Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Using intros for summaries

Intro from Transcendental Meditation movement

The Transcendental Meditation movement (also referred to as Transcendental Meditation (TM), "Maharishi's worldwide movement", and previously as "World Government")[1] is a world-wide organization founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the 1950s. It includes programs and organizations connected to the Transcendental Meditation technique, developed and or introduced by the founder.[2][3] Besides the TM technique proper, the TM movement also advocates the "advanced" TM-Sidhi program including "Yogic flying", Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi Vedic Medicine, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, and other "technologies" and products.

Estimated to have tens of thousands of participants, with high estimates citing as many as several million,[4] the global organization also consists of close to 1,000 TM centers, and controls property assets of the order of USD 3.5 billion (1998 estimate).[5] Most Movement organizations have tax exempt status; others have operated for-profit.[6][7]

The movement has made unsuccessful attempts to attain political influence during the early 2000s, by means of its Natural Law Party in elections in various democracies, and by means of trying to attain sovereignty as a microstate for its Global Country of World Peace.

The TM movement has been described as a spiritual movement, as a new religious movement, and a "Neo-Hindu" sect.[8] It has been characterized as a religion, a cult, a charismatic movement, a "sect", "plastic export Hinduism", a progressive millennialism organization and a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion" in books and the mainstream press,[8][9] with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.[10]

Other sources assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, and not a religion or a cult.[11][12][13]Participation in TM programs at any level does not require one to hold or deny any specific religious beliefs; TM is practiced by people of many diverse religious affiliations, as well as atheists and agnostics.[14][15][16][17]

Current summary

The Transcendental meditation movement came out of the Spiritual Regeneration Movement (SRM) founded by the Maharishi in 1958. The SRM was incorporated as a religious organization, however, this wording was removed from the articles of incorporation in the 1970s in an effort to appeal to a more secular west.[4]

The Transcendental Meditation movement encompasses initiatives by Marishi Mahesh Yogi spanning multiple fields and across several continents. Sociologist J.R. Coplin says that TM is both a "private technique" and a "public ideology".[52]

The terms "Transcendental Meditation", "TM", and "Science of Creative Intelligence" are servicemarks owned by Maharishi Foundation Ltd., a UK non-profit organization.[53] These servicemarks have been sub-licensed to the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation (MVED), an American non-profit, tax exempt organization which oversees teaching the Transcendental Meditation technique and related courses in the U.S.A.[54][55]

Two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[56] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied property tax exemptions as the educational activities of the organizations did not reach the ‘purely public charity’ threshold in one case, and did not involve the entire real estate in the other.[57]

Transcendental Meditation is taught in the United Kingdom by the Maharishi Foundation, a registered educational charity (number 270157).[58] TM is taught in South Africa by teachers registered with Maharishi Vedic Institute — a non-profit organisation, registration number 025-663-NPO.[59] In Australia TM is taught through the Maharishi's Global Administration through Natural Law Limited, which is registered as a non-profit educational institution.[60]

The Skeptics Dictionary refers to TM as a "spiritual business".[61] Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh note in their book Trick or Treatment that TM is part of a larger system of beliefs than other types of meditation, with strong religious associations.[62]

In 1992, a political party, the Natural Law Party (NLP) was founded based on the principles of TM.[4] Most of the party was disbanded by 2004.[4] NLP ran candidates in at least ten countries, including the United States, Canada, UK, several European countries, Israel and India, but rarely received more than a few percent of the vote. Candidates in Croatia and India did win seats for regional councils.

As we can see, these are totally different. Both could be improved by combining them into one good summary. My suggestion is to take good material from the current summary and integrate it into the TMM intro, then copy that integrated summary back here. That means we have one summary of the TMM, instead of two different ones. the same for the other child articles. Doing so minimizes the editing of the most contentious sections of articles on a contentious topic. If we have two separate summaries, then we need to have two separate discussions, doubling the effort for no reason. Is there a good reason why the summary here should be substantially different from the intro of the artuicle itself, other than a little redundant context info?   Will Beback  talk  09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No the intros should be ostensibly the same. --BwB (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The two should be synchronized, but I don't think it matters how that's done. To start it would be fine to create one summary/lead and add it to both the lead of the daughter article and the summary article of the parent article, then allow it to expand from there as needed.(olive (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

Here's a version: Kind of bare bones. How is this? Too short, too long, not enough information. I'm not attached in anyway. Just seeing what everyone has in mind by posting something. I feel this is approachable for anyone wanting a little information. All of the trademark/tax stuff seems like too much detail and what the casual reader who only goes as far as the lead or a summary will get bogged down in. Comments needed and welcome.(olive (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First draft intro/summaryTranscendental Meditation movement: The Transcendental Meditation movement (also referred to as Transcendental Meditation (TM), "Maharishi's worldwide movement", and previously as "World Government")[1] is a world-wide organization founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the 1950s. It includes programs and organizations connected to the Transcendental Meditation technique, developed and or introduced by the founder including the "advanced" TM-Sidhi program that includes "Yogic flying. Estimated to have tens of thousands of participants, the global organization also consists of close to 1,000 TM centers, and controls property assets of the order of USD 3.5 billion (1998 estimate).[5] In 1992, a political party, the Natural Law Party (NLP) was founded based on the principles of TM.[4] Most of the party was disbanded by 2004.[4] NLP ran candidates in at least ten countries, including the United States, Canada, UK, several European countries, Israel and India, but rarely received more than a few percent of the vote. Candidates in Croatia and India did win seats for regional councils. The TM movement has been described as a spiritual movement, as a new religious movement, and a "Neo-Hindu" sect.[8] It has been characterized as a religion, a cult, a charismatic movement, and a "sect", a progressive millennialism organization and a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion" in books and the mainstream press,[8][9] with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.[10] Other sources assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, and not a religion or a cult.[11][12][13]Participation in TM programs at any level does not require one to hold or deny any specific religious beliefs; TM is practiced by people of many diverse religious affiliations, as well as atheists and agnostics.[14][15][16][17] I did take out "Neoplastic ... " whatever that was... if one source makes a comment I don't think it belongs in a lead...but again open to comments/suggestions.(olive (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure what is being proposed. If this is also suppose to be the intro of the TMM article then let's discuss it on that talk page instead of here.   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've copied the main parts of the drafting thread to Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement#Proposed intro. I hope that's acceptable. Let's discuss it there and then copy the finished product into this article.   Will Beback  talk  12:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Independently done systematic reviews

• While some independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits ...others have found that the practice of Transcendental Meditation leads to lower blood pressure, decreased propensity towards addiction, and improved academic performance.

This is newly added material. I'm still tracking down some of these papers, which have incomplete citations, but the first one listed, is certainly not independently done. The authors are Robert H. Schneider, Charles N. Alexander, Frank Staggers, Maxwell Rainforth, John W. Salerno, Arthur Hartz, Stephen Arndt, Vernon A. Barnes, and Sanford I. Nidich. Most or all of those people are closely connected with TM. I am going to revert this addition on the assumption that the editor didn't know what is meant by "independently done systematic reviews". The material may be worth adding to the new TMR article if it complies with MEDRS.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're going to remove reliably sourced content?

This topic (independent) has come up again and again. Lets define "independently" done. And lets look at MEDRS. We are giving an overview of TM research not stating these are supporting studies for health benefits. The sentence in place before this was added is one that I have raised concerns about in the past, but always discussion was deflected elsewhere so we never quite got to it. It seems we have to deal with it now.

There are many reviews on TM.

So seems the discussion we have at hand has to deal with:

• Defining independent.
• MEDRS as per the lead.
• Dealing with the content of the sentence previously in place if necessary

This is the area I was in the process of filing a mediation for...Maybe we need help with this since these three points come up over and over with no resolution in sight.(olive (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

We could move it into a different sentence that contrasts independently done reviews with reviews conducted by TM researchers. But right now, the material mis-summarizes the sources by mislabeling them as independent. I found this:

• Alexander CN, Robinson P, Rainforth MV. Treating and preventing alcohol, nicotine, and drug abuse through Transcendental Meditation: a review and statistical meta-analysis. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 1994 11(1/2):13-87

Obviously, that isn't an independent review.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nidich, S.I. et al. School effectiveness: Achievement gains at the Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment. Education 107: 49-54, 1986.
• Nidich, S.I. and Nidich, R.J. Increased academic achievement at Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment: A replication study. Education 109: 302-304, 1989.

These aren't independent and they don't even appear to be reviews. They are not included int he text of the article, so they do not belong in the intro. I suggest moving this discussion to the TMR talk page, where we can consider adding some of this material to that article.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no other comments, I'll move this material and discussion to the TMR talk page.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Transcendental Meditation research#Other studies.   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Its probably a good idea to give others chance to respond. I'll continue the discussion on the concerns I have here. If Will wants to have another discussion ongoing on the TM research page that would be fine with me. I'll be able to comment later tomorrow.(olive (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

It seems logical to discuss research on the research talk page, but if you have a different perspective I'd be happy to hear it. I've invited the editor who added this to respond, but I'm not holding my breath.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bone of contention

• Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.

This text has been a bone of contention. With the reorganization of the article we no longer devote as much space to research, so this is more detail than we need here. I've moved it to the intro of the TMR. That's the logical place to thrash it out further. I've replaced with text based on the compromise language proposed by TimidGuy:

• The scientific research has been of uneven rigor and quality.

The whole intro will need to be re-written soon, so this is just a stopgap.   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes this covers it succinctly The first line covers it more succinctly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. Was this intentional?[1]   Will Beback  talk  09:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I meant that the line above is a good summation of the research. Not sure why it was removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to explain my reasoning. I moved the first line to the Transcendental Meditation research intro and used briefer language, the second line, here. I'd thought that other editors would appreciate that but if no one prefers this we can undo the edits.   Will Beback  talk  09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) if we think it is too long we could remove "and among the most widely researched meditation techniques" The volume of research does not matter as much as the conclusions of said research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Widely researched" is a frequent assertion which appears in good sources. While we might argue about quantity versus quality, the quantity is an often-noted characteristic. Quality less so, but still significant.

Anyway, if no one endorses this change I'll revert my edits to both articles.   Will Beback  talk  11:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving it in but if we all feel we need to cut stuff out there are many things that we should trim before the conclusions of a Cochrane review regarding the foundations of TM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That may be so. You haven't been active on this page recently so you may have missed some of the recent threads. I believe there's no major opposition to reworking this topic from the ground up, so to speak, by improving the sub-topic intros (especially TM research and TM history), then using those intros as the summaries here. The final step, presumably, would be to re-write this intro as a top-level summary. If we follow that plan then we'll be back here soon enough to discuss the intro. That's why I said that I was making a stopgap edit. No big deal. If it's not an improvement we can go back to what we had before.   Will Beback  talk  11:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"foundation of TM"? I'm not sure what that means. At any rate, I'm not so comfortable with an edit made that unilaterally reverts another edit made with discussion. I'd suggest that if an editor is not part of a discussion that rather than trump the discussion of other editors with his own individual opinion he might comment and discuss first. Will's version was a compromised version of a sentence that is contentious. What Doc has readded misrepresents the sources, it ignores reviews and meta-anlayses that say the opposite, it ignores all of the research that uses comparators other than relaxation and health education, etc. It also selectively references just 3 of the 14 research reviews that are included in the article, and in general compromises the accuracy of the article. We need to deal with this sentence. We can't just ignore that kind of blatant inaccuracy(olive (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC))

The "independently done" sentence has been discussed extensively, and my edit was not, so if anything reverting back to the old version is more appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. If that were the case, then any time no matter the discussion another editor can come in ignore the discussion and whatever progress has been made towards collaboration and compromise and undo the time and efforts of other editors. How does that respect both those editors and that process. I won't revert Doc but I would ask him to consider what I'm saying.(olive (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

Olive, what discussion are you referring to? Where did we agree to the text I added? I don't see anyone endorsing my bold edit. You certainly didn't. The fact that it was reverted is part of BRD. I made the bold edit without prior discussion, Doc James reverted it, now we're discussing. Standard operating procedure.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you're right. We didn't discuss this as a particular way of dealing with a long-held, contentious sentence. You made the edit and we moved immediately to another talk page. I assumed my lack of complaint and willingness to move on would be seen as agreement. If this was a first instance of this editor making edits no matter the discussion, I'd think less of it, but its not. However, lets move on. The sentence is a concern, and we will have to deal with it at some point soon. (olive (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

P.S. On a contentious article after an arbitration that cautioned all editors to behave in ways that are considered collaborative, I wonder how much WP:BOLD we should be practising.(olive (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

(undent)If people wish to suggest changes to the medical aspect of the article we should return back to a structured RfC similar to what we went through to generate the current summary of the literature. If someone does this they should also alert all the previous people who commented. I do not wish to read through everything here on an ongoing basis as much of it is unpleasant. Content is not to be decided by "the last person standing" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

@James: I really don't understand what you're saying in some ways, but this I know. If you want to make substantial edits to a contentious article please take part in the discussion before you make those edits. Nobody likes to hash through each sentence word by word trying to find agreement. Sure its easier to just write your own version, insert it and walk away. We all would like to do that. But that's just not the way collaboration works. I really think that we can come to agreements/compromises on this material as long as no one short circuits the process of discussion. I realize that as an emergency doc you make unilateral decisions all of the time in order to save lives, and with little or no time to discuss things. This has to be more collaborative, and there is no rush or urgency. Anyway. I respect your background and the way you have to operate in your profession. Maybe give this a thought. I've suggested mediations recently as a way to work though this sentence and the research . We've already had an RfC on it which was cut short.(olive (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

Olive, the text has been in the article for over four months, following an RfC, IIRC, and there's been plenty of discussion since then. I don't see how you can say Doc James added it without discussion. I was the one who acted unilaterally without discussion (AKA bold editing). As is permissible in such cases, another editor reverted. so we're back to the stable text we've had since August. Can't we move past this already? This is getting to be tendentious.   Will Beback  talk  07:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No. It isn't tendentious to make sure an article properly represents the sources, and if you want to look at those RfC's closely I'll be happy to. In the meantime, I'm also happy as I said above, to move on. We'll be back here dealing with the intro and we can deal with any concerns then, since that seems to be preferred. Per the arbitration, and of course per Wikipedia we have to make sure sources are properly represented, and again I support doing that in a DR forum whether an RfC as James suggested, although that seems repetitive, or as a mediation, unless we can come to some sort of agreed on conclusion. I feel that the issue of this sentence has been repeatedly sidestepped, and I do wonder why. (olive (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

• Why was this changed?   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• I've restored this much-discussed version pending a consensus for change.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you saying there is a long standing version for a new section/summary in a newly designed article which is supposed to summarizes content in the lead of the parent article per your discussion points. And why did you revert to content that does not accurately reflect the sources. I compromised on the content that was in place revising it for accuracy and using only some of the content in the lead of the mother article. I can also just use the content in the lead in the research article if that is more suitable. Let me know what you prefer. At the moment your comment and editing action seem inexplicable.(olive (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

This thread is on the lead not the research section. So now we have duplicate content in the lead and in the research section. Bewildering action.(olive (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

I will revert this once. Accurate sourcing is imperative and you seem to have misunderstood the thread. Let me know if I have this wrong. I can also revert myself if I do.(olive (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

We'd all agreed that these summaries would simply be copies of the intros of the sub-articles. You first added the partial into from the research article, which contained the discussed sentence, then you edited the sentence to alter it. I believe that's what happened. I suggest we copy in the complete and exact copy of the research article intro. If folks want to make changes to it, they should change it there first, then copy the changes back here.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say this thread is on the lead. It's on the text in question, and your edit changed that text. The lead should summarize the contents of this article, which is now four intros. Each section should get roughly a paragraph in the lead (though we may need to shorten that if we add more summaries).   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What I'll do is copy some of the text editing you did to the middle section over to the research article, then copy back that entire intro. If you'd like to suggest changes to that text, the research talk page would be the best place.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume my understanding is different than yours. The sentence under discussion is from the lead of this article, and has only been long used in that context, and not in the newly-formed-last-night, research section. I do see though where we misunderstood each other. As well, I didn't agree to freezing sections of this article based on an intro of another article. My sense was that we could use the intros to start with, but some only-applied-on-the-TM articles rule is not a good idea, and I can't agree to that. What I did in this article was obvious. I simply moved content over to this article. I then checked refs and once again was struck by the inaccuracies of what we are saying, and saying in three articles, and twice in this one. That's absurd. I attempted to clarify slightly. I note the content after the edits I made is still not accurate per the sources. But I felt I'd gone as far as I could in terms of specificity of content in the source. What is starting to really concern me is that not only is there support for misrepresentations of the sources and so the research, but that there is a concerted effort to have the identical material appear in three articles and to be repeated twice in one. I attempted to change that while staying close to the original sentence and even quoting to make sure there could be no concerns about complete accuracy of the language in that part of the contentious sentence. Even that was reverted. I'm out of solutions, and whatever I try is reverted back to this one inaccurate and misleading sentence.(olive (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

Three articles? I only know of two: this and the research article. Of course material will be duplicated between these summaries and the child articles. That's what we agreed to.

There is no agreement that this sentence misrepresents sources. We've discussed it ad nauseum for months. To change it, yet again, without further discussion is unhelpful.

As for the introduction of this article, we need to keep revising it as new material is added, just like any article. Since we have this sentence in the text, it may be included in the intro, or not. I suggest starting a fresh thread about changes to the intro, if folks want to discuss that.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• This sentence has been repeated four times in three articles. TM x2, TM technique x1, TM research x1.
• I've never agreed to freeze articles so changes especially in favour of accurate representation of sources can be bypassed. By your standard an editor passing by, and coming to this article can't make changes to the summaries. I'm sorry if you thought I had agreed to that. I can't and won't. Unless this article is protected it has to be editable.
• I didn't say "agreement" I said "support". Some editors have reverted to this single sentence several times. The sentence is inaccurate per the sources. Making the kinds of minimal changes I did for simple accuracy is not helpful? is it helpful to accurately represent the sources and to so while making as minimal changes as possible to attempt to compromise with the other editors here? We need to deal with this sentence specifically without burying it in yet another discussion of the lead.(olive (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Since the research material is no longer in the TM technique article, we can cut out the research material from that intro. Let's discuss it there.

Nobody suggested freezing anything. The plan has been to use the intros of the child articles as the summaries for this article. If someone makes a good change to the summary then we could add that back to the relevant intro. If it's not necessary there then it's not necessary here. Obviously, in some cases there may need to be some slight editing to minimize duplication.

If you'd like to change the wording of this much-discussed sentence, please get a consensus rather than changing it without comment.   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The research is linked from the technique article, is an important aspect of the technique, needs a summary, and so also a mention in the lead of the technique. Deleting one repetition of content that misrepresents a source, impacts the least of the problems here.

The action you are suggesting in effect freezes this article. Who decides what is a "good" change. Apparently you do, since you removed my shorter more concise version of the intro, removing a more accurate reading of the sources. My simple change could hardly be considered contentious unless accurately representing sources while trying to respect the other editors editing is contentious. I note that while both you and Doc allow yourselves to create highly contentious edits as appropriate or bold, like forking off content and supporting that fork, other editors making much less contentious edits are being reprimanded or reverted by you. This is becoming increasingly a concern magnified by the fact that in this case the edit you and Doc both revert to is both inaccurate per the sources, and inaccurate per the content on the TM research we have in the articles. The "plan" is your plan for the most part. While I am happy to go along with something that fairly represents the sources, I'm not happy to go along with a plan that as I can see now, doesn't, and which you control. I'm increasingly concerned by ownership issues on these articles. I intend to edit this content so that it is accurate per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and accurately represents the sources. How that is worded exactly is certainly open to discussion, but representing the sources accurately isn't. (olive (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC))

Currently the text is accurate WRT the sources and makes changes that make the conclusions inaccurate will be reverted.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, James the text isn't accurate and your above comment and a history of removing sourced content on the research and to even edit warring to keep in a misrepresentation of the sources, indicates efforts to control aspects of these articles and how the research is represented no matter what. That's ownership and a concern.(olive (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC))

I don't see where anyone has shown that the sentence I question is inaccurate. Olive, can you point to that discussion?   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I had entered a version I said was accurate I would assume that in reverting you knew the studies, the research, and could point out where your version was accurate and mine wasn't. Any writer knowledgeable in writing a lead for content could see in a glance the lead on the research does not represent the content in the article. And yes that point was discussed but oddly before that discussion was ended I was removed from the discussion when Doc took me to an AE and I was sanctioned for making two reverts . Now in that same time period you also made two reverts and Doc made 5 but interestingly enough I was sanctioned. If you'd like to discuss this sentence again, and its been discussed before we could certainly do that. Why don't I start another thread.(olive (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC))

Olive, if you want to change this text please discuss it first and get consensus. Changing much-discussed text without doing so is unhelpful. Dredging up old disputes is also unhelpful. Let's stick to the talking about improvements to the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your could try another RfC. The previous one supports the current text which is why you where reverted... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not why I was reverted. Do you see that in Will's edit summary? And an RfC where an uninvolved editor declares consensus before the RfC closes is not much of an RfC. You continue to bring this up, and my comment is the same every time. So probably no need to continue to say the same thing and we can agree to disagree. An RfC is fine with me as is a mediation.(olive (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC))

Rather than rehashing what happened in August of last year, could we please discuss what is wrong with this text today?   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as I'm dealing with editors who maintain a standard that applies to some but not others, and which standard existed in August and onward to now, I am forced to ask those editors in light of this history to reconsider their actions so we can move on. As long as as editors ask for proof of some action that took place in the past or who cite an old and poorly, lets say, tended RfC then there is an implication that the past is important. When the door is open for a straightforward appraisal and writing of a source, then I'm happy to go with that. Those entering an edit in an article, when called on and the edit questioned per Wikipedia need to show how that edit is verifiable per the source. Can either you or James show how this one line fairly represents both the Opsina/Ernst studies and through its implied language all of the TM research, and as well the research section of the three articles its been added to. If you can't and if this doesn't represent the sources your version can and should be removed. Consensus does not trump adding content that creates errors in this encyclopedia. But, yes, some of this is obvious but for the rest we can discuss below. I'm offline in a few minutes but will be happy take this up again tomorrow.(olive (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC))

It is outlined in the refs provided below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bone of contention 2

• Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.

I don't see any obvious inaccuracies in this text. It appears to be a correct, neutral summary of relevant sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you've made your positions clear.(olive (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

Which parts are inaccurate, in your opinion?   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

History summary

I've moved content from the intro of the history article per discussion here. Also as per summary style I've moved a little content that was very specific. The section though is still long. I will shorten the section with some syntax changes while not removing sources.(olive (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

James. Your edit is disruptive. The article per standard writing style should line up per arrangement of information in the lead. You have reverted with no explanation per Wikipedia . Your personal opinion is not a reason to abandon a logical style that makes reading and understanding easy for the reader. Please revert in consideration of a more standard format. (olive (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

If you have a reason for your move beyond an opinion, and that I'm not aware of please let me know. This should be discussed here before anything further is done.(olive (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

This history section applies to both the TMM and TMT thus for this reason should go first. The movement should probably be second and the technique after that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a legitimate point in my opinion, but I don't think it trumps what is in the lead and a logical progression from the lead to the arrangement of the content. Maybe more input would be good and maybe outside input. It would be interesting to see how the community would see this, for further reference. Thanks for your response.(olive (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

Olive, thanks for moving over the History intro as a summary. I hadn't done it earlier because that intro needs revising, but what you did is a good stop-gap. Also, because that intro will be re-written sometime soon, there's no point in arguing over the contents too much, as long as it's basically correct.

As for the arrangement, many articles place history sections first. That's the standard arrangement in articles on cities and colleges, for example. When those sections are very long they can be a little difficult for readers to get past, but this section is short so that's not a problem.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)