but I just can't dig around now since I'm moving....If its a concern then remove it and later when I get settled again, I'll see if I can dig up a compliant source. Just one way of dealing with the issue. (olive (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

COI

Posted over at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Transcendental_Meditation to clarify how we deal with potential COI.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I had these links posted to me:

[21]. This one is the most recent. [22] Then there is the issue of Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets, anonymous or otherwise, which is another problem altogether. [23]

I believe Will Beback was present, but was duped by a complicit pro-TM in-group. I've personally noticed several discrepancies on reviewing the back log on TM-related talk pages. A kind of "deception by omission" scenario.

In terms of COI conduct, I have to ask what accreditation orgs and what ChemistryProf's (collegiate) "professional societies" related to their specific academic specialty would say in such cases? This doesn't seem to befit the behavior of an academic professional, does it? Don't most professionals, in whatever specialty, generally uphold a certain level of conduct?

I'm not sure how to proceed, but only to say: something has to be done and something has to be forwarded in terms of clear COI violations and "garden walling" of cites

I notice TimidGuy has become strangely silent. One wonders if such violations could extend to MUM.edu IP's or include the huge list of TM-related IP's?--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss this over at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Transcendental_Meditation and keep this page just for discussing the TM article.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pediatric review

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

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

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

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

This you are mistaken [24]. And have been informed of this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canter & Ernst hypertension review

This 2004 review is now a bit outdated, since there have been at least four hypertension reviews since then, several of which include highly rated studies that post-date the Canter & Ernst review. Seems like we should exclude it per MEDRS. TimidGuy (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as they're Independent, you can post the studies here so we can review them first.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

2004 is hardly a bit outdated. I removed about 20 studies from the 70 and 80 that were here without complaint from the regulars and now 2004 is a bit outdated :-) Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been superseded. If we're going to adhere to the letter of MEDRS, which says that one should use up-to-date sources, then we should rely on the many later reviews. Of the 5 studies covered by the review, they acknowledged that Schneider 1995 was strong (and was later rated high quality by AHRQ). Since C&E's review, Schneider 2005 was published, which AHRQ also rated as high quality. In 2006 the AMA published the Paul-Labrador study, which the Kentucky review evaluated as being good quality. TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you have justed added a 1989 review that supports TM? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of mantra comment

This content [26] was removed per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Its a relatively straight forward comment about mantras and not connected to either guideline, so I have re added it. If there's a good reason to delete it I'm not against it. (olive (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Agreed. You got to this before me. This particular passage does not appear to implicate WP:MEDRS.Fladrif (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What about WP:FRINGE? That would apply.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside whether the entirety of TM is or is not "fringe", the particular statement in question is about whether or not mantras in TM have any meaning. There are reliable sources that say that they do, and reliable sources that say they do not, and still other reliable sources that say, maybe they do but the basic instruction in TM involves telling students that they ar meaningless, so it does not matter whether they have a meaning. Whether they do or not does not strike me as "mainstream" or "fringe" positions in whatever discipline or disciplines one might care to invoke ( I wouldn't think that this involves either medicine or science). This would appear to be a reliable source for what is says, and neither WP:MEDRS nor WP:FRINGE appear to me to be a problem on this specific passage.Fladrif (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is it is written by an MUM.edu professor and references a paper co-written with other MUM.edu affiliates. It's a blatantly primary source.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the paper, which is available for free on a TM website.[27] For the assertion about the mantras, Travis cites "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the Bhagavad Gita", 1969. Why don't we just follow his lead and say, "According to the Maharishi..."   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sentence from Lead

At present, this grammatically incorrect sentence in the lead says:

• TM is a registered trademark of the Maharishi Foundation through which he developed a worth of more than $3 billion dollars as of the 1990s.

The actual quote form the sources says: "The worldwide TM organization has an estimated valuation of $3 billion."[28] Neither the quote, nor the paragraph in which it is contained, mentions anything about trademarks or the Maharishi Foundation. Can we edit it so that it reflects the source more accurately and avoid the appearance of original research?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The first citation [29] says "Transcendental Meditation is the registered trademark of the Maharishi Foundation Ltd."   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And of course we only need to ref contensious statements. Also we have other refs latter in the article that support this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Trademark info, but combining it with info from another source is clearly OR. I will make it into two sentences.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Have posted here for any further comments / advice before potential arbitatration: [30] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wording

This is a complete misunderstanding of the scientific literature. "A 2006 Cochrane review examined a 1980 study that showed a reduction in anxiety" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It may take more than a single line to summarize this source. As a prestigious review, it's worth the extra space.   Will Beback  talk  14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree and added to it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The source says that the TM study shows reduced anxiety. Why can't we say that while putting it in the context of the overall conclusion? TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because that is not the conlusion of the review.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it would be best to stick to the reviews conclusion, rather than trying to add your own Original Research TimidGuy.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that says that an editor is limited in taking information from a source? Kala, I'm sure you know that reporting what a study says is not OR. TimidGuy (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is a limit before what is written becomes plagiarism. The definition is not set in stone however we try to stay far away from it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So as long as the guideline for plagiarism is followed, is there any other guideline that says an editor is limited on taking information from a source? -- — Kbob • Talk • 03:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of other than obtaining consensus and good edit formating.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

POV wording in text?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BwB, at some point WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has to apply to comments like those you are making in this section. This matter has been discussed to death. Consensus has been reached - unanimously among the previously uninvolved editors, I might add. The summary accurately reflects the source. It is neither original research nor expressing the POV of any editors. [31] [32][33] [34] [35] [36][37][38][39][40][41]. Enough! Fladrif (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No I think it is good the way it is. Maybe the people from MUM should also stop editing TM related pages until the socket puppet investigation is done? [42] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

This is a report from the US government agency, read [43] Therefore it is not peer reviewed like a usual journal publications. Unable to open your link. Please post a PMID. This is similar to a CDC report. And it definitely belongs in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BwB, WP:MEDRS guides us thusly:

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

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

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

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

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

Relaxation training review

This review is summarized in the article as follows:

• "These conclusions were supported by a 2008 review which found equivalent effects from relaxation training and Transcendental Meditation.[67]"

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

• "An old meta-analysis [30], published in 1989 about the effects of relaxation trainings on trait anxiety found that relaxation techniques had a medium effect size, while transcendental meditation had significantly larger effect size."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research studies on the applications of Transcendental Meditation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anderson study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004 Canter & Ernst review

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

• These results were similar to a 2004, review examining the effects of TM on blood pressure which concluded that there was "insufficient good-quality evidence to conclude whether or not TM has a cumulative positive effect on blood pressure." The review said that the RCTs published had important methodological weaknesses and were potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization.[62]

• A 2004 review found that many of the studies related to TM were potentially biased by the association of their authors to the TM organization and had problems with methodology.[65]

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

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

Sidhis / Flying

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

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

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

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

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

Advanced technique section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the webpage for the Advanced Techniques [44]. The so-called "advanced techniques" repeat the same puja as with TM and they just adjust the mantra by adding prefixes or suffixes to the original seed syllable or involve how the awareness of the mantra is placed. The TM-Sidhi program requires SCI and a lengthy preparation. I've previously described this, so I won't go into it again. I heard recently that they were requiring or were going to require taking all seven advanced techniques prior to taking the TM-Sidhi program.--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Techniques and sequence appear to have changed over time, some kept, some discarded. It's probably sufficient to indicate one of the most recent indicated on a Global Country website [45]:

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

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

A great historic source of old techniques is the Kropinski fraud trial, case 85-2848, Kropinski vs. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, WPEC-US, MIU [46].--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Jadad scale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of content sourced to pediatric review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit conflict

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

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

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

Removal of JACM article

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

Hi TG. Unfortunately Jadad scoring just doesn't much to do with this entry which is on TM. You'll be happy to know however that the WP does have an article on the Jadad scale [[47]]. Perhaps they'll find these comments helpful.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Valid point for Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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