Talk:TM-Sidhi program

Created new article by moving content from article on Transcendental Meditation

The TM-Sidhi program is a distinct technique from Transcendental Meditation, and this very long section didn't really belong in the article on Transcendental Meditation. Plus, that article exceeded the guideline on WP:Article size. So I've created this new article.

Tags added at top of article

Thanks to editor John Reaves for adding tags at the top of this ariticle indicating that it needs to be improved. Indeed, I and another editor are working on reorganizing the article and adding context.

I don't understand two of thw tags. One says tnat it reads like a review and needs to be more neutral in tone. The article is neutral in the sense that it contains differing points of view. It would be great to have feedback on how it could be made more neutral.

Second, a tag says that it needs a complete rewrite for reasons listed on the Talk page, but no reasons have been given here. Would be helpful to have those. Thanks!TimidGuy 15:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose to remove tags three and four -- about the article sounding like a review and about it needing a complete rewrite. I've done some work on the article and hope that it's a bit beter. It still needs work (whether or not it stays as an independent article or is merged with TM article). But it seems like there's a surfeit of tags and that the top two are the most relevant. TimidGuy 12:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

User timidguy split this article off the Transcendental Meditation article after proposing the move and waiting less then three days, with no response and then moved it.

I believe there are other parts of the article which have less significance to the article then the TM-Siddhi program that could be trimmed down or moved before this part.

Part of his stated reason for moving the article is his belief that the TM article is JUST about the Transcendental Meditation technique. [[1]] As the article stands right now, this is not how the article is structured. Sethie 16:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I waited three days and no one had objected. As no one objected to my earlier relocation of the Global Country of World Peace material. And generally I've gotten good feedback on my work on the TM article. So I went ahead.

A major part of the rationale is Article size. The article on Transcendental Meditation greatly exceeded the guideline on article size. Plus, I want to add more information to the Transcendental Meditation article. And Purple Iris and I are planning to add more content to this article on the TM-Sidhi program. If the two are merged, then it will create a humongous article.TimidGuy 17:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear that is what you are saying right here and right now. And when I read what you wrote on the TM talk page, I hear a different emphasis, maybe I am misreading what you wrote, you'll have to tell me. When I read what you wrote there, my impression is, "Hmmm he's concerned with article lenght and REALLY concerned about people understanding that TM-siddhi is different from TM technique and that the article is not about the TM movement." That's my reaction to your explination there.... would you be willing to re-read what you wrote and tell me if I have misinterpretted what you wrote?Sethie 23:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I think that for the most part we agree on what I'm trying to say: The article exceeds the guideline on Article size, and a good way to divide it is to make a separate article out of the TM-Sidhi program material, because it's a different technique from Transcendental Meditation. But I didn't say that the Transcendental Meditation article is not about the TM movement. Please do Assume good faith. TimidGuy 12:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the article is too long. And I hear your desire for me to assume good faith.

On this page, I read you saying, "I didn't say that the Transcendental Meditation article is not about the TM movement."

On the TM page I read you saying: "Another reason for the move is that the TM-Sidhi program is different from Transcendental Meditation (the topic of this article). Most people who learn Transcendental Medtiation don't also subsequently learn the TM-Sidhi program. Best not to conflate these two techniques"

When I read this, what I hear is- he thinks the topic of this article is the Transcendental Meditation technique. He wants to split them off, because for him, he thinks that is what this article is about (i.e. "the topic of the article") and he wants to seperate these two techniques.

It is true that I have made assumptions about your motives and the motives of others on Wiki, hell in my life. For the most part I feel pretty clean about my thinking about your motives, I don't dwell there otftn, and in this case I believe I am asking about what you wrote, not my assumptions about you. I have read what you wrote on the TM page and shared my understanding of what I thought you were communicating. Would you be willing to re-read what you wrote and let me know what it is you were trying to say?Sethie 16:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie, for your thoughtful response. When I said "topic of the article" I meant "title of the article." And I didn't mean to say that discussion of the TM movement doesn't lie within the scope of the article. TimidGuy 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Timidguy, that really clears a lot up for me. Let me sit some and get back to you. love,Sethie 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, Sethie. By the way, if moving the TM-sidhi program to a new article stands, then I'm actually quite pleased with the overall organization and scope of the Transcendental Meditation article and don't foresee the need for any more changes to the organization or scope.TimidGuy 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So I have removed the proposed merger... more comments to follow about structuring this and the other tm articles. Sethie 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Sethie. I'm eager to hear your comments.TimidGuy 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

3 in 1?

So as I read this article, I find three topics- the TM-Siddhi program, yogic flying and the maharishi effect. I know they are all interelated, but why is the Maharishi effect here? I think it belongs in the TM article or with it's own article.

I am also curious about the inclusion of yogic flying info here, given that it has it's own artilce. My inital proposal is to delete the yogic flying article, or move that here.

Just some initial possibilities. Sethie 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. I'm kind of in a hurry right at the moment, but I'll do my best to make a quick post. As you seem to understand, Yogic Flying is one part of the TM-Sidhii program. The Maharishi Effect is hypothesized to be the result of group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs. The Maharishi Effect isn't hypothesized for the practice of TM alone. So it would seem appropriate here. We can think further about the proposal to have it be a separate article.

By the way, when I say group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs, here's what happens: people gather together twice a day, once in the morning around 7 am and again in the afternoon about 5 pm. People then practice TM, followed by practice of the TM-Sidhi program. Those who only have learned TM don't participate in this group practice.

I had the same thought about the Yogic Flying article. I agree with you that the best context for an understanding of Yogic Flying is within a discussion of the TM-Sidhi program. I had already posted a comment yesterday on the Yogic Flying talk page noting redundancy with this article and proposing that that redundancy be removed. But it seems like your solution is a good one -- to simply merge Yogic Flying into the TM-Sidhi program article. I'm not yet familiar enough with Wikipedia to get a sense for how to go about this.TimidGuy 01:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I will start the process for the merger for yogic flying and tm-sidhi

"The Maharishi Effect is hypothesized to be the result of group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs. The Maharishi Effect isn't hypothesized for the practice of TM alone. So it would seem appropriate here." Well, it hear that it seems more appropriate for you.

If it were a unique pheonomen to the TM-Sidhi program I would agree. However it isn't, so I can't agree! Given what you have said about it, for me it fits better with the TM article (which covers various aspects of the movment) or on it's own, but definatley NOT here. And those are my thoughts about it, right now. 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for starting the process. I'm open to having Maharishi Effect be a separate article.

I don't understand why you say that the Maharishi Effect not a unique phenomenon to the TM-Sidhi program. As far as I know, that's the hypothesis -- group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs, including Yogic Flying, produces the Maharishi Effect when the number of practictioners in the group reaches the square root of the population in a given area. Again, those who have only learned don't participate in group practice. It's only for those who have learned the TM-Sidhi program.TimidGuy 12:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually am reffering to your words here: "The Maharishi Effect is hypothesized to be the result of group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs." When I read this, I think, "Oh the ME is produced by practitioners of the TM technique AND the TM-Sidhi program." If this is not the meaning you were trying to convey, would you be willing to re-read that sentence and communicate what you were trying to say?

You say, "those who only learned don't participate in group practice." Do you mean those who only learn the TM technique? If so, this is not true, based on my understanding of your above words and my own experience at MIU and my local TM group. Those who know just the TM technique DO do group practice.

Oops. My apologies. I meant to say that those who have only learned the TM technique don't participate in group practice. Group practice, which creates the Maharishi Effect, is only for those who have learned the TM-Sidhi program.

You say "It's only for those who have learned the TM-Sidhi program." When you say "It" do you mean group practice? Before I can respond to this I need to know what you mean by "it." Sethie 15:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by "it." Thanks for your patience with my lack of clarity. : ) TimidGuy 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In my direct experience it is factually incorrect to say "those who have only learned the TM technique don't participate in group practice." I have done many TM group meditations both at MIU and with my locak TM group.

On the other hand, I have searched the web, and the TM organization does say that a group of individuals practicing the TM-Sidhi technique is what creates the ME. However, nowhere do I find it called "group practice."

So given what you have told me and what I have found, I now understand why the three articles belong together. Sethie 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. It's nice working with you.TimidGuy 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference for "Maharishi’s Supreme Military Science"?

Hi there folks. Hey, I get a "missing page" when I click on the reference that links to http://www.invinciblemilitary.org/articles/idc1.html. Tanaats 04:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. It must have been a temporary problem. Tanaats 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New and nav templates

I added a "main" template at the top and a nav template at the bottom Tanaats 01:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Countering quote

Added quote from learntm website to point out that the TM organization characterizes the current stage of Yogic Flying using the traditional phrasing, "hopping like a frog." This isn't from the Yoga Sutras itself, despite what the website says, but from one of the later upanishads (yogattva upanishad) from about 1400AD, whch provides an informal commentary on aspects of the Yoga Sutras, but it shows that a good-faith attempt is definitely being made to point out that Yogic Flying, Stage One, is NOT floating. Sparaig 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Sparaig, and for beefing up the references.TimidGuy 16:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"This is considered a mainstream interpretation of some kinds of EEG coherence" needs a citation

I added a "fact" template to "This is considered a mainstream interpretation of some kinds of EEG coherence." However, I rather doubt that it's supportable and should probably be taken out. Tanaats 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this transition sentence could be rewritten to remove "mainstream interpretation" (which may be somewhat subjective wording for an encyclopeida) and more specifically references the info presented in the studies. It could simply read: "This correlation between EEG coherence and creativity is supported by a range of other studies." Or something like that. Looks like you found some good studies -- unrelated to meditation -- to support the point.TimidGuy 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me! Tanaats 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced reference?

It looks to me as though the citation at the end of the paragraph beginning with "At a 1994 press conference to announce the analysis of that study" is a mistake. The citation is also found in the next paragraph, which is where it belongs. Tanaats 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Put in a proper reference for that paragraph. Thanks for catching that -- and for all your other great editing on the articles.TimidGuy 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't give a reference for this on the cited page?

I'm uncomfortable with "Park questions the validity of the study by saying that during the weeks of the experiment Washington D.C.'s weekly murder count "hit the highest level ever recorded." He doesn't give a reference for this on the cited page."

AFAIK it's not proper to make such a comment about a quote. I propose that we take out "He doesn't give a reference for this on the cited page." Tanaats 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats. You're correct. That should be deleted. I propose we delete the whole paragraph. The link is defective. It originally referenced Park's blog. According to the guidelines, blogs aren't acceptable as reliable sources. Plus, the quote was taken out of context. TimidGuy 12:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For now, I've taken that particular sentence now and updated the broken cite. I think that blogs of notable people are admissible, but I have to search the WP law library :) to make sure. Then we can discuss it all. Tanaats 06:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL says to avoid "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." That, for example, is what makes Dr. OJ's website admissible, I think, since it's really a personal website. Let's discuss it though. Tanaats 06:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But isn't it problematic that he doesn't give a reference for this claim? David OJ cites research for his claims. He develops ideas. Park seemingly just inserts short opinionated statements. I'm actually reluctant to use David's site. Sethie inserted one of the links, and he forced me into a second when he deleted my reference in the cult section to the Harvard research. And I think David's direct rebuttal of Denaro is appropriate, since he has direct knowledge. Also, David's site fits WP:RS in a manner that Park's doesn't: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Park is outside his field of expertise. He showed in his critical article in Skeptical Inquirer that he didn't seem to understand time series analysis. TimidGuy 12:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno'. AFAIK even the unsupported opinion of a notable professional, if it meets wp:v and wp:rs, is admissible. The information is presented in the appropriate "he says" context. People can follow the link and see that it is uncited. It is more than adequately counterpointed in the sentence immediately following, IMO the sum total is merely to convey to the reader that there is a dispute over the study, which is in fact true. Tanaats 16:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. Apologies. I assumed that you'd found the original blog item. I see now that you've referenced the item in the Skeptical Inquirer. My comments about blogs don't apply to this reference. I removed the quotation marks, since I couldn't find that exact phrase.TimidGuy 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tanaats 15:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Value of TM-Sidhi© Program

Since there is currently little explanation of why thousands of people have gone to the trouble of learning and practicing the TM-Sidhi Program, other than to improve the environment selflessly through the putative Maharishi Effect, I propose adding to the article: "The point of practicing the TM-Sidhi Program is not in the hopping per se, but in the experience of bliss in the mind of the practitioner, and the consequent release of stress, that accompany the hopping." I suspect that the wording of this can be improved a lot, but it is a start. David 02:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi David. In terms of "what is true" I think that you're headed in the right direction. However, per Wikipedia rules the "truth" of a statement actually has nothing whatever to do with whether or not the statement actually makes it into the article. You can't get statements into the article because they are "true", and you can't get statements out of the article because they are "false". The only thing that determines whether something is in the article is whether it is from a reliable source and is also verifiable.

What you might want to do is to find relevant quotes from an official TM website such as this one. You are then limited to either quoting directly, or else faithfully summarizing without adding any of your own personal knowledge or opinions at all. Tanaats 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sorry if you already know all of this and so this turned out to be nothing more than a condescending lecture. :) Tanaats 02:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Change of levitation to Yogic Flying

I have changed the term levitation to Yogic Flying throughout the article:

• As far as I know the TM organization has never officially used the word levitation and
• the terms are intermixed in the article, and I hope this will create consistency.(olive 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Square root of 1%

This question has come up a couple times. The hypothesis is indeed that the square root of 1 percent of a given population is the number necessary to have a coherent effect in society. For example, the U.S. population is 300 million. Type this into Google: square root of (1% of 300,000,000). It returns a value of 1,732. That's the number of people practicing that TM-Sidhi program in a group that's hypothesized to have a coherent effect on this U.S. Here's a page that explains the hypothesis.[2] TimidGuy 10:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: Amusingly, the square root of 1% is 10%. But the square root of (1% of some quantity) equals 10% of (the square root of the quantity). The wording used in this and other similar articles actually does not make it clear which result is being referred to! The reason for the ambiguity is probably the "intiutive" assumption that taking the square root of something always makes it smaller. Not so, but in an odd way, intuition is actually correct here, more or less. (Unless, of course, there's a secret agenda to steer one tenth of the population towards a religion, using the mysterious power of ambiguous mathematics. . . "If you can do Math, you can do Anything!") Parsiferon 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Great explanation. I now see the potential problem. TimidGuy 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

conflict of interest

Regarding the research on the Sidhi techniques, I believe it should be mentioned that the cited researchers are all affiliated one way or another with the TM program and/or MUM. Judyjoejoe 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Its a good point, and very true that the researchers cited have had or have affiliations with Maharishi University of Management. However, these researchers are not involved in editing this article, which they, I guess would have to be for there to be a conflict of interest. The research studies cited with one exception have been published in well-accepted publications such as International Journal of Neuroscience, Experimental Neurology, and Psychosomatic Medicine. In other words, this material is peer-reviewed, in acceptable publications so these are good references given Wikipedia guidelines. As well its not uncommon for the experts in a field to be cited as references. What is important, I believe, is that the research be published in peer reviewed publications. If this wasn't peer-reviewed material, one could question the source.Perhaps that is what you are referring to. That said, one paper is not peer-reviewed from what I can see, and that could possibly be removed if editors find it objectionable.(olive 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps the most controversial study, the Washingtonn DC experiment, was coauthored by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department’s statistician, who provided the FBI crime data. (The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Social Indicators Research.) TimidGuy 11:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

However, there are indications that the accuracy of the research is questionable. See, letter from former professor at MIU http://web.archive.org/web/20050313200054/www.trancenet.org/personal/roark.shtml Judyjoejoe 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that critic sites have a lot of incorrect information. According to university records, Dennis Roark wasn't dean of faculty or head of the physics department 1975-1980, as he states. These sorts of critic sites are disallowed as sources on Wikipedia for good reason. None of the 600 studies related to Transcendental Meditation or the TM-Sidhi program has ever been accused of being fraudulent. This research has been conducted at hundreds of universities and research centers around the world. If there is any evidence of fraud regarding a particular study, the particular institution should be notified. They have mechanisms for investigating this. Roark's claim that negative results are suppressed is belied by the published studies themselves, some of which show equivocal or negative results. See, for example, two of the studies by Alexander that are cited by Canter & Ernst's metaanalysis of studies on cognitive function which show negative results. TimidGuy 10:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. So the guy is lying about being head of the physics department? Judyjoejoe 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem with these web sites is that you don't really know where the information came from. Roark may not himself have claimed this but someone could have added it to make it sound impressive. Records don't show that he was both head of the physics department and dean of faculty during this period. Those who recall him speculate that there may have been a short period when the head of the physics department was out of the country and Roark was acting head. He was brilliant but he had a pretty low profile at the university and in the physics department.

His letter doubts whether the EEG can be measured during gross body movement because of the artifacts produced by movement. According to researcher David Orme-Johnson, Roark doesn't seem to realize that there are many EEG studies of runners, astronauts, etc., where the subject is moving. One approach to dealing with artifacts that many scientists use is to remove them with digital filtering. A more conservative approach, which the TM scientists used, was to eliminate from the data set epochs with artifacts in them. TimidGuy 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I need to learn more about Wikipedia, but I don't understand why critic sites are disallowed. I have read criticism of TM research regarding methodology, self selection in subjects, lack of proper control groups, and researchers who are practitioners of what they are studying and affiliated with institutions that teach what they are studying. These are fair criticisms of the research and should appear in the article. Judyjoejoe 13:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Judy, for asking. The problem is that these facts are incorrect. There are many randomized controlled trials in which subjects with no interest in TM were recruited. Almost all of the studies use control groups (except the neurophysiological studies). And the studies have been conducted by researchers at hundreds of universities and research centers worldwide. Principal investigators at major universities, such as Archie Wilson at U.C. Irvine, don't practice TM. You can maybe start by reading WP:V to see the policy regarding web sites. TimidGuy 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this make sense?

"Some of kings of the Himalayan kingdoms kept speed-runners from this tradition to carry messages over long distances"

Does this make sense? How would 'keeping speed-runners from this tradition' help them with their task? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.68.173 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up.Good point.I believe the tradition refers to the system for Flying maintained from Tibetan Budhism of which yogic-running noted in the preceding lines is a initial aspect. I'll try and clarify this in the article. I other words, as I understand it, these speed runners trained in this tradition from Tibetan Buddhism of which the first stage is called speed -running (where the runner covered the ground in long jumps) were kept by kings to carry messages.Any better.(olive 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Misrepresentation of research

Little of the research cited in this article correctly represents the content of the source articles. I will address those errors here, as a more transparent way of explaining the edits I intend to undertake.

• re: Wallace, R.K., et al: 1983, "Modification of the paired H-reflex through the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program," Experimental Neurology 79. Performance on the monosynaptic stretch reflex test is not a measure of "neurological efficiency" ... whatever that means! Naturezak (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Naturezak. Some nice editing. I don't have the Wallace study at hand. Are you saying that he doesn't use the phrase "neurological efficiency"? I think I added much of this content related to the research. I think I was looking at the articles when I did so. But it's also possible, though, that in some cases I was looking at a summary of the research and that this summary was itself published in a peer-reviewed publication. I can't say for sure, since it was quite some time ago. But if I've used terminology not in the study itself, yes please do correct it. But be assured that everything there did come from a published study, whether the study itself or a published summary. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding research: I have raised this within the TM article but feel that it also needs to be raised here - but to an even greater extent.. I see that a lot of the research here to support the physiological, neurological, cognitive and indeed psychological effects of the program has actually been conducted by those associated with the TM university - MUM. Of especially prominence here is Orme Johnson. Indeed, many of the effects are supported by research only published in MUMs non peer reviewed magazine. Obvious all of the latter need to be removed unless other supporting research can be found. Now, regarding research done by those with a vested interest in TM - ie Orm Johnson, etc, who at the time were working for the organization we have different problems. The only two options here will either to remove them completely as value laden research or alternative - and more realistically - point out to the reader they have been conducted by those with a vested interest in their success. thoughts? Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it must not be from science indexes. I don't believe it's accurate. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

TG. As I have access to one of the largest university libraries in the world - and also one of the most complete Athens access - I'm afraid it is correct. however, it actually doesn't require that much research - simply look at the references in this article. Except for a few of the early studies in the 70's, much of the peer reviewed research has been conducted by TM practitioners and MUM staff members - indeed a rather worrying finding and not one I was expecting. I have begun to list these is in the general TM article, but you have read this already - although in its defense it at least doesn't quote articles from MUMs own locally printed non peer reviewed magazine. however, i am sure that this is simply an oversight and can be quickly remedied.

but how do we deal with all this research we now find has been conducted by TM practioneers and especially those who were or shortly after held senior posts at MUM? Any suggestions? Really2012back (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples references 1, 2, 3 in this article:

1. ^ TRAVIS, F. T., and ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. "EEG coherence and power during yogic flying. International Journal of Neuroscience," 54: 1-12, 1990.
2. ^ Orme-Johnson, D. W., et al: 1989,"Longitudinal effects of the TM-Sidhi program on EEG phase coherence," in Chalmers, R.A., et al, eds., Scientific Research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Pogram: Collected Papers, vol. 3 (Maharishi Vedic University Press, Vlodrop, Netherlands), pp. 1678-1686
3. ^ Wallace, R.K., et al: 1983, "Modification of the paired H-reflex through the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program," Experimental Neurology 79, pp. 77-86

All of this people have been closely connected to - or indeed worked at MUM. Orm Johnson is a name we shall she repeated. You will notice the article presently use his article in the MUM magazine to support an issue on physiology - although I believe he is not a physiologist but from the social sciences. but this last fact is unimportant.

ref 5 ^ Orme-Johnson, David W., and Christopher Haynes: 1981, "EEG Phase Coherence, Pure Consciousness, Creativity, and TM-Sidhi Experiences," International Journal of Neuroscience, vol 13, 1981, pp. 211-217

ref 8 # ^ Hagelin, J. S., Orme-Johnson, D. W., Rainforth, M., Cavanaugh, K., & Alexander, C. N. (1999). Results of the National Demonstration Project to Reduce Violent Crime and Improve Governmental Effectiveness in Washington, D.C. Social Indicators Research, 47, 153–201

1. ^ Effects of Group Practice of the Transcendental Meditation Program on Preventing Violent Crime in Washington, DC: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June-July 1993, John S. Hagelin, et al

ref13 ^ Hagelin, J. S., Orme-Johnson, D. W., Rainforth, M., Cavanaugh, K., & Alexander, C. N. (1999). Results of the National Demonstration Project to Reduce Violent Crime and Improve Governmental Effectiveness in Washington, D.C. Social Indicators Research, 47, 153–201

ref # ^ 16_Hagelin, J. S., Orme-Johnson, D. W., Rainforth, M., Cavanaugh, K., & Alexander, C. N. (1999). Results of the National Demonstration Project to Reduce Violent Crime and Improve Governmental Effectiveness in Washington, D.C. Social Indicators Research, 47, 153–201.

ref 17 # ^ TRAVIS, F. T., and ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. "EEG coherence and power during yogic flying. International Journal of Neuroscience," 54: 1-12, 1990.

Indeed apart from one reference - the credientials of the author I have yet to track down (doesn;t seem to publish must - the only other refernces in this article that are not from papers/research authored by Orm Johnson - appear to be critisms.

But please Timid - in the nature of goodfaith of course - please check for yourself. I shall begin looking at the TM refernces shortly. Really2012back (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't understood the basis of this statement: "Indeed, many of the effects are supported by research only published in MUMs non peer reviewed magazine." And I was concerned that you seem to be conflating research on Transcendental Meditation with research on the TM-Sidhi program. It's true that many of the studies on the TM-Sidhi program have been done by researchers affiliated with Maharishi University of Management (formerly Maharishi International University). But there's no Wikipedia policy that disallows this peer-reviewed research. And there's no reason that any policy would. Research that is properly done and published in a peer-reviewed journal is respected, regardless of who does it. If you want to say something like, "a study done by Maharishi University of Management scientists found that . . . " I'd probably go along with it. Though I can't guarantee that other editors will. If you beat the reader over the head, as Rracecarr has done, I'll probably oppose.

Regarding vested interest, I would just note, for example, that David Orme-Johnson's pay at the university was $300 per month. (Fortunately, we've had a pay raise and I'm now, as an associate professor, earning $400 per month. Like many faculty I have a part-time, unrelated job in order to remain on faculty). David spent his long career as a researcher in impoverishment. He inherited some money from his parents and that allowed him to retire. I have no prospect of retirement. We have no pension here. David's motivation was simply that of a scientist -- he was immensely curious about the effects of Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi program. He's the nicest man you'll ever meet. I cringe when I hear "vested interest." The truth is, poverty motivated by a sincere curiosity. TimidGuy (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

51 studies

The paragraph "According to researcher David Orme-Johnson, there have been 51 studies on the Maharishi Effect published in journals including Social Indicators Research, Journal of Mind and Behavior, Social Science Perspectives Journal, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Crime and Justice, and Psychology, Crime and Law. [4]"

Needs to be removed - citing that someone says that there have been 51 studies published does not prove that they have been - this is simply hearsay. Equally, it is pointless mentioning them unless we know what there outcomes were. 16:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Really2012back (talk)