Talk:TM-Sidhi program/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Remove POV Tag

I have today removed the POV tag which I placed in the Maharishi Effect section in October. Since that time Luke and other editors have added additional info and other editors hav e made edits which create more balance in the section. Hence the removal of the tag. -- — Kbob • Talk • 14:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kbob good idea, I think we are a bit awash in tags, in this article --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

TM-Sidhi Program as Samashti Sadhana

Most, if not all, of the knowledge and techniques taught by MMY come from ancient tradition (in particular, the Shankaracharya lineages of gurus). Besides the development of consciousness ("moving the silence"), practicing the Yoga sutras may very appropriately be considered as a Samashti Sadhana, a practice meant to help create an atmosphere or influence of Sattva (spiritual purity) in the local population and in the world. MMY's followers call the putative effect of this influence the Maharishi Effect. I propose that a link to Samashti Sadhana be added to the article, perhaps in the section on the Maharishi Effect, since from a spiritual perspective this is a useful way to view the TM-Sidhi Program. David spector (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless a source makes the connection between these two neither can we, either in the article or linking in the article. To do so would be considered OR. So if you can find a source great. {olive (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)}

I concur with Olive, we can't just arbitrarily link articles --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to show a rather obvious and interesting connection between two WP articles. Never mind. David spector (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Spelling of "TM-Sidhi"

In case it hasn't been done before, I'd like to point out that, to help trademark the term, the word "Sidhi" was deliberately misspelled. The correct spelling, of course is "Siddhi", representing the Sanskrit letters/diacriticals s,i,d,dh,i, and meaning (roughly) "one who practices powers related to perfection" (it is closely related to several other common Sanskrit terms, including Siddha, Sadhu, and Sat). While one might contest the trademarking of the word "siddhi", adding the prefix "TM-" and the misspelling "Sidhi" produces enough of a difference to make trademarking reasonable. In case anyone wanted to know. David spector (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's a source discussing this then we could add it. But I don't think that we should say so on our own.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info David. If this comes up in future we can look for a reliable secondary source and reference this information.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Invincible America

I've made a preliminary check for a reference that contains this information but nothing so far. For now I'll store this here although this is original research. I'm also removing the final sentence in the paragraph which is also unsourced

The Dow did not reach 17,000 within a year as predicted. Within a year, the DJIA was below the levels when the Assembly had commenced, eventually dropping under 6,700 at its low, and, as of December 2009 remained below the July 23, 2006 levels when the Assembly commenced.

The number of assembly participants did not reach 2,500.

You're too impatient. Back, slightly reworded, more sources. If you want to argue that if the market peaked at 14,164 it's "original research" to write that it never got to 17,000, we're going to have a highly entertaining discussion. Fladrif (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are citing information about the Dow and then connecting it to information about the IA course that creates new information about the course. No can do. Its OR. I did look for a source that makes the same connections, but didn't find anything. So unless we find such a source that little bit of content has to go.(olive (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

I strongly disagree. I have done no original research whatsoever. Everything is sourced to reliable, verifiable secondary sources. I have drawn no conclusions whatsoever about the Invincible America Assembly or the Maharishi Effect or the source material. It's not going anywhere.Fladrif (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The source must specifically and directly reference the content. We don't have a source that makes the connection the article is making between the Dow and the IA course. Connecting the two as we do here creates information not contained in any source and that is OR.(olive (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

More fundamentally, the problem is a synthesis of content that creates OR, as is often the case with synthesis: WP:SYNTH. In this case we do have two sourced statements but they can't be connected to create a new position or new information unless we have a source that makes that same claim.,

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." (olive (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

You misstate, misunderstand and quote out of context. The material you object to is neither original research nor synthesis; it is good editing of an encyclopedia article.

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.WP:SYNTH

Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research.

Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation. Present the material within the context contained in reliable sources, but avoid presenting the information in a way that "begs the question". An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition. 'Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research

Fladrif (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm having trouble making sense of this objection. I don't have any investment in the paragraph as it stands; I think it's too wordy and is bogged down with irrelevant information, and I might take some of it out, but the SYNTH/OR argument for removing it doesn't seem relevant to me. Synthesis is when you have a source that says one thing, and a source that says something else, and you draw an unwarranted connection between them to support a third statement that doesn't follow from either of the sources; that's synthesis. But when the article says that according to Reuters, John Hagelin predicted that the Dow would go over 1700 in a year as a result of the harmony created by the TM activities, it is not synthesis to follow that with market indexes showing that didn't happen. The statement is sourced, and it is not creating a separate fact by drawing an unwarranted connection between the sources.

It's just the same as citing Park's critical remarks about the DC study and then citing Rainesforth's rebuttal. You don't require a third source to say "Park said this but Rainesforth said that;" that fact is already apparent from the sourced statements that have been given..you just report both the sourced statements. By the same token, we have Hagelin predicting that the Dow Jones would go over 1700 in a year, rebutted, if you will, by the Dow Jones index showing that the Dow did not go over 1700. You do not need a separate statement cited to a third source, to say "Hagelin predicted that the Dow would go over 1700 in a year, but the Dow didn't go over 1700 in a year." I don't see either synthesis or OR here; it's just the standard back and forth between sources that characterize most of this page. It's Hagelin who connected the Dow Jones and the Invincible America project, not any editor here, and it is certainly encyclopedic, and not synthesis or OR, to provide sourced information that shows whether that prediction came true or not; in fact it wouldn't make sense to report the prediction without information about how accurate the prediction turned out to be Woonpton (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I resubmitted the text that the IAC numbers have never reached 2500 and used the IAC tallies web page as a reference. --BwB (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that WP:SYNTH refers to summarizing content from a single source not summarizing data from more than one source. Also I agree with others that unless a source directly links it content to the article topic, than placing it in the article is not appropriate.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Flad on this point. We have a prediction by Hagelin that the Dow would reach 17000 with a reference. We also have a reference that shows the Dow did not reach 17000. To put both these facts in one paragraph is not WP:SYNTH. --BwB (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence slightly, removing the words "as predicted" to cancel out any possible WP:SYNTH. If the Dow did not reach 17000, then the fact that the prediction was incorrect is obvious. --BwB (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, but I have a question, which is unrelated to anything that could be put in the article. At what time of day are the afternoon sessions held? The reason I ask is I am wondering about the problem of a reverse causation /self fullfilling prophesy effect here. If the markets are having a great day, and the news is good, are more flyers likely to show up; on days when the markets are plummeting, and the news is bad, are flyers going to stay home? Not deliberately or consciously necessarily, but perhaps unconsciously (pun fully intended)? Things are going great, this Assembly must be working, I need to show up at the dome to keep up the good work versus Everything's going to hell in a handbasket, this isn't working, what's the point, I might as well stay home. Human nature. How does one correct or account for such an effect, if the flying that is supposed to be affecting the market is taking place at or after the market close? The coherent waves of consciousness are theorized to be traveling at the speed of light, so there's no reason to think there is a lag in the ME of more than a few seconds to investors around the world. I'm genuinely curious. Fladrif (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On the Invincible America web site there is a phone number 472-1212. Perhaps if you call there someone can answer your questions. --BwB (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia this is what we can say. We can say Hagelin made a prediction...if the source says he did. The source does, so we're OK. We can say, that despite Hagelin's prediction concerning the IA course, the Dow dropped. Do we have a source that specifically says that, that specifically references Hagelin or the IA course and the decline of the Dow, connecting the two, and drawing the conclusion that Hagelin's prediction was inaccurate. No, we don't, therefore the connection is a synthesis of two pieces information that advances another position, a third new position that is not sourced. If this were a research paper we might be able to cite Hagelin's original prediction, note the position of the Dow, and conclude by saying Hagelin's prediction was incorrect. This isn't a research paper. Its an encyclopedia and every step of information must be referenced.

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." WP:SYNTH.

No part of the material you object to concludes "...therefore C". Per my citations above to both Wikipedia policy and its practical application, this is neither synthesis nor original research. It is simply good and responsible editing of an encyclopedia setting forth reliably-sourced, indeed unquestionably and indisputably accurate facts, presenting no opinion or conclusion whatsoever. If the article continued "....therefore, the Invincible America Assembly was a success/failure and the Maharishi Effect is proven/falsified", you might have an objection worth considering. But, the article does no such thing. Your objection is not well-taken, and several editors clearly agree with me on this. Fladrif (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just read the WP:SYNTH policy again, I an not sure if what we have currently breaks the policy. We have a ref that says Hagelin made a prediction. We have a ref that says that the Dow did not reach 17000. However, we are not tacking these sentences together to make a new sentence, or saying that prediction failed since the Dow did not reach the 17000 mark. We are simply presenting both referenced facts, and letting the reader make the connection. I do not think this is a WP:SYNTH violation. --BwB (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatchard

Why all the qualifying text on Hatchard? It seems like the inclusion is an attempt to discredit the research? Please note that the study authors are Hatchard, G. D., Deans, A. J., Cavanaugh, K. L., & Orme-Johnson, D. W. Yes Hatcher is the lead author, but both Cavanaugh and OJ have been involved in numerous ME studies. Why the focus on Hatchard? --BwB (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead author is the main person responsible for the research. We already have articles on Orme-Johnson and Deans, so it's not necessary to add more about them here. We can add something about Cavanaugh too.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers independent secondary sources but many of the articles cited here are dependent primary sources, not so good. If the author of a research study on TM is connected to TM, the research cannot be considered independent and the reader should know that. Just as medical journals require researchers who conduct drug studies to reveal whether they are associated with or have received funding from the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the drug, it is also responsible reporting to indicate when researchers who write about TM are connected with TM. Nothing sinister about it. Woonpton (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the material (not sure why it was deleted in the first place), added citations, and summarized the co-authors as MUM professors.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked at your reaction, BWB. Why would identifying Hatchard and his affiliations be construed as an attempt to discredit the research? Are not his affiliations, credentials and background badges of honor to be worn proudly, bringing added credibilty, weight and prestige to his conclusions?Fladrif (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for your feedback. You live and learn. Just thought all the text on Hatchard was overkill. --BwB (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate?

I'm not sure that this sentence (below), recently added to the Maharishi Effect section, is an accurate representation of the source since the source does not mention the Maharishi Effect or crime statistics. What do others think?

• Sentence added to TM-Sidhi article: "These crime-reduction claims, cited by the Natural Law Party, were characterized by political journalist Andrew Rawnsley as the "use of bogus statistics".
• Quote from the referenced source:Rays of sunshine radiate out of Brussels as the leader of the Natural Law Party explains their principles.'It is well known that Maharishi Transcendental Meditation reduces stress and increases positivity and integration. It is equally well-established by scientific research that... its advanced form, Yogic Flying, creates the same effects for society as a whole.' Cut to a couple of guys bouncing along the floor as it's explained how they can bring 'peace and stability to the whole of Europe'.

Apparently, we have been wasting our time trying to deal with Slobodan Milosevic using bombers when all along Natural Law possessed the solution. A 7,000-strong squadron of expert yogic fliers will be dispatched to flood the region with 'a stable collective consciousness'. Anticipating scepticism, we were then shown some graphics demonstrating how elite yogic fliers have already cut the crime rate in Merseyside by more than half and achieved a substantial fall in war deaths in the Middle East. This is where, alas, it turned from the enjoyably surreal into standard fare. Natural Law is no different to any normal political party in its use of bogus statistics.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It specifically refers to the claim of crime reduction in Merseyside, - I bolded the relevant language - and the characterization of this as "bogus statistics" is in specific reference to that (as well as to the Middle East study). I am utterly flummoxed that you claim to find this confusing or inaccurate in any way. Fladrif (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Involvement in, and watching policy pages has allowed me to see that the understanding of what and what is not WP: OR is not easily understood, nor are its boundaries often agreed upon even by the most experienced editors. Kbob is right this doesn't refer by name to the Maharishi Effect, but I think it does directly reference the Maharishi Effect. As I understand OR , its not that we are looking for an exact match of words but more that we have to see that the topic of the article and of the source are directly related. For example, in the methadone study added and discussed above, the information in no way has anything to do with the ME, and it is our placement of the material here and the implied connection that could likely violate OR, where as here, we definitely have content that is describing directly the ME, and the topic of the article, even if not by name. So in my opinion, the sentence is probably fine. (olive (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Once again you have a way of making things clear Olive, I appreciate the distinction: the journalist's sentence does relate to the ME, even though it does not call it by that name and even though it was coined in reference to a political party at election time. I do feel thought that the methadone study is entirely unrelated to the ME and may well be OR, unless a direct link can be shown. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual error

This article quotes this sentence in the Dallas Observer: "Once considered a top scientist, Hagelin's former academic peers ostracized him after the candidate attempted to shoehorn Eastern metaphysical musings into the realm of quantum physics." According to Woit, whose book we cite in this article, Hagelin began promoting his connection between consciousness and the unified field as a graduate student in the early 1980s. He joined MIU faculty in 1984. Yet he continued collaborating with CERN researchers until 1989 and with other collaborators such as Nanopolous as late as 1992. TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Dallas Observer article, and the text here is explicit that we are talking as of 2000. Assuming that your information is correct that Hagelin stopped working with the CERN folks as of 1989, and with Nanopolous as of 1992, looks to me that the Observer article is 100% accurate. Insofar as Wiki policy is concerned, we are simply neutrally reporting what a reliable secondary source states. Contrary to your baseless snark above, the Dallas Observer is a well-respected newspaper, it is owned by Village Voice Media - a well-respected prizewinning journalism organization, it is one of the top 100 newspapers in the country by circulation, and has won numerous national and regional prizes for its reporting, including a Pulitzer. If you have a reliable, verifiable, independent secondary source that says that this information about Hagelin is wrong as of 2000, then put it in the article, with citations. Otherwise, this is a complete non-issue.Fladrif (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The DO article doesn't appear to give an exact date for the purported ostracism, so it's hard to say that it conflicts with other accounts. Both sources agree that the ostracism followed his theories about the connections, rather than preceding them, so the general cause-and-effect are the same. Many times sources contradict each other and it's usually best to report all versions rather than decide which is correct.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1978 meeting

• The figure of 7,000, needed to appreciably change things worldwide, represents the square root of one percent of the world's population. This is a figure arrived at after the phenomenon was first observed at a meeting of sidha meditators in 1978, Morris said.
  • "Power of TM | Followers take credit for upsurge in U.S." Noel Osment. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.:Jun 9, 1984. p. A-21
• Bevan Morris, president of Maharishi International University of Fairfield, Iowa, recalled that in 1978, 300 out-of state TM practitioners joined Rhode Islanders in a test of the power of meditation. TM's publicity says the results of that test included "improved quality of life on an index of eight measures, including crime, deaths, motor-vehicle fatalities, auto accidents, unemployment, and beer and cigarette consumption."
  • "It might not fly at the '92 Olympics, but yogic competitors had a field day" CAROL McCABE Journal-Bulletin Providence Journal. Providence, R.I.:Aug 18, 1989. p. C-05

Are these the same meeting? If this was the first appearance of the Maharishi Effect, and the source of the "square root of one percent" threshold, then it is a significant event in the history of this topic.   Will Beback  talk  10:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And, then there's this: "many times the required number of Yogic Flyers have been trained to create invincibility for the whole world". Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no other input, I'll go ahead and add a line about the RI event marking the first appearance of the ME and the square root.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Maharishi Effect connected to "yogic flying" was first observed at a meeting held in 1978 in Rhode Island. With the involvement of only the square root of one percent of the population, the meeting was purported to have "improved quality of life on an index of eight measures, including crime, deaths, motor-vehicle fatalities, auto accidents, unemployment, and beer and cigarette consumption."[13][14]

I understand why this was added, to try to establish the first use of the "square root" rule, but I have a slight problem with the wording and the date. I doubt very much that the Maharishi Effect was "observed" in Rhode Island in 1978. The Maharishi Effect doesn't tend to be actually observed by anyone; it only appears later as the result of considerable statistical analysis.

In a list of ~50 "Maharishi Effect Papers and Presentations" I find a listing of an analysis by Dillbeck, Foss, and Zimmerman, 1993, that concluded that this meeting (actually, it says, 300 TM-Sidhi experts spent the summer in Rhode Island, from June 12 to September 12) was responsible for improving the quality of life on these eight measures; the data run from 1974 to 1980. The study is contained in a collection called "Scientific Research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program: Collected Papers (Volume 4 pp 2521-2531) It may not be important for our purposes that the analysis wasn't published, since the statement is supported by two media sources, but the "observation" of the effect could not possibly have predated the statistical analysis, so I'd prefer we didn't say that the Maharishi Effect was "observed" in Rhode Island in 1978; it was observed wherever and whenever the statistical analysis was performed. Woonpton (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of that is my own poor writing. How about something more like this?

• A 1993 paper by MUM researchers identified a three-month convocation in RI in 1978 as the first instance when the practice of TM-Sidhi/Yogic Flying by the square root of 1% of the population achieved the Maharishi Effect.

Would that be more accurate?   Will Beback  talk  09:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, since I don't have those sources. Does the 1993 paper say that the convocation in RI in 1978 was the first instance when the Maharishi Effect was achieved? Oh, but wait, we can't cite that paper, even if it does say that, because it's never been published. Do the two newspaper articles cited say that the 1993 paper says that the Maharishi Effect was first achieved in RI in 1978? Or do the newspapers quote Maharishi spokesperson(s) as saying that the Maharishi Effect was first achieved in RI in 1978? If so, that's what the article should say. You could even use the word "observed" if that's the word they used, as long as it was attributed to spokespersons for the organization, and not stated as a fact that the effect was observed in RI in 1978, which is almost certainly not a factual statement. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

TM-Sidhi vs. Yogic Flying

Yogic Flying and TM-Sidhi appear to be different names for the same technique. If so, isn't Yogic Flying the more common name for the technique, and shouldn't the article have that title? If not, is there any part of TM-Sidhi that's notable aside from Yogic Flying? We seem to be burying the lead.   Will Beback  talk  12:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yogic Flying is one facet of the TM-Sidhi program. When one practices the TM-Sidhis, Yogic Flying takes up a portion of the time. TimidGuy (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What are the other portions?   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The technique is called the TM-Sidhi program. Yogic Flying is part of the TM-Sidhi porgram. The article tells us this "Derived from the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the TM-Sidhi Program consists of "formulas" or "sutras" (threads), the practice of which proponents say can lead to development of advanced human abilities, called Sidhis. The essential aspect necessary to gain these powers is called samyama, a synthesis of three methods taught by Patanjali. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's samyama includes the incorporation of Yogic Flying and other sidhis.[4][5][6]" --BwB (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can the Maharishi Effect be attained by people only reciting the sutras and not achieving Yogic Flying? Of the sources in that link, only The big fish treats them separately, and only to a small degree. Just looking at raw google hits, which are a very crude measure, ["Yogic Flying" -"TM-Sidhi"] gets about 84k, while ["TM-Sidhi" -"yogic flying"] gets only 29k. I'm thinking that we could move this article to Yogic Flying because that would be the more common name.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Maharishi Effect is based on group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs. TM-Sidhi program is the name used in the scientific literature, which doesn't use Yogic Flying. It's the name of this meditation technique. Yogic Flying is just one aspect. It would be a misnomer to rename the article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Article naming conventions are based on the most commonly used terms, not necessarily the terms used by scientists. Hence, we have Killer Whale, not Orcinus orca. See WP:NC: "Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". Per Google News, "Yogic Flying" is seven times more common than "TM-Sidhi" or "Maharishi Effect".[1][2][3] It appears that the parts of TM-Sidhi that aren't Yogic Flying are, in essence, advanced TM techniques. If so, those parts might be best handled in the TM article.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources use TM-Sidhi. The TM-Sidhi program and Yogic Flying aren't the same thing. You're comparing apples and oranges. It's not true that the parts of the TM-Sidhi program that aren't Yogic Flying are advanced TM techniques. The two practices are very different. TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we comparing apples and oranges, or maybe a grape vs a bunch of grapes? Isn't yogic flying and the sutra associated with it part of the TM Sidhi program? Isn't TM part of the TM Sidhi program? As for Advanced Techniques, I have asked this question before, but gotten no answer. Am I correct in understanding that there are, in fact, "Advanced Techiques" that the MVED teaches that are not the TM-Sidhi program? The Official TM Movement websites indicate that there is/are such advanced techniques, though they say nothing whatsoever substantive about them. [4] other than adverts for people to sign up for Advanced Techniques, I have seen no mention in third party sources other than blogs as to what these "advanced techniques" consist of. Those sources indicate that advanced techniques involve more freqent meditation than twice a day or longer meditation periods, stretching or yoga, and different or additional mantras. Is this correct? And, can anyone point us to reliable sources on it?Fladrif (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The TM Sidhi program is as the names says a program, that consists of multiple sutras or threads of which yogic flying is one. Yogic flying is as Flad implies in his grape analogy, a subset of the TM Sidhi program. We might also call it a comparison of apples and oranges since one is a general category, a program, and the other is a technique. The two are not interchangeable.

I haven't seen sources on advanced techniques. There are such techniques, but I don't believe they have been researched . They are, as I understand, techniques that deepen the experience of the TM technique.(olive (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

We have the description of that student from the 1970s, but it's very brief.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, TM-Sidhi program is an advanced program offered by MVED. It is not an Advanced Technique of TM. It is a specific program that includes the practice of TM, one aspect of which is Yogic Flying. --BwB (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So TM is the repetition of a one-word mantra, and TM-Sidhi is the repetition of longer phrases, and doing both results in Yogic Flying? Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The TM-Sidhi programme is an advanced aspect of Transcendental Meditation."[5] So maybe the program offered in the U.S. is different from that offered in the U.K.?

Maharishi Effect vs. One Percent Effect

In one of his edits Fladrif brings up a good point. Early on TM folks claimed to be able to create peace if 1% of a city or country practiced TM. Then in 1975 they said if the square root of 1% did the TM-Sidhis and Yogic Flying in a group, that that would decrease crime etc. So my question is, when did the term the Maharishi Effect come into existence? Does it also refer to the 1% effect or does that effect have a different name? Does anyone have any sources that would clarify this? -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't have refs but I think the term "Maharishi Effect" was first coined when it was found that when individuals numbering 1% of a city's population did TM individually it reduced the crime in several US cities. Later it was found that sq.root of 1% doing TM-Sidhi in group had the same effect, and this was called the "extended Maharishi Effect". Perhaps the book "Permanent Peace by Robert M. Oates" might have something on this. --BwB (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The source I cited said that MMY predicted it in 1960, that it was "observed" in the mid 70's. The earliest reference I find to the term "Maharishi Effect" is in the mid 70's. [6] It does not appear that a different term is used to distinguish between the 1% TM practitioners / sqrt 1% TM-Sidhi practitioners flavor of the ME, but the ME theory holds that TM Sidhi creates waves of coherence more efficiently than does TM alone. Fladrif (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We have yet to fully describe the "Maharishi Effect Threshold Index", which appears to be a combination of the 1% practicing TM and the square root of 1% practicing TM-Sidhi.   Will Beback  talk  09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

From Hatchard et al, 1996 (p 168): "Theory and previous research predicts that 1% practicing TM at home will product an effect equivalent to the square root of 1% practicing TM-Sidhi in a group." In other words, the only difference seems to be in the numbers it takes to produce the same effect. Woonpton (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The larger issue

Will wrote the following, which I think deserves discussion:

That was a poor choice of words on my part. Statistically, most groups are probably fringe groups. I should have said "fringe views". Every religion has unique beliefs, and if these were framed as such then there wouldn't be an issue. But they are presented as scientific facts. That they were passed by some reviewers at a journal does not mean they they represent the consensus view of science. There are widely held views in science and there are fringe views. Not all of the issues regarding the scientific studies of Maharishi's teachings are the same. If we polled one hundred scientists at random, asking them whether personal meditation is likely to reduce stress, I believe most would regard that as plausible. If we asked the same group whether the meditations of a small group could affect the actions of a million distant people, then I think that only a few would find that plausible. If I'm correct, then it's a fringe view. In his time, Galileo also held a fringe view, as did Darwin (whose views are still not shared by the majority of the American public, though they are now almost universally accepted among scientists). Probably every dramatic scientific development was on the fringe at some point. "Fringe" sounds pejorative, but it's really a shorthand reference to a small statistical group. Wikipedia's NPOV requires that we present all significant views, no matter how few people believe them, with the neutral point of view. However it also requires that we avoid presenting a fringe view as the majority view. It's not an easy task for any of us. It's harder still for those who are firmly inside that statistical group. But we're all making progress and the articles are improving. Will Beback talk 09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's true that a majority of scientists would say that the Maharishi Effect is implausible. ( Carla Brown actually did her Harvard dissertation on the response of scientists to the Maharishi Effect and used a technique called content analysis to analyze the results. Their responses ranged from, "Hmm, this is interesting, let me take a look at the data," to taking the research from her and throwing it across the room. Her interviewees included Fales and Markovsky.) I guess it doesn't seem obvious to a reader would get the sense from reading this article that the Maharishi Effect is the majority view. Much of the article's content is centered around controversy. The article explicitly says that this research isn't accepted. Olive has agreed that the UK study could be deleted, but unless there's a clear violation of a policy or guideline that solution just doesn't seem satisfying. It's almost like we're sweeping it under the carpet. I've checked the impact factors for three of these journals. Two are among the top five journals in the field. The third was at about the 50th percentile. So I don't think they can be said to be obscure. So the question is, does the article indicate that this is a majority view, and if so, how can we address that? TimidGuy (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The above quote from Will Beback as copied by TimidGuy omitted several sentences of Will's post without an ellipsis to indicate that material was omitted. I have restored the omitted sentences (in bold)in the blockquote. I'm not sure I see any useful purpose in copying Will's post to a new section rather than leaving it in the existing (still active) section for response, especially since in the process of copying to the new section, the post was (no doubt inadvertently) edited. If the existing section is getting too long for editing, then make an arbitrary break, but I would prefer for the ease of review and discussion that posts be left in place and be left intact. I will respond to "the larger issue" in the section above. Woonpton (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The practice by some editors of repeatedly breaking off talk-page discussions in midstream and starting over in a new section makes me wonder if there is any good research on whether long-term practice of TM is associated with adverse impacts on attention span.Fladrif (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what was that you said, Flad. My attention wandered for a moment! --BwB (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[7]Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice!!! --BwB (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You agree that the majority view of scientists is that the Maharishi Effect is implausible; I take it that you would also agree that it is appropropriate that the article say that this research is not accepted. I take it that you believe that any study of the Maharishi Effect published in an independent peer reviewed journal should not be excluded from the article. Are you arguing that, by including text on such studies, the article is not suggesting that this is mainstream science, so long as there are appropriate disclaimers and descriptions of the controversies surrounding these theories? As an aside, which journals are you referring to, and what field or fields is it that that they have good impact factors? Fladrif (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I thought I was following the refactoring guideline. I thought that I had detected a change in tone and that we could discuss things in a congenial fashion, without the constant hostility and sniping, and was eager to start a new thread. See my post on Will's Talk page. But then my sincere attempt is met with sniping. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you thought you were following the refactoring guideline, I might suggest paying closer attention to some of its principles, such as that it's not advisable to refactor ongoing discussions, and that in refactoring one must take care not to distort the original meaning of the post you are refactoring, e.g. by keeping the parts that seem to lean in one direction and leaving out the parts that lean another direction. And referring to my concern about refactoring as "sniping" is not a good way to ensure the congenial discussion you say you want. I wouldn't even have come into this discussion except that I was dismayed by how the post was edited in copying to leave out the sentences that expressed concern. Woonpton (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

TG. I wonder if you could further explain. You say that most scientists would consider the ME to be implausible. I would take that to be different than a majority view per Wikipedia. Since there are fifty or so studies it would be difficult to consider ME a fringe view "Most scientists viewpoints" must be sourced, and most is of course weasel wording. So I'm assuming you're not advocating putting something like that in the article. I'd be grateful for any further explanations. I was confused by your post, and by what you might be suggesting for the article. Thanks , TG.(olive (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Publishing 50 papers - publishing 500 papers - on a theory that is not accepted by mainstream science, does not remove the theory from the realm of "finge". Getting a paper published does not mean anything other than it got published. No-one outside of the TM Movement ever cites any of these papers. Mainstream science ignores it as unworthy of even being discussed. As for sources, haven't we gone through this before, many times? If someone cites a reliable source that reports that some aspect of SCI is not mainstream, or nonsense, or crackpot or rejected by the majority of scientists, your reaction has pretty consistently been: "That's just one person's opinion; he can't know what other scientists think, and besides, that's a personal attack". What kind of evidence do you need before you agree with TG that the ME research is not accepted by the majority of mainstream scientists?Fladrif (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I said, "I think it's true that a majority of scientists would say that the Maharishi Effect is implausible." When I said that, I wasn't suggesting that that somehow go in the article. Rather, I was sharing my personal speculation. I thought we were going to explore an overall solution, in the spirit of collaboration, and had some ideas how we might proceed toward resolution. But instead, the battleground mentality continues. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked you nicely (or so I thought) what it was you were proposing here, because I can't tell. You can continue to sulk about Woonpton's post and my intended-to-be-humerous aside (sorry if you took it wrong), or you can tell us what you had in mind.Fladrif (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Flad. If there are 50 papers published and they are peer reviewed then as far as Wikipedia is concerned mainstream science is looking pretty seriously at these studies whatever our personal opinions might be, and per Wikipedia 50 studies is substantial and does remove the studies from the realm of fringe in terms of the studies themselves. "No one outside of the TM movement ever cites these papers" .... The issue is peer review and publication for inclusion on Wikipedia.

WP:Fringe theories: [8] "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject." Note that we are not suggesting that there is consensus in the scientific community on the importance of the theory . We are simply saying the theory has been studied and reviewed so the studies should not be considered fringe to science. No one is claiming consensus.

And please don't quote as if I had actually said the above.

My position is completely consistent per Wikipedia and per WP:Reliable Sources...and frankly that's all I care about...

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim.

TG, Thanks I wanted to clarify your position. I assumed you were giving an opinion and not suggesting we add the opinion, but felt the point was worth checking.(olive (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Your opinion that the publication of studies on the ME in peer-reviewed journals removes it from the category of fringe science is simply wrong. There are lots of peer-reviewed papers published over the years on ESP, for example, but claims of clairvoyance, telekinesis and the like are still "fringe science" if science at all. Ditto with cold fusion. You quote from the note in Wikipedia on Fringe Science, but not the whole thing. It continues:

Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality (see WP:REDFLAG).

Fladrif (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What part of this guideline applies? Does the article say that this hypothesis is accepted? It says just the opposite. Does the article use a single source? In fact, a number of reputable journals have published studies on the Maharishi Effect. Are the studies published in reputable journals? The journals that have published it include Yale University's Journal of Conflict Resolution, which is a top political science journal. I guess at this point I'm not sure what's being suggested. The sources used in this article meet Wikipedia guidelines. Of course, I'd love to completely delete all Maharishi Effect material from this article. Is that being suggested? TimidGuy (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone would want to delete all the Maharishi Effect material from this article. Why would that be desirable? Also, how are we judging which journals are reputable?   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment above to clarify Fladrif's misunderstanding of what I am saying: " Note that we are not suggesting that there is consensus in the scientific community on the importance of the theory We are simply saying the theory has been studied and reviewed so the studies should not be considered fringe to science. No one is claiming consensus."

I didn't quote the rest of the paragraph because its not applicable to this situation, "Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source". We are talking about 50 or so studies not one or two.

ESP, the Maharishi Effect, relativity and so on are not science, science is a process, a procedure, a method.These are theories, ideas, postulations, that have undegone a procedure that may or may not have positive outcomes. (olive (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Have the MUM researchers ever published a study that fails to show a positive outcome?   Will Beback  talk  07:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For example, two studies by Charles Alexander (see the Canter & Ernst review) and a study by John Kesterson based on his Ph.D. dissertation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However Orme-Johnson argues that Kesterson's study was actually a positive outcome.

• The finding was only "negative" from the perspective of a particular hypothesis about what meditation is supposed to do. From a broader perspective, the study expanded knowledge of the physiological effects of meditation to something that was perhaps even more interesting.[9]

Orme-Johnson also disputes the Canter & Ernst review.[10] Without seeing the papers I can't judge for myself. Do you think Orme-Johnson's analysis is correct?   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Any response?   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding how to judge whether a journal is reputable, my feeling is that if it's based at a university or a prominent academic association and is cited in the academic literature, then it's reputable. Impact factor is increasingly used, though it's a bit controversial. Here, for example, is a page ranking the top journals in the area of political science according to their impact factor. You'll see that Yale's Journal of Conflict Resolution is ranked fourth over the period 1981-2007, making it one of the top journals in the field.[11] TimidGuy (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. How do we judge the reputations of journals in the medical field, where I think most of the studies have been published?   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Two points: (i) I still have no idea what TimidGuy is proposing with respect to this article. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any proposal in the above discussion points. (ii) Olive, I neither misunderstand nor am I misrepresenting your position. You claim that publication of 50 studies on the ME means it isn't "fringe science". I am simply pointing out that your opinion in that regard is wrong. I am not asserting that all of the research on the ME should be excised from the article because it is fringe science, just as I understand that you are not asserting that anyone should claim in the article that the theory of the ME and the research supporting it is a consensus or majority view. Fladrif (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ESP, the Maharishi Effect, relativity and so on are not science, science is a process, a procedure, a method.These are theories, ideas, postulations, that have undegone a procedure that may or may not have positive outcomes. Could you expand or clarify what you mean by this, because it's not making sense to me as phrased. Science is not just a process or method; it's also the body of established findings that has been produced by that method. The process and those engaging in it are characterized by a critical spirit and a deep commitment to the testing of assertions and to revising or discarding assertions that fail the test. Those theories that become established are supported by a web of interlocking evidence coming from a variety of sources. It's not the experiments and their publication but the fact that independent researchers have done the same experiments and got the same results, or expanded the implications to another setting or problem, that slowly over time makes a set of findings part of the knowledge base of science. It's all part of science: the critical attitude toward one's own work as well as others', the commitment to rigorous testing, the experiments, and the replication of the experiments by independent researchers, establishing the results as a solid finding.

Also, TimidGuy keeps saying that the article says that the Maharishi Effect isn't accepted by mainstream scientists. I've read the article twice (the article has gotten much worse IMO in the six months or so since I last looked at it) and don't see where the article says that; could you point me to the actual sentence(s) in the article? Thanks. Woonpton (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Woonpton . A discussion of what is science could be an endless discussion... discussion of Popper alone could go on for months. So for time reasons, I'll pass on making any further comments, with the view that there are multiple ways of understanding the word "science". (olive (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Popper? Popper has nothing whatever to do with this conversation. You made a categorical statement about what science is that made no sense, lumping ESP, the Maharishi Effect and relativity together as "not science" but as theories that have "undergone a process" (a process you call science? That wasn't clear) that "may or not have positive outcomes." The statement was incomprehensible to me and I asked for clarification; in response you say you can't answer because there are many ways of understanding what "science" is and it would take too much time to have that discussion? I suggest in that case not making statements you can't back up, explain or clarify. The only way I can make the sentence make sense is if you are suggesting a very narrow definition in which science means only the conducting of research and publication of the results, a narrow definition I don't believe would find consensus among scientists as an adequate definition of what constitutes their enterprise. At any rate, conducting and publishing research that appears to be scientific but produces no useful or replicable findings is the very definition of pseudoscience, and those who defend pseudoscience often try to narrow the definition of science so that their activities can be legitimized as having gone through the "process" of science. No doubt that's not what you mean to imply here, but without clarification, I can't tell what you do mean. Woonpton (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, are you asking about TM studies, or TM-Sidhi studies? TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What was the question?   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked if MUM ever published any studies that failed to show a positive outcome. Neither of the two studies TG cited had anything to do with the Maharishi Effect. I would point out that there has been at least one spectacular failure of the Maharisi Effect: The Invincible America Assembly, As Raja of Invincible America, Hagelin organized an Invincible America Assembly in Fairfield, Iowa. Hagelin predicted that when the number of assembly participants reached 2,500 that America would have a major drop in crime, and see the virtual elimination of all major social and political woes in the United States. Hagelin said that the Assembly was responsible for the Dow Jones Industrial Average reaching a record high of 14,022 in July 2007, and predicted that the Dow would top 17,000 within a year. The Dow did not reach 17,000 as predicted, but instead, within a year, was below the levels when the Invincible America Assembly commenced the prior year, eventually dropping under 6700 at its low, and has yet to recover to the July 2006 levels when the Assembly commenced. The TM Movement website that was tracking the Dow and other economic indicators up until the market collapse removed that information from the website, and added a robots.txt blocking Google Cache and the Internet Archives from retrieving the information.Fladrif (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

MUM didn't publish any of these studies. The studies we need to continue discuss o this article are related to the Maharishi Effect, are they not? Are we getting sidetracked?

No, not at all. This is a case in point that relates directly to Will's question (this wasn't published as a study, but if the Dow had continued to climb, do you really think some "research" claiming a causal statistical association between the rise in the Dow and the meditators in Fairfield wouldn't have been published? (A rhetorical question, but a reasonable one.) And it also relates directly to the power of the Maharishi Effect and so is directly relevant here. Woonpton (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it was published on a TM-Org website that has not been entirely deleted, as I found on looking further, in which Cavanugh, Rainforth, the Goodmans and Hirsch published, and then issued press releases on, their "Research Abstract" on "The Impact of Group Transcendental Meditation Practice on Quality of Life in the U.S.: A Quasi-Experimental Study of the Scientific Demonstration Project" showing overwhelming success of the first 100 days of this experiment/demonstration/whatever. So it is most definitely a "published" study on the Maharishi Effect. Fladrif (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: MUM is not the publisher of the peer reviewed, published publications we are using as reliable sources in this article. I see Flad has added a study publication that I would not consider to be reliable since it is not peer reviewed and is published by the TM org as far as I can tell.(olive (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Many sources we use for this article are not peer-reviewed. Are you saying that the only TM sources which are reliable are those published in peer-reviewed journals? If so we'd have to delete quite a bit of information from these articles.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am of course talking about the studies we use. For many sources peer review is not an applicable guideline. I'm striking a word in my initial post that may have created confusion.(olive (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

This may be an interesting intersection of WP:MEDRS and WP:SPS. Self-published sources are generally allowed for assertions about the subject of the article. An alternative is to include it and make clear that it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reputations of journals

Will, I was asking for clarification regarding this statement: "Thanks for that. How do we judge the reputations of journals in the medical field, where I think most of the studies have been published?" Are we talking about TM studies here or Maharishi Effect? TimidGuy (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a general question, though I suppose on this page we should focus on TM-Sidhi. Journals cited in this article include: International Journal of Neuroscience , Experimental Neurology, Psychosomatic Medicine, Social Indicators Research, Psychology, Crime and Law, and Journal of Scientific Exploration. You gave some information on Journal of Conflict Resolution (thanks). I see that there is a claim that the paper published in Social Indicators Research was only reviewed by TM-practitioners. If true, that would create questions about their review process. So, to repeat, how do we judge the reputations of these journals?   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not true regarding Social Indicators Research. Who made that claim? There's no absolute measure for reputation that I know if. Some people use impact factor, but it's fairly controversial. I've checked the four journals cited regarding the Maharishi Effect, and these are all solid journals. Nothing obscure. JCR is the highest. Psychology, Crime, and Law is about 1, which puts it in the top 8 for journals related to psychology and law.[12] Social Indicators Research is about 1. Journal of Mind and Behavior, put out by the University of Maine, had an impact factor of .54 and ranks at about the 50th percentile in this list from 2001.[13] I guess my feeling, like I said before, is that journals for academic associations, universities, and major publishers are reputable. TimidGuy (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Park makes that claim, though now that I re-read it I'm not exactly sure which journal he's referring to. ([14], p. 30).   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Social Indicators Research is .608 in the PDF you sent, not 1.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this discussion is about . Wikipedia has guidelines about sources we adhere to. We can't just decide on some criteria for ourselves here... make up our own rules. I intend to operate by WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. (olive (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Olive, you and others have talk about "reputable publications" on this page. I'm trying to figure out what criteria we're using for determining what qualifies.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guideline are relatively clear on that. My intention is to use those as my guides. If we need to look at each individual source and stack it up against the guideline or policy, that's fine, but no discussion here is going to, in my mind, establish some criteria for the use of sources beyond Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

I'm new at judging the reputations of journals. The Wikipedia policies seem to treat scholarly journals with a broad brush, indicating that they are all usable. WP:RS Perhaps I should ask you what you meant by "reputable publications", since you are among the editors using that term.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm referencing Wikipedia here: "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."

This quote needs to be understood and placed in context of the entire guideline WP: RELIABILITY and in context of parts of the policy WP:VERIFIABILITY for anunderstanding of reputable. As an experienced admin you probably have that understanding, so I won't bore you further. (olive (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

OK, so we're back to deciding which sources are reputable.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. We're back to reading and understanding the guideline and the policy and then, using the sources If a concern comes up regarding a source bring it here for discussion. The guideline and the policy in their entirities (probably not a word) have more than enough information. We can discuss the policy /guideline but this isn't the place probably except in a specific instance, and after that its opinion. and or agreement and consensus . I'm not in the market for an addendum to Wikipedia which is how I would see this.(olive (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand what you're saying. The policy talks about using reputable sources, but doesn't seem to define that term. So I'm asking how we apply that to the peer-reviewed journals cited in this article. If you don't want to participate in the discussion then that's OK too.   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. WP:RS gives clear guidance for choosing sources; the most important and clearcut of the principles relating to our difficulty here is that Wikipedia articles should be sourced with secondary sources rather than primary sources. Primary sources are individual studies; secondary sources are review articles and meta-analyses. This is not an "addendum" to Wikipedia; this is standard and longstanding Wikipedia guidance and practice. Adhering to this guidance should eliminate a lot of the difficulty and confusion that's going on here. I also recommend a careful reading of WP: MEDRS which is just as much a guideline as RS, and which spells out even more clearly and helpfully how to vet sources for medical articles. This is Wikipedia. This will take us much farther than trying to rank journals on their "reputability;" which strikes me as a dubious task. Woonpton (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I too had assumed Park was referring to a journal peer-review process when he said that the reviewers were TM practitioners, but on re-reading this I'm not sure what this review board was that John Hagelin referred to in the press conference, saying that the study had been "carefully scrutinized by an 'independent scientific review board,' several of whose members were at the press conference," and whom Park polled and found that they were "all followers of the Maharishi." Other than the obvious fact that this could in no way be called an independent review board, it's hard to know what to make of it without more information. Woonpton (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, I was getting the ranking from the Social Indicators Research web page, which gives .955 as the ranking.[15] But I think Woonpton has a good point. We've probably gotten as much from this discussion of impact factor as we can, though I do think it was interesting and helpful in some ways. And yes, Hagelin's review board that he consulted in designing and conducting and writing up the experiment had nothing to do with the subsequent publication in 1999 in Social Indicators Research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem problematic to you that Hagelin characterized this "review board" at a press conference as an "independent scientific review board," when it was obviously nothing of the sort? It also strikes me as curious that Hagelin, who had eight co-authors, would need to consult TM practitioners outside his research group about how to design and conduct and write up the study, especially when the research consisted entirely of statistical analysis of existing data. He might have done well to consult some independent professional statisticians, but it's unlikely that anyone without those statistical credentials, or even anyone with the credentials who was not independent of the TM organization, could have been any help as far as providing independent review of the process. And that goes for the peer review for the journal as well; does anyone know what the professional qualifications of the reviewers were? If there were no independent statisticians on the review panel, the peer review could not be considered a useful review, since the study is 50 pages of statistical jargon. Only a statistician would be able to review this statistical study on its merits.Woonpton (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently "impact rankings" vary considerably over time. If we're going to use that measure as a gauge of a journal's reputation we should probably find the number for the period closest to the date of publication of whatever study we're looking at.

I see that here and on other articles some editors are deleting studies, or study conclusions, that they think are weak. On what basis is this being done? Is it OK for us to decide that a study, published in a journal that is presumably reputable, is weak and just delete it in whole or in part? For example, our summary of the UK study was trimmed to delete one possibly implausible conclusion, while retaining other conclusions. Is that a fair way of summarizing a study?   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Will. I deleted that because I thought it would please you. It was a gesture of collaboration and compromise. Sorry that I got it wrong. And my rationale was that it's not a finding of the study and that it was a matter of undue weight to highlight a couple sentences of speculation in the discussion at the end of the study. The finding of the study was that there was a correlation between group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi program and reduced crime. TimidGuy (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

TG, I appreciate the effort, but if folks are going to complain about the coverage of a study being trimmed then we should make sure that we have a rational basis for doing so. Sorry if I'm a bit dense about this, but how do we determine which conclusions are part of the study, and which aren't? The information about national crime level and the info about the cost of crime were both obtained from the same cabinet department. In a different article, you deleted a study entirely, even though it was also published in a peer-reviewed journal.[16] You wrote "I'm going to remove this study for now; I want to look at it more closely; the design may be too weak to include". I'd agree with your logic, but elsewhere there are arguments that we can't second-guess the peer-reviewers. Is it right to delete a poorly designed study, or is it right to insist that we must devote a full paragraph to all studies published in peer-reviewed journals?   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Input from editors requested: Journal of Scientific Exploration

The Journal of Scientific Exploration - reputable?[17]   Will Beback  talk  12:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd heard that name before, but couldn't place it; now that I see the toc it all comes clear. I listen to the Coast to Coast radio show while I'm falling asleep; that's where I've heard the name. If this is considered peer-reviewed, then the concept of peer review has lost all useful meaning.Woonpton (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

?   Will Beback  talk  12:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Journal of Scientific Exploration seems to indicate that any journal, no matter its reputation, is liable to used as a source for this article. That's OK with me, just so we all know that we're not rigorously demanding only the best possible sources but instead are accepting anything that meets the minimum standards.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not fine with me. The threshold for inclusion is peer review and reputable. If the publication isn't reputable we need to remove it. What proof is available that indicates it isn't reputable. I think we need to examine the proof and then decide whether the journal stays or goes.(olive (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

The burden of establishing the quality of a source is on those adding the material. As I've been asking over and over in this thread, how do we judge whether a journal is reputable? I asked repeatedly about this particular journal, but haven't received an answer.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton had made a comment so perhaps he could weigh in here. As I said before , the way to decide if a journal is reputable is to bring information on the journals themselves here, discuss it, and then decide as a group, rather than create some overarching criteria. That's the way I would see it anyway. Perhaps we could create a new thread to discuss this journal in which editors are asked for comments and agreement one way or the other as to the journal's reputation.(olive (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

"...the way to decide if a journal is reputable is to bring information on the journals themselves here, discuss it..." OK, please bring information that shows this is a reputable journal so we can discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No Will. I will be happy to set up a thread on this topic, but I didn't say I think the journal is reputable nor did I say it wasn't reputable. I actually have yet to look into the situation. You seem to have misunderstood and mischaracterized what I said. I hope this clarifies.

Is anyone willing to defend the JSE as a reputable journal? If not we can cut the discussion short.   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry we must have been posting at the same time, and we now have a new thread I suggest we wait a couple of days or so to fairly give editors a chance to weigh in. We're not in a rush are we.(olive (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

I've been asking about this since the 12th. A couple of more days won't hurt. Note that this same journal article is also cited in John Hagelin, so our discussion here would apply to that as well.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is theJournal of Scientific Exploration a reputable source per WP:RS and WP:Verifiable? (olive (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Journal of Scientific Exploration.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this journal is fine to use, considering the sources that we're using in this article: Flim Flam by Randi, the Dallas Observer (a free tabloid), a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle who makes an unattributed statement that those outside the movement see no such cause and effect (presumably assuming that the editors and peer reviewers of the many journals that have published this are inside the movement), a political journalist, and the Skeptical Inquirer, which claims to be an academic journal but probably has a lower impact factor than the Journal of Scientific Exploration. We wouldn't use it if it had published a study, but it's as good a source as these other sources for presenting both sides of the debate surrounding the research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not a science journal. By its own mission statement, its a publication intended as an outlet for woo that no reputable science journal will publish. The whining about the other sources used in this article is just that - baseless whining grounded in either a complete misunderstanding, or a purposeful misinterpretation of both WP:RS and WP:V that TG has repeated over and over again: that he wants to do his own original research to independently verify from primary sources what is reported in a reliable secondary source before he'll agree that it can go in the article. That's not the way this process works. That being said, I would agree with the folks at RSN who wrote that JSE is probably OK to report what the authors claim, but no-one should pretend that this is a science journal. Fladrif (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to insist on moving the heading to the beginning of the discussion and keeping the thread together; there was no reason to start a new thread. I've noticed that what happens when an ongoing discussion is broken out into a new thread, besides disrupting the flow of discussion, is that often the two threads are archived in different places, even in entirely different archives even though they happened concurrently, making it very difficult to follow a discussion in the archives. So, please, let's keep the discussion together in the same thread.

As for the Journal of Scientific Exploration, I've already given a brief response above. As I said, I listen to Coast to Coast while I'm falling asleep; the guests advocate for various fringe notions such as conspiracy theories of all kinds (the JFK assassination, the idea that the demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11 was a US government plot, the idea that NASA is suppressing information about UFOs, the idea that the founding of the United States was a Masonic plot, etc etc), alien abductions and descriptions of the 57 different kinds of aliens who visit the earth and do scientific experiments on humans, sightings of little-known species such as BigFoot and the Loch Ness monster, proof that the ancient Mayans were actually aliens from outer space who also built the same kind of architecture on Mars, time travel, cars that use water for fuel, and so forth; it's a veritable audio encyclopedia of wacko ideas. Now and then the host mentions, in signing off with a guest, that listeners should read the guest's article in the latest Journal of Scientific Exploration. I had always assumed, until I encountered it here, that the Journal of Scientific Exploration was the house magazine of the Coast-to-Coast program. So my impression, which isn't proof of disreputability but just the impression formed by its association in my mind with this collection of crackpots, is that the journal is not a serious journal. And as I said above, the fact that this journal bills itself as peer-reviewed throws the whole notion of peer review right out the window. Whether it can be used to cite Orme-Johnson's opinions I haven't formed an opinion myself, except that it seems sort of internally consistent. Caveat: I haven't actually looked at the journal itself or scrutinized any of the articles to evaluate the quality of research therein, I've only glanced at the table of contents for the issue Will linked to, which seems to cover many of the same kinds of ideas promulgated by Coast to Coast. Woonpton (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

These [18] would seem to be serious academics and would help legitimatize the quality of the journal, but I would think given their peer review process, not as a publisher of research studies. I would tend to agree with TG that this journal is more reputable in terms of opinion than Randi for example, whose book did not undergo any kind of peer review process in the sciences, and whose academic qualifications to investigate science fall far below the editors in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. So I would allow the journal as a source for opinion, the equal at the very least of some of our other sources. I would add that these pages are for expression and discussion of opinion on the article and attack of another editor for expressing their opinion is unwarranted and uncivil. (olive (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

Again, arguing that another editor's opinion, even if genuine, is ill-founded and contrary to Wiki policies is not a personal attack nor uncivil. Enough with the baseless claims of victimhood.Fladrif (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ?Since I don't see anything in my post that constitutes an "attack of another editor for expressing their opinion" (unless an editor here has been a guest on Coast to Coast Radio, in which case I will apologize and strike the "wacko" designation) perhaps olive's post was inadvertently incorrectly indented so as to appear to be a response to mine. As for the link provided, the information there rather confirms my general impression.Woonpton (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not you Woonpton . No worries. But serves as a reminder for us all.(olive (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

So, to bring this discussion forward, it seems that the only evidence we have that this is a reputable journal is that the editor-in-chief is a professor. Is that it? Is that all it takes for a journal to be reputable?   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone making that point, actually. I did suggest that the credentials of the editors in chief are considerable and that serious academics (professors?) add some legitimacy to such a journal. I think there is agreement from the editors who have commented so far that as a source for serious research the journal is not acceptable, but as a source for opinion pieces the journal is adequate. As a few editors have suggested this journal is probably comparable if not superior to some of the sources for opinion we have in place now. (olive (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)) That seem quite clear

If you weren't making that point then it'd appear that we have no one arguing that this is a reputable journal.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I t seems clear what is being said here. The journal can be considered reputable for opinion, as reputable as Randi or Skepdic, but not reputable enough as a sources for scientific studies since the peer review process is less stringent that might be desired. If we want to define reputable with an overarching definition rather than specific to individual instances we have to be ready to toss out not only this journal but Randi and some of the other news articles that are commenting on scientific research.(olive (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Suitability as a source for the author's opinion is the lowest rank of a reliable source, equivalent to what we accord to a blog or other self-published source. If that is the sole basis for using this source then the question turns to the merit of including more of Orme-Johnson's opinions in this article. He is already cited extensively, and if we're going to include this then we should probably reduce other mentions of his opinions to avoid giving his views excess weight.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we willing to reduce other sources as well because they are extensively used/quoted. I don't see anywhere in WP:WEIGHT that we should reduce the sources from particular individuals as undue weight. An expert in the filed may have many opinions and or views As well, when we source Orme Johnson's we are sourcing an expert in the field not a blogger. When we source Randi we are sourcing a magician. I'm looking for some consistency here.

We have the general agreement here of the editors who commented that this Journal is acceptable for Orme Johnson's comments. I'd like to see that honored.

If we are going to extend this discussion to excluding OJ than I think several editors have suggested that we have other sources that are of equal quality like Randi. That's a whole other discussion. We can go there if needed but lets not conflate the two discussions.(olive (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

is there anyone who we cite as much as Orme Johnson?

No. In this article, we devote five paragraphs totaling 677 words given to the opinions of Orme-Johnson. Two paragraphs totaling 163 words to Randi, and two paragraphs totaling 154 words to Park. Woonpton (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's even more than I thought. That means we're devoting more than twice as much space to OJ as to two independent views combined.   Will Beback  talk  05:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As for Randi, he isn't being cited as a magician - he's cited as a prominent skeptic. I asked in another thread - who is an expert on the TM-Sidhi or the Maharishi Effect outside of the movement? Randi and Park seem to be the leading experts, such as they are, but if there are others that are more prominent then let's give those more weight. NPOV does not allow us to only give one view.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OJ is highly credentialed and educated in the field he is commenting on. Randi is not credentialed in the field he is commenting in especially when his excursions take him into the realm of science We have multiple sources that create balance from sources where the "speaker" is credentialed . Excluding someone like Randi or some of the other less reputable sources does not upset the balance of NPOV .

Per article we could probably find many sources that are used multiple times . No policy requires we start counting those sources, and I'm not going to do it. That's not how we determine NPOV.

As I said we have agreement for including the journal. I don't have much else to say unless we begin a new discussion on the equal exclusion of some of the sources mentioned in this thread. The position of the other editors on this issue needs to be respected. I'll keep an eye on this thread should this discussion shift in any way.(olive (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

It seems like I've seen other editors discussing the amount of space or the number of sections devoted to one or another POV or aspect, so if the amount of space or the number of citations aren't good ways of judging the weight then I'd like to hear what is a better metric.

Do folks think that OJ's view of the Maharishi Effect is the majority view, and that Randi holds a fringe view?

Let's get back to the matter at hand. We cite this same article twice:

• Theory and critique
  • David Orme-Johnson and Robert Oates later replied to this critique in the Journal of Scientific Exploration [In reference to Fales and Markovsky]
• Middle East
  • An article published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration by David Orme-Johnson and Robert Oates in response to Fales and Markovsky analyzed their alternative explanations and found that they couldn't explain the phenomenon and that there is as yet no other explanation other than the one hypothesized by the study.[55]

In the first case, we're not saying much of anything about the OJ rebuttal beyond its existence. What's the point of that?

In the second case, it doesn't not sound like it's an opinion. It sounds like it's an analysis. If we're citing is as a source we should reword it to say that OJ and Oates hare giving their opinions, not that they are performing a scientific analysis.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding weight and the amount of space devoted to David OJ, note that he's the author of the Middle East study. It's only natural that the article would include information sourced to him characterizing the study and responding to critiques of the study. Regarding the theory, I think we could add more info in response to the critique. I agree that it's weak the way it is. In the second case, OJ and Oates do give a scientific analysis. Fales and Markovsky only offered conjecture. You're welcome to reword it. TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the JSE a reputable journal for scientific analysis, or merely a reliable source for an author's opinions? We have no evidence that it's a reputable journal. That leaves it as a reliable source for notable opinions. Unless anyone can show that the JSE is a reputable journal, I will rewrite the text to make clear that this is just the opinion of an involved expert.   Will Beback  talk  12:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify. I'm not sure where the numbers came from in counting words that supposedly constitute a view, but I don't see the relevance of such a count . OJ is not a "view" nor are any of the other sources/people we are citing. OJ is, however, a researcher whose studies we are using because of his expertise both in direct relation to the topic of the article, and in terms of his academic credentials. We add the research not as a view but as research that is in the majority on the topic of the article, and we would be remiss in excluding it. We also have grounds based on the prevalence of OJ's research to note an attack and rebuttal or analysis of an attack on that research. We do the reader a great disservice in terms of the over arching position of this kind of research if we don't show the attack and a concise summary of the rebuttal. As for Randi and some of the newspaper articles we are using to supposedly create NPOV; I see it rarher like a top worm biologist, highly educated, published with possibly multiple grants who spends a lifetime studying and researching worms. He discovers new worm species as well, but for example the giant blue worm is pretty hard to believe and it has never been captured live (there is such a worm apparently), and his work is attacked by a magician who has taken upon himself the ardorous task of exposing such reseacrh using his own methods of research and rebuttal. If the topic of the Wikipedia article is earth worms to which of these people will we give the most weight/ page space. At the same time the magician's points could be included but the onus is on us to make sure the reader knows that he is not the expert nor is is research comparable to the biologist's, and we don't do that by saying it in the article (OR), we do it by calculating the amount of word space to give to each.

In terms of a next step, I would suggest we continue to include the Journal discussed above, noting agreement at this time and with these editors that it is reputable as an publication for the kind of opinion/ rebuttal/ analysis we are including here. We add enough information from the journal on the OJ rebuttal to make the Markovsky/Fales attack and the ensuing rebuttal informative. We can leave Randi and other non peer reviewed content as is until or if a specific discussion deals with the weight of these additions should that discussion ever come up.(olive (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

I wouldn't recommend overinterpreting the word count or my intent in providing the count; it was a simple answer to a simple question: how much do we cite Orme-Johnson. I'm a data person; when someone asks a question that can be answered by tabulating data, I am usually curious enough to count up the data. But I wasn't implying anything or suggesting anything by providing the data, and I agree that counting words isn't how we judge weight. Undue weight is determined by whether the article is knocked off balance by giving too much emphasis to material that leans the article in one particular direction. I included Randi and Park in the count just because there have been complaints here lately about including them, so I wondered how much we do cite them. Not very much.

I find the analogy about the worm professor not terribly useful here (I think we'd probably disagree about who the professor and who the magician are), and I am perplexed by the battleground mentality that would lead someone to characterizing a scholarly critique, such as Schrodt or Fales and Markovsky, as an "attack." This is not how we view critiques in the world of science.

I scolded Fladrif for using intemperate language about a study the other day, but it's hard to think of temperate words to describe Orme-Johnsons' remarks in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, as reported in our article. I haven't read the critiques that this is supposed to be a "rebuttal" to, but they must be pretty devastating if this is an accurate representation of his response.

I have not yet offered an opinion on the inclusion of this source for citing Orme-Johnson's comments, so should not have been counted as having agreed to inclusion. (If anyone took my wry comment "it seems sort of internally consistent" as agreement, well, it wasn't.) And having really looked at the material as a result of this request for input, I am reluctant to agree to its inclusion, not because it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, or because I don't like Orme Johnson's credentials, but because it's pseudoscientific nonsense. The criteria that I think should decide inclusion or exclusion are not "is the journal reputable?" or "is it peer reviewed?" or "is the author 'highly credentialed'?" but "is the material encyclopedic?" and "does it serve the reader?" This material fails on both of these criteria. And I'm confused; we had agreed, I thought, that this journal isn't a scientific journal and shouldn't be used to cite scientific analysis or settle a scientific question, but that's exactly how it's being used here. So maybe I'm confused about this distinction. Woonpton (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I've just reread this thread and realized that people might not realize which citation I'm talking about here, since we cite this source three times in the article, and the paragraph I'm talking about isn't included in the two citations Will quotes above, so here it is:

In response to Schrodt and others, researcher David Orme-Johnson said in a 2009 paper that, a body of research since the late 1970s has found small but statistically significant causal effects in a wide variety of contexts in which the mechanism isn't clearly understood. He says this evidence supports a field-theoretic view of consciousness, which suggests that there is an underlying common field of consciousness and that individuals can interact directly at a distance via this underlying field. Research has demonstrated that focusing attention on a common event may produce small but statistically significant effects on inanimate detectors, such as random generators. In addition, well-controlled EEG studies have shown that evoked potentials in one person’s brain may produce changes in the brain of another person, but who was isolated in an electromagnetically shielded room. Also, studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) suggest that the brains of individuals separated from each other may become significantly correlated. Reviews have found over 2,200 reports of distant intentionality.[46

Woonpton (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The subject matter, the TM Sidhi program, has already been deemed encyclopedic, that is, notable, and by logical extension the research carried out on aspects of the program because of the number of studies, significant per the encyclopedia. Because we all have opinions about such topics, WP standards for inclusion must be adhered to . I respect your position on this "pseudoscience nonsense" but it is just that, a position and opinion. We must have some objective standards for inclusion.The journal is not the publisher of OJ's research, but is publishing a rebuttal or whatever you want to call it to the Markovsky and Fales "comments". We have a study, we have "comment" on the study, and we have a counter comment by the researcher. How do we not serve the reader by giving this whole picture. The journal has been discussed, as I understand it, as not acceptable to cite scientific analysis, but as possibly reputable for comment, opinion, rebuttal. In no way can we use a source to settle any question . We simply supply the content and the source and let the reader use that information in any way they see fit.(olive (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

But that's exactly how this cite is being used, to settle the question. That's not "supplying the content" that's using Orme-Johnson as a battering ram to force a particular POV into the article. This material is being presented as a scientific analysis (yes it is, in fact TimidGuy refers to it earlier in this thread in exactly those words) but it wouldn't be published in a serious scientific journal, so shouldn't be used in the article as scientific refutation of the critiques, which is exactly how it's being used. Woonpton (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't think that's fair. We have OJ's study in the article . Why is the "battering ram" the counter comment from the researcher, but Markovsky 's comment is fine. Why is it a battering ram to allow for the whole picture to be displayed. Its your opinion that OJ points aren't legitimate, but again that's your opinion, that the counter comments can't be published somewhere else, your opinion, however educated. Why are the comments of the researcher, his defense of his work, creating POV, but leaving out that information neutral ...Its not . This is opinion. What's fair and neutral is show it all. Let the reader decide. Don't withhold information from the reader. OJ as the author must certainly be considered an expert in terms of bis own work and capable of presenting a defense of that work. The reader needs to see it all not just the parts we think are necessary. And on the contrary I do not ram in POV comments but want the article to be fair and neutral per Wikipedia, not fair and neutral per editors with opinions and agendas... I don't refer to you here Woonpton .... just a general statement that could refer to any one of us (olive (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Woonpton, Will identified two cases. The second case he identified was OJ's response to the conjectures by Fales and Markovsky regarding alternate explanations of the phenomenon. In my response, I explicitly said I was referring to his second case, in which OJ does analyze whether those explanations. The paragraph you noted is from the literature review. What are you suggesting for that paragraph? It's the only paragraph in the article that characterizes the theory. TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to address these comments in full right now, but I've learned that silence is taken for agreement here and that one must keep commenting repeatedly in order not to be mistaken as agreeing with the last thing that was said, even if the last thing said doesn't reflect consensus and even though one has expressed oneself on the topic before. So this post is just a placeholder to say that my silence should not be taken as agreement, that you have missed the point of my objection (I take responsibility for that; I apparently didn't explain it well enough) and that I will respond more fully later. Re TimidGuy's correction, my point still holds, that it was my understanding that editors were in agreement that this journal is not a scientific journal and can't be used as a source for scientific analysis or scientific argument. It doesn't really matter which cite from that article is at issue; it's presented as scientific analysis and this source is still not an appropriate source for that, as we've agreed.

Serving the readers requires giving them the information they need to understand a topic from an objective, neutral point of view. I agree with "letting the reader decide" but I also believe that the reader must be provided a fair presentation of the information they need in order to decide. I had to search out the data underlying the UK study and tabulate those data myself before I could be sure that the information presented in the article about this study was wrong. This is not a task we should be assigning readers. I fixed the wording to bring that section more into line with a neutral presentation of the topic, but that's just one paragraph. We have to do better than this.

As for a specific opinion as to how to treat the Orme-Johnsons material in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, I would need to read the critiques and the rebuttal in full, and my university library is closed entirely until after the New Year, so I won't be able to do that til then. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless of course someone was willing to send me those articles before then. Woonpton (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Social Forces article is online.[19] David OJ's article is on his website, but an html glitch makes it hard to read.[20] You can capture the pdf by right clicking and downloading the linked file. Or you can e-mail me, and I'll send the pdf. Note that if Fales and Markovsky had published their paper in the same journal that published the original study, the authors would have had a chance to respond, as they did to the Schrodt critique. But according to Markovsky, JCR rejected their paper. So they published it several years later in Social Forces. Usually a journal will give researchers a chance to respond, but when David OJ sent his paper, the editor basically told him to go to hell. So he had to try to find a different journal. TimidGuy (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, TimidGuy. This will take me some time to read and absorb, but my first thought on a quick scan is, why are we citing the lamest passage out of this paper instead of summarizing the source? I assumed, from the paragraph in the article, that this collection of grasping-at-straws must summarize his whole argument, in which case he must not have much of an argument. But scanning the source itself it looks as if he has actually made some substantive arguments that could be cited. I don't necessarily find them persuasive, but that's neither here nor there; at least they are actual arguments that address a few of the issues raised in the critique. But the arguments are based on new statistical analyses that he presents as findings in this article, and then we're back to the problem that we've agreed that this isn't a serious scientific journal and shouldn't be cited for scientific findings. Leaving that question open for the moment, my point is that if we are going to use this source, we ought to at least cite it in such a way as to provide a fair summary of Orme-Johnsons' rebuttal. Woonpton (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a point. Part of the problem may be the transition I used, which suggests that it's a summary. I'll tweak it. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

?? Not sure I understand what you're talking about here, but if I do, you've missed my point. The issue isn't that the wording of your "transition" confused me into thinking that the material was a summary, when it wasn't; the issue is that anything we put into the article should be an accurate and unbiased summary of the material in the source, and this wasn't, regardless of the wording. Although in this case I don't see any particular transition; the paragraph just starts out: In a 2009 paper, Orme Johnson says [five irrelevant things]. None of these five things, separately or together, constitutes a useful or substantive response to anything in Fales & Markovsky, or even addresses any of their points in a meaningful way, and summarizing his response in this way makes him look as if he's grasping at straws in the absence of having any meaningful argument to offer in response to the critique. Kind of like saying "Is, too!" which isn't exactly a useful rebuttal. But given that the quality of the source doesn't allow us to present anything but opinion from this source, perhaps this paragraph does give a reasonable enough expression of his opinion, and should be left as is. Woonpton (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"We add enough information from the journal on the OJ rebuttal to make the Markovsky/Fales attack and the ensuing rebuttal informative." "We have a study, we have "comment" on the study, and we have a counter comment by the researcher. How do we not serve the reader by giving this whole picture." I agree that we need to add enough information to make the study, the critique (not an attack, a critique; there's nothing about this critique that could reasonably be called an "attack." As I said before, this is not how we view critique in science) and the ensuing rebuttal informative. And I agree that there should probably be some mention of the "rebuttal" even though it doesn't constitute a very adequate response to the critique. The question is how much weight should each get. If the author of the study and the researcher writing the critique were both indepedent researchers, that would suggest one weighting formula, but when the author of the study is also an apologist for and an employee of the organization that's selling the product, then that suggests a different one. When the article seems to be skewed in the direction of discrediting the independent critique and defending the invested researcher by methods other than by providing arguments and analysis directly addressing points raised in the critique, that is not helpful to the reader.

Let's imagine we're working on an article about a drug, and we cited a study, conducted by researchers employed by the drug manufacturer, that concluded that the drug not only cures blood pressure and cancer but has a positive effect on the national debt, and if then an independent researcher gave compelling arguments and analysis to suggest that there may be other ways of interpreting the results, and we cited that critique. And imagine that the ensuing "rebuttal" from the drug company researchers, rather than addressing any of the substantive points of the critique, made irrelevant arguments like well, we've got a body of research showing that the drug produces improvements in inflation, unemployment, world stock prices, the growth rate of the monetary base, traffic accidents, crop yields, cigarette consumption, air traffic fatalities in Massachusetts, stock prices for Washington DC corporations, work days lost to strikes, public statements by the US President about the USSR, patent applications, infant mortality, degrees conferred by universities (etc etc etc), how much weight should that rebuttal be given? Obviously the independent critique should get more weight than the useless and irrelevant rebuttal.

A responsible review of the literature, or encyclopedia article, would weight the arguments on their merit and present a balanced overall conclusion based on the merits of the arguments. Since editors of Wikipedia aren't expected to have the knowledge, training or expertise to do the kind of critical analysis required to provide an objective view of a topic, policies must be used to guide editors toward that objective view. If we wrote the article in such a way, and weighted the study, critique and rebuttal in such a way, as to suggest that the claims made by the drug company should be given more credence than the critique by an independent third party researcher, then we would not have provided that objective (neutral) point of view, and we would have failed our readers. Woonpton (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicely said. But we need to be cautious about making up rules. As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't say that a researcher's institutional affiliation requires that his research be given less weight. And by the way, David OJ isn't an employee of any organization. He's retired, though still writing papers. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break

There's no making up rules here; the rules are already in place. See WP:MEDRS: Whenever writing about...claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe notable personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. And by the way, whether David OJ is now retired from a TM-related organization is immaterial; if he is still writing TM research papers and offering defenses of TM-related research, he is still very much a TM-connected person, whether he's actually still being paid by the organization or not. You may be confusing a COI issue with an independence of research issue; while often overlapping, they aren't precisely the same. When the person doing the research on the effectiveness of the product is connected to the institution or company selling the product, that research cannot be considered independent, regardless of whether money is actually changing hands at this particular point in time; it's still a primary, non-independent source and should not be given the same weight as an independent, third party source. David Orme-Johnson's longterm relationship with the TM organization and his longterm role as a creator and defender of the TM-connected research make it imperative that independent third party sources, if available, be used in such a way as to provide an objective outside view of that research. Woonpton (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton. I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be questioning David Orme Johnson. Would you mind clarifying your points. Thanks(olive (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Olive. I am not questioning David Orme Johnson, I am simply stating as a point of fact that Wikipedia values independent sources over involved sources, so involved sources should not be given more weight in our presentation than independent sources, so as to make it look like we are suggesting that the independent critique should be discounted, for reasons that don't actually address the substance of the critique. This isn't personal about Orme-Johnson or even a comment on his research per se, it's just a general point about sources. If the researcher offering evidence of the effectiveness of a product is associated with the body that's selling that product, that researcher cannot be considered an independent source. It's really very simple, and to my eyes looks fairly clear in what I said before, as it should be clear from the guideline. It's not that complicated, really. Woonpton (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are reading the policy the same way. At any rate, since there have been multiple conversations on the legitimacy of researchers and research because they might be meditators, a clarification of how editors read the policy is critical, and for me at least important to clarify. Thanks for doing so.(olive (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Please indent under the post you're replying to. Also, I am not talking about the "legitimacy of researchers and research because they might be meditators" that would be a misrepresentation of what I've said. Again, the issue here is not Orme-Johnson's "legitimacy," only his independence, and it's an issue not because "he might be a meditator" but because until he retired, he was employed by the organization that sells the product. This is not a matter of personal opinion but a matter of fact; he was employed by the institution and so cannot be considered an independent researcher. This is true not only in Wikipedia but in the real world; the company or organization selling the product cannot be considered an independent evaluator of the merit of the product. This is why we have Consumer Reports, so we don't have to rely on the sellers of the products for reliable information about the product; we want an independent body to test and rate the product. This is also how we write an encyclopedia, and how Wikipedia is configured; we look for independent secondary sources rather than relying on primary sources that are too closely allied with the product. Woonpton (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton. I didn't say you had said anything, I did say there have been several discussions on this point, and I am clarifying what you mean,

What is being sold and who is selling it?

I prefer not to indent to the point where the text moves too far over to the left of the page, but thanks for the reminder. (olive (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Olive. First, I think you have left and right mixed up, but even if you think the text has got too far over to the right (the convention usually allows several more indents before most people would say the discussion needs to be de-indented) then it's common practice to indicate at the beginning of the text that you are de-indenting, so that people know you are continuing the same discussion and replying to the post directly above, even though you have moved the indentation over to the left. Without the [de-indent] notation. starting at the left usually means that you're replying to something farther above in the thread, not to the immediately previous post, or you're moving the discussion back to the original point of the discussion from which it has strayed, or that you are starting a new thought under the same general heading. There are conventions that make discussions easier to follow; I prefer that we follow them here. Second, you do not get to clarify what I mean. You can ask me to clarify my meaning, but you do not clarify my meaning. This conversation and attempt to "clarify my meaning" don't seem to be generating anything helpful; I think my meaning is quite clear: (1) Orme Johnson is not an independent researcher, (2) Wikipedia values independent research, as quoted above (btw, it should not be necessary to keep repeating the same thing over and over again--see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe notable personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact, and it's not helpful to say that it's important to clarify how editors read policy without clarifying how you read that policy yourself. Since you're the one who has raised the issue of differing interpretations of policy, it would be helpful if you clarified how your reading differs. Woonpton (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(btw, this is what the left margin is for, unless de-indent is specified to indicate a continuation of an ongoing discussion with the indentation reset) I promised last week, in response to a question about how I think this critique and rebuttal should be handled, that when I had an opportunity to read them carefully, I would propose wording to show how I think this material should be covered. Now that my company has gone, I can do that. However, in order to do it fairly, I need the original Orme-Johnson article in addition to the critique and rebuttal. Since TG knew where to find these other articles, I wonder if he, or anyone, knows where this article can be found online. Also the Schrodt critique and the OJ rebuttal that were published in the same issue. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I understand indenting. If my original post was not indented at all its was an oversight on my part. I was referring to the point at which we can choose to bring back posts to the left of the page rather than have it wander too far to the right ... sorry I did confuse right and left.

I am attempting to understand what your points are, to have you clearly state them rather then for me to reiterate, perhaps incorrectly, what you mean. I believe I now understand , and I would say you are incorrect.

David Orme Johnsons taught at a university. That university is selling education. That university does not sell TM, it operates independently of MVEDC, the organization that does teach the technique. There is a mistaken belief of some editors here that somehow if you do this meditation technique you are no longer capable of creating neutral research. I am not referring to anyone in particular just a general comment The NIH seems to think the research created by researchers at this university such as Orme Johnson published is strong enough for millions of dollars of funding, and the peer review process of over 350 publications seems to think the research is strong enough for publication. I don't see that we are using publications created by the TM organization to cite comments on research, and if we are I would agree they are not the best sources . We are though, citing the research itself, and we can in some instances cite the web sites of experts in their fields to make comments about their fields. All of this is acceptable per Wikipedia . If you are referring to the Journal of Scientific Exploration, the topic of this thread, then the discussion is not about Orme Johnson's affiliations but about the quality of publication itself. We are citing information from the source as we have done multiple times on other article. Since that journal is in no way associated with the TM organization, I'm not sure what the issue is beyond scrutiny of the publication.

I believe WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT refers to consensus. I am making an honest attempt to make sure I understand the points and position of an individual editor on a discussion page.(olive (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Fair enough, re the last point, except that you haven't actually clarified what your own interpretation is. If you're actually saying that Orme-Johnson's affiliation with a TM-related organization doesn't create an issue about the independence of research, then our difference of interpretation is profound. The assertion that MUM isn't "selling TM" is immaterial; it's related quite strongly to what I understand is being called the "TM movement" and as such has a strong affiliation which should be taken into account when writing an encyclopedia article about anything TM-related. I'll say more about the peer-review issue when I am ready to address the question of how I think the Orme-Johnson Middle East paper, the critiques of the paper and the rebuttal to the critiques should be handled in the article, but for now I'll just remind us, for about the 17th time, that we were told by independent editors at the RS noticeboard this summer that peer-review is not enough to to confer the mantle of scientific acceptance on an article or to establish it as a reliable source (and here, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT very much applies).

As for the indentation, you missed my point again. I understood that you wanted to keep the indentation from getting too deep to the right; my entire point was that if you are going to move the indentation to the left for that purpose, then you should specify what you're doing by noting (de-indent) or something of the like at the beginning of the text, to distinguish this particular use of leftward movement of indentation from the usual uses of a leftward movement of the indentation, in order to facilitate ease of following the discussion for other editors. It's just an established convention to make it easy for people to follow the conversation quickly without having to stop to figure out, is this a return to an earlier point, an attempt to get the discussion back on topic, a new thought, or what? If it's noted as a continuation, then it's easier to follow without interruption. At any rate, I would prefer that you wait until the indentation has gone more than three or four steps to the right, before you implement this kind of de-indentation, even if properly identified. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Research done by Orme Johnson must be looked at in terms of the mans' credentials, and per Wikipedia the quality of the publication and its peer review process. Policy, then guidelines are the first level of guidance on Wikipedia.
• Notice boards are meant for comment by those not involved in the article . A notice board is in no way definitive nor are the opinions of those commenting either definitive or necessarily accurate. Editors commenting may be very experienced editors or may have very little experience at all. Consensus is established on the page of the article.There is no consensus on any of this, only a few opinions. WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT refers to consensus.
• In general policy supersedes any notice board comment.
• I suppose, how I indent is my business, and I indent like most other editors I've worked with. I've never had any complaints in the past. (olive (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

if I understand the views expressed here, we're not citing JSE as a reliable source on scientific matters, just as a reliable publisher of OJ's words, which are noteworthy because of the published research he conducted under the auspices of MUM. That significance only goes so far, and giving OJ the last word on every issue is probably excess weight. WP:NPOV calls on us to include all significant points of view, with appropriate weight to each. We have OJ's view in the article already, so we need to avoid to adding it over and over again just because he keeps publishing rebuttals. Another alternative would be to devote a section to OJ's research and rebuttals, which would clarify the weight issues.

As for the role of noticeboards, they are valuable for giving outside perspectives and are an integral part of dispute resolution. Like most parts of dispute resolution, they are not binding. However repeated cases of ignoring outside input and voluntary dispute resolution efforts may leading to binding resolution.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying "I ignore outside input and voluntary dispute resolution" as Woonpton seems to be suggesting. I sure hope not.(olive (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Please don't put words in my mouth, especially with quotation marks around them. However, I do agree with everything Will says here, in terms of general principles. As for following conventions of indentation, of course you are free to do whatever you like; it's just that I've noticed that the conventions, which I have seen used everywhere on Wikipedia but on this talk page, facilitate communication by making it easier for a group of editors to follow a discussion quickly and smoothly. Woonpton (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking to Will, Woonpton. The quotes are his words. You suggested WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT (olive (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Olive seemed to say that noticeboards had little value, and I was disagreeing with that view. As for consensus, it helps us determine how to comply with core policies, but it cannot override them. We may not form a consensus on this talk page to ignore NPOV, for example.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not my view and that's not what I was saying, However, I do not see notice boards as definitive nor are they meant to be. Just clarifying my position. (olive (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Could you clarify what purpose you think they do have?   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my 2 cents to this discussion. My observation over the course of many months, is that olive is scrupulously consistent in her opinion toward noticeboards. She values them highly when the uninvolved editors agree with her, in which case they are to be regarded as definitive authority on the subject matter of the dispute bringing an immediate end to all further discussion or dissent, but when the uninvolved editors do not agree with her, the noticeboards are irrelevant and any input is to be ignored with impunity and without consequence, and the matter at issue is to be regarded as open and unresolved, subject to further discussion at other fora. I have discerned no variation whatsoever in her approach, and she is to be commended for her unwavering consistency. Fladrif (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Olive, the fact that you were speaking to Will is irrelevant; you connected the quote with my name by appending the phrase "as Woonpton seems to be suggesting." Don't do that. Woonpton (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion on Talk:Transcendental Meditation#Bob Oates, it appears that Oates' most relevant credential as of the publication of the paper is "director of public affairs at Maharishi University." If so, I'll add that to the discussion of the paper he co-wrote with Orme-Johnson.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Theory and critique

The "Theory and critique" section is a muddle of different things leading to repetition and, dare I say it, a lack of coherence. I suggest we split it out, with a brief description of the theory, then the research studies with their respective critiques and rebuttals, and finally any general critiques and general reception at the end.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I would go farther than that and say that the entire article lacks coherence. There's not a clear distinction between the practice of TM-Sidhi and Transcendental Meditation, the basic model. And it's unclear from the article whether the Maharishi Effect is related to TM-Sidhi exclusively, or to both levels of meditation. The article has it one way in one place, where it says the Maharishi Effect is an effect of yogic flying, but in the theory and critique section of the Maharishi Effect section, it's related to both by a mathematical formula: the Maharishi Effect will appear if 1% of a population are practicing TM, or if the square root of 1% of a population are practicing TM-Sidhi (or if you use the Maharishi Effect index (apparently invented by Hatchard?) you can come up with a threshold combining differing percentages of each.) If the Maharishi Effect isn't solely an effect of TM-Sidhi I'm not sure why it's in the TM-Sidhi article. Maybe it should have its own article, but without it, there wouldn't be much left to say about TM-Sidhi, apparently. Woonpton (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If there's nothing else I'll split out the "theory" from the "critique".   Will Beback  talk  09:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the material in that section consists of rebuttals, which I would think should adjacent to the critique. Or we could have theory, critique, rebuttals. We don't ever really present the theory in this article, by the way. There is extensive criticism of it without actually presenting it. In any case, thanks for putting some attention on the chaos in this section. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Each critique (and rebuttal) of a specific study should immediately follow the presentation of that study.   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

1% of population doing TM technique = Maharishi Effect. Sq. root of population doing TM-Sidhi program in a group = Extended Maharishi Effect. ME effect first coined in the 1970's before TM-Sidhi program was introduced. --BwB (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And, apparently, the Maharishi Effect + Extended Maharishi Effect = Maharishi Effect index. We need to clarify all this in the "concept" section.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, I'm looking at two different equations, one from Hatchard 1996, one from Orme-Johnson 2009, in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, although he says it's copied from his 1988 study (I don't have that study so I can't confirm that, but I don't have any reason to doubt it ). Orme-Johnson, btw, is a co-author of the Hatchard study. The Hatchard equation says that

Maharishi Effect Threshold Index (%MTI)= % of threshold for TM-Sidhi + 10,000* N/population, where N is the number of people in the area who have been trained to meditate on their own and are assumed to be meditating independently in the population.

And the Orme Johnson equation says that

ME (the predicted population size affected by a given number of practitioners in each of TM and TM-Sidhi) =aN₁ + bN²₂, where N₁ is the number of meditators distributed through the population, N₂ is the number of individuals practicing TM-Sidhi in a group, and a and b are "empirically defined constants" each having an estimated value of 10², or 100.

They should be roughly the converse of each other, except that the %MTI is expressed as a percentage and the ME is expressed as a number indicating a population. I've plugged in some numbers and unless I'm making a mistake, the two equations don't seem to be compatible with each other. I started with a hypothetical population of 100,000, for which 1% would be 1,000 and the square root of 1% would be 31.6. Either 1,000 individual meditators scattered in the population or 32 TM-Sidhi practitioners gathered in a group should meet threshold for the Maharishi Effect, according to theory, and in fact if I use equation (2) to generate the population size affected if both the criteria are met, I get 200,000, which matches theory. However, if I use equation (1) to generate the %MTI if both conditions are met, I get 103.6% instead of the 200% which would be suggested by the product of equation (2) and by the theory. If I choose an arbitrary combination of TM practitioners and TM-Sidhis in a group that should together roughly affect a population of 100,000 (400 TM practitioners and 25 TM-Sidhis in a group predict an affected population of 102,500 using equation (2)) then equation (1) should give an answer of 100%, but using the same numbers I get a %MTI of 117% rather than 100% for the same population. So, unless someone can point out something wrong with my calculations (I'm good at statistics but not so great at basic arithmetic) or unless I've copied these equations wrong, there's something that doesn't add up here. Woonpton (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I've checked the figures again and I'm quite sure that if the equations are right, the calculations are right, but I'll have my sister (a math professor) who will be visiting tomorrow double check me as well. Woonpton (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My sister concurs that the equations should be compatible (in other words if you generate the size of the affected population from arbitrarily chosen Ns, in the ME equation, then feed those Ns and the resulting population back into the %TMI equation, you should get 100%, but you don't. So it must be some wiggle room in the "empirically defined constants" that makes them incompatible with each other. Woonpton (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Empirically defined constants"? I wonder if the same constants are used in every study, or if their value is changed from study to study to fit the data. There is an old tradition of pugging in constants to make the equations work - witness Einstein's cosmological constant. But at some point, after enough studies have been conducted, the proper constant should be determined and fixed.   Will Beback  talk  09:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I just came across a mention that the "empirically defined constants" are only estimated to be 100 if N > 100. Fales and Markovsky take this to mean that N=100 is the lower cutoff for the effect, but I haven't seen that assertion anywhere in the TM theorists' and researchers' writings, and the way I read that note about the constant is simply that the constants won't necessarily be the same for N<100 than for N>100, but that doesn't preclude N < 100. And there's nothing to say whether the constants may change from study to study. But more problematically, it's not clear whether the equations are actually taken into account in the analysis. According to Fales and Markovsky, referring to Orme-Johnson 1988, "the ME equation, from which specific hypotheses might have been derived, was ignored complely in the research. The time-series analysis employed each day's higher number of Sidhi meditators rather than its square, and the number of non-Sidhi meditators was not included in the test. There also were periods during the study when group size fell below assumed thresholds for affecting Lebanon, or both Lebanon and Israel, but Sidhi group size rather than zero was used as the independent variable [for those periods]."

Orme-Johnson's rebuttal to this didn't address the criticism; it mostly argued that while he didn't use the square of the TM-Sidhis in the analysis, he did look for a upward curve in the line that would indicate a quadratic effect ("such an effect was found for the war in Lebanon, but not for the composite index") and then drifts off into rambling about effects in open systems not staying where they're supposed to: "testing the quadratic effect is complicated by the fact that populations are not closed systems. Perhaps if the effect could be contained within a single population, say a country, then as the size of the meditator group in that country increased there would be a predicted quadratic increase in the effect. But the effect is not contained, but spreads out to other populations as the group gets bigger. What the formula predicts is how many more people are affected, not how much the effect will increase in populations in close proximity to the meditator group. A related question concerns the measurement units of the formula." That's all he has to say in response to F&M's valid criticism of the fact that he doesn't seem to take the equation into account in the analysis. He seems to be saying well, the equation doesn't really apply because it didn't work out the way it was supposed to, and maybe that's because we don't have a closed population, and besides there's a problem with the measurement units (what measurement units? The only measurement units in the equation are the number of people practicing TM and the number of people practicing TM-Sidhi) so it's okay to ignore it. But if that's the case, then why introduce the equation in the first place? At any rate, his rebuttal only addresses the part of the equation related to the quadratic term; he ignores entirely the criticism that the number of TM participants was not included in the analysis, and that the threshold generated by the equation was not respected in the analysis; in other words, the equation was apparently ignored in every respect, but the omission of the other parts of the equation was not addressed in the rebuttal, and the rebuttal to the part related to the quadratic portion wasn't terribly useful. Woonpton (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Invincible America Daily Tallies

This is an external link that's been added recently; the edit summary indicated that the editor adding the link wanted to make this information available for readers to make up their own minds. But all it does for me is to raise more questions that don't find answers there. The text at the top of the page says "Only 2000 Flyers, rising to 2500, in Fairfield/Maharishi Vedic City will bring security to America and defuse the precarious escalation of conflict in the world." The way I figure it, the square root of 1% of the US population is around 1754, give or take, so what's this 2000-2500 about? Are they changing the threshold? And what's with the different colors? Numbers over 2000 are in red; numbers between the sq. root of 1% and 2000 are in green; numbers below 1750 are in blue. There's no legend to explain the different colors, or why the threshold is set at 2000 instead of at the square root of 1% as given in all the discussions of the theory of and research about the Maharishi Effect. And what to make of the fact that the number was over 2000 for nearly 3 months in late 2008 and into 2009, and over 1750 for most of the year? Did peace and security come to the US and the world? If it did, why didn't anyone notice? This link doesn't provide enough information, and the information it provides seems to be at odds with the information in the article. Woonpton (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are good questions and I hope we can find answers. A more general question is whether this coherence turns on and off with a sharp cut-off, as is implied by the analogy to superconductivity and the Meissner effect, or whether it has a gradual onset and a residual effect. The attention to the precise numbers and when the threshold is achieved seems to point towards sudden onset, while some comments I've seen point to benefits even before the threshold is met and a residual effect long after the demonstration is over.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How long the effect lasts seems to depend on which lag terms in the analysis spit out the desired statistical results for a particular analysis. As to the onset, this is vague and elusive in the papers I've studied, a moving target... or maybe more accurately, a disconnect between theory and evidence. According to Hatchard, the onset is immediate at the point of reaching threshold. He draws an analogy with water boiling; it only happens when the temperature of the water reaches exactly 100C, and by the same token, the Maharishi Effect drives crime down in Merseysides exactly when the number of TM-Sidhi practitioners in Skelmersdale exceeds threshold. OJ/Oates (2009) also argue that "Maharishi Effect theory holds that the effect will suddenly manifest in the system as a whole after 1% of the population is practicing the TM technique, or a group of the square root of 1% is practicing the TM-Sidhi program. Such sudden sharp changes from relatively disordered to more ordered states are 'phase transitions' which are common throughout nature."

However, the data underlying Hatchard's study directly contradict his assertion that the the drop in crime in Merseyside began in March 1988, precisely when the TM-Sidhi group in Skelmersdale passed threshold; actually the downward trend in crime in Merseyside started sometime in 1987 and was on a steady downward descent before the "intervention," as can be seen clearly in the graph he provides and also in the data themselves. Hatchard's statistical analysis compared the data before March 1988 to the data after March 1988 and found that it went down sharply after vs before; it's not unreasonable to suspect he could have set the cutoff arbitrarily at any other time throughout the downward drop that occurred fom 1987 through 1989 and got similar results. Also detrimental to his thesis is that according to his table 1, the number of TM-Sidhi practitioners in Skelmersdale exceeded threshold in 1990 and 1991, but during those years, crime increased in Merseyside rather than decreasing.

Also, some of the studies in the listing of studies supporting the Maharishi Effect claim a positive effect without the threshold being reached, for example a set of studies published in the Journal of Mind and Behavior in 1988 claim to show a strong relationship between TM participation and crime statistics in 160 randomly chosen US cities, even though TM partipation in those cities was given as .45%, and in another study described in the same article, a strong relationship between TM participation and crime in 80 randomly chosen US cities, even though TM participation in those cities was given as .33%. So it's not clear from the published findings that the threshold has to be passed to produce the effect, or that if the threshold is passed, that the effect is produced, which makes this rather problematic for a scientific finding, and at the same time creates difficulty for the theory. Woonpton (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this, that relates to my above comment about lags: "Another indication that predictions do not derive from the theory is that lagged effects were not specified prior to the research. The researchers then interpret any significant correlation at any non-negative time lag for an indicator as supporting their theory. This multiplies the likelihood of finding "supportive" evidence, but opens the door to Type II errors even wider." (Fales & Markovsky). OJ's short rebuttal: "The authors have previously replied to this issue: 'Even if one were to dismiss the results for longer lags, the consistent and even stronger results found for lags 0 and 1 cannot be overlooked.' In that reply we speculated that the longer lags may reflect effects on policy makers (a kay element of the theory), which take some time to manifest down the chain of command." If the same variables come out significant on all the lags, 0, 1, 2, and 3, I would give OJ the point, but there would be no basis for F&M's comment if the lag results weren't hit and miss, in which case the point goes to them. I'd have to see the analysis myself in order to know which direction the point goes. Woonpton (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now seen the study and the point goes entirely to Fales & Markovsky. Orme-Johnson et al didn't just run lags 0-4, which would have been bad enough, but it appears they ran lags 0-10. The lag results are entirely hit and miss, more miss than hit, consistent with F&M's characterization. Woonpton (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to be cognizant of the lack of "readiness" of science to address this level of technical detail.Science today, and especially social science, just isn't ready to specify the constants or time lags with anywhere near the degree of precision Fales and Markovsky want. Is this a fatal flaw with the theory? Or is it simply that the theory is still at a comparatively early stage in its development? Orme-Johnson and Oates consider the correlations between the number of assembled meditators and the quality of life index to be too striking to ignore. Fales and Markovsky don't really address this head on, preferring to invoke Bayesian confirmation theory in order to shift the burden of proof onto the theory's defenders.Hickorybark (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Did I read that right? You think it unusual, unfair or in some way improper for the proponent of a novel theory to bear the burden of proving his conclusions, and that instead the burden of proving him wrong should be placed on anyone questioning the theory? I'm not a scientist, but I play one on TV, and that's not how science works. While we're at it, which one or ones of the authors gave you permission to post the chart from this study [21], and how was the permission given? Since you appear to be actively editing portions of the articles dealing with this study, its critics, and defenders, it's only fair that you disclose your relationship to the principals involved.Fladrif (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't need a personal relationship to obtain permission, and I prefer to keep my personal information private. Sorry.Hickorybark (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one need not. But it is hardly the most credible explanation, is it? Occam's Razor and all that. Fladrif (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Hickorybark's post is placed clear at the left margin rather than indented under one of my posts, I assume it's not in response to anything I've written here, although I think I'm the only one who has referred to Fales & Markovsky in this thread. But if not, then I'm at a loss as to what it is in response to. If this were a general discussion about Fales & Markovsky, it might have some relevance, but this is a discussion about the threshold, onset and offset of the Maharishi Effect, trying to determine what reliable sources say about each of them, to provide a fair and accurate description of these elements of this effect for the article. This isn't about whether science is "ready" to specify the links between the Unified Field Theory and the Maharishi Effect or whatever; this is about getting a consistent and accurate description of what the literature says, pro and con, about what the theory is, what the claims are, what the evidence is for and against those claims. Orme Johnson's opinion about how "striking" the correlations are is not particularly relevant, compelling or useful to the present discussion. There are many reasons for significant correlations, especially generated by this kind of analysis, that have nothing to do with actual relationships between things in the real world. I don't agree with everything in the Fales & Markovsky critique (more about that later, maybe) but I do know from experience that these types of analysis are especially prone to spurious results, and agree with their comment to that effect (how much more "head on" could they address the correlations than to suggest the correlations may be spurious, I wonder?) As they say, time-series methods are "ideally suited to extracting whatever 'effect' one desires." The burden of proof is on the researchers making the extraordinary claims, not the other way around. Woonpton (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about the nature of the ME, and its onset. Any other details or theories of its physical nature would also be appropriate to add to the "Concept" section.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)