Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Tag

The tags added in the last few days have been added without foundation. This article is not untended and is under close scrutiny and any sources that are seen by the editors here as being weak can be adjusted and changed. In other words please specify the source that is a concern rather than add tags to the article. (Copied comment TM-Sidhi article).(olive (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm guessing the David Orme-Johnson refs - from his website. And to be honest would agree, but have said this before. Would be nice if the person adding the tags clarified however.The7thdr (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm still fairly new to Wiki, can someone briefly explain "Tags" and why there is a concern here? Thanks, Bigweeboy (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.228.104 (talk)

We are talking about the banner at the top of the article.--Kbob (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - it was I who added that tag, I thought (perhaps wrongly) that it would have been self-explanatory really - the Teaching Procedure section probably shouldn't be in there at all, as it is more about the logistics of the course (a commercial activity) rather than TM itself. --PopUpPirate (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That material should be re-worked rather than deleted. There are notable issues concerning the teaching of the practice and the fees.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I've readded the tag which Keith removed (I responded here rather than to his talk page). I'm no expert on the subject otherwise I would happily edit away. On reading this article, I saw this section and it stood out like a sore thumb as being advertorial. --PopUpPirate (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading the "offending" section I would have to agree with you both. However, I am unsure that I am qualified to tackle the job. Perhaps one of the obvious TM devotes might wish to look at this? While on this subject, I notice that all mention of former TM teachers who split from the movement due to ever increasing costs, and who now offer the training "on the cheap," are no longer present. Surely this is important issue and indeed and important part of TM's history? Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Popularity Section

I think 7th is right that the section title "Popularity" has a bit of POV to it. At the same time I also don't think the title History accurately reflects the content there. Does anyone have title to propose that would be more neutral and at the same time accurately reflect the content in the section? Or how about if we do away with all the subsections under History and just list the items by date of occurrence? --Kbob (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the events in the History section are already in chrono order. So it would be easy to take out the various sub section headings. Many of these sub headings consist of only one or two sentences. Do we really need them?--Kbob (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "History" section could be improved. As it stands, there is a hodge-podge of different topics there. Even the chronological order could be better. For example, the information about the Spiritual Regeneration Movement in 1959 should come before the sentence about what Maharishi did in the early 1970's. Regarding other titles for this section, the words I can think of are: Expansion, development, evolution and progression. In my opinion progression is the most neutral of these. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this title suggestion Flower. Bigweeboy (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm listening to Mitsuko Uchida's Mozart Concerto cycle to be in a "difficult mood" so please don't think I am being so :-). It was me that put in the subheadings as previously it was a little "confusing". Although I admit it was without gaining agreement first there was no objections and I think it was felt it worked. It also tends to fit in with the general structure of the article. The7thdr (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 7th.I can't do much right now but I'd like to look at the additions carefully in a couple of weeks when I return home.(olive (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

7th I think you have created a bit of imbalance in the popularity section. You seem to have quoted a number of people who did not have a positive experience with TM ...are you going to now find a bunch of people who had positive experiences and quote them? --Uncreated (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncreated: Nah, you can if you want though. However, as I am sure you are aware, by including a celebrities name - as you have done here - you are creating the impression that they somehow "endorse" said product. As can be clearly seen by my additions this is not necessarily the case. I happen to be something of a "fan" of KV and am well aware of his - and his wife and daughters - history with TM. the suggestion form the article that he was a TMer and endorsed it. Yet among those ware with his work this would clearly be incorrect. And i just found the Ozzy quote amusing - don't you? :)Must be this flu thing - giving me far to much spare time. Now where did I put that academic resource stating the origins of the mantras again...? The7thdr (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I only mention it because it bemused me. I understand from you edits and posts that your seem to want to create a more balanced article on TM yet by your recent additions to the popularity section you have created imbalance. --Uncreated (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not imbalance Uncreated - just clarification and truth :). I did mention this while - and I use the term in non-derogatory way - the "pro" TMers were going for it "hell to leather" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

TM Movement

Re KeithBob's deletions of the stuff I added (Forgot to log in) - if you search for "TM Movement" you get thousands of hits on Google, and hundreds on Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar. Even the official TM.org website describes the "Transcendental Meditation Movement" So, I don't think you can delete this on the basis that there ain't no such thing - even the TM Movement says there's a TM Movement. And it's certainly relevant to the article. And, it is reliably sourced.Fladrif (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fladriff, Sorry I deleted your sentence without saying anything. You didn't sign in so I just thought it was a drive by edit. Anyhow my position is that the lede is an introduction and summary and is not the place for a detailed discussion of servicemarks. Also the copy that is there now specifically mentions the legal entity that owns the servicemarks and trademarks. The term 'Transcendental Meditation movement' is not a legal entity and has no standing as a company or organization and has not clear accepted definition. It is a slang term and any term or combination of words can be a search term on Google. Pick any two words. How about 'car meditation'? Do a search on Google for these two words and you get 5 million hits. So this does not validate a term and make it relevant to this article. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the "Transcendental Meditation movement" what be a good topic for a separate article. It could cover some of the organizational issues that aren't quite on topic in other articles like this one.   Will Beback  talk  03:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The official TM sites repeatedly use the term "Transcendental Meditation Movement", so I'm puzzled and perplexed by the argument being made here. In addition, the Google hits I cited are for the phrase, not for the individual words - and they're real hits. I take it that the "preferred" term among the TM insiders is TMO, or "TM organization", though perhaps only among other insiders. My impression is that it would be nearly impossible for anyone to reliably source what legal entity in the TM orgainization does what (see the discussion on the TM Sidhi Programs sparked by olive's comment re who teaches what course). TM Movement or TM Organization is a handy shorthand that is consistent with how the movement/organization/whatever is described in the press, in books, and in the organization's own promotional materials. And, this insert is appropriate to the lede, because the term "TM" is used to mean a number of things: the technique, the "science", the organization. TM the technique is just one of the many things that TM the organization teaches. Fladrif (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kbob is right. Transcendental Meditation movement is slang for the whole range of trademarked aspects of the organization. This is the official site [16] and also lists links to other sites and I don't see the term Transcendental Mediation Movement used anywhere. I could be missing it. The term Transcendental Meditation is used to mean the technique only...it is a form of mediation. The official website also uses the terms Transcendental Meditation Program to define the follow-up, support aspects that are offered after the technique itself has been taught. Notice also in the article referenced in the lede that the person speaking uses the term Transcendental Mediation movement, and movement is not capitalized. This means that the phrase is not a proper noun, but is descriptive. So this means we can't then take that descriptive phrase and use it as if it was a proper noun in our lede. What we are saying is just not really accurate. I think we really have delineate slang from the official usage in order to create an article that is very clear in terms of defining the topic/subject accurately

I do see the problem though. What do we call the so-called "organization"? I think we first have to go with what's on the official sites, with what the organization calls itself. Do we have that information?(olive (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

The usual standard for naming things on Wikipedia is to use the most popular name, not the most "official" name. In the little research I've done on this topic, I've also come across "TM movement". I think there are sufficient sources for an article, and I think that it would help the article here by splitting the organization and meditiative issues.   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In the lede we have to define correctly. If we want to use something that is slang, and not accurate then we clearly attribute it in the text to a source or sources, and it doesn't belong in a lede. I think its fine to include the information Fladrif did. I'd like it to be accurate. Can we do that?

The different aspects of the organization have already been split off from this article. This article is clearly about the TM technique.(olive (talk))

I don't think "slang" is an accurate description. The obit for the Maharishi in the Los Angeles Times begins, "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of the Transcendental Meditation movement..."[17] The term is used in over 400 books, according to Google.[18] There are still significant amounts of material related to the movement in this article, including sections on the cult issues, the lawsuits, etc. Further, an article on the organizational aspects could explain the relationships between the various entities, which now only appear in the template with little or no indication of the connections.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so. Even the official TM web pages call it the "TM Movement": "His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is the founder of the world wide Transcendental Meditation Movement." [19] "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of the worldwide Transcendental Meditation Movement,..."[20]"The Transcendental Meditation movement started simply and grew steadily."[21] This article is definitely about more than just the TM technique, and we are certainly not bound to confine this article to the way that the TM Org/Movement/whatever wants to market its product, which is, quite explicitly, to try to gain mainstream acceptance of TM by trying to separate the TM technique from the woo woo aspects of the TM "science" and the TM organization. I'd like to say more about the organization in this article, but I'm quite frankly finding a hard time locating independent, secondary sources on the details. Near as I can figure out, the organization now is under the overall umbrella of the Global Country of World Peace, overseen by an Maharaja appointed by MMY, with 27 Rajas and 8 Purusha Rajas, 12 Global Ministers and a prime minister, and then, in each country, a national director and 12 directors, with the pattern repeated at the state and city level. There are also similary organizations for the Purusha and Mother Divine programs, and also something called Vedic Pandits. In keeping with the theme of the organization being a "government", everyone certified to teach TM is called a "Governor". The organization is trying to establish "Peace Palaces" as well as "Invincibility Centers" But, what exactly any of this bureaucracy actually does, and how the various corporations, such as the Maharishi Foundation, MVED, MUM, etc....fit into the overall organization is yet more difficult to pin down.Fladrif (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrfi. In talking to people associated with the TM org they said quite explicitly there is no TM Movement. However, if official sites are using the term then I think we can as well. It is unclear to me as well just what the responsibilities of these different "organizations" are responsible for. My sense is that TM movement is a general overarching term used for the general public, that there is a trademarking section of the organization that is more of a legal entity, and that there is as you said above, a system inside the organization that works with the actual teaching. At any rate I am OK with the sentence in the lede since we now have a source that defines as the organization defines itself(olive (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi began using the terms "the Movement" and "our Movement" very early on, during the Spiritual Regeneration Movement (SRM) days, starting in the late 1950s when it was clear that the new concept of effortless enlightenment was igniting a huge popular interest. The word "movement" expressed the spontaneous nature of this explosive growth, as well as an implication that this organization belonged to everyone. Maharishi was fond of saying, "the Movement belongs to those who move."

Many years have passed, and (IMO) the leadership of the TM Movement has become somewhat rigid, adhering to the formulaic dicta "given out" by Maharishi, even when they cannot give a good rationale for them (a few examples of many: the high course fees, building a flamboyant, tall building in each country, and reconstructing all houses so their entrances point exactly to the East).

Yet, In spite of this rigidity, the Movement is still quite alive. And anyone can still play a major role. The filmmaker David Lynch, for example, is responsible for sponsoring the incredibly successful Quiet Time project in U.S. schools (Quiet Time in the Classroom) on the basis of his sincere advocacy and the donation of large amounts of money from his eponymous Foundation.

Although the term "the TM Movement" originated with Maharishi and his followers, it was readily adopted by journalists writing about the phenomenon of TM in the 1960s and 1970s. I'm sure there are plenty of authoritative references to be had among the many early TM articles published in national and local magazines and newspapers. David spector (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The lede reads "The Transcendental Meditation technique is one of sixty products and courses offered by the Transcendental Meditation movement." But is not the "Transcendental Meditation movement" that is offering these courses. It is specific teaching organizations that do so. Therefore, I think that this sentence should be removed from the lede. Bigweeboy (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Who teaches TM? The sentence you're referring to cited to a reliable source quoting a TM teacher.   Will Beback  talk  16:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term seems to have become overarching, generalized terminology to simplify understanding for the general public. Using such a general term in the lede of the article weakens the article because it lacks specificity, and in the context of this article creates confusion seems to me, but Will is right, it is reliably sourced, and so it is acceptable to use it. If there was a consensus to use more specific and accurate wording that would be good , but I don't see any sources that specify a name for the specific section of the organization that is responsible for teaching. Anyone have that information?(olive (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Fair enough Olive. I accept the sentence in the lede as is. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is properly sourced, the term is fine by me. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Will's idea of there being a separate article for the TM Movement/organisation.--Uncreated (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Purusha and Mother Divine

Should this really be in the article on Transcendental Meditation? It is a very fringe program of the TM organisation and surely does not deserve the attention is it given in this article on Transcendental Meditation. There is probably a lot of information available about the program that is appropriately sourced but I would think it deserves its own Article rather than be wedged into the TM Article. If there are editors who feel it should be mentioned because of its association with the TM Org which teaches TM I would point out there are numerable other programs which are far more popular and well known than the Purusha and Mother Divine program that should be given the space that is now dedicated to the Purusha and Mother Divine section. --Uncreated (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think uncreated brings up a good point. As stated in the lede, there are 61 programs and courses related to TM. Obviously we cannot put a paragraph for all of these programs in the TM article and so in the past we have created separate articles for these programs ie. TM-Sidhi, Global Country of World Peace, Maharishi Ayurveda and so on. Why are we making an exception for Mother Divine and Purusha programs?--Kbob (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is another reason to have a "TM movement" article - it could include descriptions of the relatively minor programs that don't merit articles of their own.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we could create 2 articles: one on Purusha, another on Mother Divine. Bigweeboy (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

While we are discussing the validity of the sections inclusion in this article. I removed the phrase "described as monasteries" because it is not supported by the citation. The source (which is about a toilet invention, yikes!) gives TM related data, but does not mention the Purusha or Mother Divine programs. Quotes from the source article(which is about a toilet invention, yikes!) gives the following 'TM related data, but does not mention the Purusha or Mother Divine programs:

• He moved on to North Carolina in 1996 for a life of quiet introspection and progressive bowel movements, working as a computer programmer at the Heavenly Mountain Resort.
• Isbit said that beyond the discovery of transcendental meditation, his time at Yale was "rather uneventful."

I would support moving the Mother Divine and Purusha programs elsewhere. I as I said above, the "History" section of this article seems quite disjointed and consists of a string of seemingly unrelated paragraphs. Would it be more appropriate for this article to include a list of the biggest or most significant programs? Then people could investigate further if they are interested. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that this article would be best focused on the meditation technique, and organizational aspects should be moved to another article.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Uncreated (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; although if it is to be included here I think in the Relgion section - as it does seem to support the idea that TM is a religion The7thdr (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As shown above there is strong consensus that the Purusha and Mother Divine section is not appropriate for this TM article. So I have removed it and pasted it below in case it is needed for a future article. --Kbob (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very good that you have remove the Mother Divine/Purusha section Kbobb. You paragraph can be used in other articles, as you suggest. Bigweeboy (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Among the advanced programs offered by the TM organization are the Purusha and Mother Divine programs , long-term residential programs for TM "monks and "nuns", respectively, involving a lifestyle of celibacy and meditation.. In the US, separate campuses of the Purusha and Mother Divine programs were formerly located outside Boone, NC, adjacent to the Maharishi Spiritual Center of America. As of 2002, the Purusha program for men and the Mother Divine program for women involved 310 men and 100 women respectively, on separate campuses. The Purusha and Mother Divine programs involve daily 4 1/2 hour meditation sessions in the morning, fundraising or work for the nonprofit entities associated with the Spiritual Center in the afternoons, and then group meditation in the evening. Both programs also include reading and study of Vedic literature, and instruction in Sanskrit and Vedic science. While participation in the Purusha or Mother Divine programs requires a minimum 3-month commitment, many participants have been part of this program for 20 years or more. ,In 2004 the campuses were moved to Fairfield, Iowa.

We do have multiple topics pending on this and other related articles so might be good to finish those before jumping into discussion on a new article.(olive (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

I strongly disagree with this material being excised from the article. This is simply one of the advanced TM programs offered by the TM Movement. It's pretty clear that the TM Org regards this group as the pinnacle of achievement in the TM technique, though it's naturally reluctant to publicise it. If you don't want it in "History", it belongs in the "Cult" section. Fladrif (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, I question your assessment that the TM organization regards Purusha and Mother Divine 'as the pinnacle of achievement in the TM technique.." I am a rather inexperienced editor. However, I am wondering if this judgement on your part might be considered POV. I'm also wondering what your justification could possibly be for placing this material in the "Cult" section. I am not and never have been a religious person. However, even I can appreciate that there are a few people who choose to live a quiet, reclusive, contemplative life away from the hustle and bustle of the world. That is an old and venerable tradition on our planet, is it not? --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a New Article

I think the best way to proceed would be to create another article and move this info over to it. I agree with Will, the article on Transcendental Meditation should focus on the technique and other information that deals with the Organisation of Transcendental Meditation and its other programs should be moved to a new Article. I have no idea how to create a new Article...maybe Will you could do so? --Uncreated (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea of creating a "Misc TM" article where we place all the various TM related programs. The procedure on Wiki is to create articles on specific topics if they are notable, not to create a catch all article for a collection of items that don't stand on their own.--Kbob (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The TM movement is quite notable and there are many book and articles that talk about it. It'd certinaly make more sense to have itmes like this in an article like that rather than treating this as the de facto "misc" article. The meditation technique is a large enough topic so that this article should focus on it alone.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Will I agree, that these misc. items don't belong in this article on TM. But I'm also not sure its useful to have a collection of small, random topics in a separate article either. I am in favor of the TM article retaining its own integrity and other notable programs also have their own article. If the topic of the "TM Movement" can be shown to be notable with reliable sources than of course it can have its own article just like any other article topic but it shouldn't created as a place for a collection of items that are not notable enough to stand on their own.--Kbob (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats a fair point Kbob.--Uncreated (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kbobb. If a new article were to be created under the title of "TM Movement" it would be a mish-mash of disjoined items that are not notable in their own right. I feel that while "TM Movement" may be used in common parlance, it is not an actual organization, entity, establishment, or club. Better to have the more notable topics have their own article, if they even warrant that. Bigweeboy (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Uncreated and Will, the TM movement is highly notable and needs/warrants it's own entry. If this is not to be the case than I would recommend that this article must by default include all such information. There is no TM technique without the Tm Movement.Could I also point out that this article was originally about the "Movement" and not the "technique". looking through the history of this article this is apparent and the focus was changed without agreement originally by TG.it can either be one or the other I am afraid. To see how this is handled in other religions one only needs to read the entries on Buddhism Christianity, Hinduism, Scientology, etc. It is clear form the movements founder that principles upon which TM "works" are deeply religious and philosophical. This needs to be noted in WIKI. That TM is also the first part of a greater "program" to influence @reality" via paranormal/occult/spiritual means supports this contention —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We do have multiple topics pending on this and other related articles so might be good to finish those before jumping into discussion on a new article.

I am not in favour of creating an article on TM Movement or movement until we clearly delineate what the term means or is. We have MVEDC, and we have Global Country of World Peace. MVEDC seems to be a licensing organization. Is it also in charge of teaching? Global Country of World Peace seems to be the governing organizing body. What then is "TM movement"? We have to be able to clearly define the topic/subject matter otherwise we risk creating a kind of a dumping ground for bits and pieces of information.(olive (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

This article is the de facto dumping ground, so moving miscellaneous items out of here would improve the article. MVEDC certainly appears to be a core element of the movement. I suggest that the best way to proceed would be to set up a page to serve as a repository for research on the topic. Once the field has been covered, the outlines and content of an article will be easy to create.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, this article was pared down to include only material that related as directly as possible to the TM technique. If it has become a dumping ground recently perhaps the solution is to have editors support the contentious nature of the article, and add only content that is discussed and agreed upon. It seems counter productive for us to allow all kinds of content into the article and then to create another article as a holding tank for those misc. bits of information.(olive (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

There's nothing wrong with miscellaneous bits of information - that's what encyclopedias are for. It's reproted that the TM movement has 60 programs. It'd be worthwhile to cover those in some article, and also to explain (if we can find any sources) the history of the movement and the connections between the various entities.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked that the MUM crowd here is against including content, whether in this article or in a separate article on the TM Org/Movement/Whatever that describes, all in one place, the full panoply of things that the TM true believers actually believe and do. You'd think that they'd be thrilled that people could read about the opportunity to become celibate TM "monks" and "nuns", or to change your destiny by buying indulgences - I mean Yagyas performed by Vedic Pandits to avert the negative influences of planetary alignment or to atone for your sins - I mean past wrong actions or to accomplish your desires. Or how for a mere million bucks, you too can be a Raja in the Global Country of World Peace. Shocked! Round up the usual suspects.Fladrif (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is a valid topic than it should be easy for an editor to write some copy ie a draft of a lede which by Wiki definition would be an introduction and summary of the article and would be very well sourced. If any editors can create some concrete proposal like that then we would have something concrete to discuss. Otherwise it's just opinion and conjecture. We can also write articles on the Yagya program or on Mother Divine. There is no problem with that. We just want to keep the TM article for TM and not get it mixed up with the 61 other programs.--Kbob (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

MVEDC has trademarked a large number of terms, many connected with active programs. Topics that are sufficiently notable to have articles of their own, like TM itself, can keep their separate articles and just have a short summary there. As Kbob says, that will allow us to "keep the TM article for TM".   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Beautifully expressed, Will. I completely agree with your assessment - let's "keep the TM article for TM". --BwB (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon and Sexy Sadie

I have no problem with the sentence below as it specified by the source that is cited:

• John Lennon “fell out” with the Maharishi and wrote the song “Sexie Sadie” about his allegedly materialistic ways..

7th Door then found a reference for lyrics to the song Sexy Sadie and added this sentence:

• The song begins with the lines:"Sexy Sadie what have you done.You made a fool of everyone."

However, isn't this original research on our part? Making the judgment that these specific lines from the song illustrate the Maharishi's "allegedly materialistic ways"? To be objective wouldn't we need to print all the lyrics and let the reader decide? It seems to me to be personal interpretation to select any particular part of the song lyrics. What do others think? --Kbob (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be right Kbobb. Perhaps there are secondary sources that can be used. Bigweeboy (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Making the judgment that these specific lines from the song illustrate the Maharishi's "allegedly materialistic ways

Not at all, this is the conclusion drawn in the original article - not original research on my behalf. Indeed, it was you Kbob that altered the sentence to reflect this fact :-)

Note that prior to you adding this i have already removed it on the basis stated in the edit. But happy to discuss if you wish to add it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7th, thanks for the response. You are correct the sources says Lennon wrote the song to illustrate the Maharishi's "allegedly materialistic ways". I am not disputing that. What I am questioning is us editors picking specific lines from the song to illustrate the point. That is a judgment call on the part of an editor in include some lyrics and exclude other lyrics, don't you think?. I think we either have to quote all the lyrics or none at all. Anyway it seems you have removed it so I guess I won't blather on further. :-) peace!--Kbob (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity Quotes

I would also like to remove this sentence (below) which uses a personal web site [[22]] as a citation:

• Of his experience with TM, Kurt Vonnegut said; "I tried that (TM). It gave me a terrible headache (Laughs)" --Kbob (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also this sentence quoting Ozzie Osborne in the article:

• “Ozzy Osbourne thought it was a waste of time, saying "I tried TM but gave it up and smoked a joint instead."

This Ozzy sentence has a valid source however to be fair shouldn’t we also include quotes from the members of the Beatles, Mike Love, Deepak, Andy Kaufman, Shirley Mclain etc., if they can be found and reliably sourced? Or do we just want to remove all these quotes? --Kbob (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should probably avoid adding people who made negative remakrs about their experience, since including their name is an implied endorsement. Or, we can segregate them with a comment like, "People who tried TM but stopped include:"   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think all the fuss about what celeb learned TM and found it good or bad is a waste of time. Perhaps it might to best to focus on the scientific results than what some celeb says? Bigweeboy (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We may not like it, but this is a celebrity-focused world. The involvement of celebrities in TM probably did more to promote it adoption than all of the scientific studies combined. Both deserve space in the article.   Will Beback  talk  18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This what i said before the "popularity section was added - but it was ignored. Now it is in place I think it makes interesting reading. Like it or I do have to sadly agree with WILL. Whether, "we" like it or not, celebrity is important. Indeed, it was the TM authors of this piece that argued this section be added. It is now a little late to complain about something which TM argued to include, when it appears that many of the celebrities (especially the dead ones) its website and promotional material is so keen to suggest endorsed the technique may have actually had a very different view

keithbob: it is a "personal website" from an expert in his field - just as OJ is. (Actually, it's an authors page a much different thing but hey, I'll play along if you want). It was included, so the reader could actually read the full interview. However, if you wish to cite a published source for the same interview - you are obviously unaware of the author - you could cite the following just as easily: Conversations with Kurt Vonnegut: By Kurt Vonnegut, William Rodney Allen. Where the full text is also included. Alas, not all of it is available to GoogleBooks preview. The7thdr (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will and we should remove the recent additions where people are quoted with negative remarks. It just makes the whole popularity section unbalanced.--Uncreated (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what part of WILLs statements you are agreeing to uncreated. Until a balance is archived where it does seem that the people cited are endorsing the produced I do not see how you can remove the recent edits. KV was especially negative; the same as the Beatles - minus one member - about TM. Include all the "good" stuff in poularity must be balanced by what you might consider the "negative" stuff.Plus I like the Ozzy quote :) The7thdr (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"I think that we should probably avoid adding people who made negative remakrs about their experience, since including their name is an implied endorsement"...was the part I was agreeing with. Have I miss understood Wills point?--Uncreated (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant. Rather than adding quotes to shopw how they felt about TM, it might be better to leave them off entirely. I don't think it's correct to leave them on a list of people who've tried TM without indicating their finding. It'd be like listing the scientists who've studied TM, without reporting their results.   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I quite follow all the points in this discussion of the "Celebrity" section. However, it is indisputable that all three of the quotes currently included in that section are negative. To present a balanced viewpoint shouldn't there be three positive comments as well? --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, LFE, that's the point. If we include quotes from all celebrities both pro and con, then the section will expand and become unduly large. Therefore, I think Will's suggestion is a good compromise. We list the celebrities and in two sentences we say which celebrities speak highly of it and the names of the other celebrities that speak poorly of it. Otherwise we have to have quotes from every celebrity both pro and con to have balance in the article section. Is this compromise alright with everyone? --Kbob (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I have added two quotes for McCartney and Seinfeld. However, I am happy to remove all quotes and give a two sentence summary as Will has suggested. I think that would be better than a 'quoting competition'. :-) namaste,--Kbob (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that we should stop the 'quoting competition'. And I endorse the Will and Kbob suggestion to summarizing the pro and con celebrity camps. --BwB (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A quoting war? Not at all. I think they add a little "lightness" to the article. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Studies and Scientific/Medical Literature On The Adverse Effects Of TM

I have added this section - the first in series of additions I would like to make to the research section - due to my long held -and stated here - belief, that the research section is not only highly unbalanced but to "pro" TM with any criticism of the research quickly removed. In this new section all of the studies are from reliable sources and are specific to TM.

I shall be investigation this area further and making additions to each section as necessary. One will have to stay with me on this however, given time restraints.

Ed: Sorry, yes it was me. The7thdr (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this section, 7th. However the studies you site have been debunked by David Orme-Johnson. A detailed analysis of the mentioned studies by Otis, Lazarus, etc. can be found at http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm. If we are going to add this section on adverse effects, then I would like to also include these discussions on the research by Orme-Johnson. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think an overall discussion of the research by Orme-Johnon and other MUM scholars would be a good idea. It's missing context now.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Are you willing to lead this, Will? --BwB (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't done any research on TM and have too many other WP matters pending.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I can come up with a little something - in time :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion needed for major addition

While I'm not against including any so-called negative research such a large and critical section needs careful dissection scrutiny and discussion. This is a contentious article after all, eh 7th? I've moved the content here for discussion. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

No need to discuss before inclusion Olive - unless it is un-resourced or against wiki polices, which it is not. Some of us do not have weeks to hang around here here i am afraid. However, happy to discuss now it is in place. thought you were not around for a while by the way? hope i m not making you break your holidays :) The7thdr (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can get a connection every now and then 7th ... its just spotty...This is a contentious article, and you're making a very large addition. Not only was there no agreement for the studies, there was no agreement for a new section. Since you've stated that you've looked at the archives you'll know there are concerns with some of these studies like the Otis study. Are you playing fair, 7th.;o)(olive (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

I always play fair Olive. As to "issues" with the studies, as you are aware there are "issues" and criticisms with every TM study in this article - all recorded in the academic literature. If we were to exclude every study on that basis your research section would be none existent. It is not up to WIKI contributors to decide whether reliable resourced - and relevant - research should be included or not. If it exists it exists - whether the TM movement likes that or not. The criticisms of TM can be found amongst all meditative practices - this is one of the possible consequences of meditation. The only reason that you - as a representative of MUM and the TM "movement" and your organization are so upset by this is that you both deny that such adverse affects exist and that - it might be argued - TM is so poor at addressing them in meditors (but this would be expected if your movement claim they do not exist).

Just because TM (Inc) dislikes the idea does not mean that WIKI readers should not be made aware of the issues. This is an encyclopedic entry after all and not a TM promotional brochure.. Now, you must excuse me but I seem to have a dose of flu. I hope a bunch of TMers are not doing what what you did to Tony Blair and bouncing bad thoughts at me with you super dupa bouncing occult powers :-) The7thdr (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah 7th... ad hominem attacks aren't in order. I didn't say we shouldn't use the negative studies. Please reread what I said. I am requesting discussion or agreement before a single editor adds a new and large section to a contentious article. We need to look at studies added as has been done in the past and we need to consider WP:Weight among other things. Hope you feel much better soon.(olive (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

olive they were not ad hominem attacks at all - some were true and others my silly sense of humor - of which I am sure someone of your obvious intelligence worked out :). There are no guidelines suggesting the addition of a new subsection in this article needs to be discussed in advance. As I have said, must WIKI editors do not have large amount of time to spend on editing. I am also trying to put something together for the entry on Mozart's four earlier piano concertos, so am a tad distracted. Your welcome to pop along and help however if your feeling bored - am sure it is something we might agree a little more about :) As to citing WP:Weight I await with bated breath to see where this one is going :-). And thank you for your kind words. I'm off to do 20 minutes or so meditation. It might not help with the flu but I might at least feel a tad better over-all :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 00:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Otis Study is not peer reviewed. Mentioning it at all is not Wikipedia compliant. There are 350 and growing peer reviewed studies on TM...and then the one non peer reviewed Otis study... That's undue weight no matter how you slice it. On top of that we have a lot of text on the Otis study...more undue weight. Not so exciting, just straight up Wikipedia policy so I guess you can let your breath out.:o)(olive (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

A detailed analysis of the mentioned studies by Otis, Lazarus, etc. can be found at http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm. If we are going to add this section on adverse effects, then I would like to also include these discussions on the research by Orme-Johnson. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh goodness, is that OJ, long time TM, whos research makes up the majority of the materiel that finds TM having positive results? From his personal website? Who also counters the CULT label in this article by citing non peer reviewed studies conducted as graduate thesis? The7thdr (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling as it were and to confirm that i am playing fair and this is not all one sided:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

I do keep asking for the guidlines that would exclude Otis, et al, but let me start with the guielines that would exclude OJ - To g —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I read through some of the talk page archives regarding Otis, and I saw many assertions that non-peer reviewed studies are not permitted. But I never saw a link to an actual policy or guideline. Is there one that applies to this situation? BTW, another way of gauging the value of a source, particularly an academic one, is by counting how many times it's been cited. Has the Otis paper been cited by others?   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Olive: Indeed, I am breathing again and it feels a bit of anticlimax alas :-). Would need to agree with WILL, what policy specifically stops an inclusion of a study, that is cited in many textbooks and and research papers, because it is not peer-reviewed again? Would that mean that much of the material in WIKI needs to be deleted? Also, looking at the history of this article - i see that the studies cited by OJ to counter claims of TM being a CULT were graduate thesis yet you argued - successfully - for their inclusion, despite the fact they are obviously not peer reviewed. Should these, under whatever policy you are citing now, be removed? Indeed, what not the entire OJ argument need to be deleted?

Will: the SRI study has been cited hundreds of times in many papers and academic books on the subject of meditation. Indeed, one of the books which cites it has been used by TM editors in the past as a reliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

olive, as to undue weight: it summarizes a very long and detailed survey which intruth includes a lot more relevant information; this is the reason that it takes up four lines. I notice you did not raise the same objection regarding the:

^ James W. Anderson1, Chunxu Liu and Richard J. Kryscio, "Blood Pressure Response to Transcendental Meditation: A Meta-analysis,"

verses

^ Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N,Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP. "Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research".

studies. whereby the study that found TM research was POOR examined 880 such studies but the one that thought they were not POOR only looked at 19 VERY carefully selected ones? Yet the first here mentioned consists of 3 lines of text and the pro tm one (funded by MUM and with the wages of one of the researchers paid by one of TMs biggest individual funders) consist of 6 lines of text. An oversight nodoubt? :) The7thdr (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2009

I am fairly new to this but I must say I enjoy the lively discussion on these pages. I was under the impression that WP:WEIGHT meant, essentially that if a majority of studies supports something, and a minority disputes it, they should be mentioned proportionally. To me that is an appropriate way of presenting things. Also, statements about studies being "poor", or "more important" (I have seen both in this discussion) should be substantiated or they are simply POV. To quote from Wikipedia: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. " By all means let's include relevant studies, but let's reach a consensus first.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your view of "weight" is roughly correct. But the majority viewpoint is hard to establish. Is it reflected in scientiic studies written by MUM staff? Perhaps. It may be that the majority of people in the world have a view that different from what's expressed in those studies. WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints should be included. Consensus is important, but it can't override NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Luke: use of POV tends not to refer to discussion in the talk pages - if we applied POV to talk no one would ever say anything in here :). POV really should be about what is within the article. For example Olive edited my entry a moment ago because she considered it POV within the article. And on reflection i would agree with her :)

Again, your description regarding weight is only partly true. For example, all of the studies findings that I quote in the new section are not inline with MUM funded research - which is the majority of TM research - because MUM has stayed away from these subjects in general. Try and find for example - MUM funded research on the impact of TM on Schizophrenic patients? I think you will draw a blank. Equally, try and find a MUM sponsored study like the SRI one. Again, they simply to not exist. There are also, very stringent guidelines regarding research made by companies on profit making "products". Whether TM want to admit it or not, TM is a "product"; one that makes clear statements about it's health applications (indeed a muti-trillion dollar "product"). However, it is an unusual product in that it has its own university: MUM. WIKI guidelines struggle with this so far as the situation is unusual. Finally, all of the studies have been quoted hundreds of times in academic papers and books (a quick search of PUBMED would support this. Due to funding, it is actually relatively unusual to repeat such studies - they are expensive. Only companies such as TM has the resources to do so and generally such studies are not only "weighed" (forgive the pun) in TMs favor, but cover areas it feels relatively save in. Take the examples of the two meta studies I discussed above. One found TM research to be poor. The other not. Clearly the second was in response to the first; was funded by MUM; with researchers salaries paid by the Tm movement. Equally, in advance not only did it select only 19 studies compered with the others 880, but it choose these studies - as can be clearly seen by examining it;s methodology/sampling sections on the basis of the studies' "quality"!!!! The7thdr (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is consistent referral to MUM sponsoring the majority of research...are there any reliable main stream sources to support this or is it just the opinion of some editors? My understanding is the extreme majority of the research and reporting in Newspapers finds Transcendental Meditation to having a positive impact in a number of different ways for the individual and ...Out of the hundreds of scientific research studies to be conducted on TM only an extreme minority of studies show negative results. This was reflected in how the research was presented before the most recent addition's were added to the TM Article and we should revert since it better reflects the mainstream and scientific understanding of TM. --Uncreated (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No it does not reflect mainstream science view of TM - the truth is that mainstream science really doesn't care; Hence the fact all of the research is conducted/funded by MUM. You really don't want to go down this path. i don't have the energy to address it within the article but will if forced. As to reliable resources that share the doubts about TMs "research"? The sociology of religious movements, By William Sims Bainbridge; "Problems with TM Research"; "Maharishi Ayur-Veda: guru's marketing scheme promises the world eternal 'perfect health'" , by Andrew Skolnick, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Oct. 2, 1991, vol. 266: pp. 1741-45, 1749-50 by Professor of Sociology, Barry Markovsky; Peer review analysis of the "Maharishi Effect", Evaluating Heterodox Theories . Markovsky, Barry and Fales, Evan. The University of North Carolina Press. Published December 1997 in Social Forces Volume 76 (2):511-25; "A Study in Alternative Truth" by Andrew Skolnick; The Various Implications Arising from the Practice of Transcendental Meditation: An empirical analysis of pathogenic structures as an aid in counseling. Bensheim, Germany: (Institut fur Jugend Und Gesellschaft, Ernst-Ludwig-Strasse 45, 6140.) Institute for Youth and Society, 1980 (188 pgs).; Persinger, Michael A, Norman J. Carrey and Lynn A. Suess. TM and Cult Mania (198 pages). North Quincy, Massachusetts: Christopher Publishing House, 1980.; etc, etc, etc, etc The7thdr (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Orme-Johnson, R.K Wallace and RH Schneider are current or former MUM staff. Many of the studies listed in the references were coauthored by one or another of them.   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Might also mention the first person to gain "positive" TM literature into to the mainstream scientific media - nature, science, etc - Dr. Robert Keith Wallace (see nearly all of the early research in the 70's, who went onto Chair • Professor of Physiology • Director of Research at [MUM? The7thdr (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I could go on for hours but the list below of researchers work cited in this article includes their present role at MUM to the right - of course I am sure just a co-incidence and everything is aboveboard but to answer your question uncreated:

Schneider, Robert, M.D. (Director, Institute for Natural Medicine & Prevention) Scharf, David (Math & Maharishi Vedic Science) Nidich, Sanford (Institute for Natural Medicine & Prevention; Education) Rainforth, Maxwell (Institute for Natural Medicine & Prevention) Salerno, John Institute for Natural Medicine & Prevention Travis, Frederick (Chairperson, Maharishi Vedic Science) Hagelin, John (Director, Institute of Science, Technology & Public Policy

The7thdr (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding in regards to the funding of alot of the research that is conducted by MUM is gained from the NIH...so to suggest some how that the "movement" is somehow behind the funding is wrong. Also my understanding is that in regards to R.K Wallace his original research that put TM on the scientific map was conducted while he was associated with UCLA and Harvard Medical school.

Could it be that researches who research TM go on to become some how affiliated with MUM because it is a University that deals with investigation into Transcendental Meditation? My understanding is that only recently with the likes of Fred Travis that MUM has actually been producing researches from within its "walls" who go on publish research on transcendental meditation ( http://www.media-newswire.com/release_1087147.html) .

Quickly looking at the research that is included in the TM article I can see that the research that is used by Wallace was conducted while he was at Harvard Medical School, There are a number of studies by Schneider but all funded by the NIH...but I also see a number of studies associated with other universities. --Uncreated (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To be play devils advocate: Indeed, it is strange how many people conduct positive research on Tm and then get a major post at MUM. The funding is indeed by NIH but - as is pointed out in this article - managed by MUM. Most - if not all - the pority sitive research conducted at other universities - a tiny percentage since MUMwas founded - is actually funded by MUM; MUM using NIH funds or also - in the case of the most recent positive meta-study on TM research - by major funders of TM (who in this case was kind enough to pay one of the researchers a salary for the length of the study) :) The7thdr (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But I am sure that nothing has ever influenced the academic integrity of any of these researchers. Indeed, I applaud Dr Wallace who was clearly never influenced by: becoming the First President of Maharishi International University, or His Excellency the Minister of Research and Development or having Dr. Robert Keith Wallace Drive, named after him, etc, etc. A lesser person might have been :-) The7thdr (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets cut to the chase. Otis is not peer reviewed. I assume we have all read and understand Wikipedia and reliability and verifiability, and I won't insult anyone by linking it here. Like wise, I assume we all understand peer review, and the way in which independent boards determine the legitimacy of research they publish. As well, we all know that universities hire researchers irrespective of their religious or spiritual beliefs. Research is vetted by peer review boards so whatever the researcher believes doesn't enter the picture. Further careful scrutiny of research on TM will indicate clearly that many bother institutions and researchers have carried out research on the technique. NIH funding is determined by the NIH, is not influenced by the researcher, and the researcher may take that funding anywhere they want, to any university. Thus, a friend of mine trained at MUM took his NIH grant to one of the most prestigious universities in the world. That university did not question his spiritual beliefs, his religion, his sexual orientation or his sock colour, or any other non pertinent information. They didn't have to. The NIH is independent of the researcher, and so is the peer review board who looks at the research. Calling into question peer reviewed research calls into question not only the researcher, but the peer review board and in the case of an NIH grant, the NIH itself. Not our job!

I would like to remind everyone that a proposal was on the table to replace the research itself, primary sources with secondary sources. In that case there might be some small argument for inclusion of the Otis secondary sources. However, there are multiple secondary sources for TM research and that would be included as well.

Since comments have been made about old information and research, I think most recently in the Popularity section but certainly earlier, to be consistent, the date of the Otis study, a very old study shnould be considered here.

There are multiple ways of determining mainstream and majority viewpoint per Wikipedia. Google news archives is one for secondary sources. Number of peer reviewed studies is another for primary source information. The research on TM is easily mainstream. The Otis study is not,and as per Wikipedia is in the tiny minority.

The Otis study as is, should be removed. If others think differently I'm happy to take this to RfC, informal and then formal mediation as soon as I have a stable editing situation.(olive (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

Love your "cut to the chase" Olive. The NIH have given a number of large grants to study TM over the years. It would be very strange that such a prestigious organization would continue to dole out large sums of money for studies on TM if they at all felt the research to be shoddy, biases, unprofessional. Your points are very well taken and I agree with your analysis. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me cut the chase quicker Olive: Take it to RFc. It is a reliable source, cited by multiple papers, in multiple textbooks and you know - unless you manage to pull in a bunch of TMers you would be unsuccessful in excluding it. But again, i would repeat Will's request, please point to the wiki rules that will specifically exclude it. Thanks The7thdr (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I assume we have all read and understand Wikipedia and reliability and verifiability, and I won't insult anyone by linking it here. -Littleolive oil

I would not be insulted if the relevant pages are linked. In fact I requested that the policy which forbids using non-peer-reviewed studies be quoted. I am not aware of any that does so.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I equally would not be insulted - I have attempted to do the same with the Orm-Johnson removal request. I am not aware of all policies Olive and i think it would help to clarify for anyone reading this? It would seem silly - and a great waste of time - taking this to Rfc before the relevant policy was confirmed and cited. The7thdr (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that POV is fine in a discussion, but not in the article itself. The fact still remain that if there is a single study which says one thing versus hundreds, published in reputable publications, which say otherwise, we should either not mention the lone article, or, at most, mention it proportionally. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We should consider treating the MUM-related studies as more or less a single viewpoint. It should not be given excessive weight because there is no indication that it is the majority viewpoint on matters related to TM, and based on materials found in mainstream, 3rd-party sources many of the claims are viewed with skepticism.   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The "weight" argument that has been repeatedly advanced by the MUM and TM-related editors is fallacious, particularly when it comes to scientific studies. That there have been "hundreds" of studies of TM with "positive" results, but only a handful with "negative" results is entirely irrelevant. For example, the two meta-studies of research on meditation and hypertension showed that out of scores of studies on TM's effects on, you could count on the fingers of one hand (with a finger or two to spare) the number that had been properly conducted, sufficiently documented, and statistically significant. The "peer review" argument (I'm convinced that "peer reviewed" must be one of the advanced TM-technique mantras) also falls on its face since, as was the case in the Washington DC Maharishi Effect Study where all of the peer reviewers had ties to the TM organization, there is little meaningful outside review of the self-funded and self-published studies by TM-true believers such as DO-J. And, as soon as there is anything critical of this research published, the TM org quickly trots out a "refutation". These assertions do nothing to advance the question "what it the independent, mainstream, scientific view?" Fladrif (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the web page http://www.tm.org/national-institutes-of-health under the banner title "Universities Conducting NIH-funded research on Transcendental Meditation", you find that there are 7 studies on TM done at different universities. Not all TM research is done at MUM. --BwB (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So let me confirm of the 1000s of studies done on TM only 7 have been done at other universities apart from MUM? Only 7! And i wonder, could you conform the affiliation of the people conducting those studies? How many were TMers? How many were also MUM staff members? And who was dealing out taxpayers money as provided so kindly by NIH? An you source this to...surprise surprise MUM or is it TM.ORG :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Following the link BwB provided, I find seven studies, of which four are available online. Here are the lists of authors:

• "Effectiveness of Transcendental Meditation on Functional Capacity and Quality of Life of African Americans with Congestive Heart Failure: A Randomized Control Study"
  • Ravishankar Jayadevappa, PhD, Jerry C. Johnson, MD, Bernard S. Bloom, PhD*, Sanford Nidich, EdD, Shashank Desai, MD, Sumedha Chhatre, PhD, Donna B. Raziano, MD, and Robert H. Schneider, MD
• "Neuroimaging of meditation’s effect on brain reactivity to pain"
  • David W. Orme-Johnson, Robert H. Schneider, Young D. Son, Sanford Nidich, and Zang-Hee Cho
• "Effects of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation on Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Subjects With Coronary Heart Disease"
  • 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 Stress Reduction on Carotid Atherosclerosis in Hypertensive African Americans"
  • Amparo Castillo-Richmond, Robert H. Schneider, Charles N. Alexander, Robert Cook, Hector Myers, Sanford Nidich, Chinelo Haney, Maxwell Rainforth and John Salerno

So of those that can be easily checked, all four have two or more co-authors who are MUM staff. How many studies have been conducted without involvement of MUM personnel?   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that peer reviewed, published studies are most highly prized and preferred by Wiki. I am not aware of any Wiki policy that discounts that status because the peer reviewed and published research was performed by or with the assistance of scientists that practice TM or hold positions at MUM.--Kbob (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the material is being used for. In this discussion, the number of scientific studies conducted by MUM staff is being compared to the number performed by non-MUM scientists, and the asserted conclusion is that since the MUM-related papers are more numerous they represent the majority view. While the individual studies are probably reliable (I haven't really looked into the criticisms of them), the assertion that the shear number of them means that they should have far greater weight or even exclude other views is incorrect. If four people write 100 articles on a topic that doesn't mean their views outweigh those of 80 people who've written one article each.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you if you were talking about works of speculations, but a study is not the expression of an opinion, it is the product of scientific analysis, derived by following specific procedures and reaching proven results. It is entirely irrelevant who obtained those results or how many people conducted the study. What matters is the study itself. In this case, a larger body of studies represent a majority, when contrasted to a single study.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed papers, while among the best available sources, are not perfect. If folks here want to argue that the prevailing scientific view of TM and TM-Sidhi is represented in studies conducted by MUM staff then we can keep arguing the point. The question here is how much space to devote to a paper that challenges the MUM view. I think it's fine to represent the MUM view too. NPOV requires all significant viewpoints, and the Otis paper does not represent a fringe view.   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Will I must say I disagree with your assessment, that concluding that published research by staff at MUM or research published by staff at other universities working in conjunction with MUM staff represent a single view point is a type of OR in my mind...what view point are they representing?

Not considering that though I find that Otis's research is superseded by these three studies which as far as I know have no MUM related staff involved:

Ottoson, J-O. Swedish National Health Board Report on Transcendental Meditation. 1977; Socialstyrelesen D: nr SN3_9_1194/73

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

Haratani T, Henmi T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation on mental health of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, 1990, 32: 656

--Uncreated (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say that one set of research necessarily supersedes other research, but having some non-MUM research in the article will definitely improve it.   Will Beback  talk 

I missed your first quesiton (I've de-indented it to make it clearer). As for the view of the MUM staff, have any of them published research that doesn't support the view that TM has a positive effect on health and well-being? Good scientists will publish their results even when it contradicts their hypotheses. Other researchers, like those who do paid studies on behalf of drug companies, have been criticized for not publishing their studies when the conclusions aren't in line with the expected results. So have the hundreds of studies by MUM staff been uniform in their findings of the efficacy of TM?   Will Beback  talk  08:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I"m sorry Will but you are way off base on this one. You are creating divisions of research in your own mind that do not exist in the scientific community. Both Wiki and the scientific community highly prize peer reviewed, published research. We don't decide Wiki WP:WEIGHT based on some arbitrary assessment as to the location of the research facility or the personal lifestyle about one or more of the scientists conducting the research.--Kbob (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Studies and mcientific/medical literature on the adverse effects of TM

I will try this one more time :-). There are no other studies like Otis' - non, nada, zilch. Hundreds of other studies don't say the opposite because they don't exist The7thdr (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In a randomized study done at Stanford Research Institute, every 20th member of all 40,000 individuals on the Students International Meditation Society's (TM's parent organization at that time) mailing list were mailed a survey. Of the 1,900 people surveyed, 47 percent responded. The survey included both a self-concept word list (the Descriptive Personality List) and a checklist of physical and behavioral symptoms (the Physical and Behavioral Inventory) The results found that while those dropping out from TM experienced fewer complaints then the experienced meditiatiors, there was a positive correlation between the number of adverse effects and the length of time in TM. Adverse effects by long-term TM practitioners included: antisocial behavior, 13.5%; anxiety, 9.0%; confusion, 7.2%; depression, 8.1%; emotional stability, 4.5%; frustration, 9.0%; physical and mental tension, 8.1%; procrastination, 7.2%; restlessness, 9.0%; suspiciousness, 6.3%; tolerance of others, 4.5%; and withdrawal, 7.2%.

A detailed analysis of this study is presented by David Orme-Johnson at http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm. It is well worth reading to understand the study and how the results have been misrepresented by Otis. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As might be expected from these findings, Otis has concluded that the longer a person stays in TM and the more committed a person becomes to TM as a way of life, the greater is the likelihood that he or she will experience adverse effects.

In his paper, "Psychiatric problems precipitated by transcendental meditation", Lazarus reported that psychiatric problems such as severe depression and schizophrenic breakdown may be precipitated by TM. He concluded by stating that while TM may have clinical benefits in certain cases it is clearly contraindicated in others.

A detailed analysis of this study is presented by David Orme-Johnson at http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm#Lazarus. More good stuff showing how this study is unreliable. Bigweeboy (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

From another clinical case study review, French, Schmid and Ingalls, reported that anxiety, tension, anger, and other disturbing experiences can occur during and after TM

Carrington and Ephron reported complaints from TM meditators who felt themselves overwhelmed by negative and unpleasant thoughts during meditation

In a study by Glueck and Stroebel they found that while some subjects could cope with what they described as the release of repressed subconscious impressions from the TM practice, others were unable to. Indeed, of the 110 subjects taking part in this study two made independent suicide attempts in the first two days after beginning the TM program.

David Orme-Johnson reviews the Glueck and Strobel paper here: http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm#Glueck_75_Comp_Psychiatry Bigweeboy (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that peer reviewed, published studies are most highly prized and preferred by Wiki. I am not aware of any Wiki policy that discounts that status because the peer reviewed and published research was performed by or with the assistance of scientists that practice TM or hold positions at MUM.--Kbob (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC) comment reposted above----Kbob (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have become a little lost in the conversation here Kbob. This relates to the citiques of TM reseach to be added soon - please see section below. By the way, regarding citing directly from Peer reviewed studies - the truth is that wiki policy regrading "medical/health related articles is different. The reason for this - and I can assure this is the case in "real life also - the potential abuse of using peer reviewed researchh directly. In truth with TMs obsession with citing peer reviewed papers directly the entire article is in breach of WIKI guidelines ref medical articles I quote:

In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I replied to your comment elsewhere here Kbob - the sections are getting rather long and more difficult to navigate I feel: I would like to add to WILLs responce:

By the way, regarding citing directly from Peer reviewed studies - the truth is that wiki policy regrading "medical/health related articles is different. The reason for this - and I can assure this is the case in "real life also - the potential abuse of using peer reviewed research directly. In truth with TMs obsession with citing peer reviewed papers directly the entire article is in breach of WIKI guidelines ref medical articles I quote:

In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this thinking is way off base. You are creating divisions of research in your own mind that do not exist in the scientific community. Both Wiki and the scientific community highly prize peer reviewed, published research. We don't decide Wiki WP:WEIGHT based on some arbitrary assessment as to the location of the research facility or the personal lifestyle about one or more of the scientists conducting the research.--Kbob (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kbob for this very rational point. When a research study is sent to a reputable peer-reviewed journal the editors send it out to other scientists for examination to make sure the science is correct, the methodologies employed are correct, the analysis sound, etc. When they journal is satisfied that the research meet these standards, then they publish the paper. When we have many, many TM studies published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, can we not at least agree that these studies have satisfied the established scientific community as to their method, etc? If some scientists submit a study/paper to a peer-review journal, and the article fails to get published, then we must also agree that the the established scientific community does not find it acceptable. It is the scientific community itself that monitors the credibility of scientific research. (Not Wiki editors). It therefore seems reasonable to me that one TM research published in a reputable peer-review journals must carry more weight than when a study is not peer-reviewed. --BwB (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal Of Orme Johnson Counter to claims that TM is not a cult

Having reviewed WIKI policy I request that the counter to the cult label by Orm Kohnson be removed form this article. Not only may this be compromised by his close association with the TM movement but the material is self published and fform his personal website. I quote:

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Can I also point out that Orm-Johnson, needs to be excluded based on the following guideline:

Extremist and fringe sources See also: Questionable sources, Fringe theories, and Pseudoscience and related fringe theories

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

While I except that if we excluded all of his research on this basis the article would have no research at at, one would have to throw doubt on using his personal webpage as source considering he believes - and thinks he can provide evidence to support- such paranormal activities as:

Yogic Flying and that people have occult powers which allow them to alter other peoples actions at a distance. These are of course all fringe theories and have been documented as such in all of the mainstream media and academia. http://books.google.com/books?id=xzCK6-Kqs6QC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN01/wn092801.html http://liberator.net/articles/StosselBelief2.html http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radin2002.htm

The7thdr (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is sufficient information about Orme-Johnson to establish his notability we could create an article and include his self-published views there.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A very good idea Will, I am surprised that other notable members of the TM movement are included but not Dr Orm-Johnson. He is certainly notable I would suspect.

OJ is an expert in this field and his expert opinion should be used in this article on Transcendental Meditation. --Uncreated (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Uncreated, but not his self published views. Perhaps you have not read read the guidelines above. But if you will forgive me for saying so, at the moment you requesting academic literature be removed because it is not peer-reviewed - by an expert in the field and published in imany textbooks and cited in peer reviewed research - yet you feel it is ok to included self published material from an admitted personal web page. I am slightly confused. Could you clarify? The7thdr (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we remove the study done by Otis...but that what has been added recently is imbalanced and gives to much weight to his findings which have been contradicted by later more extensive research.

I think we should revert to what we had there before:

A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[59]

The additional text that has been added should be removed because it gives undue weight to this very old and fringe study in its findings when compared to all the other research that by and large has contradicted it.

I think you will find uncreated that no research has countered it because none has been conducted of the same type. However, this is unrleated to removing Orm Johnso's opinions. Lets keep Otis in the relevant section shall we? :) The7thdr (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Otis is also not an expert in Transcendental Meditation and the research conducted on it as compared to OJ who has had hundereds of studies published in peer review journals. OJ's credentials also allow his self published views to be used in the TM article under wiki guidelines.--Uncreated (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The WP:V may have changed, or perhaps I just misremember it. I thought it said that to qualify as a notable expert a person should have a WP bio. However that does not appear to be the case. I think that Orme Johnson's views are probably notable. Perhaps, to avoid overwhelming this article with all significant views, the scientific studies should be spun off into a separate article, where we can include the background of the researchers, the rebuttals, and other necessary context.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Otis is an expert in the filed to which he is reporting. The citation i have given him is also found in a recognized - under wiki policies - source as reliable - orm johnsons is not. His rebuttal is also to issues of psychology and social sciences - he is not an expert in this area. However:

To help clarify Orm-Johnson directly with the filed of pseudo-science, I thought the following might be helpful (although i do think the word "fraud maybe a little harsh); I could of course find more. Under wiki policies than i cannot see how is rebuttal can be kept to be honest. Unless, someone can point to some polices that will allow it to be kept I will have no alternative but to remove it. In the interest of co-operation i will of course wait - I may be missing something of course The7thdr (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Um..that didn't work. oh well, a direct link it is than: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gr4snwg7iaEC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=orm+johnson+pseudo+science&source=bl&ots=bCwD7MKBVp&sig=iQRXjf-GVu5Y356LeeU8jyvQtIU&hl=en&ei=6dlsSqLbC-KgjAf74uW2Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist ran a 3600-word article in 1991 questioning the findings of TM researchers. [23] I haven't read the full article, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to pay for a subscription or go to a good library.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a subscription Will but the article can be read in it's entirety on the authors webs page http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/new%20scientist%201991.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This article was published in 1991. Scientific research on TM has come a long way since then, with very many studies on TM and health done at different universities funded by the NIH and others. Bigweeboy (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The age of the article makes no difference to it's core argument regarding Tm research. the majority - nearly all - TM research is done at MUM, by MUM faculty members or is funded by MUM or TM funders. the argument still stands is as justified now as it was than. many studies have not been done at other universities than MUM. Most of the other research in the USA not conducted by MUM has actually taken place at University of Massachusetts Medical School under Jon Kabat-Zinn and has always excluded TM The7thdr (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the article was published in 1991 its assertions can only be applied to TM researched done prior to the article being written. --BwB (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I have just visited TM research at MUM: of the 8 recent research papers on TM that full text are easily available - I am to lazy to log into ATHENs, etc - available all of them were conducted and funded at MUM —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 00:08, 27 July 2009e (UTC)

If you look at the web page http://www.tm.org/national-institutes-of-health under the banner title "Universities Conducting NIH-funded research on Transcendental Meditation", you find that there are 7 studies on TM done at different universities. Not all TM research is done at MUM. Bigweeboy (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Two thirds of the studies cited in this article predated 1991. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One would have thought logically nearly 100 percent would have predated the article - but I have not checked :-). It still makes no difference to the the authors argument however. unless of course you can find reliable sources that say otherwise. And no Not Orm Johansons website again please :) The7thdr (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that two-thirds of the studies cited in this Wikipedia article on TM predate 1991. Hence, BWB's objection, claiming that Blackmore's article is irrelevant ancient history, is not well-taken. I'm in agreement with you. And I think Blackmore's article should be added as a ref in an appropriate spot. Fladrif (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Fladrif - that explains why my interpretation of what you said made no sense :-). I now see exactly what you are saying. Thank you for clarifying. In my defense; it has been a long day :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Orme Johnson deletion continued

Sorry, needed a break here - this is getting a bit messy. Anyway, i have cited WIKI guidelines and policey as to why it must be deleted. Counter or supporting guidleines that would keep it? The7thdr (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:SPS: "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Please note Orme Johnson's resume, his publishing record, his education and universities attended, his professional affiliations. Note in reference to cult that he is summarizing studies. He is an acceptable reference in the Cult section because this is an aspect of Psychology and his area of expertise is Psychology. He is not acceptable as a reference in for example religion since this is not his area of expertise.(olive (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

I've reviewed his resume. I see nothing whatsoever in his educational background, professional experience or publications that indicate that he has any qualifications whatsoever to have a professional opinion or expertise on issues relating to cults. Nor has any independent third party published any work by him relating to cults. Based on that, he cannot be considered to be an "established expert" on the subject matter of whether something is a cult or not, and his self-published and hardly disinterested "TM isn't a cult" material should be deleted as contary to WIKI policy. Fladrif (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And Olive it goes on to say if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so

I would also redirect your attention to other guidelines above I have already cited. I would also have to agree with Fladrif I am afraid - I equally cannot see were he has expertise in cult analysis. I am also greatly concerned that the three studies he cites as rebuttal are not published studies at all but graduate thesis! Please explain to be how - as you have done in the past - made a case for including these yet a moment ago you said, regarding a study perceived as "critical" of TM you said: "I cannot support opening the door on this article to non peer reviewed research" The7thdr (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The research of Orme-Johnson appears to be on the physiologic reactions to Transcendental Meditation. That doesn't appear to related to the sociological categorization of TM, which is what the "cult" discussion involves. If he has published any papers on the presence or absence of cultic aspects of TM then that'd help establish his expertise that area.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, DO-J does not claim to be, and has no qualifications to claim to be, an expert on issues relating to whether something is a cult or not. No one has even attempted to refute me, 7th or Will on this. Thus, I'm deleting this portion of the article. Fladrif (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Perhaps a more reliable source - who is an expert in the field - can be found to replace it. The7thdr (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that whatsoever. That is absolutely the appropriate solution. Fladrif (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment on a large deletion, but the editor didn't say which so I'm just guessing it's the stuff related to cults. My view, which everyone is probably getting tired of hearing, is that there should be a separate article on the "TM movement". If we move stuff about the organization there then we can keep this article focused on the meditation technique. Allegations of being a cult obviously apply to the movement, not the meditation practice alone. So my specific suggestion is to move the entire section to that article and leave a one or two sentence summary here.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of merit in the TM-Org article concept, which would explore the history of the various organizations over the years, and the current organizational structure, the rajas and governors and peace palaces and TM monks and nuns and I don't know what all else. I agree that a lot of the cult issue would go to that sort of discussion, as the basic charge of those contending that TM is a cult is that it is really an "esoteric religion" like Scientology, where the core doctrines are kept secret and are revealed the deeper you get into the practice, (and the more money you spend). The TM technique is regarded by those critics as a "gateway drug" so to speak, as well as a religious practice, whether or not the practitioner knows it (puja, mantras invoke Hindu deities, theory of consciousness, etc...) So I'm convinced that it does still belong in the TM article, though maybe if we get a TM_org article put togther, it can be a sentence long with an internal cross-reference. Fladrif (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Replace OJ content until consensus for removal

Talk page discussion does not indicate there is agreement for removal of this content. Until we have agreement the text should stay in place. Without this content the section violates NPOV. As well the study of cult is a sociological, psychological study. Study of the mind and study of the "culture " out of which cults arise .... Orme Johnson is a professional in the field of Psychology. The content is Wikipedia compliant.(olive (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

What the talk page discussion indicates is that DO-J is not recognized as an expert on classification of organizations as a cult or not. No independent publication has published any article or study by him on the subject. Being a phycholigist does not qualify him for the exception to use of the self-published material by recognized experts in a field. Thus, his self-published opinions on the subject are absolutely not Wikipedia compliant. If you have a reliable source, add it. He isn't one. Fladrif (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. You are making a large deletion of content based on your reading and opinion of this. I count 9 editors on this article. You do not in any way speak for them. There is no agreement for this kind of deletion.(olive (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

I have agreed. The comment section was left in place with no response for sometime. All wiki guidelines and policies have been cited to explain why it should not be in place. Please, however, find a reliable source to replace as already indicated The7thdr (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break...Otis study

I've started a new section an effort to refocus this discussion on the first of the topics that was being dealt with in the last few days, the Otis study.

Wikipedia operates on policies and guidelines not rules and restrictions: The following text from the reliability guideline notes the importance of peer review. Peer review also helps establish verifiability of the research. So no there is no "rule that says you can't add non peer reviewed research. There are however clear policies, and guidelines that advise as to what is acceptable and preferable in an article.

From:WP:NOR

Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

I cannot support opening the door on this article to non peer reviewed research. If you open the door for this kind of study you open the door for the over 400 non peer reviewed studies done on TM, and any other non peer reviewed study. Right now the studies here are peer reviewed and appear in accepted independent publications. S

The fact that there is a single study of this kind is rather, than a reason for inclusion, is in actuality a reason for exclusion:

From WP:NPOV

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

* If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; * If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

* If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Attempts to use a non peer reviewed study when there is only one or a few of its kind, and when is as outdated as this one is, is cherry picking information, and requires a POV and so also becomes WP:OR. As I suggested before, I'm not against including legitimate peer reviewed research that is shows negative responses to TM. I am against loosening the policies and guidelines so that in the future we have more problems with this contentious article that we do now.

The discussion on the legitimacy of the researchers and the research is a red herring in terms of scientific research. Once again, peer review and the publication gives research and the researchers its legitimacy its reliability and its verifiability.

I have no problem with neutral editors and admins looking at this study, or at the tenor of discussion on this talk page, on any, and all of; WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard,RfC, Informal mediation, or Mediation.(olive (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC))(

There is absolutely no WIKI policy that says that an article published by a third party is not a reliable source. You are twisting WP guidelines and policies. A peer reviewed article published by a third party is a reliable source; that does not imply that an article published by a third party that is not peer reviewed is not a reliable source. Articles published by third parties are reviewed by editors. I would point out that many of the studies which the TM Org claims were "peer reviewed" were in fact simply reviewed by the publication's editors - that is what "peer reviewed" means to some publications. So, by that standard, the Otis article was a completely peer reviewed as many of the pro-TM studies.

The argument about minority views is a non-starter. The "over 600 studies" mantra that the TM Org insists upon repeating endlessly does not establish a majority view. The mainstream scientific view is that over 90% of those 600 studies were not rigourously conducted, were not properly documented, and do not show any statistically significant results. The handful of TM related studies that pass the smell test show that TM is no more effective than any other meditation method, or a variety of other relaxation methods, for the majority of things that TM claims. The more esoteric claims of the TM Organization about the Maharishi effect, etc... are simply nonsense and reflect self-delusion at best and fraud at worst. The pro-TM studies reflect the "fringe" view, not the scientific mainstream. To argue otherwise based on a raw count of publications is the same kind of misdirection as Haeglin claiming that the worst murder statistics in the history of Washington DC prove that a crowd of Sidhas and Purushas bouncing on their butts reduced crime. Fladrif (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fladrid, where are your references to support your breathtakingly sweeping statement that "The mainstream scientific view is that over 90% of those 600 studies were not rigourously conducted, were not properly documented, and do not show any statistically significant results"? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The two meta-studies on meditation and hypertension say exactly that about the hundreds of TM studies that they looked at. Ospina-Bond found that, out of 230 studies of Tm and hypertension, only 3 were of "good" quality, and that no valid conclusions could be reached about the effect of TM on hypertension. See Discussion Archive 18. The UK metastudy reached a similar conclusion about those studies as well - only 9 of them could even be considered in the metastudy because of the lack of documentation for the other hundreds, and of those only three were of "good" quality. Shall I continue? Fladrif (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fladrid, do you have a source for the Ospina-Bond report? I would like to read it..--BwB (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do. You have it as well. The link is right in the article. Footnote 55. Also, as I noted above, look at Discussion Archive 18 as well for the prior discussion about this meta-study. Fladrif (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Otis study: "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics." (Mark Twain) It is a constant existential dilemma. How about a compromise. Cite the Otis study AND disclose the fact that it is NOT peer-reviewed AND describe the primary flaws in its design and methods of data analysis. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Fladrif... you're wrong....I will not support this study in any way... and a compromise opens the doors for more problems... The study can be cited if its cited as a refernce in a relaible verifiable third party refernce but then all of the TM studies can be refernced the same way....

I am citing policy 7th and I expect policy to be respected here.. If its not, outside neutral parties can help us out, I'm sure.(142.166.17.67 (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Which policy are you citing?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I second that request OLive; could you please confirm which policies you are discussing please? i have cited each that I am referring to, quoting relevant sections and providing links. Can you please explain which policies and how they would exclude Otis? it might be nice if you could answers my points already made point by point also. I do understand however, you are having difficulties logging in that moment. perhaps you could ask a another relevant MUM staff member to answer on your organizations behalf? The7thdr (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry that IP is mine..olive.... having trouble logging in with my password...(142.166.17.67 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Ok. Which policy are you citing?   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Olive but I am sure you know as well as I do how weak your argument is. Please, I am sorry but it so weak I have no intention of countering it any further but will at moderation if you - and you must forgive me - waste everyone time pursuing. However, briefly

1 - The article is already filled with none peer reviewed material. See Orm Johnson's website and the fact that he uses two gradate "essays" to support his argument.

2 - Otis is not a "minority view". It is a piece of research never repeated; valid research from a prominent researcher, published in reliable source is not a minority view - it is simply research not repeated. Interesting however, considering only the TM movement would now have access to the client data, it has not been repeated by MUM?

7th - this exact study may not have been repeated, but a very similar study was done in Japan by the Japanese Government’s National Institute of Health on nearly 800 industrial workers at one of that country’s largest manufacturing plants. It used a questionnaire to measure changes in these subjects over a 5 month period of doing TM. What is different from the Otis study is that there was a control group to compare the changes. What was found was that there was significant improvements in physical and mental health after five months practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique relative to untreated controls over the same time period at the same industrial site. AND this study was published in a pear-reviewed journals - Journal of Clinical Psychology 1989 and Japanese Journal of Public Health 1990. --BwB (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3 - it is not "outdated" it is the only piece of research of its kind on TM You keep saying it outdated/been replaced. by what study? As Your Orm Johnson says on his personal website again - although using it as a criticism:

It is telling that this widely quoted paper has not been replicated in the 35 years since the data were collected or the 23 years since it was published.

That he confuses the fact that HAS NOT BEEN repeated with Lack of replication (a very different in research - although perhaps this is deliberate on his behalf)is telling as to his entire "critique" - but that is another matter.

4 The Otis study is cited in research paper after research paper and academic publication after academic publication.

The above is only a brief response but happy to dicuss in detail if you seek to take to moderation. The7thdr (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally Olive, as i have pointed out elsewhere, TM needs to careful here constantly citing directly from peer-reviewed papers: the guidelines are different for "medical" articles. Indeed, in the entire "research" section the manner in which the Otis study is referenced maybe the only one compliment with the policy below.

In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Olive, I'm not wrong. You completely misinterpret WP:RS and WP:NOR. And, threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue - yet again - doesn't make your argument any more convincing. Fladrif (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh... Fladrif. I believe 7th was holding his breath.(olive (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

"His"Italic text breath? It is rampant I see amongst you TM meditators :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how an article on meditation qualifies as a 'medical article' and so using this Wiki guideline is quite out of context in my opinion.--Kbob (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume then Kbob we shall be removing an reference to TM research in the article which suggests it might have medical applications? I can assure you that would be happy to remove all of the below immediately:

I think it would be safe to assume since that is what Kbob said that he offered an opinion, and neither he nor anyone else has agreement to move large sections of this article. Anyone who does without consensus can expect neutral admin intervention.(olive (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

Threats are the last actions of a desperate argument OLIVE - and also do not become you :-) The7thdr (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC) The7thdr (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical research

No threat 7th. Simply, what comes next in the process.(olive (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

In a 1975 study published in the journal Respiration, twenty one patients with bronchial asthma (who were excluded for significant emphysema by single breath diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide) were studied in a six month RCT designed study (with the researchers but not the patients blind to the treatment modality) using the Transcendental Meditation technique. The study employed a crossover trial format, using reading as a crossover control. Based on the marked reduction in asthma symptom-severity duration, a statistically significant improvement of pulmonary function test abnormalities (in raw measured values of cm/H2O/liter/sec determined using spirometry and body plethysmography), and from subject and physician evaluations, the researchers concluded that the practice of the TM technique is a useful adjunct in the treatment of asthma. [37]

In a 1976 study published in The Lancet, seven hypertensive patients learned the Transcendental Meditation technique with six patients showing significant reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) during the first three months of meditation practice. During the second three months of the six month study, three of the patients continued to show reductions of systolic and diastolic blood pressure. [45]

Another study published in the Lancet in 1977 which involved 20 hypertensive patients, found that the Transcendental Meditation technique was associated with a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure and pulse rate in the first 3 months of practice, but that this effect did not continue for most of the patients during the second three months of the six month study, which on average showed no significant change of BP from baseline values during that second three month time period. [46]

In 2005 the American Journal of Cardiology published a review of two studies that looked at stress reduction with the Transcendental Meditation technique and mortality among patients receiving treatment for high blood pressure.[47] This study was a long-term, randomized trial. It evaluated the death rates of 202 men and women, average age 71, who had mildly elevated blood pressure. The study tracked subjects for up to 18 years and found that the group practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique had death rates that were reduced by 23%. Also in 2005, the American Journal of Hypertension published the results of a study that found the Transcendental Meditation technique may be useful as an adjunct in the long-term treatment of hypertension among African-Americans.[48]. However Dr. Peter Fenwick points out that the mean changes were only 10 millimetres Hg systolic and just over 6 mmHg for the diastolic, leaving the study population in high-risk category [49]

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.[50]

The American Heart Association has published two studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique. In 2000, the association's journal, Stroke, published a study involving 127 subjects that found that, on average, the hypertensive, adult subjects who practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique daily experienced reduced thickening of coronary arteries, thereby decreasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. After six to nine months, carotid intima-media thickness decreased in the group that was practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique as compared with matched control subjects.[51] Also, in 1995 the association's journal Hypertension published the results of a randomized, controlled trial in which a group of older African-Americans practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique demonstrated a significant reduction in blood pressure.[52]

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..[53]

In June, 2007 the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine published an independent, peer-reviewed, meta-analysis of the state of meditation research, conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. The report reviewed 813 studies, of which 230 were studies of TM or TM-Sidhi..[54] The report concluded that "[t]he therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature," and "[f]irm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.(p. 6) [55]

In 2008 researchers at the University of Kentucky conducted a meta-analysis of nine qualifying RCT published studies which used Transcendental Meditation to address patients with hypertension, and found that on average across all nine studies the practice of TM was associated with approximate reductions of 4.7 mm (0 in) Hg systolic blood pressure and 3.2 mm (0 in) Hg diastolic blood pressure. The researchers concluded that "...Sustained blood pressure reductions of this magnitude are likely to significantly reduce risk for cardiovascular disease." The study was published in the March 2008 issue of the American Journal of Hypertension.[56] Using the Jadad 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.[57]

A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[63]

A 1977 study in the Journal of Clinical Psychology showed reduced anxiety in practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique compared to controls who relaxed passively.[64] A 1989 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology compared 146 independent studies on the effect of different meditation and relaxation techniques in reducing trait anxiety. Transcendental Meditation was found to produce a larger effect than other forms of meditation and relaxation in the reduction of trait anxiety. Additionally, it was concluded that the difference between Transcendental Meditation and the other meditation and relaxation techniques appeared too large to be accounted for by the expectation effect.[65]

A 1990 study published in the Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, conducted at Sumitomo Heavy Industries by the Japanese Ministry of Labour and others, looked at Transcendental Meditation and its effect on mental health in industrial workers. In the study 447 employees learned the Transcendental Meditation technique and 321 employees served as controls. After a 5-month period the researchers found significant decreases in major physical complaints, impulsiveness, emotional instability, and anxiety amongst the meditators compared to controls. The meditators also showed significant decreases in digestive problems, depression, tendency toward psychosomatic disease, insomnia, and smoking.[66]

Studies have suggested a positive correlation between the Transcendental Meditation technique and possible health-related physiological states, including improvement in lung function for patients with asthma, [37] reduction of high blood pressure,[38] an effect the researchers termed "younger biological age,"[39] decreased insomnia,[40] reduction of high cholesterol,[41] reduced illness and medical expenditures,[42] decreased outpatient visits,[42] decreased cigarette smoking,[43] decreased alcohol use,[43] and decreased anxiety.[44]

Research funding from the NIH

As of 2004[update] the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had spent more than $20 million funding research on the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique on heart disease[5]. In 1999 the NIH awarded a grant of nearly $8 million to Maharishi University of Management to establish the first research center specializing in natural preventive medicine for minorities in the U.S.[73] The research institute, called the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention, was inaugurated on October 11, 1999, at the University's Department of Physiology and Health in Fairfield, Iowa.[74]

If no one has any objections? The7thdr (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have previously pointed out WP:MEDRS applies to all of this medical research stuff in this article. Having spent an inordinate amount of time going round and round with timiguy and olive and others on the Opsina Bond metastudy, I will defend that paragraph at least as being in strict compliance with both the spirit and the letter of those guidelines. I've got my doubts about whether much of the rest of it complies, but I have neither the time nor the energy nor the inclination to rewrite all of it to comply,.Fladrif (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Fladrif Without doubt WP:MEDRS applies here. I cannot see how otherwise. While I admit that we have to be careful in not seeming to rely overly on guidelines, WP:MEDRS is in place for a reason due to the peculiar nature of medical research and because such articles will - although they shouldn't - have an impact on the health choices people may make, it is important that we follow them. It is obvious to anyone reading the artcle that it does not adhere to them and it is something that must be addressed if possible and within the sphere of "common sense" The7thdr (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of TM Research

Sorry, again getting a little messy: Susan Blackmore's article here:

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/new%20scientist%201991.htm

I think we agree it needs to be included and nodoubt along with other arguments about a TM research. Can anyone think of any sensible objections why not? Please, try and use WIKI policies and guidelines sensibly :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Will, or anyone with the know-how - I seem to have moved the references up a line again. Could someone please rectify? And if you could point to instructions on how to stop this happening i would be grateful The7thdr (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

7th, you can't use the New Section tab on the discussion page or it will put the new section below the Ref Section. So what I do is click the Edit This Page tab and scrooooooollllll to the bottom and place the new section manually just before the Ref section. Unless someone much smarter than me knows a better way. And if they do I'm all ears as I get tired of scroooolling! --Kbob (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Kbob! And nice to see you as always. The7thdr (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no further discussion of this so shall begin compiling the section. The7thdr (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary as per request

In summary: The Otis study is not peer reviewed and was not published independent of the researcher. The paper was published in a book published by Otis himself. Wikipedia policy verifiability strongly advises that peer review and independent notable publication be a standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Peer review helps ensure a study is reliable, a guideline, while non peer review studies mean the scientific community has not vetted the study as is done with a review by a jury of peers as a prerequisite for acceptance to publication. The study is over 30 years old, and still has not been published.

In this instance the number of peer reviewed studies on the positive effects number in the 350 to 400 range. Peer reviewed studies on the negative effects of TM are significantly lower. This makes the positive TM studies more mainstream or at least in the majority than the negative effect papers. Add to that one non peer reviewed paper, the Otis study. In no way can that study be considered significant since in terms of research papers published it constitutes a tiny minority, and is therefore fringe to the mainstream body of research. Selecting this paper for inclusion requires “cherry picking”- a point of view, and adding it would probably violate WP:NPOV.

The paper is a tiny minority so its inclusion also violates WP:Weight, and the amount of text given to the study in the present inclusion in respect to the other peer reviewed studies in the article goes over the top in terms of violating WP:Weight.

I have suggested that other peer reviewed studies indicating negative effects of the TM technique be found and considered and in fact that article already has some.

It would seem we are at an impasse. Since there are other studies in the recent addition made by 7th we should also look at, I would suggest we move on. I suggest a poll to assess consensus and agreement of the different options. Alternately or subsequently we can go to informal mediation and onward if needed.

As an aside: I have a sense of humour as I’m sure other editors here do. I am also have no interest in any of these techniques as regards to my own belief systems, and don’t mind jokes at all. I do mind ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies that derail discussion are disruptive to the process and have created a low level but constant and relatively consistent level of incivilty, and sense of harassment, both behavioural policy violations.

Perhaps an outside eye could help us work through this concerns.(olive (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

I would agree with Olive on some of her points. I do not know all the details of the Otis study but would be happy to research it if a rational and civil discussion could be conducted and concluded before changing topics. Also, I support the Wiki guideline that gives priority to peer reviewed research. This is a standard that is easy to maintain when there are hundreds of studies on a single article topic as is the case with TM. This should be our standard per Wiki guidelines. This principal should be equally applied to all research on TM whether the outcome is pro or con TM doesn't matter. We should just have good solid research as Wiki requires and as our readers desire. We can continue to raise that standard but we shouldn't go backwards to accommodate an editor's individual choice.

There are many, many facets to the discussion on this new section. Firstly, that it was added without consensus or discussion. I'm sure any editor on this page could create a paragraph on a topic related to TM, with reliable sources and add it in the article. It's easy to do. But this would create chaos. We want to create a cohesive and worthwhile article for the Wiki readers and when several writer/editors are involved this requires trust and cooperation. Secondly, there is the validity of each individual study and the reliability of their source in the new section. There are several of these and each one needs to be discussed to its conclusion. This won't be accomplished if we skip from topic to topic and become emotional in our posts. I hope we can proceed from here taking one topic, breaking down its component parts and discussing each one to its resolution. We can do this by forward now by ourselves or with some help from others. It's up to us. Namaste,--Kbob (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, who says it wasn't peer reviewed? DO-J in his self-published blog setting out the official TM Org talking points on how to respond to it? That's not enough to convince me. Let's see some actual, independent verification.

Second it is simply false that the Otis study is self-published. His initial article regarding his research on the subject was published in Psychology Today in 1974. His followup to that article based on additional research was published in the book "Meditation, Classic and Contemporary Perspectives", written and edited by Deane H. Shapiro and Roger N. Walsh. The book was published in 1984 by Aldine Transaction, which is an independent publisher and not a vanity press.

Finally, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your continued insistance that TM orthodoxy constitutes mainstream scientific opinion based on counting studies, Will, 7th and I have all pointed out repeatedly that your argument is a complete non-sequitur. It doesn't merit further response. Fladrif (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding being self published - I will give you the benefit of the doubt Olive and assume the Flarif has corrected this claim above.

You keep saying thousands of studies have found different findings. I understand that your area of expertise is in the arts/social sciences (having looked through the history of this talk page) so will give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your lack of understanding of science and scientific research.i will also assume that orm johnson is giving you advise on this as he seems to Make the same mistakes. Thousands of studies have not found different because this study has NEVER been repeated. Never, ever, zero times. If you are suggesting that other studies have found different this would be synthesis - which I am sure you are aware is against wiki policies. If you can please find the study the found the opposite?

It is not a minority view - it is a piece of research. The7thdr (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, there are indeed a number of other studies that have shown adverse effects from meditation in some subjects similar to the results Otis observed. Here's what I found in a minute or two. . Fladrif (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

7th... you make outrageous claims... Oj is giving me advice... a little Wikipedia editor...No!

You discount my education of which you know little. A mistake.

Thousands of studies, I have never said that 7th, check the discussion.

And I never say minority view, I say minority...

I don't need to find anything 7th , I've stated my position to the best of my understanding, as I was asked to do.(olive (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

olive, you seem to be becoming more and more hostile -fascinating. OJ, you, little wiki editor? As a MUM faculty member? And OJ as its biggest promoter? Indeed. But again, you seem to not understand the issues. If you state that other studies have found different results - without synthesis - please cite them. This would be the only way you could claim that this study is in the minority? Without doing so your argument fails. The7thdr (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Olive is becoming hostile. I think she feels frustrated by the process and that some of the comments by other editors are attacking her rather than addressing the content of the article. Maybe I'm wrong and should not be speaking for Olive. From past experience, I find her well capable of speaking for herself. Thanks Olive for you continued dedication to making this article as strong as possible, while trying to incorporate many viewpoints. --BwB (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

yes but "strong" for who's viewpoint. i grow bored of hearing how Olive - and other TMers - believe comments are attacking her/them. if you will forgive me for saying it is olive who has in the space of 24 hours dropped "helpful" advise that i might get banned!!. Now, could we please get away from the tactics of distraction and maintain attention on the matter in hand. The7thdr (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BWB.. No I am not hostile.. I do feel it important in a discussion to make sure the points I make are "heard" correctly. In this kind of discussion environment one mistake not corrected can lead to multiple misunderstandings. Since I have been aware of certain ArbCom cases... I left 7th information he may not have been aware of. (olive (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Request for agreement /consensus

Request for agreement/consensus on inclusion of Otis study: Editors can note their preferences regarding the inclusion of the Otis study underneath the appropriate option.

Please add other options if needed.

The following options have been suggested:

1.Leave text recently added, in place, as is.

1. Fladrif (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2.Add single sentence on Otis study noting it is not peer reviewed.

Perhaps. --BwB (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

3.Remove the Otis study, and consider other studies that may be more Wikipedia compliant.

1. Support, but would also consider #4.., More detailed scrutiny. Too many problems with the study. Lets find a better and a peer reviewed study. Will check on Fladrif's links above (olive (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC))
2. Kbob (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I am most comfortable with this one. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes I think this is the best option --BwB (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Consider adding reliable, verifiable secondary source that references the Otis study, and begin possible changeover of TM research to secondary sources.

1. This would also be OK with me--Kbob (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Fladrif (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I could live with this. --BwB (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
4. This goes against the grain. However, it is my understanding that WIKI prefers secondary research. Therefore, I would consider this option. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

5. Remember what I said above: "THERE ARE LIES, DAMN LIES AND THERE ARE STATISTICS." Therefore, I will repeat my suggestion made above: How about a compromise? Cite the Otis study AND disclose the fact that it is NOT peer-reviewed AND describe the primary flaws in its design and methods of data analysis. Is this discussion about relentlessly pushing the research that supports your point of view or is it about making an attempt to get to the truth of the matter? I have found that much of the time it is not rocket science. A resonably intelligent person with some background can tell if there are major flaws in logic, study design or analysis.--Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Little flower... you make some good points and I think a compromise of some sort is possible. Disclosing that a study is not peer reviewed may border on OR, so that option may not work. Citing a secondary source may be all we could do. Its worth thinking about.(olive (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Little flower - i am sure it is an oversight, but writing a response ALL IN BOLD is considered very bad form :) The7thdr (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Comments

I do not agree in taking part in this vote - when MUMhas managed to bring a bunch of TMers to the page. Sorry, this is a game I will not play. inclusion or exclusion will be based on argument above while refereeing to WIKI guidelines and Policies. This is not an entry on WTBDWK but an article about a product claiming to have health benefits - often very chronic and life threatening disease and illnesses. The7thdr (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought about taking the same position, but I decided that WP:POLLS applied. Vote counts in a straw poll can't be taken as establishing consensus and are not binding. This may be a waste of time, but I'm perfectly willing to indulge olive on this.Fladrif (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not I am afraid. i had hoped for an adult discussion - this seems to not be the case. Perhaps it is a cultural difference —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that trying to conduct a poll is antithetical to the whole spirit of the process. It's all fun and games until somebody gets their eye put out.Fladrif (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No polls, please.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? We have been discussing this for days.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what Luke is saying is that we have been discussing the Otis research for days, not the poll. --BwB (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We have been discussing a poll for days? Something not recomended by WIKI? Could you tell me where Luke? The7thdr (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by building consensus, generally formed on talk pages or central discussion forums. Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. In both cases, consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. Polling, while not forbidden, should be used with care, if at all, and alternatives should be considered. In addition, even in cases that appear to be "votes", few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy WP:POLLS The7thdr (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is good. Polls are evil.   Will Beback  talk  05:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has become circular and highly repetitive, and we are at an impasse. A request for consensus or agreement on the different possible solutions to the issue if used correctly and carefully can give us insights into where editors stand on the points raised. No consensus is binding and no poll dictates a change will be made in an article. However, such a poll as this coming at a point of impasse and prior to mediation may give us and the mediator insights into what is going on here. No one has to take part, but doing so with the understanding that nothing this poll indicates is binding can only help clear away the days of sometimes confusing discussion and possibly will shed light on a solution. Once we can see where editors stand as we focus in on the more acceptable solutions, a request for consesus on the article will have more chance of success.(olive (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Its good that these points about polls are clarified. Some editors may not realize that Wiki is not a democracy and guidelines have priority over voting. However, when a discussion ranges over several pages it is one way for us to take a breath and assess the situation. Taken in its proper context I think its a good thing.

I agree with Olive, And yes, 7th I was saying that we have been discussing this for days, so it is a good idea to have a poll, pople are free to take part or not, but I like to get a clear perspective on everyone's position. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Page break: more on Otis

Yes, discussion is good, but it cannot go on endlessly. It seem we are all quite entrenched in our viewpoints. I am not sure at this point if anyone is willing to concede their view. I just want to make the point that I made in another section of the discussion above: When a research study is sent to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal the editors send it out to other scientists for examination to make sure the science is correct, the methodologies employed are correct, the analysis sound, etc. When the journal is satisfied that the research meets these standards, then they publish the paper. When we have many, many TM studies published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, can we not at least agree that these studies have satisfied the established scientific community as to their method, etc? If some scientists submit a study/paper to a peer-review journal, and the article fails to get published, then we must also agree that the the established scientific community does not find it acceptable. It is the scientific community itself that monitors the credibility of scientific research. (Not Wiki editors). It therefore seems reasonable to me that one TM research published in a reputable peer-review journals must carry more weight than when a study is not peer-reviewed. --BwB (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what peer review means. Peer review does not conclude that the science is correct, the methodologies are correct, the science is sound, that the scientific community is satisfied as to the method, that a study rejected for publication is unsound, or that an accepted study is acceptable or credible. It does not mean that an article in a peer-reviewed journal is entitled to more weight. What it means - and the only thing it means, is that the review panel and the editors found that the article was acceptable for publication in their journal. The peer reveiw process is singularly unable to detect or uncover fraud, or to identify flaws in methodology or statistics. It most definitely does not establish that the conclusions of a paper are "right" or even in the scientific mainstream. It does not establish that any other study will be able to replicate the results of the paper. About the only thing it does establish is that a peer reviewed paper is more likely to be cited as a source in somebody else's paper than a non-peer reviewd paper. Fladrif (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do our other editor friends agree with Fladrif? What is the point of submitting research to prestigious journals? For a scientific theory, discovery, invention to gain scientific acceptance, what process does it need to go through? --BwB (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions on the Otis study: Was it ever submitted to a peer-review journal for publication? If not, why not? If so, why was it not published? --BwB (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

BB. it doesn't need to be - any fool can find a minor unread journal and submit research document to it and have it published. Appearing in a peer reviewed journal does not mean that it is either "true", "correct" or without fault. it has however been "peer reviewed" by the thousands of research documents that cite it, the multitude of academic textbooks that quote it or publish it.

Are you saying that the Otis study is "true", "correct" or without fault? --BwB (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What are some of the "thousands of research documents that cite it"?. Can you also please answer my other question above about submitting studies to peer-review journals. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

BB, please use PUBMED or simply google :-). To your second question, I have created a new section below to help you find answers to this very question :) The7thdr (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That you ask this question might suggest you have never been involved in the peer review process or critiguing it? I have, let me point to this over view in a reliable source; Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html The7thdr (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not been involved in the peer review process. Suppose 2 studies come to you for review - one you approve, the other you do not. What can be said about the approved study: it is "better" than the other? more rigorous? more relevant? more exciting? more ground breaking? more acceptable? what? --BwB (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

BB please read the articles below :-) The7thdr (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid the discussion is not circular at all or indeed that it has reached an impasse. The truth is that certain editors have said that OTIS cannot be used because it does not meet wiki policies regarding referencing. Repeatedly, said editors have mentioned it is not peer reviewed and also in the minority of such research. It has been shown by myself and others that that the first is incorrect and does not exclude it and the second is incorrect. Basically the argument has been "won" by all rational discourse and referring to wiki guidelines and policies (indeed, i have shown that it is the manner in which the"pro" TM literature is presented is in breach of wiki polices) by those who wish to keep otis. Because this is not in the interests of the TM movement and multi billion dollar profit making group of companies and trade marks, accusation are being made the debate is |stalled" It is not stalled but seems to be finished. The7thdr (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Its good that these points about polls are clarified. Some editors may not realize that Wiki is not a democracy and guidelines have priority over voting. However, when a discussion ranges over several pages it is one way for us to take a breath and assess the situation. Taken in its proper context I think its a good thing. --Kbob (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I can't get these dang sections straight! :-) --Kbob (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Iam afraid I disagree - and so does WIKI. It is an excuse for a poor argument. While it is good to summarize a poll does not do so. This is why they are so frowned upon. Equally, people cannot hope to make a contribution to a discussion unless they are ready to read all of it. For example here we have 4 people voting for something based on incorrect assumptions about the study being discusses. This poll is meaningless The7thdr (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All, I have taken the time this morning to carefully read both the Otis study (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w9sv49ZHqWUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0) and Orme Johnson's review of this research (http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm#Otis_New). I have tried to do this in a neutral, objective way. Since I am not an experienced research scientist or statistician, I cannot do any analysis from that perspective. However, just from a level of common sense, it does seem that Orme Johnson raises valid questions about the Otis study. Perhaps the Otis study and the OJ critique could be sent to some objective 3rd party experts for review and comment?

If the the critique is valid, for such a well known and cited study, it should be easy to find reliable sources - not Orm Johnson's website - to express them. I am not against this and have never said I was :) The7thdr (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Of all the editors involved in this debate about the merits and weight of Otis, only The7thdr has indicated that he has experience with doing peer review of scientific studies. I don't know what journal The7thdr had reviewed for, or in what fields he has expertise, but perhaps he could put on his "peer-review hat" in a balanced and neutral way, and tell us if he would recommend Otis for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and if any of the criticisms raised by OJ on the Otis study are valid. Or if other have peer review experience, they could do the same. Thanks --BwB (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

BB I could tell you one the internet I was a Martian - me telling you anything would not give it any weight :). OJs criticisms are selective and incorrect If the study was not considered reliable it would not be repeatably cited in so MANY peer-reviewed - as there seems to be such an obsession about peer review here - journals. Do you not think, that perhaps if the study was really as poor as OJ says it is peer review panels would not have suggested all of these others papers should not cite it so authoritatively prior to resubmission?

However, Really, one would have to doubt the opinion of any website which, along with making claims about research also, believes it proves that TMers can "fly", have super powers, cause action at a distance and influence the behavior of individual and groups. Indeed, I set a challenge, why not get a few hundred TMrs to bounce to influence me to agree with everything the TMers here support? Surely any easy matter.

But back to OJ: he says - citing his Phd no less:

The Issues: Are There historical precedents for the idea that individuals influence each other at a distancs?

Is there scientific evidence for the Maharishi Effect: Does the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program improve the quality of life in society?

Rationale for the Maharishi Effect

Summary of Key Studies

The Evidence:

The Maharishi Effect is a phase transition to a more orderly and harmonious state of life, as measured by decreased crime, violence, accidents, and illness, and improvements in economic conditions and other social indicators. The scientists who discovered this effect named in honor of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who predicted 50 years ago that only a small fraction of the population participating in the Transcendental Meditation program would be sufficient to improve the quality of life and the whole society. During the past 31 years, this transformation of society has been documented scientifically, first at the city level, then at state and national levels, and then at the global level-the Global Maharishi Effect.

It has been found that the proportion of members of a society necessary to generate the Maharishi Effect is 1% practicing the Transcendental Meditation program or only the square root or 1% participating in the group practice of the TM-Sidhi program. This proportion is so small that the beneficial effects on society of the Maharishi Effect cannot be accounted for by behavioral interactions of the participants with other members of society. Instead, the results indicate a field effect, in which an influence of coherence produced by the participants radiates throughout the society.

There have been 50 studies showing that the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program (which includes Yogic Flying) improves the quality of life in the larger society; the findings of which have been published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented and published in the proceedings of professional conferences.

Variables assessed in these studies include armed conflict, crime rate, violent fatalities (homicides, suicides, and motor vehicle fatalities), economic indicators, and broad quality of life indices which incorporate the above variables as well as rates of notifiable diseases, hospital admissions, infant mortality, divorce, cigarette and alcohol consumption, and GNP. Effects for each variable or for overall indices are in the direction of improved quality of life.

Download Word document list of 60 research and review papers on 51 studies on the Maharishi Effect. (click here)

Download a PDF of a recently published study on the Maharishi Effect reducing war: Davies, J. L. and C. N. Alexander. “Alleviating political violence through reducing collective tension: Impact Assessment analysis of the Lebanon war.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2005, 17: 285-338. (click here )

Link to new book on the application of the Maharishi Effect to create world peace: "Victory Before War". (click here)

Rationale for the Maharishi Effect in the Perennial Philosophy in the Social Sciences in Physics

Some Conceptual Precedents for a Field Theoretic View of Consciousness from the Perennial Philosophy, Social Sciences, and Quantum Physics

David W. Orme-Johnson, Ph.D. February 4, 200

BWB when you think about whether a "peer reviewed" article should be given greater weight than one that appears in a non-peer-reviewed publication -consider this: In 1971, Time reported on a study published in The American Journal of Physiology, a peer-reviewed publication, by Benson and Wallace on the effects of TM on metabolic rate and and on TM and drug and alcohol use. Of his studies, Benson said:

He points out that his study is "very biased" because it reported only on people who had learned meditation and continued to practice it; there was no control group of others who tried to end their addiction without the aid of TM. Also, Benson is careful to note, the reports of the 1,862 drug users were subjective—they merely answered Benson and Wallace's questionnaires.

Benson feels that better-controlled studies are needed. "What we're looking at is a behavioral type of approach to various disease patterns," he says, "to see whether changing one's behavior by meditation will help. As kooky as this sounds to many people, it has just got to be investigated." Otherwise, Benson says, no one can tell if TM is indeed useful.[24]

So, even one of the researcher/authors says of this particular peer-reviewed study, "Don't trust our conclusions, the study is very biased". Fladrif (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Fladrif. However, I would like to keep the discussion focused on the Otis study. And I would like to hear form our experienced "peer-review" editor, 7thdr. However, if you have comments on the Otis study, please go ahead. --BwB (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review: an explanation:

It seems that many editors here miss-understand the Peer Review process: the following links may help clarify. However, before continuing can I point out that if many editors here had their way, than The Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid (the study by Watson and Crick which defined the double helix structure of DNA) would not only not be allowed as a citation in any WIKI article but the very nature of DNA would be considered in doubt!!!! http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/short/42/2/373

Peer Review

Sternberg peer review controversy

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rethinking-peer-review

http://bellanta.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/towards-a-truly-constructive-criticism-or-the-perils-of-peer-review/

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0742514358/the-new-atlantis-20

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/summary/109560922/SUMMARY

http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/2-3_reviewer.cfm

http://cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/pubreviews.html

The7thdr (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Our job is not to investigate the concerns and problems that arise with the peer review process.Our concern is to write an encyclopedia which is not a place for original thought or research. Nor can we rewrite Wikipedia to suit our needs.(olive (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Correct Olive. again, please explain - citing relevant policy - how wiki policy exclude OTIS? The7thdr (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so. The Otis's studies were conducted at a internationally-recognized prestigous independent non-profit research institute, SRI International. His results were compiled in the SRI report; "The Psychobiology of Meditation: Some Psychological Changes" and was presented at the 1973 Meeting of the American Psychological Association. It was then rewritten in less technical language for Psychology Today, and published in its June 1974 Issue under the title "If Well Integrated but Anxious, try TM". They were further included in the Shapiro & Walsh book, independent authors and editors and published by a reputable publisher. They have been repeatedly cited in scholarly articles and studies. By every Wikipedia standard, the Otis studies are reliable, verifiable sources and no amount of Wikilawyering will change that fact.Fladrif (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And while I hate "to go on" can I point out a quick search of pubmed the otis study immediately presents 46 peer reviewed studies that cite it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In my mind the question is do we devote a paragraph to each piece of research conducted on TM?

Once again I will point out that these studies seem to deal with a lot of the same issues that Otis Study deals with and yet receive less column space than the Otis study.

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

Haratani T, Henmi T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation on mental health of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, 1990, 32: 656

I would argue that they are better studies and more relevant to the article on TM than the Otis study. I am not suggesting that we remove the Otis study just keep it in proportion in relevance to other more authoritative studies.

Also it would be good to add something about this study

Ottoson, J-O. Swedish National Health Board Report on Transcendental Meditation. 1977; Socialstyrelesen D: nr SN3_9_1194/73

--Uncreated (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

While an interesting idea; If a study needs 1 line to summarize it;s findings then it needs 1 line, if it needs 5 it needs 5. The Otis study examined a wide range of variables and returned a large number of findings. It also detailed a large sample population, and a very specific one - taken from tms own mailing list. It is also very unique and the only one of it's type - hence the 4 lines used to summarize it. We need to allocate size realistically. we can also of course exam the study that you cite. it would of course - as inline with references and sources for wiki medical related articles - need to be cited in a reliable secondary source, and any conclusions made coming from that secondary source - not the study itself. the rest of this article will need to be reworked in the same manner. As to otis not being relevant? I would suspect that would be difficult to argue. And as to "better" that would require original research and conclusions on behalf of the editor - something I think we all agree is not acceptable. As we have noted it fulfills all of the requirements for a reliable and relavant source under all WIKI guidelines and policies. i have seen no reasoned argument otherwise The7thdr (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your logic as to why the otis study demands more space could be used with just about all the research.--Uncreated (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I have never argue otherwise The7thdr (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with UnC. I don't feel that we need a paragraph on each of the TM studies in the article. A line for each can suffice. --BwB (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole "Research" section of this article is highly problematic. As I have pointed out before, not only does WP:MEDRS apply, but WP:WEIGHT is a problem as well. As presently constituted, over half this article and a third of the footnotes are about medical research,nearly all of it primary sources, and nearly all of it uncritically positive. Out of the hundreds of TM studies that the TM org claims show various benefit, why are the ones being cited here the ones being chosen? Does that not give undue weight to study X over studies Y and Z?

A balanced article with proper weight would have about a single paragraph, maybe two, that summarizes the range of pro-TM studies, their conclusions, the problems if any with those studies, the adverse TM studies, and the problems with those studies, if any. Basically say something like this, with citations to secondary sources, about the medical research:

"Since _____, various studies of TM's effects on a broad range of physiological and phychological functions have been undertaken. (FN) The TM Org claims over 800 such studies have been undertaken, and that they show benefits unique to TM ranging from soup to nuts and everything in-between(FN) The methodology of these studies have been criticized for a variety of reasons such as ________none of them are double-blind, etc. (FN) Metastudies conducted at the University of Alberta and the University of Kentucky in 2007 and 2008 concluded that the vast majority of these studies were insufficently documented ot be subject to meta-analysis, In each metastudy, only 3 of the TM-related studies were classified as "good", and these had little or no statistical significance versus alternative treatments. (FN)

Other studies have concluded that, while there are apparent benefits to practicing TM, the same or similar benefits are achieved with alternative regimes such as ________. Further, while the TM Org claims that there are no adverse effects to practice of TM, several studies have shown that some subjects have problems with meditation, resulting in adverse effects ranging from A to Z (FN). These conclusions, however, have been criticized by _____ because _____. (FN)

I don't mean to suggest that as the actual language, but I do mean to suggest that the wholesale rewrite of this section is needed to comply with WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT Fladrif (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me and I don't mean to play dumb...but is the article on Transcendental Meditation a medicine related article?--Uncreated (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The way it's written now, over half of it is a medicine-related article. Whether it should be is another question, and a very good one. Fladrif (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Does siteing Medical journals make an article medicine related?(...Fladrif I finnaly figured out where your name comes from...nice. I am just rereading and Merry and Pippin have just met up with Treebeard)--Uncreated (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncreated, this has already been addressed above. But to repeated, while the existant "research" sections examines medicql issues then yes it is a medical article. Remove sections below and it no longer is

n a 1975 study published in the journal Respiration, twenty one patients with bronchial asthma (who were excluded for significant emphysema by single breath diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide) were studied in a six month RCT designed study (with the researchers but not the patients blind to the treatment modality) using the Transcendental Meditation technique. The study employed a crossover trial format, using reading as a crossover control. Based on the marked reduction in asthma symptom-severity duration, a statistically significant improvement of pulmonary function test abnormalities (in raw measured values of cm/H2O/liter/sec determined using spirometry and body plethysmography), and from subject and physician evaluations, the researchers concluded that the practice of the TM technique is a useful adjunct in the treatment of asthma. [37]

In a 1976 study published in The Lancet, seven hypertensive patients learned the Transcendental Meditation technique with six patients showing significant reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) during the first three months of meditation practice. During the second three months of the six month study, three of the patients continued to show reductions of systolic and diastolic blood pressure. [45]

Another study published in the Lancet in 1977 which involved 20 hypertensive patients, found that the Transcendental Meditation technique was associated with a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure and pulse rate in the first 3 months of practice, but that this effect did not continue for most of the patients during the second three months of the six month study, which on average showed no significant change of BP from baseline values during that second three month time period. [46]

In 2005 the American Journal of Cardiology published a review of two studies that looked at stress reduction with the Transcendental Meditation technique and mortality among patients receiving treatment for high blood pressure.[47] This study was a long-term, randomized trial. It evaluated the death rates of 202 men and women, average age 71, who had mildly elevated blood pressure. The study tracked subjects for up to 18 years and found that the group practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique had death rates that were reduced by 23%. Also in 2005, the American Journal of Hypertension published the results of a study that found the Transcendental Meditation technique may be useful as an adjunct in the long-term treatment of hypertension among African-Americans.[48]. However Dr. Peter Fenwick points out that the mean changes were only 10 millimetres Hg systolic and just over 6 mmHg for the diastolic, leaving the study population in high-risk category [49]

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.[50]

The American Heart Association has published two studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique. In 2000, the association's journal, Stroke, published a study involving 127 subjects that found that, on average, the hypertensive, adult subjects who practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique daily experienced reduced thickening of coronary arteries, thereby decreasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. After six to nine months, carotid intima-media thickness decreased in the group that was practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique as compared with matched control subjects.[51] Also, in 1995 the association's journal Hypertension published the results of a randomized, controlled trial in which a group of older African-Americans practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique demonstrated a significant reduction in blood pressure.[52]

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..[53]

In June, 2007 the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine published an independent, peer-reviewed, meta-analysis of the state of meditation research, conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. The report reviewed 813 studies, of which 230 were studies of TM or TM-Sidhi..[54] The report concluded that "[t]he therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature," and "[f]irm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.(p. 6) [55]

In 2008 researchers at the University of Kentucky conducted a meta-analysis of nine qualifying RCT published studies which used Transcendental Meditation to address patients with hypertension, and found that on average across all nine studies the practice of TM was associated with approximate reductions of 4.7 mm (0 in) Hg systolic blood pressure and 3.2 mm (0 in) Hg diastolic blood pressure. The researchers concluded that "...Sustained blood pressure reductions of this magnitude are likely to significantly reduce risk for cardiovascular disease." The study was published in the March 2008 issue of the American Journal of Hypertension.[56] Using the Jadad 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.[57]

A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[63]

A 1977 study in the Journal of Clinical Psychology showed reduced anxiety in practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique compared to controls who relaxed passively.[64] A 1989 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology compared 146 independent studies on the effect of different meditation and relaxation techniques in reducing trait anxiety. Transcendental Meditation was found to produce a larger effect than other forms of meditation and relaxation in the reduction of trait anxiety. Additionally, it was concluded that the difference between Transcendental Meditation and the other meditation and relaxation techniques appeared too large to be accounted for by the expectation effect.[65]

A 1990 study published in the Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, conducted at Sumitomo Heavy Industries by the Japanese Ministry of Labour and others, looked at Transcendental Meditation and its effect on mental health in industrial workers. In the study 447 employees learned the Transcendental Meditation technique and 321 employees served as controls. After a 5-month period the researchers found significant decreases in major physical complaints, impulsiveness, emotional instability, and anxiety amongst the meditators compared to controls. The meditators also showed significant decreases in digestive problems, depression, tendency toward psychosomatic disease, insomnia, and smoking.[66]

Studies have suggested a positive correlation between the Transcendental Meditation technique and possible health-related physiological states, including improvement in lung function for patients with asthma, [37] reduction of high blood pressure,[38] an effect the researchers termed "younger biological age,"[39] decreased insomnia,[40] reduction of high cholesterol,[41] reduced illness and medical expenditures,[42] decreased outpatient visits,[42] decreased cigarette smoking,[43] decreased alcohol use,[43] and decreased anxiety.[44]

Research funding from the NIH

As of 2004[update] the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had spent more than $20 million funding research on the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique on heart disease[5]. In 1999 the NIH awarded a grant of nearly $8 million to Maharishi University of Management to establish the first research center specializing in natural preventive medicine for minorities in the U.S.[73] The research institute, called the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention, was inaugurated on October 11, 1999, at the University's Department of Physiology and Health in Fairfield, Iowa.[74]

Sorry Fadrfi , but I can't agree. The research on the TM technique is extensive and such numbers of studies is highly unusual to mediation techniques, and so highly notable. You are summarizing, but in fact the research on the technique needs to be outlined in terms of specific references to specific topics since each topic area is by itself quite notable should be given the weight due its notable feature.(olive (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

You can't, or you won't? There's a difference. Having half this article be about medical research is absurd, particularly when so much if it is bad research. It leads off with a citation to the 1971 Wallace/Benson article that Benson said at that time was basically crap. Why is this article touting research that the researcher says is completely unreliable? All of this content can easily be summarized in a couple of paragraphs at most that give appropriate weight to the studies pro and con. Fladrif (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly substitute other peer reviewed articles for those that are weak.(olive (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Good idea Olive. --BwB (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea, I think --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to RS/N thread

I hesitate to set foot in here, given how far I had to scroll down, but I read the RS/N thread and wanted to comment just on one aspect of this. If someone else has already commented on it, please forgive me. It's that the wording that you had here for example, i.e.

A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[61]

misrepresented the Otis study. The Otis study did not give information on the population of "those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique", i.e. the people who have decided to make TM a part of their lives because it holds appeal to them, but a very uncharacteristic group of practitioners: people who had no prior interest in TM, but volunteered to take part in a study. It's not a representative sample. If the material were included in this article, it should be made clear how the sample was drawn, and no statement should be implied on TM practitioners generally.

Another point: Otis reports that the clear majority of those participating in the trial did not report any adverse effects at all (bottom of page 207) and allows that TM is clearly of benefit to many people. The conclusions of the final paragraph too might be worth mentioning, i.e. the author's doubts as to SIMS' assertion that anyone who takes the practice up will experience beneficial effects. For that statement, his unrepresentative sample is valid.

The publisher, Transaction Publishers, is good; if the study is still quoted in recent literature and not widely considered outdated (dunno), I see no reason to argue that it should not be cited here, but it will need four or five sentences to do it justice, as per my suggestions above. Hope that helps. (Taking cover) --JN466 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466: thank you very much for your valuable contribution. however, are you citing the correct study as cited in this article - there is more than one and this might be my fault. the one that I refer to above is the one that "polled" 1900 people on TMs own mailing list? My fault i am afraid. I will need to investigate this to clrify :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 00:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: jaynen: it is the otis study found on page 56 of Classic and Contemporary perspectives on Mediation that you kindly link to. i didn't use the first study you cite for the very reason that the people were volunteers and thus not representative of TM meditators (no matter what some might think i will not cite any old thing :-) ) as a whole. We can of course also use that study if people have no reasonable objections. again, my fault jayen for not being clear. The7thdr (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a further problem here - the authors of that book mis qoute the results of Otis - let me point to a slightly more detailed source> —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, this the problem when you don't have access to your library and are trying to do this from google books. This study can be found begining page 202 - it is the one so despised by Orm Johnson. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w9sv49ZHqWUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0

Thanks Jayen for your input. Outside eyes are always helpful.

The study in fact had serious obvious methodology problems. For example, Otis used a questionnaire that asked only negative questions. This is the worst kind of research design, and in fact can't really be considered a research design. It is well known that the way a question is asked influences the answer. Also, the subjects were self selected, meaning that only those inclined to return the questionnaire were the ones who filled it out. Plus, it's not really written in the style of a research paper; there's no literature review, for example. The questionnaire was conducted in 1971, but the study wasn't published until 1984, possibly indicating the study wasn't publishable in a peer reviewed publication. In fact the study wasn't replicated, but other studies published later show opposite effects as this Japanese study did, as another editor pointed put. (Haratani T, Henmi T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation on health behavior of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of Public Health 1990; 37:729.)

My major concern however isn't with the paper's methodologies but with the fact that it was not peer reviewed nor published in a professional journal. TM research includes over 350 peer reviewed studies and around 450 that are not peer reviewed. Inclusion of a non peer reviewed study into the article opens the door for other non peer reviewed studies and frankly we don't need to go there. Such a move weakens both the article and Wikipedia. Since there are other studies showing adverse or neutral effects to TM although small in number some of those, taking weight in mind, could certainly replace the Otis study. As well, the Otis study could be included referencing it through a secondary source. I'm not sure why these options are objectionable, but I have begun the process of asking for informal mediation to see if other outside views will help aid the situation. Thanks again.(olive (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

I to Olive - as I am sure you are aware, have asked for outside comments. You keep repeating the samething by the way:

1 The study was not peer reviewed> We have repeatedly pointed out this is not important and why. It meets all of the criteria as a reliable source in WIKI (See earlier responses for evidence)

2: There are hundreds of other TM studies. There are indeed Olive, however, none of them look at the same thing as the '82 Otis> None whatsoever and certainly not on the same scale and using TMs own mailing list.

Your arguments are thus invalid I am afraid. Repeating them over and over again - especially after they have been repeated examined and found wanting (to be kind) will not make them anymore so I am afraid :-) The7thdr (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Wikipedia however, does consider peer review important, and in any case, I have suggested including the study using a secondary source. As I said above, I am unclear as to why this is an objectionable route to take. My points were a courtesy, and out of respect to a new editor on the page possibly unfamiliar with the discussion(olive (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Are these secondary sources enough to satisfy you? I'm sure we can find even more.Fladrif (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Boy these are old references! --BwB (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about studies done in the early 1970s after all. What do you expect, an article from this morning's "USA Today"?Fladrif (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The7thdr, the study I referred to was the one linked in the article version I indicated, i.e. the one on page 201ff. of Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives. The statement in that article version was cited to p. 207 of the book. So yes, if you meant another study, that may explain the mismatch between the article text and what the study said. I have looked at p. 56, where as you say, an Otis study based on sending out questionnaires to TM practitioners is mentioned, but I can't see any reference on page 56 to those participants reporting negative effects. It says, "The 1095 who responded generally claimed some improvements after learning TM (the actual number claiming improvement was not reported)." Could you point me to the right page please? I note that there are some criticisms of the statistical set-up of Otis' 1974 study (i.e. the one described in detail on pages 201ff.) on page 57. That was the one with the SRI volunteers. (If we use that study, those criticisms should perhaps be borne in mind.) Cheers, JN466 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I get it. The chapter starting on page 201 first describes one study, using SRI volunteers, and then describes another, based on a questionnaire sent out to people on the SIMS mailing list. My mistake; should have read the whole chapter. :( JN466 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No Jayen, it was my fault because I referenced it incorrectly - which has now been resolved I think. It's my age I am afraid :) The7thdr (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, old age. It's the reading glasses that did it for me. Until then I felt young. JN466 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As for peer-reviewed or not peer-reviewed, just because a study is peer-reviewed does not mean it is widely regarded as a definitive study; and if a study appears in a book, rather than a peer-reviewed journal, it does not automatically mean that it is no good. The book in question had editors, who would have looked at the material they were going to include; that is not unlike peer review. We regularly quote chapters in academic books. The publisher is reputable, the author was at the Stanford Research Institute, the book is well cited, and so is the chapter concerned. Editors may want to look at what those who cited the chapter said about it: [25] A summary of Otis' study can be found on page 132 of this book: [26] I think this gives a good idea of how this study (and other, related studies) might be summarised. It is not hostile to TM, does not try to score a point against it or advertise it, just gives an overview of research, balanced by caveats. Please have a look at it. JN466 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen for adding these comments. There seem balanced and well considered. What is your opinion about the Otis study specifically, and the analysis of it by david Orme Johnson? --BwB (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia favors peer reviewed studies. Also, the argument that Otis is should be included because there are no other studies like it makes no sense to me. It's as if we were saying we should include all fringe views because they are unique. Again: this is a proportionality issue. Hundreds of studies showing one thing versus a single one, it makes no sense to highlight the love wolf. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, make that "lone" wolf.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the only reason the Otis study gets so much mention, or is referenced so often is that IT IS THE ONLY TM STUDY (even if perhaps not a good study) TO SHOW NEGATIVE RESULTS. If journalists, authors, and scientists are writing reviews on the TM research and feel they have to give a balanced, unbiased view of the TM research, they will include some references to studies that indicate negative results. Since the Otis study is one of the very few published studies on TM that may indicate negative results, it gets quoted alot. If there are 100 good points about something, and only 1 bad point about it, and if an author is trying to give a balanced view of the subject, then she HAS TO include the 1 bad point, but may choose one or several of the good points. When this happens multiple times, the negative points get cited much more than any specific good point. We may see this more in the press when some new TM research on improved memory, for example, gets published. The reporter/journalist reports on the positive new finding about the effects of TM on memory, but feels she has to give a balanced view of the subject, looks for some research that may show TM to have negative effect, and, hey-presto, finds the Otis study and includes it the article, thus giving the Otis study another citation to put in its trophy chest. So over may years the Otis study gets more and more citations as people try to give a balanced reporting of the hundreds of scientific studies of TM. --BwB (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What is it with all you " pro"TMers and block letters and shouting? :-) Only one study? The section already includes more than one. I assume this means you feel that there are not enough cited to balance the weight with the favorable studies? Ok, hang on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the bolding in the comment above. I have learned that it is in bad taste among Wiki editors. Will refrain from this practice in future. --BwB (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think the point about peer review is a significant one and that is why Olive keeps bringing it up. The Otis study is not peer reviewed and WP:RS clearly give priority to peer reviewed research when it is available. Since this topic of TM has such a large body of peer reviewed research I don't see why we want to include studies that don't meet that standard. In any case I think a calm, civil and specific discussion of this point is in order beginning with this copy from the WP:RS page:

• Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. The choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources.
• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.--Kbob (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Where have you been all my life, Kbob??? I think you suggestion is marvelous. If all the active editors on the TM article agree with the WP:RS statement and use this as a benchmark to evaluate all the TM research - good or bad - then I think a fair and balanced outcome can be achieved. What to others think? --BwB (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This boat has sailed. Otis is a reliable source. Period. There is no room to debate about it. The pro-TM editors have turned weight on its head here. You don't count studies to determine weight or scientific concensus. And, even if you did, there are not "hundreds" of studies that show that no-one ever suffers any adverse effect from practicing meditation, including TM. There are a number of studies that show that some people do, including TM. Otis is one of them.Fladrif (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kbob: I hate to sound rude - but unless you can find any new reasons why Otis cannot be cited i think it is time to move on. You, Olive, etc, are more than welcome to take to Rfc or whatever, but the matter is closed and it is pointless bringing up the same argument again. The peer review thing has - to use a colloquialism - "been done to death". I am not wasting any more time on this. I have section about TM research in general that is part complied and needs finishing, and I have a far more interesting addition to make the early Mozart Piano Concertos that really needs my attention. The7thdr (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, I have never read what you quote to privilege peer-reviewed papers over academic books. Look at the wording: it refers to "Academic and peer-reviewed publications", "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". The two types of sources are viewed as equally reliable, and in practice, either type may be superior. Some editors, e.g., view peer-reviewed papers almost like primary sources, arguing that it is only the reviews that establish which peer-reviewed papers are really important. This applies in particular to medical papers. On the other hand, among academic presses, even Oxford University Press will publish the occasional dud. The point here is, Otis' study was published by a "well-regarded academic press". Personally I can see merit in some of the criticisms that Orme Johnson has raised, but even Orme Johnson concedes that the study is often quoted, so per NPOV, we have to cover it. If there is published criticism of the study, by all means let's have that as well. JN466 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen. Do you feel we can use stuff from the OJ web site as criticism to Otis? After all Wiki policy does permit self-published material: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (WP:SPS). Since OJ is and established expert on TM, and has been published may times in peer-reviewed, third-party journals on the topic of TM. Seems to me that OJ can be cited as a critic of Otis. --BwB (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BWB- let's cut through the BS and focus on what Otis concluded and what DO-J's "rebuttal" consisted of. Bottom line, Otis concluded that TM isn't for everybody, because some people experience adverse effects. And, when you get done with all of DO-J's sleight-of-hand, distractions and misdirections, he says, yeah, TM may not be for everybody because some people may experience adverse effects. The knee-jerk reaction of some of the editors here that a single word from someone who doesn't hew to the official approved TM talking points means that the whole article is out of balance, and rebuttal from a TM spokesman is required is frustrating to any non-TM-true-believer because it is virtually impossible to deal rationally with such an unthinking, uncritical and mindless approach. Fladrif (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You're a good man Fladrif. We love your enthusiasm. You are definitely in the "non-TM-true-believer " category. But perhaps the conclusions Otis made were erroneous, or inflated due to wrong analysis of the data, or not using controls, or because the subjects were self-selected. Can you please direct me where DOJ says "TM may not be for everybody because some people may experience adverse effects".

I do not consider that I am taking and "unthinking" approach to this article and the debate on its content. I have spent many hours reading both the Otis Study, analysis on the study, the DOJ critique, all the other editorial comments here, Wiki policies and guidelines, and thinking about the pros and cons of the research. Neither do I consider my comments "knee-jerk". I try to consider what the other editor is proposing and arguing, and to come back with reasoned retorts, arguing the points. --BwB (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What I will say is that the length at which Otis is quoted in the "Studies and Scientific/Medical Literature On The Adverse Effects Of TM" section seems somewhat WP:UNDUE. (I've deleted the reference to the same study in the section prior to that.) It is also, I think, misleading to state "Adverse effects by long-term TM practitioners included: antisocial behavior, 13.5%; anxiety, 9.0%" etc., because there is no reference standard mentioned. If you ask anyone in the street whether their anxiety has increased over the past 3-5 years (say, since their last house move), a certain percentage are bound to say, Yes. TM has nothing to do with that. That is not the point that Otis made: he compared long-term practitioners with more recent pracitioners, and there was a slight difference in the reports of adverse developments. In addition, I believe it does not reflect Otis' study to say that "while those dropping out from TM experienced fewer complaints than the experienced meditators, there was a positive correlation between the number of adverse effects and the length of time in TM". Participants were asked to rate their experience through the time period when they did practise TM. So the dropouts did not rate how they felt after dropping out, they rated how they changed after starting TM. Does what I am saying make sense to anyone here? I think we need to be slightly more careful in how we describe Otis' results. --JN466 17:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

it was I that wrote it jayen. I tried not to assume but to summarize what otis stated - and others - about the study and its results. I might of course be wrong and this certainly needs reviewing and discussion. We will certainly need to review Adverse effects by long-term TM practitioners i felt that this is what he said - but alas by experience on these pages may have biased my views and would welcome someone bringing that section - from the study that is not my precis - and discuss in detail here. And yes, what you say makes sense :-) The7thdr (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Jayen. You have brought a new voice to the Otis discussion which seems very balanced and reasonable. We hope you will will continue to help here. --BwB (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Jayen is right, his reading of the article is accurate, however, this does not address the fact that this study remains a single voice among a se aof studies stating the contrary, so, are we ever going to reach consensus?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There are probably a hundred books that call the TM movement a cult, and we have one self-published website that disputes that assertion. Is the view with the most sources the only view we should present? I think that would be contradictory to the ideals of WP:NPOV. While we should find a better source for the non-cult view, it's still a significant point of view even if expressed in only a few sources compared to a "sea" of contradictory assertions in reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Will I can see what you mean, other points of view should be noted; even if the source is not of the strongest especially in light of NPOV. Hopefully a more reliable source can be found to replace the present one? The7thdr (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise with the Otis report. It's a significant point of view in a reliable source. Even if there are six hundred studies (mostly done by MUM staff) that contradict it. If it were a fringe view, then that'd be different, but I don't think anyone here is suggesting that.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

After watching this ongoing discussion for quite a while, I finally got curious and read the Otis paper. I find olive's objections to it unpersuasive and mostly irrelevant. The peer-review argument has been well discussed and disposed of by others, and I hope we'll hear no more of that. Some of the other objections: yes, the participants are self-selected in the sense that only the people who returned surveys are included, but that is true of *all* survey research, not just this one, so it's not particularly useful as a criticism of this particular study. The idea that the research is flawed because only negative characteristics are listed is a very odd objection and may be a result of an incomplete understanding of the rules of survey design. It's true that in survey design you want to vary the way the questions are asked, some from a positive direction and some from a negative direction, but this wasn't the usual kind of survey that asks questions or makes statements that respondents agree or disagree with; the rule about negative phrasing doesn't apply here, and to invoke it suggests a sort of grasping at straws rather than an honest critique of the research. That the characteristics rated in the checklist are all negative is neither here nor there. The checklist is in the tradition of diagnostic checklists of all kinds; were we to question all checklists containing only negative characteristics, we'd have to throw out the entire DSM. Which actually might not be a bad idea, but that's never going to happen.

Having said all that, I'll say I'm not very impressed by the research, for a number of reasons. I think the way Jayen has written it in the article is good, and neutral. I personally think the research is so flawed that the conclusions can't be taken seriously, for reasons entirely other than those listed above, and if I were writing a review article about TM, this paper would not be mentioned in it. To list my criticisms of the research would be OR and therefore not useful to the article, and as has already been well-established, there is no policy-based reason to exclude this source. But I do think the summary of it should be carefully worded, as Jayen did very nicely. This is not to say anything about the quality of the MUM-related research; I haven't looked at any of the research mentioned in this article, but I have looked at the MUM-related research supporting the Maharishi effect in some detail, which doesn't make me hopeful for any research related to that institution, but I am ready to be pleasantly surprised. Woonpton (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good comments Woonpton. Appreciate you taking the time to examine the source and give an informed opinion.--Kbob (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise Woonpton, likewise :)Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Need Clarification on this Source

I removed this sentence which was added to the article today because the source link does not verify the source. The chapter on TM is not available for viewing on the link. Also we need additional details such as publisher,date, page number etc. so we can verify the proposed content. Thanks for your help.

• In 1992, Religious Scholar J. Gordon Melton wrote the mantras are to be kept secret and some meditators and TM teachers have published them.[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KRTGzgpDvL4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false</ref>--Kbob (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to be signed in with a Google account to see some contents of some books. I just checked the Google copy by searching on "mantra". The relevant text appears on page 290.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does, thank you Will. Sorry Kbob, my fault, I am watching a TV program at the same time and slightly distracted. I will replace, with correct referencing now of course. Indeed, I am glad you brought that to my attention, looking at things I think it might go much better now I have added the new reference in response to you removing Melton - thank you :) The7thdr (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks gentlemen.--Kbob (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Who on earth said I was a man? The7thdr (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Who in heaven said you were a woman? --Kbob (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchal assumptions and language is something that I encounter everyday in my profession Kbob - it would be nothing new here :-). Your assumption,seeming without question, that I was male might be one to "mediate on" :-) Please see Gender neutrality in English But you are forgiven, you are after all less the result of your genitalia then you are a dominate form of socialization. Anyway, let us stop lest you lead me down to a discussion of assumptions, language, professions and gender roles :-). Perhaps I shall change by avatars name here just for you :-) The7thdr (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hows that? Better? :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So I guess you are telling me that you are a woman and resent being called a gentlemen. OK, I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up. :-)--Kbob (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Schools

While the teachng of TM may not be relevant to the matter of religion and spirituality, it is relevant to TM, and we should find someplace for the assertion. Popularity? Unfortunately, the history section is divided into themese rather time periods, and the rest of "Populatiry" concerns much old events.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I would completely agree. The introduction of TM into schools is indeed highly noteworthy for a variety of reasons. But where to add it is the problem. It does not belong, as you note, in the spiritually section. It might if Kbob can find a direct source linking it to earlier court rulings or the controversy or teaching TM in schools and the fact that many consider it a religion. But without this where will it fit at the moment? The7thdr (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As Will mentions in section above there are many problems in the article with sub-section titles such as the History section. Often they limit content and create a segmented, boxy, article that is not as cohesive as it could be. I agree that the TM in current schools is important to the article but we should consider where to put it. It has relevance to the court case with better sourcing. I will work on that.--Kbob (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Paragraph From Research Section

I am removing a paragraph added recently by our fellow editor Fladrif. This addition to the article was made without discussion or consensus or input from other editors. I will explain below why the text is not Wiki compliant and why this addition to the article was neither responsible nor neutral editing.

• Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects, acknowledging methodological weaknesses and bias,

The above sentence is not compliant with Wiki policy WP:MEDRS which explains in great detail why “a news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure.” In addition the source article cited was published in 1971 and Fladrif created text that made a sweeping generalization about hundreds of peer reviewed, published studies that have been conducted in the 38 years since the cited source was published.

• and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology was rife with methodological weaknesses, and that those studies with proper controls showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest.

Also a violation of WP:MEDRS and a biased statement mis-characterizing hundreds of subsequent studies after the 1977 publication of this source article in a minor city newspaper.

• Claims by researchers associated with the Maharishi University of Management that TM has unique effects on body chemistry and blood flow different from other relaxation methods are not shared by the scientific community at large.

Also violates WP:MEDRS and is a misleading statement about scores of research studies.

• A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research concluded that the interest in meditation as a therapy for health-problems such as hypertension, stress and chronic pain is based on anecdotal evidence and studies of poor quality, and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced".

Also violates WP:MEDRS and is a duplication of information already provided in the 7th paragraph of the Medical Research section.--Kbob (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Um..not sure what others have to say and I don't have the time to review at the moment. However, sounds like you have removed a lot of it based on your own original research and synthesis. But not to worry, I am working on these areas of investigation at the moment. It will be ready shortly The7thdr (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Curious though; you have cited WP:MEDRS a number of times without saying which part of WP:MEDRS. I don't see it myself. Would you like to explain in a little more detail? The7thdr (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Here is more copy from WP:MEDRS

• The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits,[6] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[7] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease, or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center.[8] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story.--Kbob (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting misreading of WP:MEDRS, the deleted text and the source material. 7th clearly has more stomach for this nonsense than I do, so I'll let him have at it for a while.Fladrif (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Having pondered this for another day, I'll respond. The claim that reports in the popular press cannot be used in the context used here is a misapplication of WP:MEDRS, and it is an interesting juxtaposition of inconsistent positions for the TM cabal here to suddenly be sticklers for WP:MEDRS when anything contrary to the party line is inserted into the article, but to utterly ignore it when shoveling in paragraph after paragraph of pro-TM propaganda. The policy does not say that reports in popular press are never reliable sources for medical related articles, and the cautions deal with their limitations of describing the finer details of methods and conclusoins. They art not to be used as sole sources on medical research. But, they are perfectly acceptable for social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information in a medical article, and that common sense is needed to see how a popular press article fits the criteria of verifiability and reliablity. Simply making a knee-jerk deletion involves no application of common sense or rational analysis. So what are the points being conveyed in the deleted materials?

• Some researchers of TM and Physiology have retracted their conclusions, citing various methodological deficiencies in the studies. That's a fact, not a medical conclusion. There is nothing wrong with citing an article in the popular press to support that statement. And it is not at all misleading. If you think it isn't, suggest and edit, don't revert it.

• Other researchers conclude that the benefits of TM are not unique to TM, and that other relaxation techniques are equally effecatious. Again, there is nothing about this statement that is not reliably sourced. It does not require parsing by a peer-reviewed journal.

• Claims by TM-related researchers at MUM that TM has unique effects on blood flow and body chemistry are outside the scientific mainstream. You don't need a peer reviewed publication to support that statement. No-one outside the inner santum of TM-True Believers would would contest that the "Science of Creative Intelligence" and its "technologies" such as TM and TM-Sidhi are part of the scientific mainstream. I don't need to cite a peer-reviewed article to support a statement that the Flat Earthers are not part of the scientific mainstream; same deal with TM.

• The Ospina-Bond study concluded that meditation research, including TM-related research is basically all crap, and that not only is there no reliable research that any of it works, but there is also no relable research that one meditation method has effects different from any other meditation method. That's what it concluded. You want to add a cite to the footnote that goes straight to the study as well as to just one of the hundreds of articles on it? Fine. I got no problem with that. But you don't get to delete it.

Fladrif (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a double standard at work here, when a person who is objecting to another editor's making changes without discussion does the same thing himself. I don't believe the paragraph should have been removed without discussion, and I agree with Fladriff that WP:MEDRS is being misinterpreted to some extent here. Yes, a research finding should be cited directly to the research paper itself, rather than to a newspaper article about the research, but the 2007 meta-analysis should not have been removed just because it was cited to the Washington Post rather than to the study itself; the citation should simply have been corrected.

I've looked over this meta-analysis; it's top-notch and should be included in any discussion of research about the physiological effects of TM. The meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (see Table 34, p. 149) found no significant difference between groups practicing TM and groups receiving health education on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, change in body weight, heart rate, measures of stress, anger, self-efficacy, total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, dietary intake or physical activity. Comparing TM to no treatment, there was no difference in blood pressure. TM did improve LDL and "verbal creativity" compared to no-treatment group. And comparing TM to progressive muscle relaxation, there was significant improvement in SBP and DBP. However, to put that one statistically significant difference in perspective, Table 28, p. 129, ranks the different meditation techniques on systolic blood pressure: Tai Chi ranks #1 with an average reduction of 21.9 mm Hg, followed by Yoga, Qi Gong, contemplative meditation combined with breathing techniques, all achieving average reductions of 15 mm Hg or better. TM is 11th down the list with an average reduction of 2.5 mm Hg, pretty close to zero. Same with diastolic BP; TM is 9th down the list with a small reduction of 3.4 mm. And all these findings have to be considered in light of the overall poor quality of the research; even among the very best research on the topic, the research that was included in the meta-analyses summarized above because it featured control groups and random assignment, the highest ranking on the research quality index is 2 on a 5-point scale, so you're looking at the best of some pretty dreadful research. At any rate, for this meta-analysis to be summarily deleted from the article is simply not acceptable; this is important and balanced information on the effects (or lack thereof) of the practice of TM, and belongs in the article.

The statement cited to Time is not a research finding and so the appeal to WP:MEDRS is not appropriate; Time is a perfectly reasonable source, as far as I know, for the statement that researchers have withdrawn their findings, depending on how that's presented in the Time article. I would have to look at it myself to decide if I think that's an accurate representation of the Time article, but on the face of it, there's no policy-based reason to exclude this source for this statement. As for the Eugene Register-Guard, if a better source can't be found for that statement, it probably should be dropped. Woonpton (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The analysis of flad and Woonpton is to comprehensive and well argued for there to be anything to add to it, except to say that I am in agreement. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects, acknowledging methodological weaknesses and bias

I've just read the article in Time, 1971, that's named here as a source for the above statement; there's nothing in that article, as far as I can see, that supports the statement made. Just in case the citation was made to the wrong Time article, I also read the other one that's close by in the reference section, the one published in 1975; there is also nothing in that article that justifies this statement. So I would support removing this source and also the statement cited to it, unless someone can find a source that better supports the statement. My objection here has nothing to do with WP:MEDRS but simply with the requirement that a source should actually say what it's claimed to say. Woonpton (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does: "He points out that his study is "very biased" because it reported only on people who had learned meditation and continued to practice it; there was no control group of others who tried to end their addiction without the aid of TM. Also, Benson is careful to note, the reports of the 1,862 drug users were subjective—they merely answered Benson and Wallace's questionnaires.

Benson feels that better-controlled studies are needed. "What we're looking at is a behavioral type of approach to various disease patterns," he says, "to see whether changing one's behavior by meditation will help. As kooky as this sounds to many people, it has just got to be investigated." Otherwise, Benson says, no one can tell if TM is indeed useful."216.157.197.218 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but one researcher, pointing out the flaws in his research and suggesting the necessity for better research being done in future (which is a far cry from "retracting his conclusions" and usually is read as code for "I need more funding to continue and improve this research") does not by any stretch equate to Some researchers (plural) of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects. Since the Time article was published the same month as the study was published (that was the occasion for the Time article, after all), it makes no sense to say that Benson's remarks constitituted a "subsequent retraction." He was simply putting the research in context for the Time reporter, cautioning Time not to make more of the research than it warranted, as any responsible researcher would do when talking to the media about research that's attracted media attention. Now if the Wallace and Benson study is cited in the article as supporting claims for physiological effects of meditation (in my opinion it shouldn't be, but if it is) then these remarks by Benson could, and in fact should, be used to balance that citation, with a sentence pointing out all the flaws Benson points out in his comments. But they shouldn't be used to support "Some researchers subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies" that's not an accurate representation of the source, at all. Woonpton (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your going to hate me Mr Flad, but does it justify: Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions... I shall look for more resources, hang on Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Woonpton and LB for their comments. I've addressed the concern about the first Time article and Benson's comments in it. I've added additional sources. The argument that this is misleading or not complaint with WP:RS is absolute nonsense. The summary deletion of reliably-sourced material because they don't like it is a long-standing pattern of the TM Cabal here, is a gross violation of COI and POV and I won't sit by and just take it. You don't own the article, and you don't have veto power over the content. Fladrif (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Randomized

Regarding my edit, see http://www.idetprocedure.com/1000_patient/1040_glossary.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.232.84 (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For your convenience, here's what it says: "randomized study — A comparison study in which patients are assigned randomly (by chance) to separate treatment groups. Randomized studies use a “control group,” a group that does not receive the new treatment being studied. Using chance and control groups helps ensure that the different groups can be compared objectively." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.232.84 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know who posted these comments and what they are about? I'm in the dark :-) --Kbob (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I see from the page history that a random editor has changed the words 'randomized study' to 'random survey' for accuracy. --Kbob (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

IP address :-) - yes I agree - and this was my fault as I it was I who wrote it - very remiss of me to be honest. Thank you

Kbob: Otis The7thdr (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone else made the correction but glad to see you agree it is a good change.--Kbob (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Shorten Cult Section

I have rewritten the "Cult Issues" section to make it much shorter. I feel the Cult section be reduced in size for the following reasons: (1) the article is about the TM technique, not the organization that teaches it, therefore extensive discussion of cult issue are more suited to an article about the teaching organization; and, (2) the section was disportionatley long for the article - 5 or 6 paragraphs (did not do word count, sorry). I am not opposed to a brief balanced mention of this in passing, but extensive verbage on the issue is overdoing it. --BwB (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the issue should be covered concisely with reliable sources. I think this section deserves some significant group attention and discussion.--Kbob (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

remove it again (are one of you two going to put the references back in by the way?) and I shall use the same reasoning on the research section. DO NOT remove referenced material from this article without discussion first. The7thdr (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to apologize for cutting out a section of the "Cult Issues" section a few days ago. I was unfamiliar with all the relevant Wiki policies. However, I have spent some time in the last days reading policies and I now understand that it was incorrect for me to remove source material from the article WITHOUT first discussion it with other editors here on the discussion page. Thanks for your understanding. --BwB (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

BB Ref your points for shortening it:

1) the article is about the TM technique, not the organization that teaches it

All of the new research was about the Technique - indeed they were responses to much of what you keep asking to be kept in - Orm Johnson

2: the section was disportionatley long for the article

I have said this before and will say so again, if the information exists it needs to be added - no matter how long it is. The truth is that there are 100s of papers and academic books by RESPECTED academics and specialist in their field that describe TM as a cult/charismatic group/sect and justify/explain why. In truth - based on the rational used to have such large research sections - the section is far to small at the moment. Also, each of the authors cited analyze TM - the technique - from a different point of view - each adding something new to the discussion (all of whom are highly respected authors)

The7thdr (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

BB: Might I also suggest (having read your re-write of this section here: that you might want to consult a number of articles on editing in WIKI before making any more major changes. Could I suggest: WP:RS, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Common knowledge, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Wikipedia:No original research. I understand that wiki editing is not initiative - I think we all continue to learn, I know that I certainly am. So it might be wise to have a read through this first :-) The7thdr (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

BB: just incase you struggle to bring up your edit:

While Transcendental Meditation is a mental technique, not requiring the practicinar to believe or become a member of any organization, it has been asserted that the organization teaching the TM technique exhibit charactistics of a cult. These include: Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, [98]; and, Michael A. Persinger's in his book, TM and Cult Mania, published in 1980.[99].

However, Clarke and Linzey, argue that for the ordinary membership of TM their lives and daily concerns are little - if at all - affected by it's cult nature. Instead they claim, as is the case for Scientology, it is only the core membership, who must give total dedication to the movement [100]

According to David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management , cult followers are said to allegedly operate on blind faith and adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, while these studies would indicate the ability of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments.[101]; Marc Galanter MD, Professor of Psychiatry at NYU in his book "Cults: Faith and healing Coercion (who prefers the term Charismatic Movement to Cult)[102] —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

edit: While looking at various resources might I also suggest - lookieng quickly at this - WP:NPOV  :-) The7thdr (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• "...the article is about the TM technique, not the organization that teaches it..." Where is the article about the organization that teaches it?   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There may not be an article at the moment, but this is not our job to create one. This article is on TM, NOT an organization (whether a Wiki article exists or not). The TM technique, the content of this article, is NOT A CULT. How can a technique be a cult? I have compromised this point by allowing some brief references to it. I insist that thte cult section be reworked to be more in line with the edits I created earlier today. I'm sorry if I missed a couple of references. These can be included, but NOT the long diatribe. --BwB (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So if this article isn't about the organization then all of the material about the organization is equally off-topic. While it's inviting to test that theory by removing all of it, that'd just be disruptive. Clearly, until an article is written about the organization this is the default article for organizational issues.(And don't forget to log in when posting.)   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. The article should focus on the TM technique. If other want to write articles about the TM organizations, they please go ahead. But just because this article does not exist is not reason enough to start sticking all sorts of bits and pieces in the TM article. If we need to rework other section to accomplish this, then so be it. --BwB (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors who are adding material to the TM Article that is not so relevant to the technique should create a new article on the TM Organisation/Movment/how ever you describe it.--Uncreated (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that the cult issues are not relevant to the technique. However, without the first the second cannot take place. The critiques added reflect the technique and either how it helps the movement control it's members or to how the technique induces cult behavior - the mantras for example or the fact that advancing from the basic technique is also a form of social control. The one begets the other and are related. The one is a consqunce of the other. using the "reasoning" being presented by some here then all of the medical research should also be split off to its own article - the article then becomes about the technique not the consequences - or should that be possible - consequences thereof. As to creating a new article about the organization? A possibility but it would not exist long. this is because these often become critical - with well resourced "sources" - many of the editors here - who i dare not name least they threaten me with being "Banned" from wiki - will merge that article with either this or the Organizations founders article as happened previously. Once this happens the original page is deleted and when some editor wishes to add comments to the new article - found in the previous unmerged article - they are told it is not relevant - a boring tactic but an easy one. Also, please note the the new additions do not mention the TM org but the term TM. If TM is the trademark of the Technique it would be considered original research for people here to suggest that it is the organization that is being discussed and not the technique. The7thdr (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally, can I point some editors to NPOV POV FORKS The7thdr (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article is called Transcendental Meditation not Transcendental Meditation Technique The7thdr (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

BwB, thanks for shortening the section, I agree it was confusing and disproportionally long within this article. I just wanted to warn you that the third paragraph needs some adjustment, the beginning is a little unclear.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To accede to the argument that this article is about the TM technique and nothing else is to buy into the TM Org's marketing plan. TM is the "gateway drug" to the whole panoply of woo-woo that the TM Org sells. You can't separate the TM technique from the TM organization that sells it. You can't discuss the "medical research" without the "science of creative intelligence" theory behind it. You can't say it puts the mind in touch with subconscious levels without talking about seven levels of consciousness culminating in god consciousness and then unity. To paraphrase one of the sources on the cult issue, saying TM is just a relaxation technique is like saying Scientology is just a personality test.Fladrif (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BWB. We need to stick with the article topic. This argument that since there is no TM org article we need to put the kitchen sink stuff here is baloney. We have articles on many TM related programs and topics including the founder of TM and other related programs. We also know who the organization is who teaches TM and offers advanced courses like the TM-Sidhi program, Maharishi Ayurveda etc. it is called MVED. If someone want to create an article about MVED, please do it. But this is the TM technique article. It is not a concept article about a club, organization, cult, Movement or religion. --Kbob (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif: yes, I think this is the point made by a number of respected academics, researchers and psychologists (real ones :-) ) In the section on "cults" they state that TM is indeed a gateway as well as a mechanism of control (i could have introduced many more respected sources that stated this but did not under accusations the section was to long. This is important. You are of course also completely correct about the "science of creative intelligence". this is central to TM's beliefs regarding how the mechanism "works" yet it is highly conspicuous by it's absence here. While i always attempt to assume good faith there has been a suspicious amount of NPOV POV Forking in this article - the most clear aspect of this is the TM-Sidhu program which has somehow been split of from this article. The reason of course is that it is difficult to discus this with out mentioning "science of creative intelligence". We must I think redress this imbalance, as I am sure all good WIKI editors here are keen to do and dispel any question of POV Forking The7thdr (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the TM and related websites; the TM-Sidhi and Science of CI are two distinctly separate courses. In fact is hard to find any indication that the SCI course is still be offered to the public.--Kbob (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's simply false. No one is ever taught even the basic TM technique without indoctrination into the principles of SCI. The SCI "course", consisting of the 33 videotaped lectures by MMY is not only taught at MUM, it is offered to the public through the maharishi.org website and dozens of other TM-Org websites. In other forms, SCI it is widely taught by the TM Org. And, according the the TM Org, TM and TM Sidhi are simply the "technologies" of SCI. Fladrif (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are way off base here, Fladrif. --BwB (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. And, taking a page from KBob's playbook, you got any sources showing I'm wrong? You better cite 'em before telling me I'm off base, because I've got lots showing I'm right, including TM Org websites and TM Org official documents. See below.Fladrif (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there something on the TM websites about SCI courses that you could site here to support your statement? I have not seen when I have glanced at them.--Kbob (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Do you think I make this stuff up? All basic TM instruction includes the basic preceps of SCI. Al MUM students take SCI as their first course. Offering SCI to the public through videotapes. Teaching SCI to elementary-school childrenFladrif (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC):

Fladrik, you are absolutely correct that SCI is a course offered by the organization that teaches TM - MVED. However, you are incorrect that when someone comes to learn the TM technique they are taught anything other than the TM technique. The 2 are distinct courses. Thanks for pointing this out. --BwB (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that practicing TMers are not aware of the foundation of their own practice. I quote:

Practical Aspect of SCI: Research in Consciousness

The practical aspect of the Science of Creative Intelligence is the Transcendental Meditation® program. The Transcendental Meditation technique is a simple, natural, effortless technique for experiencing, in a systematic manner, Transcendental Consciousness, the simplest form of human awareness. Transcendental Consciousness is the home of all the Laws of Nature, the pure field of creative intelligence from which all of creation arises. By contacting this pure field of creative intelligence one experiences directly the nature, range, development and application of this field of creative intelligence which governs everything in creation. It is through this practical aspect of the Science of Creative Intelligence that the student directly experiences all of the theoretical knowledge brought out by Maharishi in the 33 videotaped lessons. http://www.maharishi.org/sci/sci.html Ladies, please, get with the program Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite of "Cult Issues" Section

Here is proposed rewrite for the Cult Issues section. I have rewritten the text with 3 objectives in mind: (1) to maintain the existing references, (2) to shorten the text to give it appropriate weight within the article, and, (3) to achieve a balanced viewpoint. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

While Transcendental Meditation is a mental technique, not requiring the practitioner to believe or become a member of any organization, it has been asserted that the organization teaching the TM technique exhibit characteristics of a cult. These include: Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, and, Michael A. Persinger's in his book, TM and Cult Mania, published in 1980. . Other comments on this issue:

• Marc Galanter MD, Professor of Psychiatry at NYU classifies TM as a cult.
• Professor Roy Wallis describes TM as having moved beyond being a cult to a "Sect".
• Dr Jean-Marie Abgrall describes how Altered States Of Consciousness (ASCs) are used in many cults to make the initiate more susceptible to the group will and world view. .

However, Clarke and Linzey, argue that for the ordinary membership of TM their lives and daily concerns are little - if at all - affected by its cult nature. Instead they claim, as is the case for Scientology, it is only the core membership, who must give total dedication to the movement.

According to David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management, cult followers are said to allegedly operate on blind faith and adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, while these studies would indicate the ability of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments. --BwB (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight to Mantras in Principles Section

Currently we have 7 sentences discussing various controversies about the mantras while the actual description of the principles of the technique is relegated only 5 sentences. Recent editions by a single editor have imbalanced the section. Let's discuss how to amend it and create balance. --Kbob (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And which do you think needs removing? The7thdr (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, not sure what "controversies" you are talking about? Could you please explain? The citations - except one - do not mention any controversies in a real sense. As to undue weight to the mantras - having read TM literature on the technique - including its founders - it seems that Mantra is central to the techniques - indeed, it might be described AS the technique. It is certainly true that TM and its founders make much of the way they are assigned and their specificity to TM. many forms of meditation use mantras as i am sure you are aware (although in fairness none of the other methods charge for them) Thus the mantras, the way they are assigned and their uniqueness is central to the technique and, according to TM literature, differentiate it from other forms of mantra meditation. The7thdr (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone once said:"App Dipo Bhav" —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kbob. The discussion of mantras in the Principles section is are being given an undue amount of space, having taken over the entire section, as per Kbob's earlier description. Additionally, these alleged "TM mantras" if that is what they are, are likely proprietary material. Their publication in Wikipedia is a violation of the free content publication policy WP:NFC and as such need to be deleted within seven days as stated in WP:CSD.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry LUKE but if those are indeed the TM mantra they cannot be copyrighted - they are words related to various gods as I am sure you're aware. or are you now suggesting that TM has also trademarked an entire language? In addition, if they are "secret" it would not be possible to copyright or trademark them - the moment you did they would no longer be a secret :-)

Indeed luke a quick search throws up the first search result for Enga as the native language of the Enga people Enga language. TM influenced by the shamen of Papua New Guinea also? Terrence McKenna would be pleased but would the Enga people be happy you TMers have copyrighted their name?

Edit. Sorry, just to clarify they are so called seed-mantras, not "gods" put related to. If you are unfamiliar, from a western ceremonial magic perspective that might ba little bit like a verbal version of Spares' sigils but realistically I think slightly closer to Dee's Enochian magic and the invocations thereof - or at least as adapted by Alister Crowley and the OTO. Was the Maharishi a secret Thelemite? The7thdr (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the copy added by a single editor over the past few days without discussion and input from other editors active on the article.

• In 1992, Religious Scholar J. Gordon Melton wrote that the mantras are to be kept secret but that some meditators and TM teachers have published them[15]
• In an interview reported in the 1995 expanded addition of Conway and Siegelman's "Snapping Point", former TM instructor "Robertson" said of the mantras; "I was lying about the mantras - they were not meaningless sounds they were actually the names of Hindu demigods - we had sixteen to give out to our students"[16]
• In 1997 Bainbridge wrote that the mantras selected by the TM instructors are "supposedly"[17] chosen to "match the nervous system" of their students but actually taken from a list of 16 Sanskrit words selected by the instructor based on the age of the student at the time they are given[18]
• In January 1984, Omni (magazine) published a list of 16 mantras given to TM students together with the manner in which they are assigned. These are as follows:(age range of the initiate at the time they are given can be found in brackets) eng (0 - 11), em (12 - 13), enga (14 - 15), ema (16 - 17), aeng (18 - 19), aem (20 - 21), aenga (22 - 23), aema (24 - 25,) shiring (26 - 29), shiring (30 - 34), hiring (35 - 39), ), hrim (40 - 44), ), kiring (45 - 49), kirim (50 - 54), sham (55 - 59), shama (60 - up)[19]

The section is entitled Principles of the Technique and yes the mantra is a key component of the technique and has been self-described in the first part of the section. However, this new copy (above) has doubled the size of the section and weighted it heavily weighted towards one specific aspect of the principles of the technique ie. mantras. It now includes a list of mantras plus detailed commentary on the mantra topic from a variety of authors who are established TM critics. I think this section is currently unbalanced and we should remove some or all of the newly added copy cited above. What do others editors think?--Kbob (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. All well referenced from respectable sources and all relative to the section in hand. The mantra IS central to the technique - if not it's main component. Of course it is weighed towards the mantra - this is in essence the "technique". Add to this the weight that TM gives to the uniqueness of said mantra and a discussion is obviously requiredrequired. One would have thought the TMers here would be happy to see more discussion and clarification of this - how strange.Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussions are fine, however, regardless of what you expect editors should or would be happy to discuss, the issue of undue weight remains. The section is now extremely lopsided, weighted down by a lengthy discussion about "mantras" with a purposefully negative slant. It is POV, unbalanced and changes need to be made.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. LB f/k/a 7th is absolutely correct. The amount of text devoted to the mantras is hardly out of balance. There ain't nothin' else to the technique but mantras as near as I can tell. If there's something else to the technique, go ahead and put it in with citations to a reliable source. One of the huge problems with this article is that it says virtully nothing about the technique. These additions are entirely necessary and appropriate additions to give some semblance of balance and weight to the article. The TM Org might not like having the mantras published, but there is absolutely nothing unbalanced, negative or POV to describing what the mantras are, what they mean, and how they're assigned. And, the copyright/trademark/trade secret argument is simply nonsense. Omni Magazine was never sued over publication of the mantras. You can't simulataneously claim that MMY is passing on the wisdom and techniques of ancient Vedic gurus (who, by the way, gave it away for free instead of charging 2 large) and simultaneously claim that you can copyright, trademark or assert trade secrets protection. The law don't work that way.Fladrif (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section is weighted in the direction of mantras. This section need to be rewritten. --BwB (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The list of purported mantras from what appears to be a reliable source is one thing. But a single editor has added 5 more lines of text about TM instructors and their relationship with the mantras which is inappropriate in a section at the beginning of the article which is entitled "Principles of the Technique". Maharishi has devoted many pages in his book to the mechanics and principles of TM technique but this is not an advertisement so it has which has been condensed to a few sentences. We should likewise respect this concept when it comes to the mantras. So these 5 lines recently added without discussion or consensus by one editor creates undue weight to the section and most or all of them need to be removed. --Kbob (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your objections are a rehash of arguments presented again and again in the Talk archives for this articl by a succession of editors representing the TM Org's POV and trying to protect its cash cow. There is no weaker argument in the Wiki arsenal than that reliably sourced information that editors pushing a POV don't want to have included violates WP:WEIGHT or WP:UNDUE. Your arguments here are singularly unpersuasive. I've yet to see a single editor not a member of the TM Cabal agree with you on this. Fladrif (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why i am even responding, but to repeat - every "argument you ladies are making has already been made and countered. while you may have lots of time to repeat yourselves i do not. Please put forward a new set of arguments - not already countered and dismissed - as to why the information should be removed. And no, one of you has already - somewhat amusingly - made the argument about them being copyrighted. We could of course add resource that prove the TM did indeed - rather embarrassingly for everyone - attempt to copyright them in the 70's if you want :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Invincibility,

I had always thought, looking through the history here, that only the TM-Sidi program was "proven" to make a country "invincible. However, I see from the "research" below that this is also the case for practicing ordinary everyday TM? Why has this not been included before and how can it be added? Must go under the research section surely? The7thdr (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Shall i or would someone else like to? BB what about you? You seem to be very familiar with TM :)

Test of a Field Model of Consciousness and Social Change: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program and Decreased Urban Crime Michael C. Dillbeck, Maharishi International University, Carole Bandy Banus, George Washington University, Craig Polanzi, Southern Illinois University and Garland S. Landrith, III, Maharishi International University The Journal of Mind and Behavior , Autumn 1988, Vol. 9, No. 4, Pages 457-486, ISSN 0271-0137 A series of three studies is reported that tests the prediction that participation in the Transcendental Meditation (TM) and TM-Sidhi program by a small fraction of the population of a society positively influences quality of life in the entire society, measured here in terms of reduced crime rate. Two cross-lagged panel studies among random samples of U.S. cities over the years 1972-1978 and metropolitan areas over the years 1972-1979 gave evidence for a causal influence of TM program participation in decreasing crime rate. A similar conclusion was supported by a time series analysis, using the transfer function approach, to assess the relationship between weekly variations in the number of participants in the group practice of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and decreased violent crimes in the District of Columbia over a two-year period. These findings cannot be explained by currently understood principles of behavioral interactions, but are consistent with the proposal that consciousness has, more fundamentally, a field character. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed. Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael C. Dillbeck, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Maharishi International University, Fairfield, Iowa 52556

Consciousness as a Field: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program and Changes in Social Indicators Michael C. Dillbeck, Maharishi International University, Kenneth L. Cavanaugh, University of Washington, Thomas Glen, Maharishi International University, David W. Orme-Johnson, Maharishi International University and Vicki Mittlefehldt, University of Minnesota The Journal of Mind and Behavior , Winter 1987, Vol. 8, No. 1, Pages 67-104, ISSN 0271-0137 A series of studies was performed to assess the prediction of a "field effect" of improved quality of life in society associated with participation in a mental practice, the Transcendental Meditation (TM) and TM-Sidhi program, by a sufficient fraction of the population. Five studies used a direct intervention design with Box-Jenkins time series analysis methodology to assess the effect of introducing sufficient-sized groups of participants in the TM-Sidhi program into social systems at the territorial, state or regional/national level. These studies indicated reduced crime totals in the Union Territory of Delhi, in Puerto Rico, and in Metro Manila, Philippines, coincident with the introduction of the groups; additional studies in the Philippines and the state of Rhode Island in the U.S. generalize these findings to more comprehensive indices of quality of life. Results were consistent with predictions and suggest a new mechanism of social change with theoretical implications concerning the nature of consciousness and also with potential practical application. Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael C. Dillbeck, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Maharishi International University, Fairfield, Iowa 52556.

NATURAL LAW PARTY FACT SHEET: How to reduce crime, violence and conflict, and create a stable state of world peace through the "Maharishi Effect": The phenomenon of decreased negative trends and increased positive trends in society through the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programme of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Over 600 scientific studies have been conducted on Transcendental Meditation and Yogic Flying showing wide-ranging benefits for all aspects of life. Forty-five of these studies show that when 1% of the population of any city or country practises Transcendental Meditation, or when the square root of 1% practises Yogic Flying in a group, there are dramatic improvements in the whole society, including reduced stress, crime, accidents, violence and conflict, and improved quality of life. Statistically, this phenomenon, known as the Maharishi Effect, is the best established of all findings in the social sciences. According to the established formula, a group of only 10,000 people practising Transcendental Meditation and Yogic Flying together, morning and evening, in one place can create a global influence of peace and harmony. http://www.natural-law-party.org.uk/pressreleases/UK-20000529-nlp-fact-sheet.htm.

As you know there have been hundreds of studies performed on the effects of TM in the areas of pyschology, physiology and sociology. This is one small area of the research and it could certainly be mentioned in the research section with proper sources.--Kbob (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement Kbob :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel the Invincibility research may be more suited to the TM-Sidhi program article. Yes, the TM technique was shown to reduce crime in cities where 1% of population was meditating, but the larger body of the Invincibility research was done on the TM-Sidhi program, according to published research. --BwB (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

TM and TM technique

I have given this some thought - and research - regarding TM and TM technique. The article here, has been titled TM not TM technique. The article is thus about TM specifically. This leads us to an obvious question - especially in light of NPOV and POV Forking especially - what is TM and what should be included here? Obviously, a reliable source is needed to confirm what is meant by TM (I could cite 100s of academic article on New Religios Movements which define TM as what many here call the TM movement and perhaps that would suffice. However, I have just looked the term up in the Encyclopedia Brittanica (2006 edition) and it has this to say regarding the term TM:

Transcendental Meditation

(TM), movement that was founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and became popular in the West during the 1960s. The movement is based more on the practice of specific techniques of meditation than on a set of religious or philosophical beliefs. As a monk in India in the 1940s and '50s the Maharishi developed a form of meditation that could be easily practiced by people in the modern world. In 1958 he began teaching it in India, and in 1959 he made his first tour of the West.

"Transcendental Meditation."Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 2 Aug. 2009

It would would seem then - referring to this WIKI article's title - that what we are talking about here is the so called TM movement (for this is how other major encyclopedias defin the term.

I hope this helps to clarify moving forward. There is of course nothing stopping anyone here creating a new article entitled Tm technique - while being careful of POV Forking of course The7thdr (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The following definition is from the Online Cambridge Dictionary: Transcendental meditation: noun

"a method of calming the mind and becoming relaxed by silently repeating a special word or series of words many times". Besides, this specific article is about the TM technique.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If it was about the technique it would be called TM Technique - but it isn't. I recommend you read the history of the article, But you are welcome to start a sole TM technique article  :-) The7thdr (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether the term used is Transcendental Meditation technique or Transcendental Meditation is immaterial. What this is, as the name indicates, is a technique for meditation. If the article were to be about the multiple aspects of the organization then the title to accurately portray what is in the article would have to indicate the name of the organization that is being described and written about.(olive (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Olive and Luke, and with the long history of this article - this article is about the Transcendental Meditation technique, not about the organization that teaches it. Transcendental Meditation is the specific metal procedure. --BwB (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Britannica is not exemplary as a reliable source. Actually, according to the Wiki guidelines, it's a tertiary source, and secondary sources are preferred. So its not authoritative in this regard, especially since different tertiary sources and dictionaries say different things. --Kbob (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking some more about this. The scientific literature and almost all of the mainstream media articles exclusively use the words "Transcendental Meditation" to refer to a meditation technique practiced 20 minutes twice a day. Probably in the neighborhood of ten thousand of articles over the past 50 years. If a small number of religious articles or books on cults etc. have a different usage, that could be noted in the religion/cult section of the article. But these types of amended and expanded terminology are not standard usage. It is only from a particular perspective that we receive this other type of usage and it should not govern the approach of the article. We can't give undue weight to a nonstandard usage of a term. If you search Google News archives, 8,600 articles come up, and you would be hard pressed to find more than one or two that has this nonstandard usage. Also, the term is trademarked. Under the terms of the trademark, it refers to a meditation technique practiced for 20 minutes twice a day.--Kbob (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"TM Movement" is also a nonstandard usage. It is found in 218 articles in Google News archives, compared to the 8,600 articles which mention "Transcendental Meditation," 99.99 percent of these use the term Transcendental Meditation to refer to a meditation technique not to an organization, movement, cult etc.--Kbob (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The "facts" you are relying on are not borne out by careful examination. The term "Transcendental Meditation Movement" shows up 333 times in a Google News search and 586 times in a Google Books Search. The term "Transcendental Meditation Technique" show up 133 times in the News search, and 627 times in the Books search. So, in news articles, the TM movement is 2.5 times more likely to be referenced than the TM technique, while in books, the technique had a 7% advantage over the movement. If you instead search "TM Movement" and "TM technique", technique has a 276-218 advantage over movement in a news search, and a 678-618 advantage in a books search. Looks a lot more like a tie, or maybe even a slight advantage to "movement" than an overwhelming convention. And, as you've pointed out, "Transcendental Meditation" alone shows up 8,620 in a news search, and 2,096 times in a books search. I'm no mathemagician, but even I can calculate that the articles or books discussing the "TM Movement" based on those results alone, and without examining the text in detail come up to a lot more than .01% of the universe of literature discussing TM (that would be 3.86% of the news hits, and 27.96% of the books hits for those more math impaired than most)

This refutes your assertions as to the basic facts. You and olive have previously lost the argument that there is no such thing as the TM Movement. This new iteration that it is "nonstandard" to refer to the TM movement flies in the face of not only the fact that that term is cited as often if not more often in publications, but also that materials on official TM websites repeatedly reference the TM Movement. Fladrif (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

comment

I see the article is now being edited without agreement or consensus and is no longer being treated as a contentious article. Interesting development.

Yes this is a very disappointing development. Hopefully we can get back to the vibrant discussion that we have been involved in here for the past number of weeks. --BwB (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Manipulation of the Article

Over the past several days there have been many major edits made by a single editor. These acts seem to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent discussion and consensus. This kind of editing bypasses the involvement of all other editors who have been actively working on the article for many months. The single editor appears to be taking ownership of the article in violation of WP:OWN. The editor refuses to consider that his/her editing syle may be inappropriate. This is indicated by the editor's reverts of any deletions of his newly added material. The editor in question makes his/her reversals without any talk page discussion which is in violation of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. The editor has made many substantial edits over the past several days without consideration of other editors. Here is a list to illustrate my point. Today alone the editor in question has made the following edits:

• Removed three paragraphs of sourced text from the Med Research section

Removed per WP:MEDRS. The studies were 30 tears old!! while there is justification to hold historical research in the article, there is already a historical research section and the studies removed are not unique but the same are are already cited within the article in newer research not removeLotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

• Removed a paragraph of sourced material from the Relationship to Religion section

The author keeps inserting a reference that is nothing to do with the section to support a certain POV. Both I and an amin have cited that the additon is VERY relavant - but advised the editors (KBOB) that she shoudl put it in the correct section.

• Created a new section (TM-Sidhi) which is a repeat of material currently in the article and has been the topic of previous discussion.

Not new, the sentence is a copy and past of the sentence that was already in place and agreed. However, give it it's own subheading per the structure in place already of the history section. It was MOVED to it's own subheading not reapeated or added per the structure of the section.Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Added a paragraph in the Relationship to Religion section

Indeed, a piece of important discussion highly relevant to the section in question. Well sourced and highly relevant. If not please discuss why :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Replaced references in the Cult section

What reverences would they be that where replaced? Please enlighten me.Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Started a new section on the talk page called TM and TM technique to support his edits and attempts to change the article focus.

Starting a new section in the talk page for discussion is WRONG? Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Made additions to the lede of the article to support his position in the above talk page section

Added a sentence clarifying what TM - as cited by a highly reliable source Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Made additions to the lede without discussion, consensus or notice which changes the focus of the article.

See above. WIKI is not a democracy Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Made a change to the section entitled Teaching Procedures to support his changes in the lede

Is Kbob repeating her point here. Perhaps she rushed this edit? But what changes to support what change in the lede? Once again I await an answer if she would be so good to respond :)Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This type of editing is neither responsible nor balanced. Therefore, I am openly stating that I will be reverting these irresponsible edits so that these proposed additions and deletions can be discussed on the talk page and consensus can be reached by all of the editors active on this article.--Kbob (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this editor has essentially highjacked the article and is transforming it to suit his POV. It is just as you said Kbob, a violation of Wiki policies. It is also disrespectful to the work of the many editors who have contributed to the article.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out to LUKE that she is wrong about "highjacking"; a view that does not agree with the majority of the editors does not mean that that view is incorrect. Perhaps she would like to think upon this. :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

All edits are are well sourced, balanced, NPOV and add to the article. All wiki policies cited by the KBOB are being used by pro TM advocates to forward their own agenda. This agenda is one of promotion to the product cited in the article. None of the wiki policies cited are relevant in this context (by the way might I point out the WIKi is NOT a democracy) The arguments made to the remove the segments are not to do with sourcing or relevance it is noted. It will always seem that any NPOV neutral editor is "biased" because the majority of editors on this article have strong POV in pro to TM. (By the way Kbob this is mot "Outing (yet another miss-use if wiki policies to threaten by the way? Perhaps you should spend a little more time getting a grasp of them rather than just citing them randomly? :-)) But an obvious fact to any neutral editor,

Now that rational argument is being lost by kbob he is reverting to Wikilawyering (a poor excuse for a rational argument). Once again, pro TM editor are "threatening me" with bans, etc. I cite KBOB who again, makes accusation of "outing" on my talk page.:

Outing?

Just a reminder that we discuss the content not the contributors. This kind of careless branding "one of the obvious TM devotes" and generalization about fellow editors is not appropriate. Thanks.--Kbob (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Once again, another) misuse of WIKI policies to further KBOBs agenda. Perhaps the editor in question might like to actual read the policies in dental (edit) or detail depending on which would work best :-)? :)

The personal insults by TMer on this page together with the constant "threats of having me banned is somewhat boring.

However, I will not allow myself to be drawn into the this , no more than I would be drawn into your "POLLs" :-)

Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Threats will not put me off however, but are more likely for me to spend more time here to deal with issues such as NPOV, POV FORking, Medcial article sourcing. etc, c. WIKIis not an advert to promote a particular product. Thanks :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is however a collaborative project...and depends on collaboration for balance and accuracy. I agree with Kbob and Luke. sourcing something is only one criterai for inclusion . There are multiple issues with the additions in the article.I do not have cosistemnt access to a connection for a few days but will comment more later.

Odd. The way I see things, just one of the kool-aid drinking pro-TM true believer editors over the past week has almost 70 edits to the page, none of them based on any discussion or concensus, striking reliably-sourced material, adding unsourced or self-published material, and asserting ownership over the article, all to push the POV of the TM Organization. That would be you, KBob. Look in the mirror before you make these kinds of absurd accusations. Consensus does not mean that any one of, or even the group of avowedly pro-TM editors, many of whom have direct financial ties to MUM or other branches of the TM Org, nor the new or anonymous editors with Fairfield IP addresses who suddenly show up whenever "your" article is being threatened with a dose of accuracy and balance, get veto power over the content. And the passive-agressive threats made by you and olive about how you're being "outed" or how the other editors are being mean to you are completely out of bounds. Fladrif (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be very hard to support the idea that the article has not been given a very new direction by one or two editors in the last 3-4 days. One has simply to follow the edit History trail to see the changes that wave been made. Most of these changes have been made WITHOUT discussion with other editors. This seems out of balance for a recognized controversial article. When I tried to suggest the "Cult Issues" section was way too long and given undue weight, and decided to edit the section, I was very much taken to task by 7th for making the edit. Yes, I realized later when I became more familiar with Wiki policies, that I should not have removed sources material without discussion, but it seem other editors are performing a solo act.

I would draw you attention to a sentence on 7th's personal Wiki page: "I have a deep dislike and mistrust of any organization that in anyway "profits" or "charges" for spiritual or religious "secrets" or services of any kind and consider it possibly the most shameful of all religious activities". It is not at all surprising that the article on the TM technique has been given a particular direction by 7th in the last few days (as evidenced by his recent edits) given this POV expressed on his home page.

Of course it is difficult for us all not to be influenced by our past experiences, beliefs, upbringing, etc. but as Wiki editors we must continue to ensure that we are not unduly influenced by these experiences. --BwB (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right BwB, and it is true that our own personal beliefs will influence the way we feel. Nonetheless as editors we should strive for a certain level of objectivity, and we should not be making major changes without consulting those who have been contributing to the article as well. Finally, I will reiterate that it very bad Wiki form to refer to editors in a derogatory or personal way. Sentences like "kool-aid drinking pro-TM true believer" simply have no place in Wikipedia. All editors are just that: editors, and should be referred to in no other way.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

oh Mrs BwB! citing this again? surely it is getting a tad boring now? How many other times is Ms BwB going to quote my profile Page? I am flattered but still... Yes, I have always been honest - oddly by reading my profile Mrs BwB has not discovered a great secret and "hacked" my account. But again, I have always been honest. Has she?? Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, that was not appropriate, I just realized I should not have put the comment above in the discussion page, but on the editor's talk page. I will do so now. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to bring things back to focus:

• We are here to comment on the content not the contributors. If we have something to say to an individual editor than we should go to their User discussion page and post there. If we have a complaint about an editor than we should go to the appropriate noticeboard and discuss there.
• This thread is about the recent actions of a single editor who has made significant changes to the article in a brief period of time without discussion or consensus with a singular POV and which appear to be an attempt to change the focus of the article. I stand by my post and the references given.--Kbob (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Interested editors might also enjoying reading these WP:ATTACK and WP:KEEPCOOL Peace! :)--Kbob (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If Mrs Kbob will forgive me for saying so but it is her and the other ladies here that keep attacking little old moi - kettle, calling pot...

And while we are citing policy once more might I bring Ms Kbob's attention to Wikilawyering :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Socks

I am a little confused by the emergence of two new editors or old editors with new user names. I don't want to assume anything but suggest the users/user read WP:Sockpuppetry.(olive (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I had noticed this myself Olive. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. --BwB (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The thought occourred to me also, I have to say.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Luke: I assume you mean little old moi? The thought had occurred to you also? A little thought I assume? :-)

Mr Olive, I think you have mentioned you are using a mobile device so will forgive you - surely not another threat? The reason I generated this avatar was due to the gender bias of your fellow TMers. You would have seen that if you had bothered to read the comments above :). Can I also mention that you have at least 3 unsigned comments on this page but I have not threatened you with being banned :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in fact traveling as I mentioned above and have inconsistent connections. I was and am also having trouble logging in as I noted and when I identified myself. Should be able to fix it all when I return ....Thanks.(olive (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Mediation

Formal mediation requires that less formal methods of WP:Dispute Resolution be tried before formal mediation can become an option. For the record, should we have to go to Formal Mediation, I have requested assistance and advice from informal mediation. An editor from informal mediation is now "watching" the Transcendental Meditation page, and may be able to offer us advice in the future on how to proceed more efficiently.(olive (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Mr Olive: hoping for third time lucky? I have already brought an ADmin here who is monitoring and also asked for impartial advice regarding referenced materiel. This might prove interesting :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Informal mediation is a usual necessary step to Formal mediation. One asks for help/advice in mediation situations and help can then be assigned. I am delighted to have any and all input from neutral eyes on this page, so I am happy to have both Jayen and now Phil help us out here. Thank you both.(olive (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Hi everyone, I've added the page to my watchlist, and hopefully I'll be able to offer some assistance. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the page, Phil.--Kbob (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Phil for getting involved in this article. You will see that August has brought an accelerated numbers of edits to this article and an increase of heated discussion on this page. Glad you're here to help. --BwB (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy you are here, Phil. Welcome and thanks for the help.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Evening/morning/afternoon. i am sure you have read and discovered - unlike some here - that I am the 7thdrI . My personal views can be found on that talk page. I see you are new to the mediation process; you have my sympathies getting this one :) Namaste Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit, you may find the manner in which I address many of the other editors on the page "strange". The reason is they have stopped talking to me except in the third person. A curious development, but I thought if I returned the favor they might - as they say "in this neck of the woods" - "get the hint" :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll address you in other than the third person. And I'll add my apologies for referring to you as "he" above, but let me plead my case. Since the 7th Doctor (and all the other doctors of which I am aware, for that matter) was portrayed as a male, and I am no scholar of Dr Who arcana, it did not occur to me that Time Lords may be of indeterminate gender. And I wish PhilKnight the best of luck and considerably sympathy in stepping into this morass. Any admin, like WillBeback, who contradicts any article of faith of the TM true believers will soon be accused of bias and ignored by them.Fladrif (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are Forgiven :-) and there are many female Timelords the most famous of course being Romana ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cult and orm johnson

Sorry fladrif, but i have restored this. there was discussion between me, Will and all of the other TM ladies. It was decided to return it till they managed to find a better - reliable - source. Yes it is painful to have something so biased in the article but... Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to all. I missed that discussion. Fladrif (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The page is a little "heavy" to be honest, so one can understand why you missed it. I have one of those irritating "Blackberry" things and was going to respond to a comment earlier while out and about but gave up trying to keep track of things till I found a bigger monitor :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Text from Research: Effect on the Phsyiology Section

• Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects, acknowledging methodological weaknesses and bias, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology was rife with methodological weaknesses, and that those studies with proper controls showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest. Claims by researchers associated with the Maharishi University of Management that TM has unique effects on body chemistry and blood flow different from other relaxation methods are not shared by the scientific community at large, and TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice. A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research concluded that the interest in meditation as a therapy for health-problems such as hypertension, stress and chronic pain is based on anecdotal evidence and studies of poor quality, and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced".--Kbob (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the above text which is a slight variation of the text I removed a few days ago and posted on this talk page and gave reasons for the removal of each sentence. My reasons for removal in nutshell are it makes statements about medical research using periodicals as a source in violation of WP:MEDRS. Furthermore the text makes sweeping generalizations on decades of peer reviewed published research which occurred decades after the publication of the sourced periodicals (which are invalid sources anyway). I welcome comments from other editors so that we can have resolution and consensus.--Kbob (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There are additional problems in that some of the text is grossly inaccurate. For example, in the first half of the first sentence it says "some researchers" but the article only mentions Benson. So this is an exaggeration. The sentence also refers to "earlier studies" but in fact the article refers to one single earlier study. A second misrepresentation. I think this deleted section needs some serious work before it can be consider for posting in the article.--Kbob (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See above. I will not fall for the tired scam of the TM Cabal here "we can't put anything in until everybody agrees". This is accurate, reliably sourced material. You don't have veto power over the content of the article and you don't get to delete reliably sourced material just because it doesn't square with the marketing plan of the TM Org. And, what is it with the lack of attention span of all you TM editors that you have to keep making new headers and breaking up the discussion? Stop it already! Fladrif (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion to remove this section on the TM research. Your points seem valid. Happy to discuss it here further. And Fladrif, just because it is reliably sourced material does not automatically mean it should appear. As I have mentioned before, the "Cult Issues" section does not really belong in an article on TM since TM is a technique and therefore cannot be a cult. I am willing to allow some mention of "cult issues" but not 6 paragraphs. And my attention span is fine, thanks for asking :) --BwB (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This text was put back into the article while it was under discussion. There were comments made by several editors both pro and con in regard to this text. Woonpton in particular made some astute comments which were not fully responded to or addressed. I would like to continue this discussion here if that is OK with everyone. I am never opposed to reliable sourced material that is accurately represented being put into this article. I suggest we go line by line and examine the removed text. If reliable sources can be found we can clean it up and put it back in. I will start a new thread so we can review and discuss the first sentence and come to a conclusion. In this way I think we can work together and get a fair result that will enhance the article.--Kbob (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that my comments were not fully responded to or addressed, so why did you start a new section instead of keeping the discussion open in the thread above where my comments reside? But I'll summarize them here quickly FYI: WP:MEDRS applies only to the third statement, which refers to comprehensive findings from a meta-analysis; that should indeed be sourced to the study itself rather than to the washington post. But you fix that problem by changing the source, not by deleting the statement. I said that deleting that meta-analysis is not acceptable, as it is the latest word on research regarding effects of TM. I was a little surprised when I read that WP:MEDRS calls for honoring meta-analyses as the best kind of source; I'd say there are meta-analyses and meta-analyses, and some of them I wouldn't give much credence to. But this one is absolutely stellar, up-to-date and comprehensive, and should figure prominently in any discussion of research in this area. For the other two statements, WP:MEDRS does not apply, as the sources are making general statements about the quality of research, not summarizing research findings.

That said, I'm not arguing for the paragraph to be kept just as written (although I think if the rest of the section is kept, then this must be kept), but I don't think the idea of going through it line by line is a good idea either. This whole section, in fact the entire Research part of the article, is a mess, and should be rebuilt from the ground up, in my opinion. The research that's cited both pro and con is almost without exception terrible research that shouldn't be used as sources for an encyclopedic treatment of a topic. The research on the topic can be summarized in a few sentences, this on the one hand this and on the other hand that style is a terrible way to write an encyclopedia. As for the paragraph in question, the poor quality of the research done in the area needs to be addressed, but it's not necessary to appeal to the popular press for sourcest; the recent meta-analysis covers that quality of research very well. Why not use a better source when one is available?Woonpton (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would completely agree with you woonpton. This has been raised many times - the research section is ridiculously long, never mind the quality of ALL of the studies. This has been raised time and time again - even by Admins. Alas, it reflects the style of TM marketing and they REFUSE to allow it to be both shortened and critiqued. It just ends up with all of the ladies here threatening banning, and suing and all sorts of other nonsense. It concludes with an edit war - and much stamping of feet - until anyone remotely neutral goes away in disgust having had enough of it. As hard as it might be to imagine, considering the comments here by others directed in my direction, I am neutral. My only concern has been due to the blatant intellectually dishonesty in the editing of this article.

The upshot of this is that one is forced to cite documents and critiques that one might not normally simply because the editors will only calm down slightly if they see "hundreds" of sources "supporting" or analyzing some critique. It is in many ways due to a misinterpretation (or miss-representation one might say if one was cruel - which i would not like to be) of policies about referencing and weight; but they won't listen. But what can one do? I used to think that it was because certain editors where paid by TM but having looked at recent additions I am starting to think that this is not the (only?) case here and that instead some editors world view is so distorted that they really believe that they are right:

Take for example the recent edits to the cult the section, at least 3 editors thought the following edit was NPOV and acceptable - indeed two of them spent much time editing it to get it "just right":

Cult issues

While Transcendental Meditation is a mental technique, not requiring the practicinar (sic) to believe anything (sic), to change their existing beliefs, or become a member of any organization, it has been asserted that the organization teaching the TM technique exhibit charactistics (sic)of a cult. These include: Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, [98]; and, Michael A. Persinger's in his book, TM and Cult Mania, published in 1980.[99].

However, Clarke and Linzey, argue that for the ordinary membership of TM their lives and daily concerns are little - if at all - affected by it's cult nature. Instead they claim, as is the case for Scientology, it is only the core membership, who must give total dedication to the movement [100]

According to David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management , cult followers are said to allegedly operate on blind faith and adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, while these studies would indicate the ability of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments.[101]; Marc Galanter MD, Professor of Psychiatry at NYU in his book "Cults: Faith and healing Coercion (who prefers the term Charismatic Movement to Cult)[102]

How on earth can one hold a neutral discussion about resources and edits in such an atmosphere? Woe is us. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem with this sentence is primarily the sources:

• The sentence sites two Time magazine articles. Neither article contains any criticism about the TM research
• The third source is an article in the Eugene Register. Eugene is a town of 150,000 people and with 10,000 articles written on TM over a 50 year period, I think we could rely on better sources.
• The Eugene article was written in 1977 and comments made by the two scientists in the article could not be considered relevant to the hundreds of published, peer reviewed studies that have been performed since then.
• Lastly the Eugene article includes comments by two scientists. One says that some TM research is being rushed to publication. The other says that although TM produces physiological changes he is not convinced that we might not see the same changes in a person just resting.

So regardless of how we interpret WP:MEDRS, this sentence is not accurate and does not seem to cite good, reliable sources. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The First Sentence

• Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects, acknowledging methodological weaknesses and bias, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology was rife with methodological weaknesses, and that those studies with proper controls showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest."Mind over drugs" Time (October 25, 1971)Wagstaff, Beverly, "Meditators", Eugene Register-Guard (January 8, 1977) p B-1[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947229-1,00.html

Please add your comments on this sentence and its sources.--Kbob (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem with this sentence is primarily the sources:

• The sentence sites two Time magazine articles. Neither article contains any criticism about the TM research
• The third source is an article in the Eugene Register. Eugene is a town of 150,000 people and with 10,000 articles written on TM over a 50 year period, I think we could rely on better sources.
• The Eugene article was written in 1977 and comments made by the two scientists in the article could not be considered relevant to the hundreds of published, peer reviewed studies that have been performed since then.
• Lastly the Eugene article includes comments by two scientists. One says that some TM research is being rushed to publication. The other says that although TM produces physiological changes he is not convinced that we might not see the same changes in a person just resting.

So regardless of how we interpret WP:MEDRS, this sentence is not accurate and does not seem to cite good, reliable sources. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Would someone point out to Ms Kbob, that that sentence hasn't been there for hours now? It was edited by the editor and the new paragraph is much improved. Perhaps some one could point out to her it would be a good idea to read the article before - yet again - starting another section. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)