Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:27, 12 August 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Alternative medicine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Alternative views Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celebrity Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When we all get around to rewriting the Research section of the article, I suggest that we incorporate the "Adverse Effects" studies in the appropriate research section, rather than having a section all to itself. That way a reader can find the pros and con research in one specific subsection of the Research. We should avoid an "adverse effects" section just as we've studiously avoided a "benefits" section. --BwB (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Self-published sources (online and paper)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orme Johnson deletion continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replace OJ content until consensus for removal

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary page break...Otis study

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

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

From:WP:NOR

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

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

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

From WP:NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical research

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

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

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

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

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

In 2006 a study involving 103 subjects published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that coronary heart disease patients who practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique for 16 weeks showed improvements in blood pressure, insulin resistance, and autonomic nervous system tone, compared with a control group of patients who received health education.

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

Also in 2006, a functional MRI study of 24 patients conducted at the University of California at Irvine, and published in the journal NeuroReport, found that the long-term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique may reduce the affective/motivational dimension of the brain's response to pain..

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

In 2008 researchers at the University of Kentucky conducted a meta-analysis of nine qualifying RCT published studies which used Transcendental Meditation to address patients with hypertension, and found that on average across all nine studies the practice of TM was associated with approximate reductions of 4.7 mm (0 in) Hg systolic blood pressure and 3.2 mm (0 in) Hg diastolic blood pressure. The researchers concluded that "...Sustained blood pressure reductions of this magnitude are likely to significantly reduce risk for cardiovascular disease." The study was published in the March 2008 issue of the American Journal of Hypertension. Using the Jadad scale, the researchers found that of the nine studies evaluated, three were of high quality with a score of 75% or greater, three were of acceptable quality, and three were of suboptimal quality.

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

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

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

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

Research funding from the NIH

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

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

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

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

Summary as per request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for agreement /consensus

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

Please add other options if needed.

The following options have been suggested:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page break: more on Otis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rationale for the Maharishi Effect

Summary of Key Studies

The Evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peer Review: an explanation:

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

Peer Review

Sternberg peer review controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eppley K, Abrams A, Shear J. Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1989, 45: 957-74

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

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

Also it would be good to add something about this study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2006 a study involving 103 subjects published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that coronary heart disease patients who practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique for 16 weeks showed improvements in blood pressure, insulin resistance, and autonomic nervous system tone, compared with a control group of patients who received health education.

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

Also in 2006, a functional MRI study of 24 patients conducted at the University of California at Irvine, and published in the journal NeuroReport, found that the long-term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique may reduce the affective/motivational dimension of the brain's response to pain..

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

In 2008 researchers at the University of Kentucky conducted a meta-analysis of nine qualifying RCT published studies which used Transcendental Meditation to address patients with hypertension, and found that on average across all nine studies the practice of TM was associated with approximate reductions of 4.7 mm (0 in) Hg systolic blood pressure and 3.2 mm (0 in) Hg diastolic blood pressure. The researchers concluded that "...Sustained blood pressure reductions of this magnitude are likely to significantly reduce risk for cardiovascular disease." The study was published in the March 2008 issue of the American Journal of Hypertension. Using the Jadad scale, the researchers found that of the nine studies evaluated, three were of high quality with a score of 75% or greater, three were of acceptable quality, and three were of suboptimal quality.

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

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

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

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

Research funding from the NIH

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to RS/N thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need Clarification on this Source

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

• In 1992, Religious Scholar J. Gordon Melton wrote the mantras are to be kept secret and some meditators and TM teachers have published them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schools

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

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

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

Removal of Paragraph From Research Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure thing. Here is more copy from WP:MEDRS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randomized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shorten Cult Section

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

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

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

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

BB Ref your points for shortening it:

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

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

2: the section was disportionatley long for the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Aspect of SCI: Research in Consciousness

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

Proposed Rewrite of "Cult Issues" Section

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

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

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

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

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

I see that there have been no comments here on my suggestion to rewrite the Cult Issues section. Are we happy with this section then? --BwB (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is much work to be done on many sections in my opinion, cult section included, but we aren't in a rush, I guess. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Undue Weight to Mantras in Principles Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invincibility,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TM and TM technique

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

Transcendental Meditation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comment

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

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

Manipulation of the Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Added a paragraph in the Relationship to Religion section

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

• Replaced references in the Cult section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to bring things back to focus:

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

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

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

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

Socks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cult and orm johnson

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

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

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

Removal of Text from Research: Effect on the Phsyiology Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good comments, however please note that the third sentence discusses research already included in the article in Medical Research section as follows:

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

Therefore it is undue to mention or refer to this same study a second time in another section. Don't you agree?--Kbob (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree at all. In the section on medical research that you cite above, the source is used as a citation for the study's conclusions about the (almost entirely nonexistent) medical effects of TM. In the paragraph that's being discussed here, where the topic is the poor quality of research, the study is the best source for a careful analysis of the quality of the research (and it looks at ALL the research that's available on the topic) and should be included in a discussion of the quality of research as well as in a discussion of the effects of TM. Your use of the term "undue" suggests you may be confused about the WEIGHT clause of WP:NPOV. WEIGHT doesn't apply to the use of one source to support two different statements in two different sections, both of which are necessary to a full treatment of the topic; that does not constitute "undue weight." WEIGHT applies to an inordinate amount of space or emphasis given in the article to a fringe or minority viewpoint, such as in this case, the insistence that TM has all these effects that independent researchers don't find. Woonpton (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking this over again, I see your point: the text in both cases is essentially the same, which I hadn't realized before, and while I want to make it very clear that I still don't agree that mentioning the same study twice in the article in two different contexts is a violation of WEIGHT, mentioning the same study twice in exactly the same way, making the same point, is redundant, never mind any gratuitous appeal to policy. In the paragraph being discussed here, where the issue is the quality of research, the study should be used as a citation for a statement about the quality of TM research specifically; the study provides a definitive analysis of the quality of all the research that's been done in this area. This points up the confusion that results from having "Research" all broken up into sections. Why is there a section on "physiology" and a section on "medical effects;" how are they different, and how was I supposed to know that this material was covered in two different sections? As I said before, this entire section (including all of its subsections) of the article should be deleted and rebuilt from scratch as one short section. Woonpton (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Cult issues

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

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

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

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

Lotus, Thanks for you critique of my suggestion for a rewrite of the Cult Issues section. I may not have done a very good job with the draft, but my intention was to at least have some discussion around the issue before applying it to the page. This seems reasonable to me. There are 2 main issues with such a long section, as I have stated before: (1) When someone new learns TM they are not joining any organization. They learn the technique and do it at home if they want to. Yes they can participate in other programs offered by MVED later if they choose. Therefore the idea that someone learning TM is joining something is incorrect; and (2) This article is about the TM technique. Since TM is a technique, how can a technique be classed as a cult and have a whole section dedicated to it? Yes, some cult experts have asserted that the organization that teaches TM (if fact MVED) exhibit cult-like characteristics. I am not opposed to mentioning this in the article on TM, but I am opposed to dedicating 6 paragraphs to this. Another article on the TM organization seems the logical place to host such issues.

So if you have a suggestion on how we can shorten the CUlt Issue section, keeping the references already cited, be my guest to propose another version. --BwB (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take this back the "cult" discussion if you wish to continue to discuss it - where all of your points have been answered. I was using it as an example of a certain world view here. But to answer quickly - please rely to the relevant section above. You did not put it up for discussion you simply re-edit it. Two: no need to shorten the cult section - fine as it is. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem with this sentence is primarily the sources:

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

By and large, I've got no problem with the various edits made in the article today to this text, with one concern. In |this diff I think that adding a date creates a misleading impression. To say that "As of 1984" the scientific mainstream did not support claim that TM had unique effects on blood flow and chemistry is to imply that a change in position may have taken place in the scientific community since the article was published.. I know it's not asserted positively that things have changed in the meantime, but the wording suggests the possibility. Now, we all know that no-one outside the TM Org thinks these claims are valid, and studies such as the Ospina Bond metanalysis conclude that, whatever benefits TM may have, they aren't unique to TM. That's the scientific mainstream view. And, don't say "go find a more recent source that says TM isn't mainstream". The burden falls on the other side of the proposition. Anybody claiming that, since 1984 TM's assertions of its unique benefits flowing from blood flow and chemistry and SCI and I don't know what all else is now mainstream science, had better come up with a darned good, independent source to back it up. Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The First Sentence

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

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

My problem with this sentence is primarily the sources:

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

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

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

(ec)I don't think this is a useful exercise, since the sentence has been substantially changed, and while I did have some problems with the earlier wording, those problems have been addressed and I don't have a problem with the sentence as it now stands: Benson acknowledged methodological weaknesses and bias in the study he co-authored with Wallace, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology done in the 1970s had methodological weaknesses, and that early studies using control groups showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest. As I said above at least twice, the Eugene Register-Guard source isn't a good source and should be deleted. I haven't looked at the source listed at but the sentence as worded is demonstrably accurate; the first part is well sourced in the 1971 Time article, and if the sources cited aren't the best sources for the rest of it, there are other, and no doubt better, sources attesting to the poor quality of the research overall, including up to the present day. Woonpton (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

By what stretch of whose imagination is a mainstream newspaper not a reliable source? says:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press. Some caveats:

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used.

While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.

For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment.

Some news organizations have used Misplaced Pages articles as the sole source for their work. To avoid this indirect self-referencing, editors should ensure that material from news organizations is not the only existing source outside of Misplaced Pages. Generally, sources that predate the material's inclusion in Misplaced Pages are preferable.

According to the Misplaced Pages article on it, The Register-Guard is the second-largest daily in Oregon with a circulation of around 70K, making it a medium-sized newspaper in the second-largest city in the State, and has won numerous awards for its reporting. It is clearly a mainstream newspaper. WP:RS doesn't say that only big city newspapers with national circulations can be used as sources. Lots of smaller papers in smaller markets are cited hundreds if not thousands of times in Misplaced Pages articles. I simply do not understand where the idea comes from that this is not a good source! It's a perfectly good source. Fladrif (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my phrasing was careless and apparently led to misunderstanding. I was simply thinking that in a hierarchy of sources, a small-town newspaper would be low on the list as a citation for a statement about the quality of a body of academic research, when there are better sources available. But I shouldn't have said it's not a good source, when all I meant was that I'm pretty sure there are better sources available. The link to the article doesn't work for me; all I get is the headline of the article and part of an illustration; I don't get any text or any way to scroll to the text of the article, so I'm at a disadvantage in that I can't read the source and evaluate its usefulness for myself, but I still say there are probably better sources for a statement about the quality of research. Woonpton (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reword mantra

Since the mantra's are proprietary and kept private we have no guarantees these are the TM mantras. (I assume we all think they are.) In such case I would think its important to note source of the information clearly in the text so that proprietary informatio0n is not being cited.(olive (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

The paragraph already clearly states where the mantras were cited. The original says "Given to students". This is the second time that "proprietary informatio0n is not being cited", has been mentioned. If you can confirm these are indeed the mantras used by TM - reliable sources please - and that they are also either copyrighted or trademarked in someway, then whatever policy might apply can be discussed and quickly applied per said policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is, 7th, that we do not have any guarantees that these are TM mantras so its important to state in the text that this is so ... I disagree with the wording there now since its syntax implies these are the TM mantras, when in fact we don't know if they are or not. Like you to find info on the matras I would have to dig around the net to find them, and would have to take for granted that the source I was looking at was correct. Thus I adjusted the wording to refelct that position. I'm not in a position to discuss much now but will on return.(olive (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

I agree that we have no guarantees Olive, but neither should we assume that they are not. The source says they are and it is not our job to assume. It would need reliable sources - and careful NPOV editing to say otherwise Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't really know anything for sure - we can only go by what we read in published, reliable sources. If there's any doubt we can always attribute. "According to ...." I don't know if there's a need to list the (purported) mantras in order to cover the controversies about them.   Will Beback  talk  18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::Um, as a central part of the technique I would have thought including them - so that the reader might research them, was was highly important. I wish to add more to this - it is an area I have some limited knowledge. For this discussion, a listing is actually very important Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

TM is more than a mantra. As is stated in the article, the course of instruction happens over 4 days. I agree with Will that the mantras do not need to be listed. --BwB (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have obtained a copy of the Omni article cited in this section. The Omni article does print a list of mantras and puts an age bracket beside each of them. However, there is no discussion of where they got these mantras. Therefore, I think it a bit risky to include the list of these mantras in the TM article since we do not know where they came from. Omni could just have made them up. I suggest they be removed for the article. --BwB (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. This is reliably-sourced material from a mainstream publication. The argument that the authors could have just made them up is absurd on its face. The accuracy of this information has been confirmed by multiple sources. If you're going to make an argument that you expect to be taken seriously, make a serious argument that has at least some remote basis in reality.Fladrif (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are other reliable sources confirming the validity and correctness of the list of mantras, then we better cite them as the Omni article is a very weak source. --BwB (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing weak about the Omni article as a source. It falls squarely within the scope of WP:RS In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Cite a Misplaced Pages rule policy or guideline to support your bald assertion that it is a "very weak source". Again, if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, make a serious argument that relies on facts and sound reasoning, not simply on a statement of you personal opinion.Fladrif (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not arguing that the article was weak in terms of the WP:RS policy. Rather that the article itself gave no supporting evidence as to the validity of the list of mantras. It says "This was first revealed by some disaffected former TM trainers. Here are the secret mantras:", and then give a list. --BwB (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On the face of the article, it says that they have multiple sources ("former TM trainers", not "a former TM trainer") for the information. That is supporting evidence, and indeed very strong supporting evicence. I doesn't wash to complain that the article doesn't disclose names. Reporters not disclosing the names of their sources is standard and well-respected journalistic procedure. Your argument is not a legitimate objection.Fladrif (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is now an awful hodgepodge

Unlike most other articles here at W, this one has become quite a hodgepodge of standard description of TM as originates from the TM Movement itself, the inappropriate revealing of knowledge given to TM teachers for their use in teaching, and legal and other citations meant to show that TM is or fosters a cult mentality and/or is harmful. Largely missing is objective criticism of unsubstantiated claims made in the name of TM (such as the Maharishi Effect and the orientation of buildings) and the high price that keeps most interested people from learning TM (this very important aspect of TM in the real world seems to be treated like The Emperor's New Clothes here; I believe I am the only person to see its importance or to try to get it into the article over a period measured in years).

The article now reads like an amateurish concatenation of random material from the Web, lacking in coherence, continuity, and readability. It is embarrassing, and clearly the result of a handful of people with wildly differing points of view having nothing better to do than to "own" the article and spend their time arguing over it.

If I were someone who came across the term "Transcendental Meditation" and wanted to learn about it from my favorite site, W, I would be quite confused after reading this. I could come away with the opinion that TM is some harmful, weird "thing" that is marketed with hundreds of false studies, or I could come away with the opinion that TM is the best thing, fully supported by science and religion alike, depending on many factors including which parts of the article particularly caught my eye.

What I'd really like to see is two articles: a "TM - Pro" article that gives a complete and readable exposition of TM from the point of view of TM teachers and practitioners (collectively, the TM Movement), and a separate article, "TM - Con", that gives a complete and readable exposition of TM from the point of view of those who think TM is dangerous, or is a cult, or is religious.

Focusing on the improvement of both sides, pro and con, the result might be two very good articles, each standing on its own as helpful to readers. By reading both articles, visitors could come away with a much better understanding of TM as having two descriptions, depending on the polarization of the authors.

If someone were reading the articles to determine the policy of their organization toward TM, having a full, unmixed exposition of each side would be far more helpful than one article that keeps spiking in either direction.

If someone were reading the articles to determine if TM was something they might consider learning, it would similarly be helpful to be able to get a complete view of each side.

Similar analysis applies to many other reasons that people are interested in reading about TM in W. The present editors have done a very poor job (I think even they know it), yet are psychologically unable to go away. I'm sure each one thinks that if they go away, the "other side" will make the article far worse. I'm sure this would not be the case. If everyone truly wanted neutrality, they'd allow neutral editors to take over. Instead, we have the same three or five people lurking here for many months at a time, acting all huffy and authoritative and scaring away people who could actually improve the article.

Okay, well, if you all want to see the article improve, please consider my proposal of breaking it into two individually complete articles, pro and con. Then the present editors could stay and make each article really great without interference from the "other side" editors and potential contributors like me would finally feel safe to contribute again. David spector (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be difficult, but per Wikipeida policies this one article has to contain both the "pro" and the "con".   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is a mess. But, as Will points out, Misplaced Pages requires a single article for the subject.Fladrif (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Phil: thank you for your point. There are some very good suggestions in there although one is far better than the other.

Spilting the articles - it simply isn't going to happen in my opinion. It would be highly un-encyclopedic and would be pretty unique in the world of WIKI and to be honest simply doesn't sound very good. All views should be covered in this article/ You are correct that there may appear to be two sets of editors, with seemingly contrasting views. However, you would need to ask why? I, like you, first came to this article out of interest, a number of years ago but simply could not believe how biased it was. It read like an advertising "blurb" with any criticisms quickly beaten down with misuses of WIKI guidelines and policies by two editors in particular. However, i left it - no real interest. However, i revisited it over the years and ended up "joining in on occasion" as the bias grew and grew. I have discussed above that this article is indeed a miss-match. This is because pro editors will not allow what they consider is a negative edit unless is is pumped full of references.

All present editors leaving and allowing neutral ones to take over? Wonderful idea - one of the reasons that i left it for so long. however, it has NEVER happened. You are completely correct that neutral editors are indeed scared away, i have seen it many times. But despite a number of instructions by admins they will not. What is to be done? I can assure you I have far better things to do then hang around here all day :)

Things such as the Maharishi Effect and the orientation of buildings a wonderful and important addition - however try adding either and see what happens - in a completely neutral manner. You will NEVER counter fantacism. Please? You seem like a sensible editor, please bring some neutral editors here. In fact, I will now step back and observe things from the sidelines and see how this progresses. Namaste Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have to be two articles. How about one article written in two parts with a big horizontal line between the two parts? Furthermore, I don't care whether the first part is the pro or the con part. Just so it gets done so the world can find out about the two descriptions of TM in a well-written way and we can get on with it. It's not sensible to keep arguing about this, that, and the other, and leave the article the way it is. Let's just replace the article with an empty space headed "Opposed to TM" and "In Favor of TM" (in either order) and start filling both sections in with beautiful prose (I'm half jesting here, but I've lost my patience and I hope all the current editors join me in losing patience with continuing as we have). David spector (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point; this is not how we write an encyclopedia. Besides, what about the people, like me, who are neither "Opposed to TM" or "In Favor of TM." I am on neither side; I am on the side of the encyclopedia. I am on the side of the reader, who wants accurate and unbiased information about the topic. It wouldn't be helpful to the reader to read the kind of article, or the two articles, you have in mind; what would serve the reader would be a neutral treatment of the topic.

I'm not sure if I'm being counted as a "current editor" who should "lose patience with continuing as we have." I started participating here just day before yesterday, although I've been watching the article with concern for 18 months. For 18 months the article has been basically an advertisement for TM, and I didn't think there was any point in my editing here or commenting here because the entrenched interests always run off anyone who tries to make the article more neutral. To want this article to be more neutral is not to be "opposed to TM" it's just to be for neutrality. When you've got entrenched editors who are opposed to a neutral treatment of the topic, it's the entrenched POV, not neutrality, that's the problem; we don't throw out the need for neutrality just because someone has "lost patience" with the struggle for neutrality. This is an encyclopedia. The article cannot be a promotional brochure for TM, that's not what an encyclopedia is for. But the antidote for that is not to divide the material, and the editors, into "Pro" and "Anti" TM camps; that would be to miss the point of what our purpose is here. Woonpton (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reverts back to old original profile* I have had a think about this since my last comment: Your assumption is that any editor that tries to enter an opposite viewpoint to that of TM is somehow also being "disruptive" and “difficult”. This is far from the case although this is how it might seem without deep analysis. Looking at the last 2 days for example, myself and other (what you might describe as anti POV editors) have – following discussion allowed two “pro TM edits to be allowed back into the article despite the fact they may not be “resource compliant or NPOV (See for example Orm Johnson on “cults” where I made the revert!) Also notice that”anti” editors have disagreed over the wording of so called “anti TM” sources meaning that they became more neutral in tone (see physiology section.). However, this has not been the case with other “pro” editors”. What this means is that another editors – even neutral ones – come across as seeming otherwise

Where different points of view exists this must be cited in the article – this is the nature of an encyclopaedia and has been since the first one complied in the Enlightenment. You are also correct that other factors of the Tm organisation do indeed need discussion; however, to me the most important is the research. This is because, reading this article, one would assume that there is a general consensus in the scientific community that TM meditation – or indeed any meditation –has large and demonstrate health benefits including, increasing your life expectancy, curing cancer, and prevent coronary disease! However this is clearly not the case. I understand that as webmaster to NSR (and thank you for the honesty of at least adding this to your profile) this maybe difficult to believe as your much cheaper form of mediation relies on the research of TM to promote it – but the research that supports such findings is blatant nonsense and no such agreement exits within the scientific community. This needs to be highlighted I am afraid. However the TM organisation will try anything to deny this. .

The7thdr (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 7th. I agree mostly with your and Woon's comments. If there are research studies in the article that are weak, then let's get rid of them. But there are are also very good studies on TM showing health benefits in the area of heart disease, blood pressure, etc. so these should be included. I also want a balanced, well written, well referenced, neutral, informative article on the TM technique. Yes, there has been polarization of late, but I think the general consent is to improve the article. I think one of the difficulties is that of experience vs. non-experience. It is something I have mentioned before. If 2 authors are writing an article on a banana - one has tasted a banana, the other has not. Both would write 2 completely different articles, even though striving for neutrality. Some of the "banana syndrome" is evident in this article. So let's keep at it with best intentions and see where it leads. And for the record, I also do not see the sense of having a pro and anti article. One is enough!!! --BwB (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

undue weight

It could hardly be more bizarre that one study by Michaels is given more weight than 8 studies that were as strong or stronger than hers. And bizarre that the positive finding of her second study is omitted. Aren't there any editors watching? Archie Wilson is not a meditator. He had a long career as a tenured professor at UC Irvine and is highly respected. These are controlled studies published in peer reviewed journals. Michaels didn't do any better on Jadad than the rest of the studies mentioned and did worse than the randomized controlled trials on TM, some of which scored good or better on Jadad. And bizarre that sentences citing newspapers and magazines are given more weight than these 8 studies. Will? PhilKnight? Jayen? Here's what's wrong with statements from newspapers: you don't know if the person did a literature review or what their impression is based on. A real review of research is transparent. The study author gives his search method, his criteria for inclusion in the review or metaanlysis, and then lists the studies, also sometimes noting why certain ones weren't included. You know exactly what this person was evaluating and get a sense for the correctness of his judgment. A statement in a newspaper or magazine doesn't give that. That's why WP:MEDRS says not to use popular media. This is really over the top -- absolutely the worst. Well, maybe the generalization of Benson to "Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects, acknowledging methodological weaknesses and bias" was the worst. Somebody talk to Fladrif and explain that he's overboard. 76.76.232.83 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention and quit crying over versions of the article that have long been superseded. And I might ask, 76.76 etc... what exactly is your connection to MUM and the rest of the TM Org there in beautiful downtown Fairfield from whence you're posting? Single purpose editors. Love 'em.Fladrif (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Calm down a bit, please. First, speaking for myself alone, I've stated several times that as far as I'm concerned, the entire research section is a mess and should be completely redone, so I'm not paying too much attention to back and forth between poor quality individual studies (primary sources) that have been superseded by excellent recent meta-analyses. I'm planning, if I have time, to post a critique of the entire section, in the next day or so; if there can't be some consensus for reorganizing this material into some kind of encyclopedic form, then maybe there's no hope for this article, but I think we at least ought to try. In the meantime, arguing over the weight assigned to individual bits of largely unencyclopedic material is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. Second, there are two threads about the appropriateness of newspapers as sources, above; I'd recommend your reading them. I don't think anyone disagrees that a newspaper shouldn't be used as a source for a research study; the study itself is the better source. The rant about the meta-analysis is moot; the meta-analysis was first mistakenly cited to a newspaper, but last I saw, it was properly cited to the study itself, and it's not worth all that indignation; it was just a mis-cite, after all. Third, I don't know what article you're reading, but that last sentence was fixed at least a day ago. To get this exercised over something that's been already been discussed and revised in response to discussion, and over things that are really quite trivial, like the proper citation for a source that's otherwise uncontested, seems to fit the definition of "overboard" to me.Woonpton (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest splitting the scientific studies into an article of their own. There are so many of them and giving them correct weight and context is complicated. All this articles needs is a short summary.   Will Beback  talk  18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would need to agree with Woonpton. The research section is a mess, and not only completely "un-encyclopedic" but in breach of WP:MEDRS,We can play this silly game of citing 40 studies to support a particlur medical opinion all day. Backwords and forwards we throw our little studies at each other. However, this is:

Not following WP:MEDRS Will end up with descriptions that start: A study lead by Dr Wallace (His Excellency the Minister of Research and Development) etc. It is not helpful to the casual reader.

All that is needed is a single section of a couple of paragraphs covering all sides of the discussion - citing reliable secondary sources. The present state of things is doing no one an service, especially TM but most importantly the poor reader. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Will's proposal for a new article, because the research doesn't merit its own article. But, I am definitely in agreement that it doesn't even merit more than two or three paragraphs at most in this or any other article. The solution, as I have said repeatedly, is to pare this all down to a few sentences setting forth what the scientific and medical mainstream view of all this is, and give due credit to TM's claims that they've got 800 and counting studies showing that the scientific and medical mainstream has it wrong. I've suggested a template along these general lines a couple of times:

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

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

Such suggestions have been met with much wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from the TM Cabal (I even thought I detected some uulating, thought I can't be entirely sure about that), which is pretty much irrelevant to the merits of my proposal. Fladrif (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fladrif; the research doesn't merit a separate article, and if you had one you should include ALL the research not just some hand-picked examples. In other words, you'd basically be writing a literature review. This isn't the purpose of the encyclopedia, and I think this is one of the more bizarre suggestions I've run across in Misplaced Pages. No, we don't write our own literature reviews, and we don't need to do battling primary sources in any amount or form, when there are very good tertiary sources available. This is a terrible idea. I'm trying to imagine anyone saying, on any science-related or medicine-related article, "Let's just split the research off into a separate article." The only reason it seems like a halfway reasonable idea here is that the article is choked with research that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.

Fladrif's mock-up here is a very good template for an encyclopedic treatment of the research, except I'd leave off the adverse effects part; I really don't think that research is good enough to draw any conclusions from, and I don't see any reason as far as a fair presentation of the topic, to insist on it, even though we've established that there's no policy-based reason to exclude it. Just because something can't be excluded on the basis of policy, doesn't mean it must be included. Stick with what is well-established, the lack of support for the claims of medical benefits. My 2cents. Woonpton (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If the material on the studies can be brought under control and achieve a stable consensus then it might be merged back. But the issues surrounding it particular to medical studies, and there are so many other issues with TM that the research was overwhelming those parts. As for whether the research merits an article of its own, the presence of 600 studies indicates a certain importance.  Will Beback  talk  20:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see WILL's comment: Yes would agree. And, if people wish to battle this out let them do so there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fladrifs approach, and support Woon's reasoning. Let's rework the research section, keeping it short, balanced and too the point. --BwB (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Research split

EDIT: I wont "revert war" over this issue, but would ask editors here to give it a chance for a moment and see how it "feels". If there is no agreement to keep it eventually than so be it (it is a simple matter to add it back) but use all of that academic and meditative patience and see how it goes :)Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Now doesn't that look more encyclopedic, neater and clearer for the causual reader. Perhaps the research edit war can now continue leaving the rest undisturbed. Although the overview here will need clear work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is something to be said for WP:BOLD in a circumstance like this. Fladrif (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is, indeed there is. Let us see how it progresses :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. I don't agree first with separating out research into a separate article, but even if you did, the research summary on the main page should be a summary of all the research, taken from independent third party sources, not more arbitarily-selected primary sources in opposition to each other. No, it's not more encyclopedic, it's just the same stuff as before, except less of it. Not a real improvment, in my opinion. Woonpton (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As the one who proposed it, I obviously agree with the split. There are something like 600 studies on the topic, and presenting their findings is not a simple matter. This article already covers a lot of ground. Moving the technical and statistical discussions of scientific studies to another page will make this article much more readable for the average reader. As for the summary, it should reflect theentire article it's summarizing. See WP:SUMMARY.   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But Will, that's what the meta-analysis does, it takes all 600 studies, throws out the ones that are too poor to even be used in a meta-analysis (which should also be considered too poor to be included in an encyclopedia) sorts the rest into categories, inspects them carefully as to specific criteria of research quality, takes the best of the lot and draws overall conclusions. Once that's done, if it's done very well, which in this case it is, it doesn't make sense to say there are 600 studies and we have to figure out how to present their findings. That's been done for us. It's like citing a good literature review rather than relying on primary sources to summarize a topic. Woonpton (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Woon, if you are referring to the AHRQ REPORT, there are some criticisms of it. A paper titled "Commentary on the AHRQ Report on Research on Meditation Practices in Health" was published in the THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, Volume 14, Number 10, 2008, pp. 1215–1221. It summary can be found at the web address http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/TMResearch/RebuttalofAHRQReview/index.cfm I would be very interested to hear you comment on this critique, if you have time. --BwB (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen this until this morning. There's not time to comment on the "critique" in detail, but since you say you're interested in my comment, I'll just say that I laughed out loud several times while scanning quickly down through the commentary, and I'll make the general comment that like the Rainsforth "rebuttal" of Park's comments about the Maharishi Effect research, and like the Orme-Johnson commentary about the Otis study, this is a joke. I'm sorry, but it's just not useful or credible as a critique, and shows a rather striking lack of clue about how science is done, about what's important and what's not important, and about what a useful scientific rebuttal would look at and look like. If I had time, I could go through and address the points one at a time, but I don't think that's a productive use of my time.

I've spent many years of my life conducting research, writing research reports, reading research reports, interpreting research, analyzing and reporting data. I know good research when I see it (I did spend a morning earlier this week reading carefully the entire nearly 200 pages of the report--I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only person here who has actually read it) and this is by far the best meta-analysis I've ever seen, and I've seen hundreds of them in many different fields. And if you hadn't noticed, I am very hard to please. Nothing in Orme-Johnson's list of potshots takes an atom away from the credibility of this research; it only appears to reflect, like the other "rebuttals" I noted above, the desperation of those who criticize good research and support bad research in the defense of an institution or an idea.

I'll just quickly dispose of two of the criticisms at the top of the page, which I assume must have been placed at the top because of their presumed importance. First, the idea that the study wasn't peer-reviewed; that was one of the ones that made me laugh out loud. There is nothing in the world that would be MORE peer-reviewed than a government-sponsored meta-analysis whose purpose was to determine what the research actually says about the medical benefits of meditation, to inform future decisions at NIH about where they should put their ALT-CAM emphasis. Another place on that page where I laughed out loud was where one of the critics was saying that the fact that his research was NIH-funded (I don't have time to look, but I suspect his might be some of the research the investigators gave a low score on quality) proved it was good research, because of all the checking that was done before his research was funded. That's ever so much nonsense; there's a great lot of low-level government-funded research that's not worth the money that was paid for it, but that's a topic for another discussion. But apparently he failed to see the irony that discredited his criticism, in the fact that this was also true of, and actually much more true of, the research he was trying to discredit by his criticism.

A a meta-analysis of this magnitude would start, not with a proposal from the field but with an RFP from the department, responded to by many large and competent research institutions, and the competition would be fierce among them. The proposals would be huge, (like 2 or 3 inches thick) would detail the research design in great detail, would identify the principal investigators with their CVs, so their expertise could be evaluated. If any of the work was intended to be subcontracted out (say, data analysis) then before the proposal even went in, the subcontractor would need to be chosen and the principal personnel, with their qualifications, listed in the proposal. The government never gives you much time; to my recollection it was like the RFP would be published one day and a week later the proposals would be due, so only institutions and researchers who really had their act together and knew what they were doing and a proven track record in conducting such research would be able to get the proposal written and to Washington by the deadline. Then once the proposals are in, they go through the process in the department of evaluating and ranking the proposals according to the quality of the research design, the expertise of the researchers, and so forth. This evaluation process would of course include scientists, because the department would want to award the study to whomever it seemed could do the very best job of sifting through all the research and giving them a solid evidence-based answer to use in forming policy and awarding funds. So even before the award is made, there has been a significant amount of peer review. And during the study and during the analysis and drawing of conclusions, there is a continual amount of review and discussion among the department, the researchers, and various advisory panels. The usefulness of these advisory panels depends on who is chosen to sit on them. If they were chosen for being good independent judges of what constitutes good research, that would be fine, but in my experience unfortunately, advisory panel members were often chosen for their adherence to ideologies held by the administration, or even for working on the president's campaign for election.

Which brings me to the second criticism that I wanted to address, the one that says indignantly that the researchers didn't incorporate all the advice given them by advisory panels. That's another place where I laughed out loud. I remember one occasion where I and my fellow senior investigator on a big nationwide study were in Washington presenting our findings to an advisory panel consisting of big name researchers from big name research universities. One of these big names said, "I'd like there to be a conclusion that says x" (x being a favorite ideological position of the administration). I said, "Our data don't support a conclusion that says x." He said, "Have the courage to go beyond your data!" Needless to say, we had the courage and integrity not to do anything of the sort, but by Orme-Johnson's silly criterion, we could be faulted for not paying attention to suggestions given in the peer review. There are valid and important criticisms, and there are invalid and/or trivial or off the point criticisms; on my quick scan of the very long page, it looks to me as if the criticisms listed there are of the second type. Hope that adequately answers your question about what I think of this commentary. Woonpton (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Woonpton for you thorough response. While I am surprised to read that OJ's critique is so flawed, it is good to have an understanding of the process and to have you participate in the discussion as we try to improve the TM article. --BwB (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've read it too. And, I've read the "critique" as well, having gone round-and-round with timidguy and olive over their attempts to supress any mention of this study in the article, or alternatively, to grossly misrepesent it conclusions or, failing that, to create a false sense of "balance" by featuring the "critique". I concur wholeheartedly with Woon's assessment. The metaanalysis is absolutely first rate, and the criticisms are utterly laughable. And there's a bit of context that needs to be considered for this study: Why was it done? The NIH and the NCCAM in particular takes a lot of heat for spending money and doling it out to MUM and elsewhere for things like research on meditation. This metaanalysis was clearly undertaken to get a handle on whether this money was well spent, and it cannot have been a welcome result to the NIH and NCCAM to have the result come back that the state of the meditation research (a huge percentage of which was TM- or TM-Sidhi specific) was as shoddy and inconclusive as it turned out to be upon closer examination. Now, that may result in the NIH budget for this research getting cut, or it may result in it getting increased to produce better studies. But, there is absolutely no reason to think that there was any bias in the study itself. Fladrif (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good point, and one that I wholeheartedly endorse. The survey of the medical and scientific literature has already been done for us by these recent meta-analyses.Fladrif (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I partly agree Woonpton: as I have said the "overview" certainly needs work, but striping everything else away helps greatly to "concentrate the mind". With so many fine editors here I am sure one can come-up with something. As for a separate entry on"contentious issues - especially those that by their nature take up a lot of space and research; well this is common in WIKI. For example, I have shockingly poor taste in music and this is reflected in my love for the works of Richard Wagner, At one stage the heading: Controversies (see Wagner page) threatened to over ride everything on it. however, a summery was put in place and the following page was produced: Wagner controversies. It all works very well indeed. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the overview of Health applications and clinical studies of meditation in the Meditation Entry, The "spin-off" article is far from brilliant but the summery however, is not to bad.

A review of scientific studies identified relaxation, concentration, an altered state of awareness, a suspension of logical thought and the maintenance of a self-observing attitude as the behavioral components of meditation; it is accompanied by a host of biochemical and physical changes in the body that alter metabolism, heart rate, respiration, blood pressure and brain chemistry. Meditation has been used in clinical settings as a method of stress and pain reduction. Meditation has also been studied specifically for its effects on stress.

In June, 2007 the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine published an independent, peer-reviewed, meta-analysis of the state of meditation research, conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. The report reviewed 813 studies in five broad categories of meditation: mantra meditation, mindfulness meditation, yoga, Tai Chi, and Qi Gong. The report concluded that "he therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature," and "irm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable edit, no consensus. It needs to be reverted. --Kbob (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And the usual editors make the usual highly detailed and argued responses, helping to progress the dialogue.:). I don't mean to sound rude, but why is it that it is those that seem practice TM that have the least ability to put forward a cognizant arguments or remain calm? Really, a serious question. All of the research would indicate the opposite would be the case. You're not really a TMer are you, you lot? A bunch of Discordians I would suspect, free and roaming the land :-)

Not all effects of the practice of meditation are beneficial. Shapiro (1992) found that 62.9% of the subjects reported adverse effects during and after meditation and 7.4% experienced profoundly adverse effects. The length of practice (from 16 to 105 months) did not make any difference to the quality and frequency of adverse effects. These adverse effects were relaxation-induced anxiety and panic; paradoxical increases in tension; less motivation in life; boredom; pain; impaired reality testing; confusion and disorientation; feeling 'spaced out'; depression; increased negativity; being more judgmental; and, ironically, feeling addicted to meditation. Fladrif (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, any more reverts by 76.76.232.83 will be considered vandalism. Perhaps you might want to log back in TG :)Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted It because it results in a greatly unbalanced article. This research dominates the topic of TM in the academic literature, and it's the primary topic in the mainstream media. You can't divorce it. And you can't make a change this major without discussion and consensus. 76.76.232.83 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"...It's the primary topic in mainstream media." I doubt this assertion and would like to see evidence. Regardless, that concerns how much weight to give the matter in this article. As a standalone article, the entire thing is about the studies and it can be as long as necessary.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me try this another way, anyone puts it back with out clear discussion and I will delete all primary sources per: WP:MEDRS. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources. I suggest people use them. The research section is clearly just plain old "silly" as it stands.

Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Every single word in this post is absolute nonsense. LB's change per Will's suggestion put the article in better balance, it was far too weighted to research recognized as being far outside the science and medical mainstream. The academic literature, other than what the TM org pumps out itself, mostly ignores TM. It is also ignored in the mainstream media when not regurgitating TM press releases. And, there is plenty of concensus outside the TM Cabal to take a meataxe to this article. Now, aren't you late for a bunnyhopping session?Fladrif (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine to delete all studies and just go with reviews and metaanlyses. We should consider that. There are many reviews and metaanalyses that haven't been added to the article that document the effects. Will, per WP:SET here are 3,300 news articles: .76.76.232.83 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That Google search returns about 3,310 hits. This search, which excludes the words "study" and "research", returns about 6,560 hits. Apparently twice as many articles don't mention the research as those that do. (And I suspect that many which include those words are not referring to the scientific studies we're discussing, but rather other meanings of the words.)   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait! Wait! I wanna play! "Transcendental Meditation"+"medical research" = 47 hits ; "Transcendental Meditation"+"medical studies" = 28 hits; "Transcendental Meditation"+"scientific research" = 176 hits; "transcendental meditaiton"+"scientific studies" = 151 hits! DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER! Fladrif (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too:

1,250 for transcendental meditation flying

2,470 for transcendental meditation ends war.

710 for transcendental meditation crime

,580 for transcendental meditation cost.

954 for transcendental meditation peace palaces.

332 for transcendental meditation invincibility

136 for transcendental meditation invincible germany. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

TG, Raja Hag, Wallis Drive, or who ever :) The article, as many people who practice TM here are at pains to point out, is about the "technique" Or at least TM (whatever that might be), not the research :) And again, another misunderstanding of "weight" is in evidence :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks, this article is on the TM technique. Let's include the research done on this technique in the article on the technique alone. Let's choose the very best studies showing it benefits, any studies showing adverse effects, and then summarize them for the article. If we feel that some meta-analysis are strong and relevant, then these should also be included. --BwB (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Note To 76.76.232.83

You haven't got the courtesy to sign in and thus I need to respond to your threat on my talk page.

1: only one revert, to your vandalism to be precise - please check the guidelines 2: The rest of your cabal has already done the "You have two usernames! Aw I'm telling!!" thing. It has already been responded to above. Seriously, is this what TM does to your comprehension and readings skills? I would ask for your money back if i was you dear. But, I am sure it is very telling to the Millions of potential TMers that read this but don't comment :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No consensus on massive article change

This is a massive non consensus change to the article. I count at least four editors who disagree with the split. I suggest discussion. In would assume experienced editors and admins would be aware of the Misplaced Pages violations in play here, the most obvious being WP:OWN.

Who? You, KBob and 76.76 from beautiful downtown Fairfield? That's three. Or maybe two, because I haven't decided whether 76.76 is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or both, and I'm not sure whether he/she/it counts at all. Woon and I don't think a separate article is warranted, but wer'e sure in favor of cutting down this section to a paragraph or two, so I suspect we can deal with our disappointment over there being a new article on TM research. I'd point out that the suggestion for the split came from Will, who is, after all, the neutral and disinterested Administrator who got involved in this article only because somebody had to continually referee your adamant refusal abide by the requirements of WP:COI. Or had you forgotten that? Fladrif (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, I forgot Luke. And now BWB. I suppose that uncreated and LFE will weigh in soon to express their horror. I kinda think that all of you put together really only adds up to one vote as far as I;m concerned.Fladrif (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon Fladrif? What horror do you feel I am expressing? I am in no way horrified at the suggestion that there should be a split in this article. It is a reasonable suggest, but one which I oppose, sans horror. In fact I am absolutely delighted that Will has suggested that the research be spun off. I am equally delighted to be able to express my opinion that I do not support this idea. Are you supporting or opposing, sans horror? --BwB (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter; per talk above I have (as agreed with other editor/s) removed all primary sources per WP:MEDRS.

Sorry I was out enjoying life today and just got back to my computer. I am absolutely opposed to the proposed split. --BwB (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry then bigboy, Have now enacted WP:MEDRS per agreement with TG above. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that Flad: deleted study in error obviously. It is of course fine under WP:MEDRS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Also, the UK 2008 study should go back in on the adverse effects section. Now, mind you I don't agree with putting all this back in in this particular form, but it does pare down the universe of what we should have to deal with in this article. Are you sure 76.76 is TimidGuy? I definitely see where you get that idea, but I'm not entirely convinced. Yet. Fladrif (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I will say little - they will only try banning me again, but i can assure you a certain editor is certainly hanging around the net supporting TM against ridicule on various "doctors" bloggs. Its very funny to read. But then, it could be any of the Rajas. Oh dear, I think I might be the subject of much use of super bouncing powers :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, i ment to say, you really should read this, especially the responses http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a-positive-study-meditation-for-childhood-adhd/#comment-170 Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Deep Revert

I have just made a deep revert to undo the 16 consecutive deletions of sourced text by Lotus just before she was suspended for 72 hrs. My apologies to any editors who made legitimate edits to the article that have been undone by the deep revert. I do not want to edit war. I want to discuss proposed changes to the article and then edit by consensus. Both points of view of TM should represented in a balanced way, with reliable sources to create a quality article on the topic of TM. I think we have a good group of intelligent editors and that we can work together despite our occasional varying points of view on some topics. Peace! --Kbob (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support this method of proceeding unless edits are minor. The article is quite a mess as Davis Spector points out so maybe we could proceed in systematic way from the beginning of the article and then through it step by step. I want to add to Kbob's comments that there are multiple points of view on this topic rather than two. If we can move away from assuming a positive/negative viewpoint and add what is necessary to give the reader a comprehensive and valid look on TM we may have less disagreement. What is valid can of course be based on opinion, but we have other Misplaced Pages compliant ways of looking at minority and majority views, and we need to employ this in putting the article together.

As an aside, maintaining some kind of rosy glasses look at TM does not interest me personally. Whether people like or dislike the technique is not my concern, and is a personal choice. What I do care about is that readers are given fair and accurate information so they can have and make informed decisions, and have an accurate source for investigating the topic. There is no benefit to anyone in presenting TM in this less than accurate way. If someone comes to the technique with biased information they will soon find out one way or another and just quit doing the technique. No one buys the rosy glasses view of things. We as a culture are too business savvy. So assuming that editors are trying to create such an article may be quite a way off the mark.(olive (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Olive. This is the approach I would also like to endorse for the article. --BwB (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I also suggest we have a look at the section WP:STRUCTURE. This, I believe, will help us put a good structure in place for this article. --BwB (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not editors are "trying to create" an article that presents TM in a favorable light is quite immaterial; the reality is that editors have created and maintained such an article and have resisted attempts to nudge it toward neutral. I don't care about the color of anyone's glasses, but I do care about the quality of the information Misplaced Pages is presenting to the world. That said, I agree that the article is a complete mess, and that it should be rebuilt from the ground up (I think Will suggested that several weeks or months ago). Woonpton (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the article need rewriting. Am very happy to be part of this process in the coming days/weeks/months. --BwB (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Add Neutrality Tag

I have added a tag to the Principles of the Technique section. A single editor has recently made additions to the section that outweigh the prior copy. It has been significantly changed and these changes have been under discussion for at least a week without consensus. I think it is important that the reader is aware the the copy is disputed and under review so they can use extra care in evaluating the text contained within it. Once we reach consensus on the section it can, of course, be removed. --Kbob (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC) --Kbob (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what is not neutral about this section as it currently stands. The parts that were added state (1) the mantras are supposed to be kept secret, but some people have revealed them. That's a statement of fact. Do you dispute that it is reliably sourced? Do you dispute that it is true, whether or not reliably souced? Isn't it the case that this is factually true and confirmed by multiple sources. How is that not neutral? (2)a former TM instructor says that the mantras are not meaningless sounds, but the names of Hindu demigods, and there are 16 of them. Again, that's a statement of fact. Do you contend that it is not reliably sourced? Do you claim it is not true, regardless of whether or not it is reliably sourced? Isn't it the case that many former TM teachers and stuents have confirmed this in multiple sources, and that the TM Org's response is not a denial but the claim that the student is never told what the mantra means, so it's meaningless to him or her? How is is not neutral? Isn't it in fact necessary for "balance"? (3) Bainbridge says that mantras are assigned on the basis of age of the student. That again is a statement of fact. Do you dispute that it is reliably sourced, or that it is untrue even if reliably sourced. Again, multiple sources confirm that it is true, and it has never been denied by the TM org. How is that biased? (4) Finally, there is the list of mantras and the ages they correspond with. Again, it is reliably sourced, confirmed by many sources besides Omni. Why is this not neutral. Facts are neutral, regardless if they are inconvenient. Fladrif (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are my answers to your questions Fladrif, but perhaps Kbob has his own on the subject. (1) Yes this seems a reasonable assertion; (2) This is not a statement of fact. Where is the source material to support the idea that the mantras are the "names of Hindu demigods"? Could this not be a statement of the former TM teacher's opinion? (3) Don't know who Bainbridge is but at looking at the book referenced here it seems that he is making a huge leap from seeing TM as a metal practice of meditation. While I am sure Bainbridge is a very intelligent, scholarly man, he may be mistaken in his assertions. Maharishi has said that the knowledge of TM, etc. comes from the Vedic tradition, not the Hindu tradition. (4) The Omni article simply says "Here are the secret mantras" and then list them. We have no way of knowing if they are correct, or where they came from.

I think what Kbob is arguing is not that a particular sentence is not factual, but that the content is disputed so the reader does not take it as gospel. --BwB (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but I think you've missed a couple of points. (1) Wer'e in agreement that some people have revealed their secret mantras. To say so is neither inaccurate nor misleading, and certainly is not a matter to be regarded as raising neutrality issues. (2) Whether or not the mantras are the names of Hindu demigods is not a matter of opinion, it is a question of fact. I have seen a lot of dancing around the issue in the various sources I have looked at, with the default position from the TM Org being that it doesn't matter what the mantras "really" mean, because the student doesn't know what they mean. And, while I appreciate the claim that the TM Org claims that it is based on Vedic rather than Hindu tradition, they're the same gods and demigods, so its a semantic argument at best. (3) Bainbridge isn't mistaken about how the mantras are assigned, and there are multiple sources confirming it (4) I've discussed your objections to the Omni article above.

But, you haven't answered my basic question. What is not neutral about these statements? And, if the statements are in dispute, don't they present the other side of the dispute with comparable weight to the claims of the TM Org about itself? I really can't see any legitimate basis for claiming that there is a neutrality problem on this material.Fladrif (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you say that "the mantras are the names of Hindu demigods is not a matter of opinion, it is a question of fact." Where do you get this fact?

They either are or they aren't. That is a question of fact, not a matter of opinion. Do you understand the difference?Fladrif (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One very important fact is that the mantra is used for its sound value in TM, not its meaning. Meaning is irrelevant to the technique and the process of transcending in TM. --BwB (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that to be the response of the TM Org to questions about the meaning of the mantras. But it is not a statement of fact as to how TM works. It is, as near as I can tell, a statement of the theories of SCI explaining how TM works. Since I do not profess to knowledge of the inner secrets of SCI or advanced TM training, I am in no position to judge whether that statement is a true statement of the theories of SCI or not. To take a page from your playbook, they could be lying about that. Maybe the way TM "really" works is by invoking the names of the demigods of the Vedas unbeknowst to the TM initiate. Or, alternatively, if some of the other research is to be believed, the sounds are indeed meaningless in the sense that any word can be used for mantra meditation, and achieve the same results as TM. So, you see, you need to think very carefully about what it means to use the word "fact". Fladrif (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this critique. Please substitute the word "principle" from "fact". And I am still waiting for some reference to support your statement of fact that the mantras are names of Hindu demigods. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confounded by questions like this. The source quoted in the article is a reference. You need another? How about the Maharishi himself? "For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life." Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh, Beacon Light of the Himalyas 1955, p. 65. Or Woodroffe, John The Garland of Letters, Ganesh & Co., India, Ninth Edition, 1989, pp257-262. What could be more authoritative than than? Or Sivananda, Japa Yoga: A Comprehensive Treatise on Mantra-Sastra, The Divine Life Society, India, 1992, pp 94-99. Don't make me you your research for you.Fladrif (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif, I was not aware of these sources. --BwB (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, the tag is just a heads up to the reader that this section is currently under discussion and its balance and weight may be in question. The section has been discussed at length twice this past week. I stated there was undue weight to the mantra topic compared to other aspects of the Principles of the Technique. WillBeBack stated that the list of mantras was unnecessary and others voice their opinions as well. But we don't have consensus yet on this. It's still under review. There has been a Neutrality tag hanging on the top of the entire article for many months but I've never heard you complain about that one. And you have hung some tags on the article yourself a time or two, yes? So give us a chance. Us other editors. Wiki is a family event. You like some of your Wiki brothers and sisters more than others but we are still all in this together. It takes time to work these things out. Please be patient. Neither Rome nor a good article was built in a day. Namaste! --Kbob (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hence my question. Weight is a different argument than neutrality. There is a serious issue with the neutrality of the article as a whole. Not so much this section as presently constituted. Which was the whole point of my question above, none of which you've cared to reply to. And yeah, I've added tags to this article. Conflict of Interest and Self-Published IIRC. I'd e happy to answer any questions you may have as to why I think those tags are entirely appropriate. And, no it is not the case that I like some of my fellow editors better than others. I don't know anything about any of the editors other than what they say about themselves in their profiles and posts, buy as everybody knows, every single person who posts on the internet is a pimply 13-year old boy, so what's to distinguish one editor from another. Fladrif (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the reason for the tag is fairly simple, Kbob felt that the many recent additions, which were made without consensus, disproportionally tipped the balance of the section. The question now is: How do we restore balance as per WP:WEIGHT? remove some of the information, which may have been added in inappropriately clarify some topics? I would like to know what all the editors think. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the WEIGHT principle, but it's not clear to me how you're applying it here. To me it doesn't look like the problem with the section has anything to do with balance, but more with flow, meaning, coherence. It reads to an outside reader like a set of unconnected, and even mutually incomprehensible, statements about mantras, without any current of meaning, any organizing principle, holding them together. I'm not sure, even after reading it over five times, what the writers intend for me to learn from this section. Woonpton (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with your analysis, Woon. People just stuck stuff in here piecemeal without considering the whole. This is why Kbob has tagged the section. Hopefully we can all come to a consensus soon and then get this rewritten. --BwB (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my questions: (1) what does this have to do with weight and balance? (Kbob says his concern about the section is that its "weight and balance are in question") and (2) what is the purpose of this section; what is it supposed to be communicating? My comments aren't about what's been added; I haven't kept track of changes and have no interest in that. I just don't see what this section is supposed to be about. What's its central point?Woonpton (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the purpose is to explain the mechanics or principles of the TM technique - how it works. --BwB (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why doesn't it do that? Woonpton (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For those that are new. Here is some background info. Several months ago a few editors brought up the point that there was no description of the technique of TM in the article and they encouraged Olive to write something. She did some research and then posted some proposed copy on the talk page. It was discussed and edited by all the editors on the page at that time. What resulted was the first half of what is now the Principles of the Technique section. The mantra was mentioned in a sentence or two. Recently though 7th made some significant edits to the copy we had agreed on as a group some months ago and also added several sentences of info about the mantra which doubled the size of the section. And so here we are. I am happy to discuss this section. We need to ask: is it a well written section that gives the reader a fair and balanced summary of TM that mirrors the reliable sources available? If not what can we do to improve it?.--Kbob (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the mantra appears to comprise the technique, then it seems to me that the section should include as much information about the mantra as is necessary for the reader to understand what the mantra is, the secrecy or lack of secrecy about the mantra, what's known about where the mantras come from and how they are assigned; that all seems useful, relevant and encyclopedic to me. As to the first part, I don't understand why, after it's already been stated that the technique consists of repeating a mantra, that you need another paragraph quoting the Maharishi as saying the technique is simple and easy to learn. That belongs in an promotional brochure or advertisement, not in an encyclopedia. It's already been shown, without belaboring the point, that the technique is simple and easy to learn.

The fact that the people who were at the page at the time agreed with olive's draft is neither here nor there; consensus isn't determined by whoever happens to around at a particular time, but by the information available in reliable sources. No one has answered my question about why this section is suddenly perceived to be out of balance, to have a weight problem, so I guess I'll have to draw my own conclusions; it looks to me that the people who agreed with olive's draft of the first part of the section (which is not very useful or encyclopedic IMO) considered the section finished at that point, and the fact that other people have added more information since then puts the section "out of balance" in their minds. I hope this isn't the explanation, because it is contrary to policy and to how Misplaced Pages works. Woonpton (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points with fresh eyes: first, I agree with Wooten. Having looked at TM, the mantras seem to be central to it and any discussion of the technique needs to have information about them. If you remove this information from this section then the section is no longer about the technique but, it seems to me, reads like the introduction to a brochure! The raison d'être of a site like Misplaced Pages is to provide as much, concise, unbiased information about a subject as is possible. I am sure that if I was going to pay a lot of money to learn something I would like to know as much neutral information about it, and the organization providing it, as possible. I have looked at the TM website and associated websites and they are all conspicuously silent about the nature of the mantra, which is odd given the quote by editor Fladrif above.

Second: Could someone explain to me why this section has a Neutrality tag please? The section seems very neutral to me and well cited. It maybe that editors here do not agree with what should or should not be in it, but as far as I am aware this is not what a neutrality tag is used for. If the editor/editors could explain here please, listing each of the reasons, it might help me, and others reading this, to come to some understanding. ClaireReal (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't disagree with anything here except my name isn't Wooten. Woonpton (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Every morning a different IP

I've been editing the TM article a bit. I've noticed that a different IP number keeps showing up for my edits. Please realize that all of the 76.76.232 edits in recent days are from the same person -- not a bunch of meats. The last digits of my IP number have variously shown up as 169, 83, and now this morning, 130. Anyway, I didn't really plan on editing the article -- one thing just led to another -- and don't plan to stay around. (Though I did just notice yet another error that I plan to fix later.) 76.76.232.130 (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this Olive? Could you add your name to your IP signature or edit summaries so we don't have to guess? So many numbers!   Will Beback  talk  10:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, its not Olive.(olive (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Timidguy?Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think its spirit of Elvis. :-) --Kbob (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't be. Elvis is working as a barrista at the Water Street Coffee Joint in Kalamazoo MI, and 76.76 etc is posting from beautiful downtown Fairfield.Fladrif (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Glueck study

This study that I just deleted from the Adverse Effects section highly recommends the use of Transcendental Meditation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. There is no mention of adverse effects as an outcome of this study. And certainly there was no mention of suicide attempts. (Do be careful about lifting material from anti-TM websites.) So I've deleted this study for now. Unrelated to the outcomes presented in this study, however, is a nicely nuanced discussion of how TM effects a free interchange of information between the cerebral hemispheres, which allows repressed material to come to conscious awareness. The article stresses the therapeutic value of this while also noting that it can sometimes be uncomfortable. I don't have time to work on this, but it could make a nice addition to the article. And it seems like it should be done in the context of their strong recommendation of TM as a treatment for psychiatric disorders. In any case, the summary of this study that had been put in the Adverse Effects section didn't reflect accurately what it says, and apparently made up the bit about suicide attempts. There are, however, two or three other published reports on this study, so it's possible that suicide attempts were mentioned in one of those. (But given their thorough discussion in this paper, it seems unlikely.) 76.76.232.130 (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's put new topic additions to the Talk page BEFORE the reference section so it does not get missed. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked this guy Glueck up on the Internet, his resume is impressive ] not to be confused with his father, Bernard Sr, who was also a researcher:

• BERNARD C. GLUECK, M.D., is Director of Research of The Institute of Living, Hartford, Connecticut. He is a Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, past-President of the American Psychopathological Association, a Fellow of theAmerican Academy of Psychoanalysis, and has taught at Yale University, University of Minnesota, and Columbia University.His research and clinical interests have included the utilization of computers in psychiatric hospitals, psychotropic chemotherapeutic agents, and personality descriptors.--Kbob (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique compared to relaxation"

It is not appropriate to delete a large section of text from the article that is well sourced without discussion and consensus. If someone has particular issues or questions about the relevance of material, it should be discussed here on the Talk page before removal. Thanks for your cooperation. --BwB (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not removed, it was edited and moved to the Effects on Physiology section. A separate section comparing TM to rest of this length, consisting of summarizing at excessive length the results of multiple studies by the same researchers is not appropriate. This is one of the things that got caught up in the edits of the last two days, during which I pointed this out repeatedly. And, I might note that there is a considerable inconsistincy in complaining that 7th added material without consensus, and repeatedly seeking to delete it, and then reinserting material that an anonymous editor posting from Fairfield inserted with no discussion whatsoever.Fladrif (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments Fladrif. You mention that the section was discussed, but I do not remember the editors coming to a consensus that the section be removed and a summary placed in another section. Please correct me if I am wrong. --BwB (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What I see is that you have deleted seven and one half paragraphs of well written, sourced text from the article. That is the edit you made. This content has already been reverted several times in the past few days. This is a contentious article and this particular topic of research has been very contentious over the past several days and has contributed to an editor being blocked. I think it is time we stopped deleting sourced material without discussion and consensus WP:CONSENSUS. I have issues with several areas of the research sections on this article including the Adverse Effects section and the Effects on Physiology section. In fact the entire research section needs to be discussed and edited in a holistic way. There is old research, new research, there is pro and con, and there is duplication as well. In addition there are areas that are poorly sourced and which misrepresent the research cited. But we need an planned operation with a scalpel not a Saturday afternoon hatchet job. This will take some time and a lot of discussion. Over the past few days there have been immense changes in the article. There has been edit warring. There have been mistakes made on both sides. Now is the time to stop our one-man-army style of editing and discuss first before we make changes. As indicated here today there is no consensus for your edit. I would also recommend that you consider WP:BRD which provides a standard procedure for: bold action by one editor, a revert by another editor, discussion and resolution, before adding/deleting a second time. We are a group of editors and everyone is equal. We need to find a way to work together and make progress in this article. I endorse the method outlined in WP:BRD and am happy to discuss your concerns about the Research section including the Adverse section and the Effects section. Many other editors also want to join in. Please be patient and give us all the time and the opportunity to participate in this process with you. Namaste. --Kbob (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you see, look again. I took 7 1/2 paragraphs describing the work of two researchers, none of it complaint withWP:MEDRS condensed it to two sentences, and moved it to an appropriate place in the article. Accusing me of simply deleting it is inaccurate and inappropriate. And, I am following BRD to the letter. Follow along:

1. BOLD CHANGE - 76.76 Adds the material
2. WAS IT EDITED FURTHER - Yes. I condensed it and moved it to a more appropriate spot, keeping all the substance and all the reverences.
3. WAS IT A REVERT? - No, it was not. See above.

Now, what is the point of continuing to re-insert the original edit from 76.76 on top of the revised material? And even if you continue to mischaracterize my change as a revert, WP:BRD says, if you disagree with the revert, "Take it to the talk page", not "reinsert the reverted material". I am extremely frustrated, and not favorably impressed with this WP:WIKILAWYERING. If people want to edit the article, and have a constructive suggestion, or a rational argument in favor of their position, I'm all ears. I have heard neither on this particular point.Fladrif (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest that discussion focusses on which version is preferable, instead of who's at fault? I think it would be helpful if editors would establish consensus, instead of continuing an edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my point precisely. The material does not warrant 7 1/2 paragraphs. We are talking about a series of studies by the same researchers on a very narrow point - whether there are physiological differences between TM and rest relating to blood chemistry(and not whether there are physiological differences between TM and other relaxation techniques or other meditaiton technques other than rest), a view that is not accepted in mainstream science or medicine. A two-sentence summary of the material, as I have proposed, gives both sides more than enough weight. That argument that Archie Wilson's research should be more prominently featured is not well taken. I have heard no argument whatsoever that it does merit 7 1/2 paragraphs. All I've heard is "No". That's not a reason.Fladrif (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, I respect your opinion that the 7 1/2 paragraphs was too big. However, I do not agree and the reduction of the section into a summary and subsequent deletion of the 7 1/2 paragraphs is not acceptable to me as well as other editors as indicated by the reversion of the deletion of this section several times in the past few days. I believe that at the present time it is not possible to achieve balanced representation of the 400 plus studies on TM until we decide what is the standard criteria for the research we include and what is the standard presentation format we are going to use in the article. At present the TM and Rest section is needed to balance the Adverse Effects section which was recently added to replace a summarized version of that research which was already present in the article. I think once we all agree on standards for the research as I have noted above then we can comb through whats on the article now and even everything out. But the way you are approaching it at present creates imbalance and is not acceptable to me. But I'm just one person so let's give this a few days and hear from other editors about this issue and the idea of having a standard for the acceptance and presentation of the research in the article. Thanks for discussing this and working together towards resolution.--Kbob (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

PS if you have inserted a summarized version of the TM and Rest section you might want to remove it until we have consensus about what to do. Otherwise as you mention, there will be duplication on the topic. Namaste!--Kbob (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As a Reference for other editors just entering the discussion. We are talking about the section called "Effects of the TM Technique Compared to Relaxation". This section consists of 20 sentences representing 10 studies and citations and Fladrif has condensed it into a little more than 2 sentences and inserted it into the general "Research" section as follows:

• The effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have been compared to those of relaxation. Early studies by Michaels of catecholamines, biochemicals associated with stress, and of found that essentially the same results for TM versus rest and plasma renin activity found no significant difference between TM and rest. A series of studies done in the lab of Archie Wilson at the University of California at Irvine between 1978 and 1996 found biochemical differences between the Transcendental Meditation technique and relaxation...

Maybe as a compromise we could distill both the Adverse Effects section and the Effects of TM Compared sections and include and incorporate a summary of both of these sections into the general research section. This means that neither one would have their own special section. Is that a compromise that appeals to anyone? Interested editors could submit sandbox version for other editors to comment on. Is this a way to work together?Kbob (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! This article is a mess! As to this section: "Effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique compared to relaxation" Why is this in the article please? It's difficult to work out from the talk-page here, due to all of the fighting between editors. But this area is already covered in the section above this one: "Effect on the physiology" (Terrible grammar by the way!)

It seems to me that the only reason it is repeated is due to some sort of silly infighting between editors. One editor adds a criticism and this is then followed by an entirely new section full of counter claims. This is very bad for the article and very bad for Misplaced Pages ClaireReal (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument that you are making, KBob, has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of 76.76's 7 1/2 paragraph magnum opus vs my summary of the material. You're claiming that because there is a section in the article that discusses possible adverse psychological side-effects from meditation (giving both sides of that particular dispute, by the way), that you need to "balance that" with a long exposition on physiological effects of TM vs Rest. The two subjects have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Again, I have yet to hear a legitimate argument on the merits of the two alternatives.

Now, as for reaching agreement on what studies to discuss and what studies not to discuss in this article, Woon had made a very reasonable proposal, with which I agree, with which 76.76 appeared to agree, and which 7th was implementing before she was so rudely interrupted. Drop all of the primary sources except meta-analyses from this article. Move all of the primary source material to the new article, per Will's suggestion. The meta-analyses have already done the job of sifting through the mountain of TM studies, and summarizing the evidence and making judgments about what studies are "good" and what studies are "bad" and whether the good ones actually prove anything. The people who did those studies are qualified to make those judgments. Few of the editors here are so qualified, whether or not they have a bias.

But, to take the position that someone simply won't agree to anything on one part of an article until someone agrees to something else on another unrelated part of the article is not a reasonable position. Fladrif (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are proposing Fladrif, with respect to including more meta-analysis. However there are criticism of these meta studies and so maybe some of the primary studies could be included. --BwB (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to this discussion 76.76, the editor who originally posted the copy under discussion here, has today made significant reductions. For me this seems like an acceptable compromise. Fladrif I hope that you are likewise satisfied. PS. I really enjoyed your Elvis cartoon. Nice to see your humorous side! Peace.--Kbob (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not agree and I am not satisfied. I have stated my objections, and make my case for why a two-sentence summary of these primary sources on an excruciatingly narrow point is sufficient, accurate, has appropriate weight and balance. Shortening 7 1/2 paragraphs to 5 1/2 while adding yet more footnotes is not a meaningful improvement. What I have not heard is any specific, relevant argument from anyone as to why 76/76's version is preferable. Not one word. So, I am left with no choice but to assume that none of you have any legitimate argument as you either cannot or will not defend this material in any respect. Based on that, I'm taking it out. The material in the "Effects on Physiology" Section is more than sufficient. Fladrif (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, particularly regarding the undue weight. There is no justification for giving detail from one study that supports your point of view and omitting all detail from the nine studies that do not. The longer version is necessary to clearly show the point of view that there are differences. And detail about EEG should be added. You seem to be engaged in censoring material that is published in peer reviewed journals with which you do not agree. 76.76.233.169 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK Fladrif, I understand that you do not agree and you have a right to your opinion. However, you are deleting sourced, scientific content that has been previously reverted and edit warred. You are doing so while the topic is under discussion and before there is any consensus to remove it. As a compromise to your concerns the section has been reduced and I have made another offer of compromise also. (Summarize the Effects section and the Adverse section and remove them both as special sections.) However, you insist on deleting this large section and replacing it with a two sentence version which does not accurately represent the information, research and citations contained in the original version. I think you might want to take a few minutes to reconsider your actions and motivations. --Kbob (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no agreement for this very large deletion and summary of content. As a matter of fact there is agreement that the material should stay in place, and both the IP and Kbob have offered compromised versions. The information of well sourced content deleted is one issue. The more fundamental issue is behavioural. Only WP:BLP or a copyright violation would allow for a unilateral decision to remove this content. In removing the content despite objections of other editors and their efforts to compromise you violate WP:OWN.(olive (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC))\

"I don't agree" isn't a rational discussion, and it's not a reason. I see a lot of WP:WIKILAWYERING and absolutely no good faith discussion of the issue. Fladrif (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor was it given as a reason, nor is citing policy wikilawyering. The reasons for the reversion of this content are clearly stated above. There have been multiple good faith discussions that include two compromises. Your choice to disregard the compromises, delete in spite of the objections of three editors, and in the middle of a discussion as to whether to include or exclude the content, to continue to delete, looks a lot like WP:Disruption.(olive (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Having seen the arguments pro and con for whether or not to keep the long version of the TM vs. Rest section, I am thinking that it would be far better to present a summary of the points from TM vs. Rest, and the Adverse Effects of TM in the Scientific Research section, and not to dedicate a section for each. It seems completely unnecessary to give them such prominence in the article. Might I suggest undue weight compared to other sections of the article. --BwB (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Advert tag on Teaching Procedures section

I've removed a short bit of content on cost of TM in the US in an effort to help remedy the concern that the section sounds like an advert. I'm not attached to the edit so if others aren't comfortable with it, please revert. Since Misplaced Pages isn't American, and since I believe fee structures are different in every country, listing the cost of fees in this country but not others seems a little lopsided.(olive (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Yes, this is something that I was thinking about myself - that TM is taught all over the world but this article is a little US centric. Perhaps we could rectify this as follows: (1) In the lede we talk about TM copyright being licensed to the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation U.S.A. Is that only for teaching activities in the USA? What about TM taught in other countries? We need to expand to the world; and, (2) perhaps in the History section we can include some information about the development of TM in other countries. There may be other ways we can "internationalize" the article. --BwB (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I always felt the price shouldn't be there and if it was it should have been a list of all prices for students, children etc. The editor David Spector made a case for its inclusion and maybe he would like to comment here about his reasons. Also, I'm cautious about lists in the article and don't see the need of listing the mantras. This point was echoed earlier by WillBeBack. But I guess that is a separate discussion.--Kbob (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as international, currently MFL and MVED are noted as UK and USA corps respectively, creating an int'l appeal and can therefore stay, in my opinion.--Kbob (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made several edits to this section and reduced it to less than 3 sentences. I removed copy that was excessive or repetitive and tried to state the info in a neutral and more encyclopedic tone. I hope other editors find my changes satisfactory.--Kbob (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that but do not think it is enough. Let's see what else can be done. --BwB (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an important section. I don't want to devote my time to researching TM, but if necessary I will. From the little reading I've done in the past, the circumstances of teaching, including the cost, are significant issues that have been raised again and again in reliable, mainstream sources. I don't see the user who placed the tag participating in this discussion. Short of doing my own research, I'll restore any sourced, neutral material on the topic that seems appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure go ahead and revert the cost section. I guess I don't see its significance, since fees change and are different in almost every country...And when you start talking about money things tend to sound like an advert. It seems a little odd to leave a tag on the section for sounding like an advertisement, but then putting in the very information that marks most ads, money, but no problem, not attached.(olive (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Sorry. My opinion of course, and not speaking for any other editors. They may feel differently about it.(olive (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

I have three points for consideration by the group:

• I asked the editor who place the tag (PopUpPirate) to specify what his objections are and he said he didn't know enough about it and that he was just making a general comment. So we have to use our good sense to decide.
• I think putting in the fee makes it blatantly commercial. Does anyone know of any Wiki articles that list the fee for their product or service? I have never seen it, has anyone else?
• If we are going to include the fee, we should include all of the fees and not just cherry pick one fee. So we would need to list the fee for adults, students, children, couples, retired folks etc. Also what about the fees for the 60 other services and courses that are mentioned in the article lede?

I think we need to consider all of these elements in our decision. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kbob's points and these are the concerns I have. We also have to realize that the fees for the US are not the same for the UK and for the Philippines, for example. Focusing on the US fees creates a nationalistic-like section. At the same time I don't want to get into bitter and prolonged discussions on this so will go with the group decision. I'll save the prolonged discussion for something that to me at least has more importance.(olive (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

For everyone's reference and discussion. Here are the fees as listed on the official TM web site: Special Reduced Fees Through September 30th In order to help more people immediately participate in our TM courses, the fees are being reduced by 25% from now through the end of September. Course fees for the United States are now:

• Adult course fee: $1500
• Full-time student: $750
• Those in financial need, for example, retired people on fixed income, and single parents in need: $750
• Couple: $1500 + $750 for partner
• Children under 18 (if learning to meditate with a parent): $375

--Kbob (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the fees themselves are important. What's important is the controversy over the fees.   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel we should list the course fees for TM in the US. I already feel the article is too US-centric and since TM is taught all over the world, we do not want to have to do a country-by-country list. I also agree with the thinking that putting in a price make it more "brochure ware". --BwB (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BwB, that is a very good point. Misplaced Pages, English version included, is an international encyclopedia, and listing prices of the US only is quite inappropriate, removing them is a better option. And this, is in addition to the fact that the price should be removed in any case, due to the advertising tag--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Due to the advertising tag" is not, by itself, a legitimate reason for doing anything. The person who applied the tag hasn't engaged in a discussion about it. And the tag is not a policy. At most the tag is an assertion by one person that he thinks there may be problems. That said, I'll repeat that I dn't think the specific, current price in the U.S. necessary. It can be summarized as "thousands". The main issue is that it is a "significant investment". There is also an issue about how the money is paid to instructors, IIRC.   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to post the price of TM on the page. As mentioned by another editor, Wiki articles on other products and services do not carry price information, irrespective of whether it is "a "significant investment" or not. And the price cannot be summarized as thousands because TM is taught all over the world and prices vary according to country. --BwB (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything can be summarized. "Course fees vary, ranging up to thousands of dollars in the U.S."(According to a source, the U.S. fee was $2500 until reduced due to the financial crisis.)   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to summarize where we are at in this thread. The section under discussion is Teaching Procedures. Currently it has an Advertisement tag. Olive removed the sentence about price. I have edited the remaining section down to less than 3 sentences and giving it a more straightforward, encyclopedic tone. BWB says he might like to cut it back further. So I want to be clear that, Will, you stand alone as the sole editor who wants to include something in the section about the price. Since we are a group and we function via consensus I am willing to try and accommodate your desire. You have suggested we have a summary of the fees. OK, but it should be an accurate summary such as "current fees range from $375 to $1500" instead of vague phrases like: "thousands of dollars". Also if you want to summarize fees from the past then the summary should also be accurate and should say spomething like "past fees ranged from $35 to $2,500". We should not cherry pick fees from a specific range of years. What do you suggest we do?--Kbob (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Including all past fees would be absurd unless the time periods and places are included. If you want to include a fee from the 1960s, or whenever, it should be labelled. Something like "Course fees in the U.S. have ranged from $35 in 1970 to $2500 in 2007. Fees in other countries vary." Again, in case I am not making myself clear, what is most important to report are the views about those fees. Finally, let me remind everyone here that consensus does not override NPOV. NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm with you on that. We should represent all points of view. Also I agree the range of years should be included with fees. We agree. So now we need a reliable source to document the range of fees and the 'controversy' about them. Do you have something in mind? --Kbob (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, in fact Misplaced Pages does not say we should present all points of view but rather that the majority viewpoint should be given prominence, the minority viewpoint prominence according to its relative weight to the mainstream sources, and tiny fringe minorities probably no mention at all. So we need to assess what the viewpoint is on the issue of fees, I would think, in order to know how to treat its inclusion. Do we have such information?(olive (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Yes, good points about weight, mainstream sources etc. I just want to again say that, in general, the inclusion of the fees is not desirable and tends to give a commercial feel. However, I'm keeping an open mind while we drill down to specific sources.--Kbob (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any good sources at hand, other than what we can find on the Internet. Doesn't anyone have sources that mention this? If I go to the library and start digging into this we're likely to get something like this, and then the section would have to be 3000 words long. ;)   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope.No sources on this.(olive (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

I had a look at the TM.org web site and see that the fees are published there. --BwB (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen several news articles that mention in passing that TM is high priced. Sometimes they even state the price, sometimes not. But in my research for this article I do not recall seeing any significant discussion about controversy over the price of TM. By the way Will, I appreciate your interjecting a little humor in your comment. I think a little tasteful, humor on the page is good now and then. Cheers! --Kbob (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the article and, since all reference to price had been taken out, I have removed the advert tag. There's no longer a need for it. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Range of Studies

I have been reading thru the article again to get a overall sense of the coherence of the material. While there are many areas that need attention, this section called "Range of Studies" grabbed my attention. I am wondering why we need this section? Perhaps the content could be included in the other Research sections. The section currently reads:

Studies conducted by the TM Movement's Maharishi University of Management or by present, past or future members of its faculty, have suggested a positive correlation between the Transcendental Meditation technique and possible health-related physiological states, including improvement in lung function for patients with asthma, reduction of high blood pressure, an effect the researchers termed "younger biological age," decreased insomnia, reduction of high cholesterol, reduced illness and medical expenditures, decreased outpatient visits, decreased cigarette smoking, decreased alcohol use, and decreased anxiety. --BwB (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A summary may be fine but should be accurate. This would seem to suggest that the only research done was by MUM faculty and that research results showed only positive correlations ... both are inaccurate.(olive (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Have we identified and attributed the studies that included past or present MUM faculty? That would seem like a good first step regardless of other edits.   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh. Well we've been thorough that so many times. If a study is in a peer reviewed, established journal its good enough for Misplaced Pages, and if its good enough for Misplaced Pages its good enough for the TM article. After all we can't change the policies and guidelines just for this article. The summary should probably be rewritten or removed since little about it is accurate.(olive (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

I just looked at the list and a number of those studies were by individuals who've never had any affiliation with the university, so I deleted the error that had been inserted. 76.76.232.130 (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved the "Range of Studies" section to the top of the Research section. It makes sense to have this as an opening and then the details to follow. --BwB (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Benson sentence in Effects on Physiology section

I have to admit that this is just silly: highlighting an author of an early study acknowledging the limitations of the study. The study itself probably acknowledges its limitations. This is the norm. It's not a scandal. These first studies are included for historical reasons. WP:MEDRS says that such a section can be included. Let's just rename the section, move out later studies, and let the history section be a history section. It's also historically important because this early research got so much national mediation attention, such as the Time magazine article that is referenced. Outside of the History section, I suggest that we simply exclude any study that didn't have a control group. According to Ospina Bond, there are over 200 studies on TM that do have control groups. That gives us plenty of material to work with. And I'd be fine if we excluded any study based on an ad hoc questionnaires. 76.76.232.130 (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

These are good suggestions. I agree that the early studies are of historic significance, not only because they got "national mediation attention", but because they where among the first studies (if not the first studies) to look at the effects of a mental technique on the physiology. --BwB (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I question the wisdom of omitting studies without a control group. There are several research designs that are fully acceptable without control groups. Some of these have no possible control groups (for example, looking at longitudinal changes specific to a single individual). It is easy to imagine studies that examine, for example, EEG changes in single subjects with unique characteristics before, during, and after practice of the technique. To exclude this potentially important class of studies would not be scientific and would not be justified. It all depends on the type of question being asked. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of Paragraph--Off Topic, Unreliable Source

I would like to remove the following paragraph from the article:

• "The Maharishi stated of the mantras: "Thus, we find that any sound can serve our purpose of training the mind to become sharp. But, we do not select the sound at random....because such ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not select any words at random. For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life." ]

Here are my reasons:

• The source does not mention the article topic of Transcendental Meditation and so the quote above appears to be a general comment. If we connect it to TM, than that is OR as the source document does not mention Transcendental Meditation.
• The source is self published and in violation of Wiki guidelines for reliable sources

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

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. --Kbob (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence below from the Origin section may also need to be deleted for the same reasons as stated above.

• The records of this "Spirtual Development Conference" held in Cochin in October 1955 were published as "Beacon Light of the Himalayas" --Kbob (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And this one also:

• Of "Guru Dev", the Maharishi wrote: "In the English Language, his devotees felt that the expression "His Holiness" did not adequately describe this personified Divine Effulgence; and so the new expression "His Divinity" was used. With such unique adoration of newer and fuller grandeur, transcending the glories of the expression of antiquity, was worshiped the holy name of Guru Deva, the living expression of Upanishadic Reality, the embodiment of the transcendent Divinity.

I can only assume that this is your idea of a joke, right? You really expect to be taken seriously that the book isn't about TM and isn't a reliable source? "The Beacon Light of the Himalayas" is the Maharishi's first published book on Transcendental Meditation. I understand from elsewhere on the web that the TM org has tried to supress this book the last 40 years or so. Don't know if that's true or not, but it is awful odd that it doesn't show up on any of the TM Org bibliographies, since it is such a historically important document. Fladrif (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see Fladrif's point but at the same time we are bound by the boundaries of an encyclopedia rather than by research paper methodologies. I think the issue here is purely technical. The book is self published and may fall below the threshold for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. However, this requires some serious discussion that could focus on:

• Whether we will allow into the article a self published book
• Do we set a precedent by using a self published bbok
• Is the book written completely by Maharishi .... seems to be some indications there are other writers involved .... does anyone see that.
• Whether its use by other authors gives us a reason to use it here...
• Can it be used by citing through another more reliable reference...

There are cases when certain allowances can be made in an article... do we want to go that route...

There are no answers just questions so far... so lets see what we can come up with.(olive (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm not convinced that this falls within the scope of "self-published" at all. It says it was published and printed by A.N Menon(p167), who it says was the organizer of the 1955 conference (p6). Other than including his intro (p6) and his welcoming speech (pp 43-49), this isn't his text. The secondary sources cited above characterize this as the Maharishi's first published book on TM; it was clearly done on his behalf and so was not "self-published" in that sense at all. And, if it is regarded as "self-published" it would seem to fall within the scope of self published sources that can be use in an article. WP:SELFPUB Clearly, MMY is an expert on TM; you have no problem with his other self-published books. I note that you both were also zealous advocates for including DO-J's self-published web site as a source in the article on cults, nothwithstanding that he has no recogized expertise in that subject whatsoever. The position here is wholly inconsistent with your position in that discussion.Fladrif (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

These are good points and I agree it is deserving of some discussion. On the one hand Fladrif has given some valid references where the document is mentioned and referred to as the Maharishi's book. On the other hand we have some additional things to consider:

• The document describes itself not as a book but as a "souvenir" of the Great Spiritual Development Conference.
• A significant portion of the book is photos and text in Hindi or Sanskrit
• The document consists primarily of letters dedications and speeches by many other individuals
• Only 18 pages out of 170 pages contain text that is attributed to the Maharishi
• There is an announcement on the cover for "spiritual practices" attributed to the Maharishi but no mention of Transcendental Meditation
• The second page says the 'souvenir' is dedicated to the 'Maharshi Bala Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj
• The Maharishi is not cited anywhere in the 'souvenir' as the author
• It is not clear who authored or published the document
• The conference took place in 1955 which was years before the term Transcendental Meditation came into existence
• The subject of this article, Transcendental Meditation, is never mentioned anywhere in the book including the text attributed to the Maharishi--Kbob (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate that I am not stating a position on this, but am laying out some discussion points. I don't think this is a clear cut case for anything, nor is like anything else we've dealt with... Lets just look at it dispassionately with policy in mind and try to come to a decision...and... If the content is considered crucial to the article is there another place we can find it.(olive (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, you've raised some good points about SELFPUB. That still leaves us with a few issues to consider but let's give other editors a chance to also chime in and hear their points of view and see where it take us.--Kbob (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential Unreliable sources

We need page numbers and/or links that go directly to the source page. At present we have only links to the book covers.

• This mantra is chosen according to the students age and gender at the time of the ceremony. --Kbob (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the Bainbridge ref. I can add the second ref tomorrow.(olive (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Olive, I am going through all the refs to improve accuracy in the article.--Kbob (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a page number for this one too, anyone? Thanks for your help.

• It was the first and only organization to teach the TM technique until 1965, when the Student International Meditation Society was incorporated.--Kbob (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also need page number for this source otherwise the sentence may be challenged and removed.

• Dr Peter Fenwick has pointed out that the neurological changes in a TM meditators brain, as reported by TM researchers, are identical to those found during epileptic seizures, comas and death --Kbob (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual Regeneration Foundation

The text below is not supported by the citation. There is nothing in the source that mentions Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi or a Board of Trustees.

• The "Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation" was incorporated in California in 1959 with a seven member board of trustees led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi --Kbob (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind I have found another source and have amended the sentence to accurately reflect the new source.--Kbob (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence below as it was not supported by the source. If another source can be found the content can be put back in the article. One portion of the sentence below was contained in the source re: SRF certificate says "religious" corp, so I incorporated this point into the first sentence where it fit better anyway.

• Its articles of incorporation stated that the Foundation's primary purpose for formation was spiritual, and in Article 11 that "this corporation is a religious one. The educational purpose shall be to give instruction in a simple system of meditation." --Kbob (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is supported by the citation, which is to the decision in Malnak. Your deletions and changes are improper and factually wrong. SRMF was not incorporated in 1961, it was incorporated July 7, 1959. You would do well to check the archives of the Talk page before making changes like this. If you did, you would find that olive and I already went through this exercise once, and the text you changed was something that we came to agreement on as factually accurate. SeeTalk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_18#New_addition_SRM I'm not going to go through all 100 of your unilateral edits from this morning, though I'm tempted to revert them all. Go back and undo this. And while you're at it, go read what you're actually supposed to do when you come across a dead link instead of deleting the material. Fladrif (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

HI Fladrif, thanks for your comments. I have added the source you cited and edited the sentence to favor the 1959 incorporation date. I have also noted in the sentence that another reliable source that references a court case gives 1961 as the time of incorporation. This second source is one that was already in the article, not one that I brought in myself. Regarding my many edits. I think if you look at them you will find that they are of small edits that create accuracy and alignment with the sources cited. None of them are to significant but if you have issues with any. I am happy to explain and discuss as needed.--Kbob (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Price article did not say that SRMF was incorporated in 1961. Byt, assuming arguendo that it did, explain to me what it adds to the article to say, when we all know for a fact that SRMS was incorporated July 7, 1959, that another source said 1961? This is not something that someone can have a legitimate disagreement about, so it's not like presenting both sides of a controversy. Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was aware also that there were cleanup issues in the article, references to page covers for example. I think its great Kbob is doing this clean up... means I don't have to do it... and if any editor questions the changes then he has offered to discuss and explain... so I think this is fine.(olive (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, the source that has been in this section of the article for some time states: "It was called the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation. A certificate of incorporation, written in 1961, made no bones about the fact that "this corporation is a religious one" (article eleven)." ] So for accuracy I have noted that there is a reliable source with conflicting information. Why is there conflicting info? I don't know. Maybe they incorporated in another state in 1961. I have no idea. I am just accurately recording in the article what the sources say.--Kbob (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Term "Movement"

If we want to remain neutral, use of the term "movement" to describe the legal entities responsible for offering instruction in the Transcendental Meditation technique is not acceptable. It is a pejorative term with distinct connotations and has no legal status. (No one can petition the TM "movement." We can only petition a legal organization.) I suggest a new expression such as "the legal entities offering instruction in the technique." Does anyone have a better expression than this? Also, we might question the accuracy of the number 60 in this sentence. The whole sentence is a newspaper article quote of one instructor. Did he just pull this from thin air? ChemistryProf (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points Chem, I had the same thought about this phrase in the lede "The Transcendental Meditation technique is one of sixty services and courses offered by the Transcendental Meditation movement". First we have the issue of term 'movement' but also I feel that a personal quote from a random TM teacher is not an authoritative enough source to use as a characterize for the entire organization in the lede of the article. The sentence is reliable sourced so it has a place in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the lede. the purpose of the lead is to introduce and summarize the entire article. I'm not sure this sentence belongs here. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that the use of this term is not in the best interests of the article since it is a general almost cliche ridden term that does not specifically describe anything. Still as I remember the TM organization itself uses this term on occasion in which case we can reference that as a source. I can't find the sources which refer directly to the organization. Maybe someone else can, and maybe one such ref should be included. At any rate, in order to not use this term we would need agreement from a majority of editors, and in the past we haven't had that. Bottom line: It can be sourced to the organization itself and is a form of self definition, apparently, a strong reason to use it here, like it or not.(olive (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

100 edits without discussion

Explain, in addition to the question above, why these changes without discussion. These can hardly be described as "cleanup".

Its articles of incorporation stated that the Foundation's primary purpose for formation was spiritual, and in Article 11 that "this corporation is a religious one. The educational purpose shall be to give instruction in a simple system of meditation."

Enrollment in the Transcendental Meditation course in the United States dropped from a peak of 40,000 per month in 1975, to 3,000 to 10,000 per month two years later partly because the Maharishi invited several thousand TM teachers to his headquarters in Switzerland. None of these sources support the "3000 to 10,000". They say 3000. Leyland says below 10,000. That's not 3000 to 10,000.

Justify replacing this:

Benson acknowledged methodological weaknesses and bias in the study he co-authored with Wallace, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology done in the 1970s had methodological weaknesses, and that early studies using control groups showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest. According to a 1984 article in the New York Times, claims by researchers associated with the Maharishi University of Management that TM has unique effects on body chemistry and blood flow different from other relaxation methods were not shared by the scientific community at large, and TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice. A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research concluded that the interest in meditation as a therapy for health-problems such as hypertension, stress and chronic pain is based on anecdotal evidence and studies of poor quality, and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced".

With This

+ In her book "Stress Management" author Cotton says: “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).According to a 1984 article in the New York Times, fifteen years of research on multiple kinds of meditation techniques has left the question of meditation's physiological effects more confused than clarified.

Why is this included? Twice? According to Time Magazine Transcendental Meditation owes something to all major religious traditions—Christianity, Judaism and Islam, as well as the Eastern faiths— because at one time or another they have included both meditation and the repetition of a mantra-like word. Fladrif (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I made a large number of edits and I'm glad you're bringin up the ones you don't feel comfortable with. I will respond underneath each one above in most cases with direct quotes from the sources. It will take me a little bit but I will do it today. Thanks.--Kbob (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

References

3. Perez-De-Abeniz, Alberto and Holmes, Jeremy. Meditation: Concepts, Effects and Uses in Therapy. International Journal of Psychotherapy, March 2000, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p49, 10p.
4. Castillo, Richard J. Depersonalization and meditation. Psychiatry; Interpersonal and Biological Processes. May 1990, pp158-168
5. French, Alfred P. et al. Transcendental meditation, altered reality testing and behavioral change. A case report. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1975, p55.
6. The Various Implications Arising from the Practice of Transcendental Meditation: An empirical analysis of pathogenic structures as an aid in counseling. Bensheim, Germany: (Institut fur Jugend Und Gesellschaft, Ernst-Ludwig-Strasse 45, 6140.) Institute for Youth and Society, 1980 (188 pgs
7. Glueck, Bernard and Charles F. Stroebel. Meditation in the treatment of psychiatric illness. Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives (722 pages), edited by Deane Shapiro and Roger Walsh. New York: Alden Publications, 1984, p150
8. Hecht, Esther, Peace of Mind. Jerusalem Post, 01-23-1998, pp 12.
9. Heide, Frederick J. and T.D. Borkovec. Relaxation-induced anxiety enhancement due to relaxation training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1983, p171.
10. Heide, Frederick J. and T.D. Borkovec. Relaxation-induced anxiety: mechanism and theoretical implications. Behavioral Research Therapy, 1984, pp1-12.
11. Persinger, Michael A, Norman J. Carrey and Lynn A. Suess. TM and Cult Mania (198 pages). North Quincy, Massachusetts: Christopher Publishing House, 1980.
12. Persinger, Michael A., Laurentian University. Transcendental meditation and general meditation were associated with enhanced complex partial epileptic-like signs: evidence for 'cognitive' kindling? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1993.
13. Persinger, Michael A. Enhanced incidence of 'the sensed presence' in people who have learned to meditate; support for the right hemispheric intrusion hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1992, 75, pp1308-1310.
14. Lifton, Robert J. Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. Chapel Hill, South Carolina: The University of South Carolina Press, 1989 (510 pages).
15. Lazarus, Arnold A. Psychiatric problems precipitated by transcendental meditation. Psychological Reports, 1976, pp601-602.
16. Lazarus, Arnold A. Meditation: The Problems of Unimodal Technique. Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives New York: Alden Publications, 1984, p. 691.
18. Brothers, Joyce, “Meditation, a filter for anxiety?”, ‘’Chicago Tribune’’ (March 11, 1973) Sec 5 p D6
19. Fiske, Edward B., “Thousands finding meditation eases stress of living”. ‘’New York Times’’, (December 11, 1972) New Jersey Section, p82
20. DeVault, John, “TM doesn’t work for everyone” , ‘’Penn State Daily Collegian’’, (October 16, 1975)
21. “The transcendental trial; An apostate says meditation caused psychic damage”, ‘’Philadelphia Inquirer’’ (January 9, 1987) p D01
22. Drennan, William and Chermol, Brian, “Relaxation and placebo-suggestion as uncontrolled variables in TM Research”, ‘’ Journal of Humanistic Psychology’’ Vol. 18, No. 4, 89-93 (1978)
23. LaMore, George E Jr. “The secular selling of a religion”, ‘’The Christian Century’’ (December 10, 1975) pp 1133-1137
24. Phelan, Michael, “Transcendental Meditation. A Revitalization of the American Civil Religion / La Méditation Transcendantale, une revivification de la religion civile américaine” ‘’Archives des sciences socials des religions’’ Vol 48-1 (1979) pp 5-20
25. "Mind over drugs" Time (October 25, 1971)
26. Wagstaff, Beverly, "Meditators", Eugene Register-Guard (January 8, 1977) p B-1
27. Eckholm, Erik "Value of Meditation Against Stress Questioned", New York Times, (July 24, 1984)
28. "No clear evidence meditation can boost health: Study", Washington Post (July 13, 2007)
29. "Mind over drugs" Time (October 25, 1971)
39. Group Says Movement a Cult, The Washington Post, Phil McCombs, July 2, 1987
40. Michael A. Persinger et al., Christopher Pub House, May 1980, ISBN 0815803923
42. Ray Wallis (1984), "The elementary forms of the new religious life", pp 101-102
43. Jean-Marie Abgrall, Soul Catching: the mechanisms of Cults, p164
44. Paul A. B. Clarke, Andrew Linzey (Eds) (1996) "Dictionary of ethics, theology and society" p 205
46. http://proposal.permanentpeace.org/research/index.html]
47. "Mind over drugs" Time (October 25, 1971)
48. Wagstaff, Beverly, "Meditators", Eugene Register-Guard (January 8, 1977) p B-1
49. "The TM craze: 40 minutes to bliss", Time (October 13, 1975)
50. Phelan, Michael, "Transcendental Meditation. A Revitalization of the American Civil Religion / La Méditation Transcendantale, une revivification de la religion civile américaine" Archives des Sciences Sociales des Religions Vol 48-1 (1979)pp 5-20
51. Eckholm, Erik "Value of Meditation Against Stress Questioned", New York Times, (July 24, 1984)
52. [http://books.google.com/books?id=oLsECokSFHwC&vq Cotton, Dorothy H.G., Stress Managemetn: An Integrated Approach to Therapy Psychology Press, 1990 ISBN 0876305575, 9780876305577 pp 138-141]
53. "No clear evidence meditation can boost health: Study", Washington Post (July 13, 2007)
54. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ospina was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
55. [http://onwww.net/trancenet.org/research/2000perezdealbeniz.shtml Alberto Perez-De-Albeniz and Jeremy Holmes, "Meditation: concepts, effects and uses in therapy", International Journal of Psychotherapy Mar 2000, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p49, 10p]
57. Chryssides, George D., Exploring New Religions Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001 ISBN 0826459595, 9780826459596
59. Price, Robert M., "Scientific Creationism and the Science of Creative Intelligence", Creation Evolution Journal Vol 3 No 1 (Winter 1982)pp 18-23
60. Malnak v Yogi, 440 F.Supp 1284(D.N.J. 1977)
61. Ryan, Leyland, "Transcendental Meditation hits hard times", The Colombia Missourian (January 8, 1978) p.B3
62. "Seer of Flying" Time (August 8, 1977)
63. Cited: The sociology of religious movements; William Sims Bainbridge (1997)
64. "Mind over drugs" Time (October 25, 1971)
65. Wagstaff, Beverly, "Meditators", Eugene Register-Guard (January 8, 1977) p B-1
66. "The TM craze: 40 minutes to bliss", Time (October 13, 1975)
67. Phelan, Michael, "Transcendental Meditation. A Revitalization of the American Civil Religion / La Méditation Transcendantale, une revivification de la religion civile américaine" Archives des Sciences Sociales des Religions Vol 48-1 (1979)pp 5-20
68. Eckholm, Erik "Value of Meditation Against Stress Questioned", New York Times, (July 24, 1984)
69. [http://books.google.com/books?id=oLsECokSFHwC&vq Cotton, Dorothy H.G., Stress Managemetn: An Integrated Approach to Therapy Psychology Press, 1990 - ISBN 0876305575, 9780876305577 pp 138-141]
70. "No clear evidence meditation can boost health: Study", Washington Post (July 13, 2007)
71. Eckholm, Erik "Value of Meditation Against Stress Questioned", New York Times, (July 24, 1984)
72. Time Magazine, The TM Craze, 1975 ]

• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics