Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Recent addition to physiology section

Moving new material here for discussion:

While the first study published in Science indicated some measurable changes, 2 subsequent papers were unable to find significant effects of TM on the parameters measured (TM was no different than sleep or resting by several measures). Several papers were also published in Lancet during the same era as the Science papers: one was a small study (7 patients with no control group), 2 others appear to be brevia or editorials and do not have Medline abstracts, and 1 20-patient study concludes that TM is unlikely to lower blood pressure). Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed research journal. Contemporary references include a meta-analysis of blood pressure studies that concluded "All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization." PubMed Unique Identifiers for these references are 775639, 1108200, 5416544, 63713, 55533, 4112606, 4191449, 15480084.

Let's maybe look point by point. Regarding differences between TM and relaxation. Yes, there are common effects among TM and relaxation and other meditations, such as reduced metabolism. But there are a range of unique effects. See archives of this Talk page for a detailed discussion. We might want to add a section detailing commonalities and uniquenesses. I do, though, feel that having this statement without such context isn't completely warranted. Regarding the second point on articles in the Lancet -- the study with 20 subjects is already mentioned in this article in the section titled Research in medical journals. (And note that the study involving 20 subjects also had no control group.) These small uncontrolled studies would seem superseded by subsequent randomized controlled trials with over 1,000 subjects. The mention of Scientific American is largely for historical interest. This section mentions these first studies simply because they commenced the published research.

---

Point taken on Lancet studies...although these studies are promoted by TM.org to give credibility to the field, without disclosing that the studies were non-controlled or negative (the 20-subject study used an internal control) and there have been no subsequent publications in Lancet on meditation. However, if the Science study is of historical interest, of equal interest then is the fact that this peer-reviewed study could not be independently validated, and the failure to validate those finding was worthy of 2 publications. See cold fusion. Kodoz (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

They themselves have largely been superseded. Certainly I'm open to ideas for revision. And regarding the final point, there have been to my knowledge at least four metaanalyses published in the past two years. They all find that Transcendental Meditation reduces hypertension. They all find randomized controlled trials that meet their rigorous inclusion criteria.

---

I found one (using the search terms meditation and hypertension, with the limits human/english/metanalysis) that developed its own rating system for establishing the quality of a study, even though there are established practices for evidence-based medicine protocols when assessing study quality. So you are correct...this metanalysis met "their rigorous inclusion criteria", but was unwilling to accept established EBM practice. If the other metanalyses break from established practices, they are equally useless, and if they aren't indexed in MedLine, they're not worth consideration. Include references to them. Kodoz (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The review by Canter & Ernst isn't actually a metaanalsys

---

It is a systematic review, however, which is a literature study. I haven't read the methods, but the authors disclose their methods for conducting the systematic review, and during peer-review, their methodology is subject to criticism as would be any other scientific study. The difference between a metanalysis and a systematic review is that a metanalysis attempts to use statistics to pool results from many trials--a commonly used method that is prone to methodological errors and does not necessarily evaluate study methodology. Methodological flaws, nonconventional methods for assessing efficacy, study design problems...all of those are swept under the table in a metanalysis.Kodoz (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

and its publication precedes some of the most significant research.

---

The studies published since this literature review have been largely conducted by the same groups that have been previously involved in TM research. Potential issues of bias and lack of independent validation have therefore not been addressed, and no number of subsequent RCTs or metanalyses of flawed data will change that. Kodoz (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If it were to be referenced, then one might want to put in the context of the later metaanalyses, and also include the response published by the same journal. I guess my feeling is that a review may be more subjective and less rigorous than a metaanalysis. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to discuss. Maybe see the threads above for the usual way of organizing an interaction. Or WP:TP. Please understand that Wikipedia policy guides the content of articles. There is, for example, no Wikipedia policy that accords less credibility to studies depending on the individual's affiliation.

In general, I feel your additions, as they currently stand, may not be in accord with Wikipedia policy. I feel your treatment of Canter & Ernst is a violation of undue weight. It can be added, but it's a violation of undue weight to not put it in the context of the of other research, reviews and metaanalyses. (And it should go in the proper section in this article.) In addition to Anderson, recent studies include a metaanalysis in Current Hypertension Reports [1] and a review in Current Hypertension Reviews.[2] If you feel that the Anderson metaanalysis isn't credible because of methodology, you would need, per Wikipedia policy, to find a source that says this. This metaanlaysis was published in a top medical journal, so it must have some merit. Also, if we include Canter & Ernst, we would need to include information from the response that was published (which, for example, noted their own biases). A metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials is considered a high-quality assessment in this Wikipedia page.Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Reliable_sources#Assess_the_quality_of_evidence_available In sum, giving Canter & Ernst so much weight out of context isn't really appropriate. You can't cherry pick a review that has a strong point of view and not put it in context of the other literature, per Wikipedia policy.

If you're concerned about the three studies that are of historical interest, as I noted above, we can revise that section. We don't need to include those. There are dozens of others. Of special importance is the series of studies done in the lab of Archie Wilson at the University of California at Irvine, which show unique effects. I think we could create a more useful section.

If you want to criticize the reference to particular studies on a TM-related web page, you have to find a source that does so. Wikipedia editors aren't themselves allowed to insert their own opinion. The relevant (and core) policy of Wikipedia is WP:NOR.

I may revert your changes so that we can rework them and come to consensus. There are just too many facets of your additions that need work, such as the use of language that's not neutral, personal comments and observations ("The lack of independent validation of the physiological effects of TM continues to be a hindrance to research in this field" and your observation about the authorship of subsequent publications) not allowed per WP:NOR, and other issues. Let's see if we can come to consensus, and I think the easiest way to do so would be to work on one aspect at a time. Please don't just add the material again, as there is a Wikipedia policy against edit warring. The preferred method is collaboration. TimidGuy (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

In summary, there's a reason this entry is flagged as possibly biased: the studies that are included are slanted, and any additions that offer conflicting data that would balance the overly positive slant of the existing article are criticized and removed as being negatively biased. "My opinions" are supported by the literature, and do not conflict with Wikipedia policies. Maybe all the sunshine studies that currently comprise the article should be moved here and debated to the same degree as the not-so-favorable studies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodoz (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Next steps on physiology section

I'm glad we're putting attention on this section, since I do think it can be improved. I'd like to reserve this section for non-clinical research. It could begin with the three historical studies. Then there could be a couple sentences about the subsequent research showing generalized effects of relaxation techniques, while also showing different neurophysiological signatures. I thought I had a good source for this general statement but can't find it at the moment. Then we could move on the the research that distinguishes the physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation from relaxation. What does everyone think? TimidGuy (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You should not use any sentences which indicate that there are generally different neurophysiological signatures between TM and other relaxation methodologies; there aren't any studies which indicate this. We've been over this before, and it would do you good to review the detailed responses to the several studies you proposed using to indicate this, responses which you seemed not to take into account when continuing to press the topic. 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturezak (talk • contribs)

Agreed. The "historical studies" should be either removed completely or balanced by the follow-up studies which effectively dismissed their conclusions. Simply finding a study that supports the other claims you would like to make is not sufficient: the controversy around the effects of TM are the studies that have not supported these claims, the individuals involved in the positive studies, and the scientific quality of the study. --Kodoz (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved here for editing

Research studies have described specific physiological effects that occur during the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique.

Proposed change to: The hypothesized effects of transcendental meditation have been studied clinically.

The first of these studies was published in the early 1970s in Science, American Journal of Physiology, and Scientific American..

Proposed change to: The first of these studies was published in the 1970s in Science and American Journal of Physiology by Robert Keith Wallace, who reported differences between a state of "restful alertness" and other resting states. However, these findings were not independently validated in subsequent studies by other researchers: these groups found that TM did not lower blood pressure , was biochemically indistinguishable from rest, and, in a study of 5 experienced practitioners of TM, did not "produce a single, unique state of consciousness".

This research found<---this conclusion is not supported by the literature and should be stricken that the Transcendental Meditation technique produced a physiological state that was termed "restful alertness." The following statements are unbalanced and not representative of the sum of the literatureDuring the practice of the technique the physiology becomes relaxed, as indicated by significant reductions in respiration, minute ventilation, tidal volume, blood lactate, and significant increases in basal skin resistance, yet EEG measurements showed increased coherence and integration of brain functioning, indicating that the physiology was alert rather than asleep.

If these studies are to be discussed, the section should be prefaced somehow...I'll let Timid suggest how he'd like to approach that...I'd be fine with saying something to the effect of "Subsequent research, especially on the effects on blood pressure, has been inconclusive, with most research that finds a positive effect done by only several individuals who have relationships with pro-TM organizations". The Canter and Ernst article supports this ---not as my opinion, but as a published source indicating that the affiliations of the authors represents a conflict of interest and potential source of bias--- And citing this article does not constitute undue weight if the meta-analyses and research articles are all published by the same groups (ie, by citing them exclusively, we give undue weight to a few individuals.

--Kodoz (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can say the research is inconclusive. All we can do is report what the research says. It's up to the reader to draw any conclusion. Again, if we mention Canter & Ernst, we should do so in the context of the hypertension research and in the context of the published response to their review and the various published metaanalyses. Below I suggest that we proceed step by step regarding each area of research so that we can really pin this down. TimidGuy (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Propose your edits here and discuss them. Do not simply revert to the text you favored.

The research is inconclusive if you cannot find a balanced source that says the weight of evidence shows some result. This is definitely true for the blood pressure studies, where published sources find different results. This is not true for the "altered state of consciousness", where the sampling of studies that I've looked at indicates there is nothing different in TM vs rest.

It is not up to the reader to make a decision if the reader doesn't have all the info. If you would like to engage in a critique and arbitration for all the studies (or all the meta-analyses even), that would be a worthy task. But simply cherry-picking references that support your view is not providing the reader with enough info to make an informed decision. See discussions on whether Christopher Columbus was a good guy or a total jerk.

Canter and Ernst: fine. Propose your revisions. --Kodoz (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to revert your continued unsubstantiated deletion again until we discuss it and arrive at a consensus. The research references that you deleted are valid studies. Further, nowhere in this section does it state that the reported results are unique to TM, but in fact, you have not offered any substantiation to your apparent claim (which you seem to be basing your deletion upon) that studies have been published with other techniques which showed the same pattern of results of: significant reductions in respiration, minute ventilation, tidal volume, blood lactate, and increases in basal skin resistance, while at the same time, showing increased alpha and theta eeg coherence. Please feel free to reference in our discussion here any such relevant studies that may exist, though in fact, even if they do exist, they do not disqualify these peer review published results from being reported in this article on TM as being found during the practice of TM. Duedilly (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor removing material to prove that what is in place is inaccurate. Since you haven't done this Kodoz to the satisfaction of the other editors here, as per Wikipedia you need to discuss and all editors involved agree on the material, before reverting again.(olive (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Actually, Timid suggested that we revise this section, which is why it is here. And, the entire article has been marked as biased, suggesting that there is a general existing consensus that the article is inaccurate. So, per the community, my deletion is warranted and revisions should be made and discussed here, as Timid proposed previously and below. --Kodoz (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Kodoz, I agree that we need to provide the reader with enough information to make an informed decision. That's why I posted the information below regarding studies that distinguish TM from rest. Do you have any additional sources beyond Michaels? Note that this section has been in the article for years. I don't know who wrote it, but I'm eager to work together to fix it. TimidGuy (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no consensus. The tag doesn't mean anything. Anyone can place such a tag. TimidGuy (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Restored NSR Meditation footnote

I have restored the NSR Meditation footnote. Referencing the NSR Meditation technique in any article on Transcendental Meditation is important because NSR is the the most inexpensive, comparable, and effective technique for transcending thoughts and experiencing pure consciousness. David (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

References on NSR Meditation

David. In the next few days I will be removing the NSR link you recently restored. Inclusion of the link violates Wikipedia/encyclopedic standards on multiple levels.

• First and foremost this links to a commercial site. This is a spam link and violates WP:LINKSPAM
• This article is on Transcendental Meditation. If NSR was TM and was appropriately linked, then we might be able to include the link. NSR states very clearly, that this is a "comparable" technique that uses one mantra. According to all available information TM is a multiple-mantra, meditation form. This means NSR is not TM. Including other meditation techniques in this article as techniques that are alternatives to TM would have to include multiple techniques from multiple traditions. Obviously, we can't do that. There is no reason to include this technique either.
• Claims that NSR is a technique that can replace TM has no reliable source. The comment that this is the most inexpensive, comparable, effective technique is also self-proclaimed, therefore not reliable nor verifiable.
• Actually the very arguments that have been included here as reasons for linking NSR are the very reasons it can't be linked.(olive (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Large deletions on a contentious article without discussion

Naturzak: You are making large deletions of important aspects of this article without discussion. I would ask that as per Wikipedia you slow down and discuss these changes. [(olive (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC))]

As per Wikipedia, you may not make reverts capriciously. Naturezak (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Orme-Johnson links and material

Information and link to David Orme-Johnson's website has been discussed in the past. Refer to archives. Please note that as per WP:SPS. Orme-Johnson is:

• an expert in this field
• and his comments are based on research that he is citing.(olive (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

I have carefully reviewed the archives, but nothing indicates that it is permissible to present personal opinions of expects. Orme-Johnson's website is neither a media source nor a peer-review source, and was clearly established in the earlier discussions. It is beyond me why these changes were not made earlier. If you find a media or PR source in which Orme-Johnson presents the same content as scholarly conclusions or as scientific finding, the content could be restored and the new source referenced. Naturezak (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From discussion page: Olive and Naturzak

The massive change as you just made ... please read the tag at the head of the discussion page... on an aspect of an article that has been discussed before is not an appropriate action to take on a contentious article. Yes, please take this to arbitration. This section in particular has been well and completely discussed in the past. As well I consider your tone and comment to be threatening. Not good.

I haven't even looked at the other changes. Lets take a look there too shall we to see what is happening there.(olive (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Please note this specifically refers to the discussion on you action, and so I will be posting this on the discussion page of the TM article as well as here and on your talk page for your convenience. Thanks.(olive (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

My edits meet Wikipedia guidelines, any my edit summaries were accurate and concise. Therefore, I'll ask that you please defer to the changes. If you would like to contest them, please do so on this discussion page. Capricious reversion is not very WP, I'm sure you can agree. Naturezak (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturzak. Your comments from my user Talk page are inappropriate.[3] You threatened to take this to Arbitration and I suggested you do Do not twist my words making it look as if I made this suggestion. You also have accused me of having an established reputation as a wiki lawyer. I consider this comment to be an incivility. In future if you wish to make these kinds of comments do it here in front of the whole community. I will no longer discuss this on my talk page. Further your deletion of the Orme-Johnson material has been discussed extensively in the past. Please note the archives. I will as well be checking all of your changes since you made many in a short period of time on a contentious article without discussion.(olive (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

I made no threats; it is unfortunate that you misconstrued my comment. When I wrote that I hoped our disagreement would not have to go to arbitration, I was, I hoped, making it clear that I do not intend to be discouraged by tendetious editing or by complacent invitations to review the talk page before making edits. If I have any messages which concern you and not the article, I'll likely place those, as a courtesy, at your talk page; please feel free to adopt the same habit in return. I look forward to any discussion of fact or policy which relates to my recent edits. As for your feelings toward my characterization of your habits on this article as wikilawyering, I'm afraid I can't retract it. I believe that we as adults can be frank even as we are civil. Naturezak (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you consider yourself to be above Wikipedia suggestions for civil behaviour befitting mature members of a collaborative community, by initially refusing to bring your suggestions to an article talk page, and by refusing to check archives for a discussion as suggested by the tag on this page. You are using my talk page to insult me so I prefer that to be open to the community. If you feel you want to leave messages on my talk please note I will answer here and will link to my talk. Your so called frankness is a shield for name calling, Naturzak. I do not consider it to be acceptable, appropriate or mature, on the contrary.

You seem to be suggesting that my actions were contrary to WP policy. I don't believe so; while it is recommend that discussion be considered before making changes, it is not required. I did not undo your reverts because I wanted to insist that my changes be implemented; I did so because I believed your reverts were arbitrary, if not capricious; indeed, you have not engaged with the substance of my edit summaries at all. Otherwise, I would have allowed the reverts as being part of the recommended Bold-Revert-Discuss method for making changes to a contentious article. Since you have admitted as much that you have not looked carefully at my edits before reverting them, I do expect that they won't be undone until a discussion takes place.

As for name-calling and such, I think we can leave all accusations of that kind of behavior out of if. I meant what I wrote in good faith, and I believe the text record will support that. May I make an observation, in good faith but firmly: that you find something unacceptable does not of itself mean it is against WP policy, or a matter of indisuptable consenus. Naturezak (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to check your deletions tomorrow. (olive (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

As I hope will all the editors interested in the status of this article. Naturezak (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear, since your post would seem to require it:

• Calling someone a wiki lawyer is an incivility. I consider that incivility to be inappropriate. Incivility is also considered inappropriate according to Wikipedia policy. I will treat you in a civil manner and I expect to be treated so in return.

• Deleting a section as you did without discussion ignores Wikipedia suggestions/recommendations for editing an article that is contentious. Deleting such a large section would indicate a lack of consideration for the integrity of the article since it leaves a section in violation of WP:Weight. That you did this without discussion compounds the problem. That you reverted even after a request for discussion before making such a drastic change is a further concern.

• Calling my actions capricious is a lack of good faith . There is nothing in my actions that would indicate such a behaviour. In a analysis of the edits you made, the one that most jeopardized the article was the one I reverted and did so with a summary of why Orme-Johnson's web site is a compliant site, as has been discussed and agreed upon by multiple editors. Had you checked the archives you would have known this. I have also looked at the other edits but as I said I will look more carefully and may comment in the morning.

• In fact the reverse is true. If you wish to make this kind of change to this article you will have to prove that what is there now is not compliant, in which case if I revert again to the original form of the article, I will expect that you will not revert until discussion and agreement takes place as to the status of the material.(olive (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

I'll indicate your comments in italics, with my remarks following. Deleting a section as you did without discussion ignores Wikipedia suggestions/recommendations for editing an article that is contentious. As I explained above, my actions violated no WP policy or guidelines. Your repeated suggestion that I have is not conducive to conversation; kindly let me know what policy you think has been violated.

Deleting such a large section would indicate a lack of consideration for the integrity of the article since it leaves a section in violation of WP:Weight. Actually, it is the inclusion of material from a personal website that is a violation of WP:Weight. As I wrote above, such "balancing" perspectives would be welcome, if sourced from a media or peer-review site. I believe that it is still WP policy that personal websites are not appropriate sources for expert opinion?

Calling my actions capricious is a lack of good faith. There is nothing in my actions that would indicate such a behaviour. Again, I was being frank, and I hope you would not take my forthrightness as hostile discourtesy. Let's keep in mind that you admitted several times that you reverted without carefully reviewing the edits. I'd call such behavior "capricious," as in, "arbitrary" or "not according to establish conventions."

In a analysis of the edits you made, the one that most jeopardized the article was the one I reverted and did so with a summary of why Orme-Johnson's web site is a compliant site, as has been discussed and agreed upon by multiple editors. Had you checked the archives you would have known this. I've actually reviewed the archives quite carefully; I take it as a sign of your lack of good faith that you continue to pretend I have not already said as much several times in our discussion on this topic. The discussion in the archives fails to address the fact that the source in question is a personal website. I don't dispute, as TimidGuy argues below, that expertise is a consideration when considering sources, but it was not the author I was disputing -- it is the publication source. A self-published website is not an acceptable source of expert opinion. Since a self-published source is not acceptable for WP references, I have removed the offending material. That is about as clear a rationale as I can give -- you'll note that it is the same indisputable rationale I offered in my edit summary.

I will expect that you will not revert until discussion and agreement takes place as to the status of the material. I don't believe it is your expectation that governs editing on this article, but rather the force of consenus and the applicability of WP policy. Since I am with this edit upholding such policy, and have not seen a consensus sentiment that my understanding of policy is in error, I don't know what more can be said about the matter. I hope you will let me know, though; I'd be glad if you could come to see that my edit was made in good faith, and in order that only reliable sources be used as references for this article.Naturezak (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Orme-Johnson, the reasoning discussed in the past is that it meets this exception in WP:V: "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." OJ has a Ph.D. in psychology, he has published around 100 articles in scholarly journals, most of them peer reviewed. He is an expert on Transcendental Meditation -- the topic of this article. Much of his research is on the psychological effects of Transcendental Meditation, which would seem relevant here. Also, it seems that this material should be included to satisfy WP:NPOV. There are various points of view whether Transcendental Meditation is a cult, and it doesn't seem to be in accord with NPOV to represent only one view in this section. TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You wrote, There are various points of view whether Transcendental Meditation is a cult, and it doesn't seem to be in accord with NPOV to represent only one view in this section. If you have access to material that is appropriately sourced -- i.e., not from a self-published website -- I think it would be quite appropriate to include it in this section, as you say. Naturezak (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturzak. Please note TG's comments on Orme Johnson. This is one of the instances of a web site being a compliant source for the reasons TG gives.(olive (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

This seems like cherry picking, Olive and TG. From WP:V: "...a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." As per my suggestion, the WP guideline is to seek out the RS, and not use the unreliable self-published material. Also, "Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves." The quote which TG selects indicates that SOME circumstances allow self-published sources; none of the circumstances given apply here. TG's elaborate explanation, accounting for Orne-Johnson's credentials, is irrelevant to the nature of the source: his personal website. Naturezak (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My "elaborate explanation" of OJ's credentials serves to show that he is, in the words of the policy, "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm not cherry picking. The policy says exactly what you say, but then it gives an exception. This meets that exception -- he's an expert on the topic. You say that none of the circumstances given apply, but by circumstances you seem to mean the other stipulations in this section. Again, the sentence in the policy that I quoted gives an exception to those stipulations. TimidGuy (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Orne-Johnson self-published opinion: need to identify consensus

I'd like to get some feedback, from members other than Olive and TimidGuy, whose use of the revert function is a bit too quick. The issue: does opinion from Dr. Orne-Johnson, taken from his non-peer-reviewed, self-published personal website, constitute expert opinion from a reliable source? I'll point out that the policies at WP:V indicate that a self-published source is appropriate almost without exception only when the source is discussing itself, and that the guidelines indicate that the expert opinion should be sought from a reliable source. 04:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturezak (talk • contribs)

Hi. If this is the 3PO request, you should probably add that to the heading. Is this the edit under dispute? Is it the whole paragraph or just the last sentence? The preceding sentences seem to quote other authors and their published works. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Orne-Johnson's opinion may appear to constitute an expert opinion given his publication record; however, only a small fraction of his publications would have been subject to peer review (8 clinical studies). This is a small body of peer-reviewed work, much smaller than would be expected from a thought-leading expert.

To reiterate TG: OJ has a Ph.D. in psychology, he has published around 100 articles in scholarly journals, most of them peer reviewed. He is an expert on Transcendental Meditation -- the topic of this article.(olive (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

To reiterate, "around a 100 articles...most of them peer reviewed" actually means about 140 articles, 8 peer-reviewed clinical trials (peer-reviewed reviews are not held to the same standard as peer-review of the scientific studies that scientific claims are based on). And a PhD doesn't mean squat credibility-wise (see Einstein vs Hwang Woo Suk, PhD). He is a researcher in TM.

Third Opinion

According to WP:Verifiability, 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. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.. In this case, it appears that Orne-Johnson has several peer-reviewed articles (some included in this article itself) and can be considered an established expert in the field and therefore, though an additional WP:RS would be ideal, the opinion cannot be summarily dismissed as unusable. We then need to see whether the opinion is worth including; whether the opinion is neutral; and whether the opinion is set in an appropriate context. Since the Third Opinion has been requested for the narrow question of whether this type of self-published source is completely disallowed by policy (the answer is no), I won't answer those questions and will point to the following text in WP:RS: When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published.--Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/Regents Park about the self-published item. However, I am not convinced that "cult followers operate on blind faith" is suitable language. To the extent that Orne-Johnson favors and defends TM, I would be comfortable if we state that he "claims" xyz. It is fine to present him as an advocate, albeit w/some published research. HG | Talk 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much to both of you. This is very helpful. TimidGuy (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If O-J had written a paper which offered a substantive critique of the cited research, and was referencing his own paper when he published a critical mention of the research in question on his personal website, then we would be free to acknowledge him as an expert qua expert. As it is, he is not operating as an expert, as far as the passages in question are concerned. HG's summary is accurate: O-J is operating in this capacity as "an advocate, albeit w/some published research." Experts acting in the capacity of advocates are not exempt from the guideline against the use of self-published sources. Naturezak (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking up RegentsPark's suggestion, I'll explain how this source is being used inappropriately. The expert in question is an employee of the organization whose doctrine he is defending with his criticism of the cited study. The conflict of interest is clear, and undermines the degree to which we can regard his assertion as an issuance of "expert opinion" rather than commentary. The problem of legitimacy is compounded by the fact that he cites no fact or data in his criticism; rather, he merely states his disagreement. The credibility of an established witness goes to support their intepretation of data, and does legitimatize their every opinion. By using the established expert clause as a loop-hole around the self-publication injunction, we are in effect committing the fallacy of authority. It is my position that 1) the lack of substantive reasoning in Orme-Johnson's criticism; 2) the self-published nature of his response to the cited study; and 3) the conflict of interest involved, make it inevitable that a reader will have reason to believe that Orme-Johnson's criticism of the cited study is not being offered in his capacity as a disinterested researcher. Since the WP:V and WP:RS guidelines exist in order to assure the user of WP that the information they are reading is factual and verifiable, this appearance of incredibility is not desirable. The Orme-Johnson material should go: not just because it is self-published (though that it is a crucial factor) but in conjunction with the apparent conflict of interest and lack of substantive argument in the criticism. If it looks, sounds, and moves like a duck, it probably is a duck. In this case, being a duck is akin to being someone who is offering subjective interpretation under the guise of disinterested criticism. Without knowing what Orme-Johnson's true motives are, it is clear that in this case, his criticism looks, sounds, and moves like subjective opinion, and as such is not eligible for inclusion by the expert opinion exception of the WP:RS guidelines. Let's get some more opinions on this, please. Naturezak (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Orme-Johnson isn't an employee of any organization. He's retired. This material is in accord with policy. I think his reasoning is good, that the research shows that accusations of mind control aren't verified by the studies. TimidGuy (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The apparent conflict of interest is strong: how long was he an employed by TM institutions? The material is not in accord with policy; please try to frame your disagreement with reference to the edits under consideration; when you continue to legalistically pronounce what does and does not conform to policy, you seem not to be operating under good faith. The implication is that you are entitled to interpret WP policy, but other editors are not. Finally, your judgment that his reasonsing is correct is an instance of original research, and though sound, does not belong in the discussion. Naturezak (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If there was a conflict of interest in OJs research that would have been noted and subsequently the research would not have been published. You are in effect saying that a researcher with cancer or whose family has cancer can't publish on cancer cures.

You assume that since OJ has some affiliation with TM he can't be objective, when if effect the multiple studies he has published and please note, are peer reviewed, indicates the research is objective . That is in part what makes his comments compliant and deemed appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Peer-review is the standard for objectivity on Wikipedia. As an expert with multiple studies that are, once again, peer-reviewed, his comments on the findings of those studies is Wikipedia compliant.(olive (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. Please don't interpret; instead, please refer to the words I used. It would save a lot of time in clarifying. I did not assume that OJ can't be objective; I am noting that his publication of a few peer-reviewed studies on certain topics does not legitimatize his opinions issued on a personal website. That is the fallacy of authority. To repeat, he is writing as an advocate and not an expert when he publishes on his personal website, the title of which even admits to his role as an apologist for TM: "The Truth About TM." His comments as an advocate are not Wikipedia compliant. Naturezak (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the relevant policy. Both of the persons who gave a third opinion felt that this didn't violate policy. As apparently did the Admin who reverted your deletion and referenced the above discussion. So including myself and Olive, there are five editors who feel that this is compliant with WP:V. Which policy does it violate? TimidGuy (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a misrepresentation; please allow me to clarify your misunderstanding. Both pesons who gave a third opinion agreed that self-publication by an expert was allowable in some circumstances. Neither responded to the point that OJ is an interested party operating as an advocate, not an expert, in the case of the critical remarks under discussion. The admit reverted in favor of discussion, not as an endorsement of your interpretation. The "relevant policy" is WP:COI, which in this case makes irrelevant the "expert opinion" loophole in the WP:V and WP:RS guidelines. So, there are not five editors who agree against my position: there are two. Finally, let me remind me that WP policy does not dictate consensus, and that in all cases stated policy is only to be understood as guidelines for editing, not as regulations. I remind you of this in hopes you wil yourself in discussion engage my point, rather than continuing to either assert policy; assert a non-existent majority opinion; or assert that I'm simply wrong. Naturezak (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy guides Wikipedia. It's what makes it work as well as it does. Could you maybe cite the relevant portion of Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest? TimidGuy (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible revisions as per outside opinions: Work space

In checking OJ' site I notice that the wording here is not quite accurate to what OJ says. Although I'm not so comfortable using claims since it may be weasel wording, I wouldn't rule it out completely. The following may correct the problem. "Allegedly" is OJ' own wording

Text in place now:

According to Orme–Johnson cult followers operate on blind faith and adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, and these studies indicate the ability of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments.

Possible changes to text are in "bold":

According to Orme–Johnson cult followers are allegedly said to 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.[53]

There may have been a little OR in the original version which I think is now corrected. In effect what is being said now is that, this is allegedly how cult followers operate, and then, these are findings with TM. The reader is then left to make any connections for him/herself. (olive (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

I look forward to more comments and suggestions(olive (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

In the iterest of wrapping up this neglected suggestion, I'll observe that the text under discussion is being discussed for possible removal elsewhere on the talk page, so we might consider Olive's suggestion here as being obsolete. Naturezak (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the material had a slight synthesis /OR so I will add that, since doesn't change meaning or affect other discussions.Whatever the final decision on the material, while it is place it must comply.(olive (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Research on Transcendental Meditation

Revisions are being suggested above which I don't think accurately represent the published research. There's a large body of literature showing differing neurophysiological characteristics. That's pretty straightforward and those sources should be easy for anyone to find. There is also a body of research showing that Transcendental Meditation has been found to produce statistically significant qualitative differences between non-stylized "simple rest" and TM practice in the following biochemical markers:

• decreased levels of cortisol and acth levels (markers of stress and anxiety)
• decreased levels of lactic acid (associated with stress, anxiety and anaerobic metabolism)
• decreased red blood cell metabolism ("simple rest" has shown small increases in red cell glycolytic rate)
• increased arginine vasopressin (AVP - associated with increases in learning and memory, and not found in simple rest)
• decreased thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH - associated with lowered metabolic rate)
• increased regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF - associated with wakefulness, decreases are found during stage 1 sleep)
• decreased levels of the catecholamines norepinephrine and epinephrine (NE and E - associated with decreased anxiety)
• increases in slow wave alpha and theta EEG (decreases are found in "simple rest" - this distinguishes TM from rest as eliciting a "wakeful hypometabolic state")
• reduction of peripheral respiratory quotient (RQ - "arterio-venous O2 consumption / CO2 production" - indicates a shift in metabolic substrate - qualitatively distinct from "simple rest")
• reduction in phenylalanine (as an amino acid precursor to the catecholamines, possibly associated with a reduced metabolic need)

Here are some studies that show that the effects of TM are either quantitatively or qualitatively different from relaxation.

• “ACTH and b-Endorphin in Transcendental Meditation,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 311-315, 1998

Fine. qualify this with the caveat that a single study has demonstrated this effect. This is one case where you should talk about what ACTH is hypothesized to do, since it is relevant to some of the claims of TM (altho the body of ACTH research is so huge it's difficult to thoroughly critique this one finding).

• “Metabolic control in a state of decreased activation: modulation of red cell metabolism,” American Journal of Cell Physiology, Vol. 245; C457-C461, 1983

Fine. qualify this with the caveat that a single study has demonstrated this effect, but that the clinical/biological significance of the effect is unknown.

• “Redistribution of blood flow in acute hypometabolic behavior,” The American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 235:89-92, 1978

This is a fishing expedition and needs to be followed by a prospective study in which they look at the proposed effects, and postulate what what these effects might mean. Why does it matter that renal flow is not affected but hepatic flow is? Also, this is a single study, and the statistical analysis of the claimed effects is not evident.

• “Catecholamine levels in practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique,” Physiology & Behavior 72 (2001), 141-146

Catecholamine was the only hormone affected, while others were not. This is cherrypicking on the author's part, and should point out the non-effect seen with other stress hormones to accurately portray the study findings. In addition, other work has failed to find a difference (linkand link); in fact, in some cases they find higher levels of stress hormones in the TM group, suggesting either no effect or that the observed effect in the positive study was due to random variation in catecholamine (which is consistent with the flawed statistical methodology I point out below). Either way, this study should be balanced with the other two.

• “Marked Reduction of Forearm Carbon Dioxide Production During States of Decreased Metabolism,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 41, pp. 347-352, 1987

Some pretty wild claims in the abstract, no statistical analysis, and a single study. Show that they demonstrate statistical significance and a consistency of trends (the note some smaller and opposite trends in CO2 levels, suggesting random variation) and it might be worth considering.

• “Hormonal Control in a State of Decreased Activation: Potentiation of Arginine Vasopressin Secretion,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 35, pp 591-595 (1985)

At this point, it looks like "RN Walsh" or "AF Wilson" can demonstrate these things, but others don't bother or can't. Do you have any references by other groups? This is giving undue weight to a single individual's work. In this single-study report, the abstract does not indicate the study design or statistical effect, and mention of it should include those caveats.

• “Behavioral Alteration of Plasma Phenylalanine Concentration,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 611-614 (1977)

AF Wilson looked at 13 amino acids and found a difference in one, which would be fine if they had a hypothesis for why phenylalanine levels were special. This was a fishing expedition, and simply showing an effect doesn't mean it's meaningful. It's not surprisingly a single report, and should include this and aforementioned qualifications. I'd be more than willing to write this one up.

• “Effects on Regional Cerebral Blood Flow of Transcendental Meditation,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 399-402 (1996)

Cerebral blood flow to the brain changes during different states of consciousness and activities (for example). This study only shows that it is different without explaining what those differences may mean or what advantage they may confer. This caveat should be amended to this "effect". Happily, neither Wilson nor Walsh were authors on this publication.

• “Modulation of Red Cell Metabolism by States of Decreased Activation: Comparison Between States,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 35, pp. 679-682 (1985)

We're back to Walsh again. Claim a change in glycolytic rate without showing statistical validity. Move it up with Walsh's other RBC study and stick the caveat that the effect isn't necessarily statistically or biologically significant, and that it hasn't been independently verified.

• “Plasma Thyroid Hormones, Thyroid Stimulating Hormone, and Insulin During Acute Hypometabolic States in Man,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 40, pp. 603-606 (1987)

The way Wilson wrote it, they are suggesting that TSH has a role in regulating some hypometabolic state, which they haven't shown to exist. It's an effect, but what it means is unclear. They use a baseline control design, which is good for hypothesis generation but not for demonstrating an effect. Presumably, this study (which has its own flaws) confirms the finding that insulin levels are not affected--they don't mention a change, and since they do mention several other non-significant/borderline significant "effects", that probably means insulin wasn't affected. Here's the PMID (PMID: 16772250). However, this study (PMID: 9226731) by RH Schneider (who comes up frequently) shows an opposite effect on TSH. In this controlled study (PMID: 3895206), they find no difference in insulin levels, cortisol, catecholamine, or some other stress hormones. I'm not sure why you'd want to include this Wilson study, but I'd say that there's an uncertain effect on TSH, but insulin and other hormones don't appear to be affected. The significance of either effect is not known.

All of these studies are on Transcendental Meditation, even though the article title doesn't always indicate it.

I would like to clarify what is meant by "clinical research." I consider the above studies to be largely basic research -- looking at the physiological effects compared to a control group. I understand clinical research to be treatment of disease. I'd like to keep these areas of research separate in this article. And perhaps we could resolve any issues regarding basic research as a first step and then look at the clinical research.

Basic research is taken to mean studies which have no direct or immediate clinical implications; animal studies are almost always taken to be basic research, human studies are largely clinical. The more important distinction is between types of analyses (randomized controlled vs crossover vs baseline control groups, and uncontrolled). Furthermore, reproducibility is an important means of demonstrating the validity of an effect: if it hasn't been reproduced, it's either not a real effect or is not important enough for anybody to bother. This statement should be attached since much of the support for TM suffers this limitation, and the lay reader will not be aware that this is a problem. I won't get into hypothesis-driven vs fishing expeditions and the statistical flaws the latter is subject to, since it's beyond trying to deal with: put simply, unless you specify what you're looking for prospectively, you bias the study toward showing an effect by looking at many things. See effects of prayer in cardiac patients, and the catecholine study above.--Kodoz (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the suggested revisions in the previous thread accurately represent the research. I think it will be important to survey the entire body of peer reviewed research. I think there are now over 400 peer reviewed studies on Transcendental Meditation. As I noted before, I'm fine with omitting historical studies and just focusing on the most significant and definitive subsequent results. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So there are your physiological studies. The studies we previously have referred to as historical should be included as well, since they contribute to the body of knowledge on the claimed altered state (esp the Science studies). I recommend we present the 2 sides of these studies, with an introduction that summarizes them as follows:

Physiological effects have been claimed, however the biological relevance of these effects is not known. In addition, most of these effects have been reported by a few individuals, and have not been independently validated by independent research groups, or, in cases where other groups have studied the same effects, the results have been inconsistent or not verified. Many of these studies have not been designed to demonstrate a statistically significant effect between TM practitioners and non-practitioners. The effects shown in these studies may therefore be due entirely to chance and may have nothing to do with the TM behavior. The state of the research is therefore still hypothesis generation, with any observed effects needing further scientific (independent verification that the result is not an artifact or product of bias) and biological (demonstration that the effect is due to a related or relevant biological process, or that it has a measurable effect on health or bodily function).

The effects of TM that have been studied are...list the claims of the studies you have above, along with the Science studies, and the caveats that I have attached to them, and the physiology section is about to be fair and balanced. No need to further mire this in discussion. Just write up something, post it as a separate discussion section, and I'll look to see if you approached that task in an objective manner.

--Kodoz (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we do this in the following steps: 1) basic research on physiological effects, 2) basic research on neurophysiological effects, 3) unique state of restful alertness (a specific combination of physiological and neurological effects), 4) clinical research, such as the research on hypertension. We can look at the studies in each area, get a sense for the varying results (typical in scientific research), and then represent the results in the article, being cautious to observe the Wikipedia policy regarding relative weight. TimidGuy (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC) By the way, this study is subsequent to Michaels (cited in the revision proposed above) and finds a different result: JEVNING, R., H. C. PIRKLE AND A. F. WILSON. Behavioral alteration of plasma phenylalanine concentration. PHYSIOL. BEHAV. 19(5) 611-614, 1977. TimidGuy (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kodoz, for your commentary. I don't think we can use your introduction because I feel it violations the proscription against no original research. We can't add your perspective to the article. We can only report what others have said. According to the Wikipedia policies, these studies can be cited. Wikipedia doesn't say how many studies need to have been done. Nor do the policies say that the research must have implications for health or biological relevance to merit mention. If you can find a source that says the results in these studies may be due to chance, or that criticizes the design, then you can cite it. TimidGuy (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong disagree. One has to admit that the introduction offered by Kodoz states facts, unless one asserts that:

• physiological effects have not been claimed
• that the biological relevance of these claimed effects is known.
• these findings have been reported by a broad, rather than a narrow, cohort of researchers (compare to the number of researchers addressing research topics with a similar scope)
• these findings have been independently validated by independent research groups, or, that in cases where other groups have studied the same effects, the results have been verifiably consistent
• these studies have been designed to demonstrate a statistically significant effect between TM practitioners and non-practitioners
• the claimed effects cannot be due to chance and must be directly attributable to TM practice
• the state of the research is beyond hypothesis generation

What Kodoz has done with this succinct and informative introduction to the research section is state the boundaries of the conclusions which can be drawn from the research being cited. That in itself is not an act of interpretation, but one of cautious common sense. Since I don't think any of the statements above can be endorsed, I'm not sure how you can call the introduction Kodoz has drafted anything other than factual. Naturezak (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are our guide. It's not in accord with policy, as I described. We report what the research says. TimidGuy (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that explanation isn't sufficient. I've gone through rather carefully to demonstrate that the introduction drafted by Kodoz is responsibly factual, without providing commentary. What policy, exactly, do you think is being violated, and by what phrasing? Let's look at one example at a time. Naturezak (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't make up your own rules. For example, which Wikipedia policy says that every bit of research referenced must have been independently verified? In any case, much of it has. Archie Wilson, for example, has no relation to TM. TimidGuy (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No one suggested any such policy was in place; rather, Kodoz was giving a summary of the field of research on TM, in the same way that an editor drafts a paragraph for the start of an article which gives a summary of the contents of the article. Can you point out where someone may have erroneously claimed such a WP policy exists? Naturezak (talk) 21:50,

12 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturezak: you might want to reread WP: Verifiability and WP:Reliable. Kodoz comments are rebuttals of research that have no place here. These studies are Wikipedia compliant in that they are peer-reviewed. Wikipedia cites the studies and allows a reader to make choices about how to deal with what he reads. Kodos is commenting on a few studies . Note that there are at least 500 TM studies 150 or so are peer-reviewed so no he isn't summarizing the field of research on TM, far from it. Note again and again this is an encyclopedia. Your arguments indicate that you do not understand how Wikipedia operates. Comment such as this editor makes is synthesis of material, constitutes not even OR but original opinion... that would be POV and violates WP: NPOV and can't be included in an encyclopedia. If this were a professional journal this kind of thought process with the subsequent research to back it up could be included.... Not here.Please note I am not commenting on the quality of the research since it has been peer reviewed but on its Wikipedia compliancy.(olive (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Please do not presume to advise me to read policy, Olive; I have done so. In his proposal for an introductory paragraph for the research section of this article, Kodoz is not rebutting anything, and references no single proposal. He issues no commentary or intepretation -- please refer to my listing of the factual statements above, and note that thet constitute the entirety of his suggested paragraph. Synthesis of the kind which is against WP policy involves disuptable analysis; whereas Kodoz is characterizing facts. Indeed, he does not speak to the implications of data at all -- which would be out of bounds -- but instead he carefull delimits the possible interpretations that could be generated from the cited research. In that way he helpfully, and conservatively, aids the reading in coming to a nonbiased and balanced understanding of the implications of the research in question. He does not paraphrase, assess, or analyse. Or, which of the statements I have bullet-pointed above do you dispute? His is just the kind of succint and informative prose apparatus which is ideally suited to contextualize this kind of infomation.

It would be helpful if you would desist from issuing pronouncements on WP policy, as when you write "violates WP:NPOV", and from making ad hominem statements to the end that I don't understand how Wikipedia operates. That kind of personal, bad faith rubbish can be left out of this discussion, please. Instead, let's hear some of your views on the paragraph Kodoz wrote. I'll start a new section for it. Naturezak (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If anything I said is insulting to you Naturzak, it is not appropriate and I apologize. I am quoting policy because I believe that is fundamentally what these arguments rest on. I should not however be quoting policy at you, and if that is the case again, I apologize.

As a comment: you will have to allow me to speak in the way I do. I will attempt to allow you to speak in the way you do.

As a point for now: Synthesis refers to any synthesis of material not to just disputed material . Wikipedia is not a place for new ideas as can happen with synthesis of any kind.

I will however have to continue to quote Wikipedia policy until from my side it is right because, this is Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Arguments are grounded in policy, but their substance must be an engagement with the points under discussion. When you simply cite WP guidelines, without explaining how they pertain to the point under discussion, you risk the appearing of bullying, wikilawyering, or bad faith. It is just that your habit of pronouncing what does and does not conform to policy, rather quashes discussion, which I think you will agree is antithetical to the WP spirit. You say as much, when you apologize -- I appreciate the good will.

As for your puzzling comment that synthesis of any kind is discouraged, you might yourself refer to the WP:OR page. Synthesis of research conclusions is problematic, since it can be non-comprehensive -- that is why it is prohibited, and because it runs the risk of misrepresenting scientific consensus. It is of course not that case that all forms of compositional synthesis are disallowed; if that was the case, how could any summary or definition be written? I'll just assume that you weren't meaning to seem to say as much. So, let's get back to the point: what part of the proposed introductory paragraph to the Research section do you believe is subjective? Naturezak (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding original research

Here are examples of original research. "The biological relevance of these effects is not known" This is an observation by Kodoz. He is not free to add his own observations to a Wikipedia article. "Most of these effects have been reported by a few individuals." This is an original observation. Again, it is a violation of policy. If someone has written a review of the biochemical effects and has said that most of the effects of the 10 or so studies mentioned here (there are likely many more) were by a few individuals, that could be presented in the article. "Have not been independently validated by independent research groups" is an original observation. Now what's the problem with this? Well, for example, regarding the latter observation, who knows whether Kodoz has made a thorough review of the literature? Such a review would generally be a serious scholarly endeavor and would take some time. Regarding biological relevance, who knows whether researchers in this field consider this relevant? To me, it's not an obviously relevant observation. And frankly, it's not self evidently factually accurate. How could we possibly make such a statement without supporting it with a source? TimidGuy (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I find your interpretations of these comments peculiar, TG.

• Are you asserting that the biological relevance of the physiologically subtle effects claimed by these studies, is known? None of the studies makes a statement of biological relevance, for example, the adaptive function of such effects... Kodoz is observing, that is, giving an account of the studies, in such a way that is indisputable. Observational description is not interpretation, by any stretch of the imagination -- so it can go in.
• Are you asserting that the claim effects gave been reported by more than a few researchers? Such a detail is indispensable; without it, inclusion of even a single study can lend readers the impression that a scientific consensus exists. Therefore, I agree with Kodoz that indicating such a fact is important for communicating the state of the research. I don't know what policy you refer to, that discourages the use of "observation"? I will note that your assertion that there are likely many more studies which indicate unique physiological correlates of TM is itself a rather clear instance of original research and opinion, and as such probably doesn't have much relevance to this discussion.
• Are you asserting that the study in question has been validated? The presumption is common, I think, that a published study has been confirmed through reproduction of results. Especially important in a contentious research area -- which TM is -- is the principle of conservative interpretation. It would be incautious for a reader to conclude that a published study represents a validated consensus, yet, that is the common mistake. Kodoz prudently wards against such a mistake by reporting that most of these studies are one-off projects.

I'd like to respond to your statement that it is inaccurate to say that the biological relevance -- that is, the relationship to integral function or survival, to coin a definition -- of the claim effects is unknown. Many studies on the physiological functioning, in their conclusion, relate the reported effect to intergral functioning. You'll find a notable absence of such discussion in the papers under discussion. I'm afraid I don't have much time to go through them at present for you, but many are available online. The conclusion is: the biological relevance of the claimed effects is unknown. The claimed effects are subtle, often cherry-picked from among a suite of similar effects whose absence goes unreported, and are in all cases are discussed without being placed into a functional or systemic context. If you dispute that I have thoroughly reviewed the literature, as you impugn Kodoz, I'll invite you to bring any paper to our attention here on the talk page, which relates one of these claim effects to central function or another area of biological relevance. Naturezak (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's really no point in discussing this. We could go on forever. We have to adhere to policy. These are published peer-reviewed studies that can be included in the article, per policy. Kodoz can't add his commentary, per policy. These comments are all disputable. You would need sources to support them. This is the way Wikipedia works. I'm not confident that any of these comments are self-evidently accurate. By the way, I envision these studies as just being a couple sentences in the section on Effects on the physiology. We wouldn't give them undue weight. We would use the appropriate tentative language. TimidGuy (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is one of conclusion and decision: which I am afraid is rather bullying. I have advocated no "violations of policy", and the TEXT by Kodoz (not commentary, as you put it) is absolutely within bounds. We'll have to get more opinions on the discussion here, or, I'll continue to press for a third opinion. Naturezak (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with TG. Kodoz comments, as TG points out (I won't bore you by going through it again), includes in many places opinion, that cannot be included in an encyclopedia. I don't see TG comments as bullying but rather that we are bound by Wikipedia policy here whatever else we may think. Especially in a controversial situation, policy provides a stable common background for editors to move forward in editing. He is invoking those policies since there seems to be disagreement about whether those policies apply, and or if they are being violated here.(olive (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Moving forward -- possible points of agreement and next steps

I think we're agreed that basic research on the effects of Transcendental Meditation on the physiology shows that there are effects that are common among Transcendental Meditation, simple relaxation, and other relaxation techniques. As I've said, I'd like to add this to the article. The next step would be to find sources. The sources would have to compare Transcendental Meditation with something else and show that the physiological effects are the same.

NO SUCH AGREEMENT exists. I, and Kodoz I believe, would disagree that it is appropropriate to state that there are effects common to TM experience. Such a statement falls within Olive's definition of synthesis, and since factually disputable, is inappropriate for inclusion. Unless you can find a reliable source for the assertion that such effects exist -- in the wording that "empirical research has identifed several characteristic physiological markers of TM practice" or some similiar formulation, such an assessment is not appropriate here -- please refer to WP:OR. Naturezak (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no agreement on this point. I do agree that the current entry and statements such as "...there are common effects..." is synthesis, and inaccurate synthesis as well. --Kodoz (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kodoz. Would you mind pointing me to this statement in the article I can't seem to locate it. Thanks(olive (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Synthesis italicized...Kodoz (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Research studies have described specific physiological effects that occur during the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. The first of these studies was published in the early 1970s in Science,[8] American Journal of Physiology,[9] and Scientific American.[10]. This research found that the Transcendental Meditation technique produced a physiological state that was termed "restful alertness." During the practice of the technique the physiology becomes relaxed, as indicated by significant reductions in respiration, minute ventilation, tidal volume, blood lactate, and significant increases in basal skin resistance, yet EEG measurements showed increased coherence and integration of brain functioning,[11] indicating that the physiology was alert rather than asleep.[12]

Could we also maybe agree that the section on Effects on the Physiology be a separate section from the clinical research and from the research into the neurophysiological effects? And could we maybe agree that the question of a unique state of restful alertness be dealt with separately? (Seems like it would be convenient to do so, since it entails a constellation of physiological and neurophysiological effects, and it would perhaps work better to first discuss these effects before touching on a particular constellation of them.) TimidGuy (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No; firstly because to assert that there are "effects on the physiology" at all is to make a subjective assessment of a discontinuous and highly disputed research area, and secondly because the creation of a new section would be redundant. Any effects mentioned would have to be demonstrated by research; any mention of research would have to mention the observed effects. Therefore, if there is research which indicates such effects, the mention of as much in the Research section will be sufficient.

Your assertion that "a constellation of physiological and neurophysiological effects" seems to be a statement of your subjective synthesis of this topic area, and as such runs afoul of WP:OR. Please try to keep your personal analysis of this body of papers out of discussion, for fear that editors new to the topic will come to believe that you are referring to a scientific consenus rather than your own personal views -- just something to be wary of. Naturezak (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We can deal with effects on blood pressure separately within the Effects section. I don't see much support for any other effects on clinical parameters in the literature. --Kodoz (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturezak I'm sorry, I really don't understand. And I can only think that my comment wasn't clear. You have been arguing all along that the effects of Transcendental Meditation aren't unique but are also seen in relaxation and other relaxation techniques. There does seem to be research that shows this, though I'm not that familiar with it. Kodoz already cited the article by Michaels that shows that both TM and relaxation result in reductions of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and lactate. I'm only suggesting that we begin this section by finding research that supports your point. Regarding your second objection, I'm not suggesting creating a new section. I'm trying to delimit the content of the section that's there. Kodoz keeps wanting to add research on hypertension to that section, but the section on clinical research comes later in the article. I'd like to keep these two areas of research separate. Regarding your third point, I'd be happy to leave the research on restful alertness out of the article. It's hard to describe. Or at least leave it out at this point. But Kodoz seemed to want to leave it in when I suggested omitting the historical studies and taking a different approach. Thanks for the discussion. TimidGuy (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment was clear, but incorrect. Furthermore, please don't summarize as to what my argument was "all along;" let's try to stick to the conversation as it happened, with careful attention to what was actually said. I'll try to move things along, and out of your misunderstanding, by developing radically new text for the research sections. Then we can get past tenditious disagreement over the present, and inadequate, text. Naturezak (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Timid, you misinterpret my citations...I can find references to certain effects, but I can also find references to the opposite effects. I am not suggesting an entry as simple as "TM affects [some chemical or hormone]". This would be inaccurate synthesis.Kodoz (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to rewrite the article to include what I thought was your point of view, based on many comments such as this: "my point is that all of the physiological markers manifested during this study fall into the category of "relaxation." Naturezak (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)." I see now that I misunderstood. Fine if you want to draft something, as long as we reach consensus and as long as it abides by policy. Please remember that everything must be sourced and that it must be in accord with WP:NPOV, especially the policy regarding weight. TimidGuy (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kodoz, common effects isn't necessarily synthesis, if it can be sourced. I did see this statement in a study recently. What do you mean by opposite effects? TimidGuy (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the wording in the article itself . This is where the Wikipedia term synthesis would apply, that is, in an article. This term as a Wikipedia term, does not apply to wording in the research over which we have no control.If someone could point me to the term in the article I would be most appreciative.(olive (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Are you referring to the discussion of "common effects"? It's related to what I proposed at the beginning of this thread.TimidGuy (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This references all the studies Timid cites above for physiological effects, states their findings and methodology, and also states additional studies that support or contradict each claimed effect. Maybe we can move forward toward consensus by revising a draft...instead of just quoting Wikipedia policy and reverting to the existing text (which is tagged as biased, which we agree needs work, and which Nature and I agree is not representative of the body of research). All statements in this draft are referenced. This has all effects/references Timid wants to include and doesn't take anything out, but adds equal weight and balance. This is a vast improvement on the existing, unbalanced text that Olive insists remain in place rather than be taken here for discussion.

--Kodoz (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Olive is referencing the Dr. David OJ entry under cult which has nothing to do with the following material. This is a different topic entirely.(olive (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

[Come up with a more useful introduction or don’t. I don't care.] The effects of TM on human physiology and altered states of consciousness have been studied. In the earliest published studies, RK Wallace published a report in the journal Science that showed differences between oxygen consumption, heart rate, and skin resistance during TM vs non-meditative periods (no statistical analysis is provided). EEG recordings also difference, and Wallace concludes that, during TM, practitioners are in a different state of consciousness.[PMID: 5416544] Two follow up studies in Science by independent groups did not replicate these findings: Pagano et al found that meditation was similar to sleep, and that EEG recordings during meditation were similar to those obtained in the same subjects during daytime naps.[PMID: 1108200] Michaels et al published a report showing that epinephrine, norephinephrine, and lactate levels in age- and sex-matched controls during rest did not differ between those values in TM practitioners during meditation. These authors conclude that the meditative state is the same from a biochemical standpoint as a resting state.[PMID: 775639]

Effects on blood flow and blood cell metabolism
In a single, uncontrolled study by R Jevnig, AF Wilson, RN Walsh, and colleagues, "red cell metabolism" was reduced in experienced TM practitioners; this finding has not been independently replicated and the authors do not speculate on the biological significance of the observed change in red cell metabolism, and a similar effect was noted in both the meditative and resting states. [PMID 3936073] R Jevnig, AF Wilson, have found a decrease in renal blood flow during TM compared to a control group during a rest-relaxation period. Other measures (eg, hepatic blood flow, cardiac output) were also affected. All measures were affected in both groups, but the authors do not report whether the changes were statistically significant or what the biological rationale for the observed changes in blood flow might be.[PMID: 354414] Jevnig and colleagues later examined cerebral blood flow, speculating that an increase in CBF would cause the previously observed changes in renal and hepatic perfusion. In this uncontrolled study, the authors report an increase in blood flow to the frontal and occipital lobes during TM; no statistical analysis is provided, and the authors do not discuss how these changes may differ from changes in CBF that normally occur during rest, sleep, and conscious activities, nor do they speculate on the biological significance of increased blood flow to these regions.[PMID: 8700938] For example, an unaffiliated group has found differences in cerebral blood flow during meditation (Yoga Nidra) and rest in highly experienced practitioners; the regions that had an increase in blood flow differed between this meditative state and the TM state.[PMID: 9950067]

Effects on hormones/enzymes/signaling molecules
In one study, beta-endorphin and adrenocorticotrophic hormone levels were significantly different between 18 TM practitioners and 9 controls who did not meditate.[PMID 9748098] This result has not been independently verified, nor do the authors consider the biological significance of this effect. Stress hormone levels were studied by Infante et al in practitioners of TM/Sidhi-TM and compared to inexperienced, health controls who practiced relaxation. Some statistically significant reductions at different times during the day were reported for epinephrine and norepinephrine levels. This was not a prospective study however, as the authors also studied dopamine levels (which did not differ between groups), and only catecholamine levels were constant throughout the day in TM practitioners. The authors do not provide a hypothesis as to why catecholamine levels varied between groups whereas dopamine levels did not. Other groups have not independently verified these findings. The Michaels et al study in Science did not find differences in norepinephrine an epinephrine levels in an age- and sex-matched study. [PMID: 775639] Cooper et al did not find a statistically significant difference in catecholamine levels (epinephrine and norepinephrine) between experienced meditators and matched controls who simply relaxed for the same time period; however, the meditators did exhibit a trend toward increased catecholamine levels. Other stress hormones or indicators also were similar between the control and TM group (plasma glucose, insulin, pancreatic glucagon, pituitary hormones, prolactin). Only plasma free fatty acids were significantly elevated in the TM group (the authors disregard this finding in light of the nonsignificant differences in the other measures).[PMID: 3895206] Jevning, Wilson, Walsh, and Alexander compared ~ in long term TM practitioners compared to a control group practicing eyes-closed meditation. They report a "very large (2.6-7.1 times normal)" difference in arginine vasopressin secretion, but do not provide a statistical measures of validity. This result has not been independently validated. [PMID: 3906711]

Jevning and Wilson studied the plasma concentration of 13 amino acids before, during, or after TM or relaxation in experience practitioners or control subjects. Of the 13 amino acids studied, only phenylalanine was increased in the TM group during meditation; no statistical analysis is provided, nor is an explanation as to the significance of the increase in only this amino acid. This finding has not been further studied prospectively or by an independent group. [PMID: 343124] Jevning and Wilson studied thyroid hormones during TM and eyes-closed rest. Only TSH declined "acutely" in the TM group, whereas there were no changes in other thyroid hormones or insulin. No statistical analysis or explanation for the decrease of only one of the studied metrics is provided; the .[PMID: 3313447] A later study by Schneider et al, the "TSH results [were] not related easily to earlier findings…". This study was a 4-month, prospective, randomized study of TM practitioners and a control group that only received stress education. Statistical analysis was provided, but the authors only report these as "significantly different…or trends toward significance." During laboratory stressors, the TM group had lower cortisol levels after stressors; however, during exposure to stressors, the TM group had higher cortisol levels.

Thanks, Kodoz. I really appreciate your effort. I doubt that we'd ever want to put anything this long and detailed in an article for general readers. Also, I have other reservations. For example, it's odd to mention the Michaels study but then not mention the many other followup studies. For example, a metaanalysis of 32 studies found that the decrease in lactate is about twice that of relaxation. It's almost as if the Wallace study is serving as a straw man. We have to take all the relevant research into account and somehow weight the discussion accordingly. This will be extremely difficult and will take time. I gotta run. Will try to check in tomorrow. Sorry to be so short in my comments after your detailed and sincere effort. TimidGuy (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways: either we synthesize large amounts of info ("the effects of TM on physiology are unclear" and leave out the metanalyses you want to add) or we flesh out arguments for and against each effect in this detail. And "too long for the general reader" is a BS argument...many Wiki articles are much longer and contain much more detail. Edit this down, balance it re: your comments about Michaels et al, and add your comments about the metanalyses (if you want to go there). What I've proposed is far more accurate than what exists. I recommend we replace what is there with this and open it to editing. We all agree what is there is not suitable, and the community has labeled it as biased. Kodoz (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you make some good points. I don't have time now to respond. But I did want to say this is somewhat more in the direction of being in accord with policy than your earlier insertions and suggestions. And it's true that either we have a huge research section, or we fashion a subset that represents the whole. It's ironic, because I was originally suggesting that the list of studies I posted constitute two sentences in the article. And really, I posted that list in the first place because I thought that you and NatureZ wanted to show commonalities. And these two sentences would show differences. I guess we can continue to think about how to proceed. Note that the community didn't label the research section as biased. Anyone can add such a tag. It was added a few months ago when someone else was discussing the overall research. TimidGuy (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

COI and objectivity

I believe Conflict of interest WP:COI refers to the editor, editing the article, in which case OJ cannot be cited for COI since he is of course not editing ... and no I'm not David in disguise:0)...

My comment on objectivity stands and I'll reiterate: Any scientist/scientists publishing on a specific theme might well be inferred to be biased to his specific research paradigm, whatever they are publishing on (cancer, genetics, aging, schizophrenia, etc) but whatever they personally believe or practice - if they are Catholics or Jewish or Atheists or hyper-skeptics, or have just cultivated a theory in their field of study. As long as they publish their findings in peer-reviewed, science journals, we as editors on Wikipedia cannot place ourselves in the position of discrediting and so diminishing them (and the whole scientific publication process consisting of the researchers, review boards,editors and publishers) as possibly biased or suspect in their integrity.(olive (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Ah, but not all researchers are employed by institutions whose existence depends upon the advancement of a metaphysical system. The conflict of interest in the case of OJ is clear: not only was the research that created his expertise generated during his employment by such an institution, but the source of his comments is his self-published TM apologist website: "The Truth about TM .org". As you say, peer-reviewed journals are reliable sources -- just as personal advocacy sites are not. Naturezak (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Naturezak, it would be nice of we agree but we don't I think you've misunderstood what I am saying. I'll give it another shot.

When I use the term COI, I refer to the Wikipedia Policy,WP:COI. Orme Johnson is not editing here so there is no conflict of interest as per Wikipedia.

You suggest that whatever affiliation OJ has with Transcendental Meditation disqualifies his comments. As an aside to keep things accurate, note he is not employed by the university anymore nor is the university's existence dependent on advancement of a metaphysical system. If someone is telling you that they are mistaken. If TM disappeared tomorrow the university is still an accredited university and could continue as it offers the normal subjects a university does. It in no way depends on the advancement of a metaphysical system. Do students and faculty at the university meditate yes... but that's a different than "depends on the advancement".

You suggest then, if I understand you that because OJ may be a practitioner of TM his web site cannot be used, and that his research was generated while at MUM and so therefore may be biased. This of course does a great disservice to OJ himself and the peer review process, juries etc as noted above. I provide a link to his site that indicate his expertise, credentials, where his research was published and when, and the fact that as a researcher and academic he is more than qualified to comment on research on anything in his field , be it TM or something else.[4]. Please note, as well, that his comments on Cult on the web site are not on his own research.

I also refer you to my comments above concerning peer review as being the "check" for biased research. The publications you will note are in respected journals and are therefore peer reviewed.

In order to not include OJ's comments on this article you will have to show that he is not credentialed, and is a researcher whose work is not peer reviewed. There is no hard evidence to support any of your claims.(olive (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

According to one of TM's registered trademarked companies the man referred to here as OJ still works for one of the TM ORGANIZATIONS: http://davidleffler.com/whatsnew.htm

It might be wise to point everyone at this stage to WIKI guidelines regarding references for commercial products:

WP:QS WP:SPS —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments rewrite

Zak. I have "bolded" some of the language that makes this document OR, and violates synthesis.

Not one of the instances you bolded below represents original research or synthesis. For example: "Two follow-up studies in Science..." is a simple statement of the fact that 2 other studies were performed, and their results did not concur with the first. The findings of the 2 studies are then presented. You reveal you bias Olive by highlighting "In this uncontrolled study... with respect to a contradictory finding, but by not objecting to "...a 4-month, prospective, randomized study...". Either way, both are simple statements of fact that can be read straight from the referenced abstracts. Look at the abstracts yourself: if I write that no statistical analysis was provided, you will not find a P-value reported in the study. Of your accusations of OR/synthesis, the grossest of them all is "the 'TSH results [were] not related easily to earlier findings…'", which is a direct quote from the abstract. If any of these examples are OR or synthesis, then the mere collection of studies and reporting their findings, positive or negative, is also a violation. Your assertion that this is synthesis or OR is incorrect. Repeatedly raising this argument against the introduction of balanced material when you do not apply the same standard to the existing, one-sided entry is obstructionist. Kodoz (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We cannot on Wikipedia make editorial comments about the research but must just report it. As a general comment studies would not be accepted for publication if they did not show statistical difference.

Sorry, making this statement shows how unfamiliar you are with the medical literature. Many studies report trends or mere observations, but for publication all these caveats must be disclosed. Kodoz (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You have also to use you own words cherry picked the research.

Please, feel free to make edits then. That's what I put it here for...or, maybe you would consider moving the existing text here for revision. Really, I would like to see that.Kodoz (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Zak you are dealing with a minimum of 150 peer-reviewed articles on this technique, a university in which some of the research has been done, that is the largest granted university in the US in alternative medicine, with over $20,000,000.00 in grants from the NIH. That is just from one university. Your paragraph is obviously written to discredit - a seemingly unfortunate stance to take given the amount of research and funding that still pours into this area .

Means nothing. I'm sure DARPA has dumped that much into death rays. In comparison to even a backwater NIH field, $20 million is not that impressive.Kodoz (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Those points not withstanding . You can't do what you just did and expect it to be acceptable on Wikipedia. Its not. I'm sorry I can't be more supportive. I realize there was a lot of effort and work involved here(olive (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

So you'll just keep obstructing any progress, happy to see your biased view represented. Work with this or move the physiology section here for revision. If we come to consensus on it, it'd be one step toward removing the disclaimer that prefaces the article. Kodoz (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Note and clarification:comments as they are, are subjective generalizations and would need a source to be included.(olive (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

My comments stand and I will take this NOR noticeboard if needed. I was under the impression according to the signature that this edit was posted by Naturezak, Kodos. You make a revealing comment above pasted here: "Please, feel free to make edits then. That's what I put it here for."

And no I do not edit with bias. I have combed through this article multiple times attemtping to remove any non- neutral material.

In future Its generally not a good idea to interrupt another editor's post with comments . Thanks(olive (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Please DO take it to the NOR noticeboard. The first sentence of the NOR guidelines...

"Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)."

I have not generated new knowledge, but have summarized earlier publications. Otherwise, your comments haven't produced any other actionable measures toward resolution of this article's bias. 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And by the way. This is a personal attack. please deal with the edits and not the editor as per WP:Civility

Rewrite

Come up with a more useful introduction or don’t. I don't care.] The effects of TM on human physiology and altered states of consciousness have been studied. In the earliest published studies, RK Wallace published a report in the journal Science that showed differences between oxygen consumption, heart rate, and skin resistance during TM vs non-meditative periods (no statistical analysis is provided). EEG recordings also difference, and Wallace concludes that, during TM, practitioners are in a different state of consciousness.[PMID: 5416544] Two follow up studies in Science by independent groups did not replicate these findings: Pagano et al found that meditation was similar to sleep, and that EEG recordings during meditation were similar to those obtained in the same subjects during daytime naps.[PMID: 1108200] Michaels et al published a report showing that epinephrine, norephinephrine, and lactate levels in age- and sex-matched controls during rest did not differ between those values in TM practitioners during meditation. These authors conclude that the meditative state is the same from a biochemical standpoint as a resting state.[PMID: 775639] Effects on blood flow and blood cell metabolism In a single, uncontrolled study by R Jevnig, AF Wilson, RN Walsh, and colleagues, "red cell metabolism" was reduced in experienced TM practitioners; this finding has not been independently replicated and the authors do not speculate on the biological significance of the observed change in red cell metabolism, and a similar effect was noted in both the meditative and resting states. [PMID 3936073] R Jevnig, AF Wilson, have found a decrease in renal blood flow during TM compared to a control group during a rest-relaxation period. Other measures (eg, hepatic blood flow, cardiac output) were also affected. All measures were affected in both groups, but the authors do not report whether the changes were statistically significant or what the biological rationale for the observed changes in blood flow might be.[PMID: 354414] Jevnig and colleagues later examined cerebral blood flow, speculating that an increase in CBF would cause the previously observed changes in renal and hepatic perfusion. In this uncontrolled study, the authors report an increase in blood flow to the frontal and occipital lobes during TM; no statistical analysis is provided, and the authors do not discuss how these changes may differ from changes in CBF that normally occur during rest, sleep, and conscious activities, nor do they speculate on the biological significance of increased blood flow to these regions.[PMID: 8700938] For example, an unaffiliated group has found differences in cerebral blood flow during meditation (Yoga Nidra) and rest in highly experienced practitioners; the regions that had an increase in blood flow differed between this meditative state and the TM state.[PMID: 9950067] Effects on hormones/enzymes/signaling molecules In one study, beta-endorphin and adrenocorticotrophic hormone levels were significantly different between 18 TM practitioners and 9 controls who did not meditate.[PMID 9748098] This result has not been independently verified, nor do the authors consider the biological significance of this effect. Stress hormone levels were studied by Infante et al in practitioners of TM/Sidhi-TM and compared to inexperienced, health controls who practiced relaxation. Some statistically significant reductions at different times during the day were reported for epinephrine and norepinephrine levels. This was not a prospective study however, as the authors also studied dopamine levels (which did not differ between groups), and only catecholamine levels were constant throughout the day in TM practitioners. The authors do not provide a hypothesis as to why catecholamine levels varied between groups whereas dopamine levels did not. Other groups have not independently verified these findings. The Michaels et al study in Science did not find differences in norepinephrine an epinephrine levels in an age- and sex-matched study. [PMID: 775639] Cooper et al did not find a statistically significant difference in catecholamine levels (epinephrine and norepinephrine) between experienced meditators and matched controls who simply relaxed for the same time period; however, the meditators did exhibit a trend toward increased catecholamine levels. Other stress hormones or indicators also were similar between the control and TM group (plasma glucose, insulin, pancreatic glucagon, pituitary hormones, prolactin). Only plasma free fatty acids were significantly elevated in the TM group (the authors disregard this finding in light of the nonsignificant differences in the other measures).[PMID: 3895206] Jevning, Wilson, Walsh, and Alexander compared ~ in long term TM practitioners compared to a control group practicing eyes-closed meditation. They report a "very large (2.6-7.1 times normal)" difference in arginine vasopressin secretion, but do not provide a statistical measures of validity. This result has not been independently validated.’’’ [PMID: 3906711] Jevning and Wilson studied the plasma concentration of 13 amino acids before, during, or after TM or relaxation in experience practitioners or control subjects. Of the 13 amino acids studied, only phenylalanine was increased in the TM group during meditation; no statistical analysis is provided, nor is an explanation as to the significance of the increase in only this amino acid. This finding has not been further studied prospectively or by an independent group. [PMID: 343124] Jevning and Wilson studied thyroid hormones during TM and eyes-closed rest. Only TSH declined "acutely" in the TM group, whereas there were no changes in other thyroid hormones or insulin. No statistical analysis or explanation for the decrease of only one of the studied metrics is provided; the .[PMID: 3313447] A later study by Schneider et al, the "TSH results [were] not related easily to earlier findings…". This study was a 4-month, prospective, randomized study of TM practitioners and a control group that only received stress education. Statistical analysis was provided, but the authors only report these as "significantly different…or trends toward significance. During laboratory stressors, the TM group had lower cortisol levels after stressors; however, during exposure to stressors, the TM group had higher cortisol levels.

Study by Michaels

I really don't know where to begin in taking steps to revise this section on Effects on the physiology. Maybe let's take a look at Michaels, since Kodoz would like to add that to the article. I don't understand why this study is being said not to replicate Wallace. If I recall, Wallace hypothesized that during Transcendental Meditation, physiological and neurophysiological correlates show that the mind is alert but the body is in a state of rest. It would seem that the study by Michaels is simply supporting that the body is at rest during Transcendental Meditation. Sorry, I should get both of these studies and look at them. But maybe you can go ahead and comment on this, Kodoz. TimidGuy (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I just skimmed both studies. Michaels wasn't trying to replicate Wallace. And she seems to be misquoting Wallace's study. When I search on the word "unique" in the pdf, I get no results. Wallace apparently didn't claim it was a unique state of consciousness, as she says. He found that the the parameters they looked at distinguished it from waking, sleeping, dreaming, hypnosis, and autosuggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Study on renal blood flow

I looked at the study by Jevning on renal blood flow. Kodoz suggested adding a comment saying "the authors do not report whether the changes were statistically significant." They reported the statistical significance in a table in the article. The relaxation controls showed a significant effect on one of the seven measures, and the TM group showed a significant effect on five of the seven measures. TimidGuy (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this what the paper says or based on your personal opinion based on extracting such a conclusion from a table within the paper? I.e, what do the authors say not what does personal research extract? The7thdr (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not my personal opinion. Perhaps look at the paper. TimidGuy (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you could cut and paste the relevant statement form the editors it would do. The7thdr (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Research such as found here should be included

There has been some research of late suggesting that the methodology of studies examining meditation and its influence on physiology and biochemistry, especially in altered health states, is weak at best. This needs to be included given the concentration in this article to this research and the close connections to the researches involved and the product under examination. This is especially so given the age of a lot of this data.

See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17764203?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

On another note:

1 The referencing to the Orm Johnson website, considering his connection to the product under investigation, is plainly unacceptable

2 This article is a mess.

The7thdr (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Research om TM is quite extensive. Since there are to date over 150 peer-reviewed studies on TM, this paper/comment in regards to TM would be somewhat questionable, but open to discussion. As editors on an encyclopedia, our position is that studies can, and may be included given they are peer reviewed. These studies fall into this category. However, again, discussion is underway as concerns some the studies.

Discussion on OJ is above[5]. His site is in fact an exception as per discussions above.

If the article is a mess then its "clean up" must be done by agreement and discussion, as it is a contentious article. I have to be away for awhile tonight but look forward to more discussion later on.(olive (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Ospina/Bond will be published in December. I recommend waiting until then, because the journal will also publish comments on the study. The version available for download has errors documented by at least one of the peer reviewers. Hopefully those will have been fixed in the published version.

Olive, I believe there may be as many as 400 peer reviewed studies. Someone is gathering and counting them. I'll have a definite figure in a month or two. TimidGuy (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update,TG.(olive (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

the study, and it's ilk need to be included because they are relevant to the article. There are already a number of studies published and need to be included, these include meta studies. There is no need to wait any longer in the hope that one will say everything is "ok" with previous studies. if these are found then they can be commented on later.

The inclusion of the OJ website is a disgrace to this article and the principles upon which WIKI has been built. it is clear, as I have shown, that he is still working for and funded by the profit making organization known as TM.

There are also further guideline regarding referencing and profit making organizations in WIKI (this can be found referenced through previous discussions about this author.

I have no intention of been drawn into a long discussion at the end of which nothing happens The7thdr (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC) This needs to be removed. The7thdr (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

David Orme-Johnson is retired. He's not employed by any organization. TM isn't the name of an organization. TimidGuy (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide independent verification for that, rather than the fact that you work for one of the trademarks listed to TM?

@According to one of TM's registered trademarked companies the man referred to here as OJ still works for one of the TM ORGANIZATIONS: http://davidleffler.com/whatsnew.htm

It might be wise to point everyone at this stage to WIKI guidelines regarding references for commercial products:

WP:QS WP:SPS

The7thdr (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

David Leffler would be surprised to hear that he has funding to employ David Orme-Johnson. TimidGuy (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea TG he states that OJ is a TM researcher. If you can provide any public documents form elsewhere to suggest otherwise. Please stop discussing members of the Tm organization as if we should all be aware of the unpublished day to day activities of your organization. As an encyclopedia we can only go by published data - not corporate insiders. Thank you. The7thdr (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Orme Johnson is a retired from his position at Maharishi University, and works independently. Whether he does TM or not is not an issue here because as a researcher his work has been peer reviewed, and this is the best standard we have for objectivity here. Nor is there reason to doubt this researcher's credentials. Calling someone a TM researcher has no validity. This is not a matter of semantics but a matter of accuracy. He is a highly qualified researcher who has done research on the TM technique. We have no reason to assume that OJ is anything but what he says he is on his site in his resume , and no need to prove anything here.

OJ is not researching products that will be sold or products at all... so I'm afraid I don't understand what you are getting at or how your comment has any validity. (olive (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

The so called TM people are not getting anxious nor are they absent. They merely have lives that require attention. You make some pretty big assumptions here 7thdr in multiple places that may cloud the real issues, problems, and solutions we are all here to work on.(olive (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Age of studies

According to wiki policies on "medical" articles, and as would be expected in academia, many of the references to studies in this article need to be removed based on their age. In some cases the ages of some of this articles is frankly frightening if one bears in mind the "medical" angle this article has taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Use_up-to-date_evidence

Unless someone can come up with a very good reason as to why this frankly archaic articles should remain, I will begin to prone shortly. The7thdr (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Material in this article should not be moved or pruned without consensus.Please note tag on top of this page. This a contentious article and all moves should be discussed and an agreement reached. Discussion must include agreement with all editors involved as to why material should be removed.

Some of the studies were probably originally included for historical reference, and in some cases have been left in place because they add another perspective to the positive findings on TM. Discussion recently would indicate that some of these could possibly be removed Please note there are multiple peer-removed studies that are more recent on many of these topics. If you want to see what has been discussed and want to integrate yourself into the discussions, reading the posts so far would probably be an excellent idea. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

It's generally considered unacceptable to remove sourced material without consensus. Note, too, this sentence in the guideline: "These guidelines are appropriate for actively-researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published." I would think that the only instances we would want to remove sources would be when it's an old study that has been superseded by more research research. Feel free to make suggestions. TimidGuy (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words you take the best and most recent, but you don't just get rid of sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

perhaps you didn't read what I said, per wiki guidlines you should not be using 35 year old studies to support tentative physiological effects. If they are real then further research should be have been done to investigate them, if not then this means that it is unlikely the were either real or important enough for others to investigate them.

For example:

Effects on the physiology

Research studies have described specific physiological effects that occur during the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. The first of these studies was published in the early 1970s in Science,[8] American Journal of Physiology,[9] and Scientific American.[10]. This research found that the Transcendental Meditation technique produced a physiological state that was termed "restful alertness." During the practice of the technique the physiology becomes relaxed, as indicated by significant reductions in respiration, minute ventilation, tidal volume, blood lactate, and significant increases in basal skin resistance, yet EEG measurements showed increased coherence and integration of brain functioning,[11] indicating that the physiology was alert rather than asleep.[12]

Most of these studies are over 30- years old. Either find something new or drop the statements

This is similar to much of the "research". I refer you back to the wiki guidlelines regarding source for "medical" enteries.

Again, unless someone can come-up with a more valid reason these claims need to be removed.

Guidlines:

Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies. The7thdr (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and look for reviews. if you find something, then we can discuss replacing these three studies. They were originally put in the article, I believe, because they were seminal works. They were the first three studies on Transcendental Meditation, and they are recognized in the recently published history of mind/body medicine as being pioneering studies. TimidGuy (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not my intention to go looking for anything. As an interested reader I came across this article and found it laced with 30, 20, 10 year old medical references relating to supposed physiological effects.. I am saying that the references need to be removed until, or if, a more interested knowledgeable editor can insert newer ones. While wiki says 3 years, and this would be best, I would be happy to go with up to 7 years per standard academic practice.The7thdr (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The guideline states this: "These guidelines are appropriate for actively-researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published." Some of these areas are no longer being actively researched. TimidGuy (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, we use the best or most recent we have, but do not reject if something hasn't developed. Not that our reason is really important here, but what's wrong with old science? Further, why would a researcher do research on TM per se, instead of on relaxation methods. By that logic, we should use sources on other relaxation methods, but that would be WP:OR. "These guidelines are appropriate for actively-researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to remind everyone, that whatever the discussion, nothing should be removed from this article without consensus or agreement, and at the moment there is no consensus on any of these points.(olive (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Seminal research has importance in a historical context . This article is about TM and its history. Therefore, such research is important in terms of that history.(olive (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

I will remove anything that does not keep up tp the high standards set by wiki. I repeast 33 year old medical research is jsut not on.

"Not that our reason is really important here, but what's wrong with old science?"

according to old science you would be treated with leeches if you went to the doctor with lung cancer. More recently, 7 years ago, physology trext books used to teach neurosurgeons maintained that "brain cells" could not regenerate. Your question suggests that you should have nothing to do with any article related to either medicine or science.

"

Seminal research has importance in a historical context . This article is about TM and its history. Therefore, such research is important in terms of that history.(olive (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC))"

Then I am prepared to change the headings to historical research with a caveat to state that it has not been repeated in 33 years which is what you are suggesting.

The guideline states this: "These guidelines are appropriate for actively-researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published." Some of these areas are no longer being actively researched.

According to your corporate research your organizations products are being consistently researched, or are you now saying this is incorrect? A review of PUBmed would show that your statement is incorrect and that the guidelines are highly relevant here. The7thdr (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you do not interject comments into other editor's posts as this creates a lot of confusion as is generally not considered acceptable as per Wikipedia. You have combined your comments to both mine and MartinPhi's posts. Indenting your comments will also help clarify discussion points. Thanks.(olive (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

I'm afraid the only conclusion being drawn here are from those like yourself that work for the TM organization and edit this entry - contrary to WIKI guidleines - and those throwing doubts on the motives that are involved. Please don't quote "assuming good faith" guidelines. This is the consequence of your high profile involvement I am afraid and one of the reasons for the guidlines in the first place. Alas, while you can edit your profiles the histories remain in place to those that investigate. The7thdr (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in the dark as to what you are taking about. I am commenting on the way in which we format threads, and indent . I assume you are a new editor and wouldn't have known this. I don't throw doubts on those involved as far as I know, did not mention good faith, and have the right to edit on Wikipedia as do you. Your continual comments on whatever involvement I might have in TM might very well be construed as bad faith comments, and violate WP:Civility. Please comment on the edits not the editors.(olive (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Your concern is kind but I am far from new, but thank you for concern Olive. Both you and TG are members of the MUM facility, as you don't need me to point out. This leads to those from outside to look suspiciously - rightly or wrongly - on your continued and high profile work on this article. It is also against WIKI guidleines buit this has been pointed out to you on many occasions as anyone can see looking through the history of this article. As TM is a lucrative commercial venture, and you work for part of this organization this sometimes makes it difficult to look at contributions as always in good faith I am afraid. The7thdr (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Lets be very, very clear...I am a neutral editor and am possibly more stringent than most because I strive for neutrality Accusations by adversarial editors should not be construed as fact or an indication of some kind of guilt. Neither I nor TG have ever been judged to edit with a conflict of interest bias. Were you familiar with my edits you would know how often we have fought in this article against people who would have added a lot of material positive to TM. A biased editor would have left the material in the article. Your accusation is unfounded, incorrect, and frankly unfair.(olive (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

I won't explain... but TM as a lucrative commercial venture.....?

"A biased editor would have left the material in the article."

No a cleaver editor would not but would slant the editing so that it looked impartial. I didn't say it was a fair comment, but that is the risk that is run I am afraid.

"I won't explain... but TM as a lucrative commercial venture.....?"

Is it? How shocking :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Pagano study

It has been suggested that we add the 1976 Pagano study in Science because it failed to replicate Wallace. It turns out to be an interesting story, and an example of what user The7thdr is discussing in the thread above. In a sense the study did replicate Wallace because it found that when the 5 subjects were meditating they did show the effects he described. But in another sense, it failed to replicate because it found that the subjects spent most of their time sleeping rather than meditating. The predominance of stage 3 & 4 sleep was highly unusual. Some researchers wondered whether Pagano had used collodion to affix the electrodes. It is commonly used for this purpose but not usually used in a study that measures alertness. This is because it contains diethyl ether as a solvent, which if used in close quarters will induce sleep. In other words, the five subjects may have been anesthetized.

In a 1983 publication reviewing other papers reporting sleep during Transcendental Meditation, including a more recent paper in 1980 that reported no Stage 3 and 4 sleep during Transcendental Meditation, Pagano concluded: "Based on these results, the rather high incidence of Stage 3 and 4 activity reported in our initial study seems atypical."

Interestingly, after his 1976 study in Science, the following year he published a study of the effect of Transcendental Meditation on right hemispheric function and found that experienced meditators showed "superior" performance:

This study reports two experiments investigating the effects of transcendental meditation on right hemispheric functioning. The task used in both experiments was the Seashore Tonal Memory Test. In the first experiment a nonmeditator group and an experienced meditator group were run. The design involved three periods: a pretest, a meditation or rest period, and then a posttest. The results showed the experienced meditators were significantly better in both pretest and posttest performance. There were no pretestposttest differences. The second experiment was done to replicate the first experiment and to control for possible selection bias. The design was the same as the first experiment, except that an additional group of inexperienced meditators was included. The results again showed significantly superior performance for the experienced meditators compared to the nonmeditators. In addition, the experienced meditators were superior to the inexperienced meditators. There were no significant differences between the nonmeditators and the inexperienced meditators. These results support the hypothesis that meditation facilitates right hemispheric functioning. Alternative explanations, such as selection bias, are also discussed.

TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pagano et al (Pagano study) do note that, "Because of the high variability in the states observed, we caution against the conclusion that meditation and napping produce identical distributions of EEG stages."

The Kodos rewrite above states, "Pagano et al found that meditation was similar to sleep, and that EEG recordings during meditation were similar to those obtained in the same subjects during daytime naps.[PMID: 1108200]".

(olive (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Had a quick read. You would also be correct TG that this should not be included due to its age. The7thdr (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

quick read too, no time to deal with all issues, but...eliminate old studies? this would knock back some of the evidence on claimed effects on physiology as well. I still think it's an absurd standard in a field where some of the claims (eg, altered state, as dealt with in the Science papers) are based only on studies done years ago. And in many fields, work done 20 years ago is still the foundation for a field or an approach to treatment. It has to be taken case-by-case whether old research is stale research. Either way, I have never advocated eliminating any cited study for any reason, simply balancing it with the study quality and the strength of the evidence, including subsequent research that supports or refutes the original work.

Also, the "recency" policy is qualified: Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. I do not take this to mean "transcendental medicine", but "transcendental medicine's effect on xyz". For many of the claimed effects, there are single studies, and they are therefore are still relevant.

Interestingly, the Reliable Sources wiki does contain guidance on quality of research, which has been something we've debated here excessively: it does appear appropriate per wikipedia policy to qualify the evidence for claims based on the study quality and the number of studies supporting each claim. The AHRQ is the one I see utilized most commonly. In this system, multiple RCTs are better than, for example, a single comparative or correlative study. This is a valid way to qualify the strength of the effects. (Incidentally, their Class Ia might not be complete in the RS article...I think they left out "multiple RCTs".) Will look at rest of discussion later, but I think we're back to listing what effects are claimed and assessing their validity.

Also, is TG commenting above RE: Pagano's methodology? Ok, this sounds like OR now. The authors very clearly state, in their abstract "The range of states observed during meditation does not support the view that meditation produces a single, unique state of consciousness." Direct quote. Wallace hypothesizes that the changes he found suggest a unique state of consciousness. Seems pretty clear to me that the 2 studies do not agree. The diethyl ether is irrelevant unless it is referenced, and even then, Pagano's conclusion is very clear. The 1983 study is about effects on sleep, not about a unique state of consciousness, and I won't touch the "superior performance" study until I read it and we decide that it's worth including. --Kodoz (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me you have all convinced me. There does need to be rewording regarding these older studies however. it also opens up the many studies that have "criticized" ( I now sense those employed by TM who edit this article getting anxious again) TM that are suspiciously obvious by there absence.

The7thdr (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kodoz, for your explanation. Regarding Pagano, note that Wallace doesn't say a "unique state of consciousness." Why would we use Pagano? Seems like his own admission that the results of his 1976 were atypical would suggest that it's not the best source. Looking at the study, I think the issue is how much time is spent sleeping. I believe his 1983 review basically corroborated Wallace, in that stage 3 and 4 sleep was rare. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Two suggestions - This talk page seems to be getting a bit unwieldy - are there parameters for when to archive older discussion sections? And second, in the spirit of improving the RS of the article, particularly the science section, I'd like to suggest that any non-peer reviewed studies be removed (also, to allow room for addition of many more peer reviewed studies, as several contributors have recommended). For starters, I know that the study by Otis was never peer reviewed. Are there any objections to removing it? Duedilly (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the threads are still active, but We could probably archive up to and including 12 if no one objects.(olive (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

I didn't realize "Otis" wasn't peer reviewed. If we remove it, we do shift the balance as per Weight. Any thoughts on that from other editors.(olive (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Added refernce to Joe Kellett in religion section

having looked through the history I note that there will be those that will attempt to block this based on the fact that this a "critical" website. however, as a former TM practitioner and teacher Joe Kellett is obviously an "expert in his field" and his comments are thus as valid as say for example OJ and under WIKI guidelines are perfectly usable. As an example "skeptic.com" is often considered a "critical" site of much new age mumbo jumbo but is still considered a valid resource within WIKI referencing, albeit an over used one in my opinionThe7thdr (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

I don't believe that Kellett has been published by a third party, which is the criterion given in WP:V. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing more than a guideline but not to worry I am reading through Geoff Gilpin's book at the moment. Seems to be full of support for many of things your organization attempts to design. Makes interesting reading, you should read it. The7thdr (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kellett

Removed Kellett reference for same reasons ref was not usable before:

• Kellett is not an expert in the field of cult or any related field

• Kellett is relating personal experience not citing or commenting on verifiable, reliable research, that is, reliable, verifiable, 3rd party publications

• Kellett is not an active, updated TM teacher so is also no longer an expert in TM

Orme Johnson in contrast: Web site [6]

Education:

Columbia University, A.B., 1963, Psychology

University of Maryland, M.A., 1965, Psychology

University of Maryland, Ph.D., 1969, Psychology

Former professional Memberships:

American Psychological Association

Society for Psychophysiological Research

National Referee for National Social Science Journal

Iowa Academy of Science

Midwest Psychological Society

Most recent professional experience:

2004-Present--Consultant, Writer, Painter

• Orme Johnson Recent publications: [7]

• From WP:V: 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.

please do not remove material without discussion. OJ is also not an expert in cults - if you can cite on research paper that he has written on them I would be more then happy to read it. The WIKI guidelines - and please remember that they are guidelines not rules - clearly state that an expert in a field can be cited - as a former TM teacher he is such a thing. he is also recounting his personal experience of training materials that he encountered and claimed are part of the Esoteric teachings of TM only for teachers. this makes his contributions invaluable.

I am reverting, please do not remove again until this has been fully discussed. I am more than happy to take this to arbitration if necessary The7thdr (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This material was not original to the article when this discussion began . The onus is the editor entering the material to prove the material is verifiable and reliable. This web site is not. Orme Johnson is a psychologist of which the study of behaviour in cult members is a legitimate topic and on which he comments.

Please note that there have been two cycles of advanced training for TM teachers since Kellett became a teacher, so he is no longer an expert in this area.

Kellett above all, has not been published by "reliable third party publications" Even if Orme Johnson was not an appropriate entry, this doesn't somehow make Kellett's information appropriate.

You have it backwards as I stated above . Discussion and agreement must be reached before entering this material

Thank you for your comments Olive. Apart from the historical importance of his findings (the entry clearly states that he is an ex teacher) can you cite a reliable source that confirms that "that there have been two cycles of advanced training for TM teachers" since he left the organization? Can I also say the being published in reliable third party publications is still only a guideline - the reason for this is, as the guidelines state, is that anyone can call themselves an expert on an area - however, no one is denying that Kellett was a TM teacher and thus just such an expert. Anyway, Kellett has also featured in newspaper articles which can be cited instead of his own website - this are certainly allowed without argument. Please note the entry says in his opinion and says that he heard this tape. this is fully OK within WIKI guidelines The7thdr (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think any more material in the cult section would violate undue weight. This really isn't a major issue with TM. The last time I did a search engine test, there were some 10,000 articles in the Google News archive that mentioned TM. Only a handful have more than a sentence or two about cult accusations. By way of comparison, there were around 700 articles just on the hypertension research. TimidGuy (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely the fact that anyone can call themselves experts that Kellett's web cite can't be used. He cites an opinion about cult based on ... his opinion and experience. That just doesn't fly with Wikipedia. Orme Johnson is however an expert and his comments are acceptable because his reputation has been established by third party publications, and by his credentials . Being a TM teacher of any vintage doesn't make one an expert in cult, although it might make one an expert TM teacher. This section is about cult.(olive (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Oops. My comment above was a bit of a non sequitur. Sorry about that. I was confusing two different insertions by 7th. Please ignore. TimidGuy (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Organization by chronology

There should be consensus for such a major change. Too much emphasis is being placed on when the research was done and that it's not at all helpful to a reader. By topic is better -- otherwise the reader simply sees it as a homogenous section on research and is daunted by the prospect of wading through it. The whole idea of subheads is to organize by content, not chronology. We could, if you insist, do chronology within a topic.

In the case of the Lancet study, the chronology distorts things, giving undue weight to an early uncontrolled study. If this study is included, it should be in the context of the later more definitive research. In fact, it probably shouldn't even be in the article, per the new guideline. A small uncontrolled study would be superseded by the Approximately 15 randomized controlled trials done since then and the metaanlayses of these. TimidGuy (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as I have mentioned - as can be found in the WIKI guidelines to "medical" topics - the age of the research is important. For example I can quote research from 10 years ago that maintains that CNS cells cannot "regenerate" this is now known to be incorrect. The reader needs to be aware of the age of the research so that they can make a decision on it's validity. We are not here to "guide" - however it maybe done - a reader along a certain view point.

Only a small amount of TM research is medical. I believe you are misapplying the guideline. This isn't a medical topic. TimidGuy (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree TG however, the majority of the research cited in this article is medically related - there is no mention of flying, world peace, invincibility etc. The weight of the research is medically related, unless you can prove otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The research on cognitive function isn't medical, Wallace's research isn't medical. This isn't really a medical topic. Only a portion of the research on TM is clinical, the rest is basic research, psychology, education, intelligence, etc. The other areas you mention are related to a separate technique, the TM-Sidhi program, and that research is included in that article. TimidGuy (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

comments on recent additions

The minet web site doesn't meet WP:V. It violates the policy against using web sites. If the Lancet site is included, it should go with the studies on hypertension. Otherwise, it gives it undue weight to highlight it like this. It should be in context, as I explained in the other thread. And it's a textbook example of medical research being superseded by later research, per the guideline you've been citing. It is not a matter of fact that this research hasn't been repeated. EEG research continues today, foe example. The research on physiological changes continued well into the 1980s and perhaps the 1990s. Any comment like this is original research, and it's wrong. Please don't edit war. You've far exceeded the three-revert rule and can be blocked from editing. Please don't edit war. Rather, changes should be based on consensus. Per WP:BRD, it's fine that you made bold changes. But now that they've been reverted, you should make your case. All of these seem either incorrect or not in accord with the guidelines. TimidGuy (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

TG, you made each revert individual this is common pratice among those trying to lure people into the 3 revert rule - and both is un-called for and noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 20:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment regarding my revert nor your accusation of luring. I did, though, exaggerate. On second glance, you appear to have only 4 reverts. I guess I got excited. Apologies. In any case, hope you'll address my points above. TimidGuy (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry TG, I think all of this will be resolved very shortly. 93 93/93 The7thdr (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not since repeated

TG can you please stop this constant edit waring - it is very counter-productive.

In the interest of civility I will discuss, can you please why this factual statement is somehow considered "controversial" by senior MUM facility staff such as yourself please? The7thdr (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which statement you're referring to. TimidGuy (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Oops. I see you had it in the subhead. I address this above. TimidGuy (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Lancet study

Martin: Rather than get into an edit war I would be happy to discuss. If I am wrong then please explain how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The wording that I used was because you had put on the heading Recent research, which I thought was inappropriate, per the earlier thread. So as I noted in my edit summary, I really didn't like the wording but that was all I could think of to make it fit the context of that heading. The Lancet study really doesn't belong in the article, per your favorite guideline in medical articles. If it's included, it absolutely must be contiguous with the other hypertension studies. Otherwise, the reader may not see the context and get the wrong impression. TimidGuy (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit waring

This is now getting silly - and shortly to be in breach of the 3 revert rule. perhaps instead you might explain why the place that the research is conducted seems to be so controversial to the facility team at MUM when it refers to MUM but not so when it applies to other institutes?

I would of course be happy to discuss and if I am wrong revert my self. The7thdr (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made one revert. As stated below your addition on the university is unnecessary given that all of this is sourced. 7th, We'd get along a whole lot faster if you could see past the view that we are out to do some wrong here. I am protecting this article absolutely from the bias and Pov editing that has been the norm . I am tired tonight and don't care to mince my words. I have dealt with aggressive foul, uncivil editors who have sworn at me, called me names, and I would wish that now you could be one, who could deal with this material in a non- biasd way. You have indicated over and over you think there is COI here. Please review my edits and you will see that that is not the case.(olive (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Olive, please, I hope that I have not come across that way and if it is the case, then i am sorry for giving that impression although i think your assessment of me as being an "aggressive foul, uncivil editors who have sworn at me, called me names" is a little extream. It is alas not in may nature. My adding of the research institute counters perhaps those that my say that it is not "real" research, although my main reason is factual accuracy. I notice that there has been no such difficulty from your self or other editors in including the name of the Kentucky University that is cited. I cannot thus see why this is such an issue. I think if you look at my earlier edits of placing the research by decade it actually removed or placed further down in the article critical research. Please assume good faith. None of my edits tonight could possible be seen as POV but simple factual additions and the removal of one piece of weasel wording and possible original research - which by the way had not been added by you. The7thdr (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No 7th. I didn't say you were any of these things , but rather that this has been my experience and I hoped that you would be different. You seem to have twisted my words.(olive (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Adding conducted at...

7th. Adding "conducted at MUM" in three separate places is an edit that is obviously meant to indicate some point of view on your part. If you have legitimate concerns please discuss As you may well know research grants are generally awarded to the researcher and he or she brings that grant to the university or other place he chooses to research. Adding MUM here is non-information. If a reader wants to know where the researcher carried out the study, the study is listed and the researcher can be traced. This is the purpose of sourcing the material.

NIH grants should probably be noted. That is another discussion.(olive (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

No concerns Olive, it is simple factual information, it is correct and citing the research institute that conducted the research is common practice. personally I can't see why this is an issue or why you consider it POV. That would only be the case if you felt that that there was some issue with the accreditation of the research institute involved. Do you think this maybe the case? I have found no such evidence but if you can cite reliable resources to do so than perhaps it might be included. The7thdr (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

of course I would be happy to continue to discuss. I know that both of us are reasonable people and which only to produce an NPOV, factual article. Indeed, I can see this in the hard work you have done so far in this article The7thdr (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I will be reverting the MUM addition you have made. This is a non consensus addition. I will be at 2RR. You will be at 3RR if you revert. As far as I know MartinPhi (who has no affiliation with TM that I know of) has only 1RR. Generally one should discuss and then when agreement has been reached remove or add. You are adding material against the opinions of both editors involved.(olive (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

No Olive you will be at 3 reverts if you revert this - it begins with the original edit. You are now trying to lure me into reverting and this is appalling behavior. Please do not do it. this is not a major edit - it is a minor edit adding non controversial information and does not need agreement The7thdr (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact I will be at 2RR and my counting this out for you was to help you since I will bet there are admins watching this discussion and you could have been blocked while misunderstanding the count. I find it sad that my comments to you and assistance to you at this point have been construed as luring you. I will assume you won't need my assistance again.(olive (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

We have seemed to have gotten of to a bad start Olive, my fault nodoubt. I hope that things will move forward in a better manner. I sometimes come across as a little "sharp" here in wiki, one should ignore it, it is not meant the way it comes across. The7thdr (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Factual errors

7th, I don't have time now to go over your work, but I think you're being a bit careless. Studies that you're labeling as research done at Maharishi University of Management weren't in fact done there. You are introducing errors into the article. I can't understand why you'd do this. The hypertension studies were done at hospitals and medical centers around the country. The pain study was done at one of the country's leading MRI facilities. TimidGuy (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The papers say that they were conducted at MUM those that were not have not been altered. If you think there is an error in one I am happy to discuss and change. The7thdr (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No they don't. You are making incorrect assumptions. TimidGuy (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the hypertension studies, for example, were carried out with independent collaborators from outside institutions. In a number of cases the principal investigator was from the outside institution and had no connection to Maharishi University of Management. The subjects were recruited in the city where the hospital or medical center was located. Data were collected at independent institutions by personnel blind to treatment allocation. In what sense was such a study done at Maharishi University of Management? In fact, I don't recall ever seeing on a study where it was conducted. It usually just give's each author's institutional affiliation.

And I just noticed that your heading about studies done in the 1990s was for a section that contained research done in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. I don't understand. I'm sorry to be critical, but I do think it's important to be accurate. TimidGuy (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So what do I do? I've got one revert now -- the heading -- and I'll collect more if I correct the factual errors. Such as the really annoying one that the pain study was done at MUM. As if we have an MRI setup on our tiny campus. it was done at the lab of Dr. Cho, one of the leading MRI specialists in the country. TimidGuy (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not long ago we asked that people come to consensus on the talk page before editing the article. That request was not honored. So now, we have various options: We can revert to the version of a few days ago, and go with consensus on the talk page before editing. We can say that there is consensus here to have TimidGuy correct the errors. Or, we can put the {{totally-disputed}} tag on the article, put {{fact}} tags on all the errors, and if nothing is sourced or corrected by whoever put the info in, we can go through the WP:DR process. By far the most simple and the nicest thing to do would be either to revert, or for people to agree to the correction of errors, in which case they would not be reverts. One thing which should not happen is that TG be asked to justify all his edits here before putting them in: no one else was held to that standard.

There is a lot of talk about experts not getting their due in WP. Well, here you have an expert. What are you going to do with him? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can't cite claims that further studies proved one wrong, you can't say it. End of story. Likewise, you can't use "The Journal of Pseudoscience Advocacy" to refute The Lancet, so those studies had best be from decent journals. You can't just say what you want, provide no source, then complain about people reverting your changes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

SH. The discussion here is concerning the fact that entries were made that cited incorrect pieces of information. Its very simple . 7th has simply made an error in stating where some research was done and this can be easily corrected by checking the studies. Abstracts of the Collected Papers can be found here.[8](olive (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Let's take a case study. The article had been edited to say that the MRI/pain study was done at Maharishi University of Management. I'm not sure where this information is from, since from what I recall papers don't usually say where a study was conducted. I can only surmise that user The7thdr is speculating where a study was done based on there being some coauthors who are affiliated with Maharishi University of Management. To me, it seems like a violation of WP:NOR to state anything beyond what the paper actually says. The reason original research isn't allowed is that it can't always be verified, and it may not be accurate. In this case, the news reports suggest that the research was done in California.[9] TimidGuy (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent addition to the article of a study from Lancet which showed no effect of TM on blood pressure, I am not exactly sure how relevant the study is in light of several recent much larger multi-center RCT studies which showed significant reductions of systolic and diastolic BP. But due to the substantial amount of interesting physiological research on TM, I support the idea of more research listed rather than less (and have been reviewing over the last year the 350+ papers that comprise the peer reviewed literature on TM). In the spirit of getting more research into the article (and perhaps even as an introduction to possibly starting a separate WP article on just the peer reviewed research on TM), I am going to suggest here another Lancet study which found some early indications of BP reductions: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/55533?ordinalpos=77&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I will look to add this study reference and the abstract to the article later today, and if we can get consensus, more of the many significant physiological and biochemical studies in the future.Duedilly (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If they're citable to good journals, no problem, and certainly the result seems reasonable. But they have to actually be cited. That's all I ask. Indeed, if there are strong studies in good journals conflicting with the 1970s one, I wouldn't object to removing it. But we have to actually include the citations. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"mainly in the 1970s"

My explanation for this change may have gotten lost in the tangle of discussion above. The phrasing in that first sentence seemed to suggest that research on the physiological effects was done mainly in the 1970s. I'd rather not link any specific time period to this, other than to say when the research commenced (given that it's recognized in the recently published book on the history of mind/body medicine to be pioneering). This is because research on physiological effects has been continuous up to the present. There are probably a couple hundred studies in this area, if you include neurophysiological effects. TimidGuy (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks better

Just has a quick look, the article looks a little better. Well done all. The7thdr (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

However, still a little confused here:

"This research found that the Transcendental Meditation technique produced a physiological state that the researchers called a "wakeful hypometabolic state."

Which of the studies cited said this? I don't believe it was all of them. Can we confirm which one it was that said this and reference it please. It will require a slight rewording to this and the next sentence however I think, but nothing major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 09:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, 7th. Regarding "wakeful hypometabolic state," the 1970 and 1971 studies use this term. Am checking the Scientific American article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC) By the way, good catch regarding the term "restful alertness." These two studies didn't use that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Scientific American: Wallace and Benson describe also "wakeful hypometabolic"state. State was not included in quotes.(olive (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Well, in that case even if only two use it might as well leave it as it is - to change the wording would simply make it cumbersome: would you agree? I think it is now simply the accepted "clinical" term for meditation anyway. The7thdr (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it doesn't seem urgent to change it. I don't yet have the Scientific American article. TimidGuy (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to use the exact wording of the study, as is now the case. However, the MUM site uses the term "restfull alertness" as part of a unique claim for TM. A quick google search shows that numerous other forms of meditation and relaxation also make this claim, and; since, some of them are made in reliable sources, I think those claims should be given notice in the TM article. The MUM claim can be found here http://www.mum.edu/tm in a pop-up window when you click on the term "transcendental consciousness". There is also a section with the title "Restfull Alertness" on the TM.org website http://tm.org/discover/glance/index.html. This claim entails an associated discussion of alpha waves, which have also been reported by researchers studying other forms of relaxation. A comparison of these claims is also needed. I have been collecting citations and will present a summary in possibly a week. Ermadog (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)ermadog

The MUM site actually doesn't claim restful alertness is unique to TM and the TM.org site claims that "he Transcendental Meditation technique produced a unique state of mind and body called “restful alertness.", which I took to mean that the "uniqueness" is the state of mind and body rather than that TM is the only technique that creates this. There may be some discussion of semantics there, and of general understanding of what these phrases actually mean. There is ambiguity for sure.

The biggest concern I see is that this article is about TM , and if we veer off onto aspects of other techniques the article will be enormous and complex for there are, as I'm sure you know, multiple meditation techniques in multiple cultures. I would think a discussion of a term found in multiple techniques should go under the more general article, Meditation. Even more advanced techniques that are taught after the initial teaching of TM technique have been moved from this article to keep the article focused on what is being described here.

Making comparisons is very tricky as well since this could easily becomes Original Research.

Because of these concerns, I would think discussion on these points would be critical before adding anything to the article. I look forward to more discussion.(olive (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

I don't see it as a major issue but I have reviewed a number of papers of late - none TM - and can pretty much confirm that the term "wakeful hypometabolic" is now entered the clinical vocabulary as referring to all meditation states, which given the etymology makes sense. See for example:

http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/13/3/149

Personally I'm not that bothered, I asked due to the referencing, not other reason :) I also agree that we need to be careful about making comparisons. Anyone that has studied this areas knows that there are very large "clinical" differences between, for example, mantra meditation and, for example, Buddhist mindfulness meditation - not that there are not branches of Buddhist medititaion that use mantras of course but I think you know what I mean. The7thdr (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that the Scientific American article also used "wakeful hypometabolic state." So all three sources use it. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Oops, I see that Olive already noted this above. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OJ

I hate to get back to this but should this "studies" be cited:

cites studies by Schecter[52], Alexander [53], and Pelletier[54] showing greater autonomy, innovative thought, and increases in creativity, general intelligence and moral reasoning in those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique. According to Orme–Johnson 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.[55]

These were simply dissertations, they have not been peer reviewed or published in peer reviewed journals - and thus do not meet wiki referencing standards. The7thdr (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Pelletier is a diss. I've often seen this issue discussed on Reliable Sources Talk and on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Usually, but not always, the sentiment is that dissertations are acceptable. They are typically approved by a committee of four research faculty at the university and one outside the university. But it may not matter in any case, because there's other research on this, and I think Orme-Johnson is intending to add more references. I'll check with him. He's actually writing this up for publication, but its appearance in print is at least a year away. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps... I was wondering if perhaps you and Olive might help with something. I am toying with the idea of adding - or at least building upon if any exist - an entry on the "clincal" applications of meditation in general. Once I begin, both you and Olives impute would be highly appreciated. The7thdr (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The one that exists is weak and could use a lot of work. Health applications and clinical studies of meditation Would be great if you gave it some attention. I'd be happy to give input. TimidGuy (talk) 19:14, 20 September

2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'd be happy to give input, although I'd probably be best useful as a copy editor and in looking at syntax.:0) (olive (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

You have noted my grammar i see olive :). I shall go and have a look at this article The7thdr (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, not a comment about your grammar at all .... If I have a strength that may be it, just because of my background, that's all. :o) (olive (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Clunky

This is a little "clunky":

"The organization that teaches the Transcendental Meditation technique recommends that it be learned from an authorized teacher only"

Would it not be better to just put the name of whatever part of the "TM Group" teaches TM here? The7thdr (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty is that there are, and have been, a number of different corporate entities, and I guess we don't know which specifically to attribute this to. So maybe we could simply reference the source: "According to the official web site, Transcendental Meditation can only be learned from an authorized teacher." TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds better to me, less "clunky" anyway. Can this be done if no one else has objections? By the way, you are correct, the general meditation/clinical implications wiki entry is a mess. The7thdr (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead and change. TimidGuy (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

TM everywhere and not a drop to drink.... dry

In looking through the article I realized that there in nothing that actually describes how the technique works, which makes it pretty dry reading. What about adding something on that.(olive (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Good point. I guess the challenge is avoiding having it sound promotional. If we want to use a third-party source, we could cite Jonathan Shear's chapter on the Transcendental Meditation technique from The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions published in 2006 by Paragon House, an academic press. He offers a thorough explanation of how it works. TimidGuy (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to try and write something and then post it here for discussion, if that's OK. Or alternately I could put it in and then it could be edited and discussed. I'll have to see if I can get hold of the book.(olive (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Dissociative disorders precipitated by TM

There are plenty of studies that discuss the adverse psychological effects of TM but there is only short mention of one of them (i.e. can cause depression anxiety), yet numerous mentions of studies about blood pressure. We should definitely add these studies for balance (i.e. many studies show TM can cause depersonalization, derealization, suicidal ideation and seriously aggravate pre-existing psychiatric disorders and illnesses.) For instance, the study by the Institute for Youth and Society, which was cited in the Koprinski suit. --72.39.35.178 (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. There seems to be only 2% of total studies done on TM that look at harm from the TM technique and of these papers most were not controlled studies and some in fact didn't refer to the TM technique at all. If there were any such papers we would have to include them in the article only after consideration of WP:Weight, that is, 2% of total studies would probably need only a small inclusion, and as I said there is serious doubt that this 2% would stand scrutiny under WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliability My suggestion would be to cite the studies here for discussion and analysis to make sure they merit inclusion.(olive (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

The so-called German study has been extensively discussed here. It wasn't a scientific study. Kropinski lost his suit. TimidGuy (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the recent metaanlaysis by Anderson, randomized controlled trials haven't shown adverse psychological effects, whereas they have shown psychological benefits. "The anecdotal reports of adverse psychological effects or increased seizures have not been documented in randomized controlled trials. Two of the randomized controlled trials in this review indicated that psychological function was improved with Transcendental Meditation, while another study collected information but did not mention differences in side effects between groups. Rigorous analyses of available data suggest that Transcendental Meditation tends to decrease anxiety and have other psychological benefits." We should probably add something about the rigorous studies showing benefits. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Olive, if there's a 100 studies on blood pressure it makes no difference if there is only 10 on psychological effects. It is a different subject, clearly.

I think a study published by an official government body would also be included LO. Whatever your views of the study, it comes from a "reliable" source and could not be excluded on any grounds found on a reading of WIKI guidelines - alas. The7thdr (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Timidguy, could you provide a link to the metaanalysis by Anderson so I may research it. Also Koprinski losing his suit does not mean the study was flawed, it only proves Koprinski failed to prove he was harmed by TM. If a scientist testifies in a lawsuit and the guy loses it, it doesn't mean the scientist is suddenly an idiot. Obviously. --72.39.35.178 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to Anderson.[10] Note that the German pamphlet wasn't published in a scientific journal and a court ruled it wasn't scientific. I only mentioned Kropinski's losing because I thought you may not have been aware that an appellate court overturned the judgment of the lower court. TimidGuy (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But the Anderson one is a study of blood pressure?? I'm talking about psychology, there are plenty of studies in the blood pressure section of the article. As for the nearly 200 page "pamphlet" as you call it for some reason, from my understanding of law a court in a lawsuit like Kropinski's would not make that sort of ruling. Anyway, it's not like it is the only thing out there about psychological effects of TM. I'm just saying we should add more discussion of them in the "research on cognitive function" section. --72.39.35.178 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being clear. It was a German court that made the ruling. Anderson reviewed randomized controlled trials on TM. They were mainly focused on assessing hypertension, but they the also did psychological assessments and found positive results. I guess the reason I like that quote is because it's a clear statement that rigorous studies haven't shown negative effects, whereas rigorous studies have shown benefits. TimidGuy (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a good study to include... but if we are going to be very stringent about what is and what isn't a scientific study then that quote from the Anderson doesn't count as scientific since it is outside the bounds of the study: "This study was designed to assess effects of Transcendental Meditation on blood pressure using objective quality assessments and meta-analyses." It's interesting, and authoritative, so it can be included (in my opinion), but if the bar is lowered then other studies which you don't really want to include should be included now. Surely there are better studies out there (olive knows of a whole bunch apparently) so we should use those instead.--72.39.35.178 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to your comments that "there are plenty of studies". That can't be the case if only 2% of the total pool of studies done are negative and of those most if not all had major problems ....One could then infer that there are almost no studies if any that show negative psychological effects since we are dealing with an even more limited pool. The best bet might be to bring the refs for the studies you want to include here so all editors can look at them. That would probably allow the discussion to become more specific more quickly.(olive (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

...and I assume you mean psychological effects positive or negative.(olive (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Yeah. Both positive and negative. Right now all there is is stuff like "may show improvement in academic performance" and then one sentence about how it "may increase anxiety." Do you have a cite for the 2% (and is that including physiological changes like blood pressure? remember those don't count because this is just for the cognitive function section.) The studies I found were from websites about how TM can be bad for you, psychologically speaking, that's why I am bringing it up. I'm wondering where I can find the other 98% of studies which show psychological benefits. --72.39.35.178 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I found the website you are both using as your reference Truth About TM. I will look into it. --72.39.35.178 (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are the three studies that Anderson cites in his quote above where he says rigorous studies show benefits, in case they're of interest:

• 31. Smith JC. Psychotherapeutic effects of transcendental meditation with controls for expectation of relief and daily sitting. J Consult Clin Psychol 1976; 44:630–637.
• 32. Alexander CN, Rainforth MV, Gelderloos P. Transcendental Meditation, self actualization, and psychological health: a conceptual overview and statistical meta-analysis. J Social Behav Personality 1991; 6:189–247.
• 33. Gelderloos P, Hermans HJ, Ahlscrom HH, Jacoby R. Transcendence and psychological health: studies with long-term participants of the transcendental meditation and TM-Sidhi program. J Psychol 1990; 124:177–197.

The latter two summarize multiple studies, so could be a good source for getting a larger picture of the research. TimidGuy (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhh...I looked into it and Gelderloos, Rainforth, Alexander, Hermans, Ahslcsrom and Jacoby are all teachers at the Maharishi "University." All of them. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Smith is there too. That should be mentioned if we're going to include these studies... don't you have any better ones? --72.39.35.178 (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.35.178 (talk)

All of them? I think the abstract just gives the institutional affiliation of the first author. TimidGuy (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all of them. I searched for their names and there's at least one reference for each of them as being faculty of the Department of Psychology at Maharishi University. It would be much better to cite studies by people who are not affiliated with the Maharishi University. Here's a reference for most of them[11] and another [12]. David Ormes (from that website I posted where you are getting your figures) is founding chairman of the Maharishi University Department of Psychology [13].

Oh sorry I didn't get that information to you. I also have in hand some of the "collected papers", which contain the entire study rather than just abstracts as the OJ site does.

Some additional, hopefully, useful comments:

• Duedilly, post above [14] is collecting information on the number of peer reviewed studies on the TM technique of which there are at this point over 350 and still counting.

Ok I guess I will just have to wait. I hope you are not counting faculty members writing studies about studies done by other faculty members. I came across a lot of those (i.e. David Ormes' published a study which is simply a review of fellow faculty member Charles Alexander's work [15])

• I doubt that all of these researchers are faculty at MUM. Alexander is deceased. Rainforth is there . The others probably not.

Well, doubt no more (as per my post to TimidGuy above).

• I noticed you have university in quotes so I assume you have concerns about the quality of the institution. I include a link to the higher learning commission the accrediting body of the university.[16][17]

I guess I just use the word "university" differently than you. There's plenty of accredited "universities" out there that I would put quotes around -- it's not like I'm singling Maharishi Univeristy out.

• In fact,the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is peer-review. Although researchers may be faculty at any institution the reliability and verifiability of the research must comply to this peer review standard. As well, although researchers may be from a particular university there is no guarantee research was done at that university . Researchers collaborate and research at multiple facilities dependent in part on their needs. So I guess what I'm saying is that inclusion of studies is dependent on this peer review status rather than on any other factor.(olive (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

Fine with me! --72.39.35.178 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Herman seems to not be at MUM. Just out of curiousity, I'm going to call the university and check those names and see what the status is of Jacoby, Gelderloos and Ahlscrom, althugh its a bit of a red herring because as I said it doesn't matter where they worked as long as the work was peer-reviewed, the objective standard for Wikipedia....Thanks for your research in this.(olive (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

The work of OJ on Alexander was a review rather than research . Alexander passed away a few years ago. His work had been extensive and highly respected in his field so there have been efforts to "collect" his work in different ways. No there's no need to use a review. We want the original research as I understand it.(olive (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

Ok well I hope you guys can sort it out. I will check back later but I'm not interested in getting bogged down in this which seems to slowly be happening (not that expect you two are eager to get bogged down in this either). Anyway, the gist (jist?) of what I wanted to note is that there should be more information when it comes to negative studies--I don't see it as strictly a balance issue, there just needs to be more info. Getting that info is hard, because there is apparently not enough research from neutral sources. It's not really on the academic radar. That's not too surprising, but it's also not necessarily a problem. The blood pressure ones seem to have the most neutral sources but that's one very small aspect of what TM is all about (plus those results are not unique when it comes to meditation). So I think we can lower the bar slightly in terms of what should go in--*neither* are 100% totally perfect. I don't think it is a big deal given the available research and, as long as all the pertinent info is there, I think it should work out. I look at it this way: notable people have some notable opinions and have done notable research on the subject, so *all* of it should be in the article, you know what I mean? Just good, interesting, npov writing, not one of those "criticisms of" debate-style articles. I'm thinking lines like "A study by PhD psychologist so-and-so of the Maharishi University found that..." and "TM is not without its detractors. So-and-so, who has written extensively on the effects of meditation, TM in particular, found that..." --72.39.35.178 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to peer-reviewed published research, Wikipedia policy doesn't make a stipulation about "research from neutral sources." Nor should it. The process is rigorous, and the bar is high for publication in these major academic journals. And I'm not sure that one can off-handedly say that the blood pressure results aren't unique. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in Current Hypertension Reports, for example, found that Transcendental Meditation compares favorably to other relaxation techniques. Yes, I completely agree that the article should be representative of the research. We just need to identify the studies and weight them accordingly. I don't think we could say "TM is not without its detractors," a sort of journalistic convention. We simply put in the studies, weighted according to their significance and number, and then let the reader decide. When I say significance, I mean that a study such as Otis, which had such a weak design that it can hardly be called a study, and which wasn't peer reviewed or published in an academic journal, should only be very briefly mentioned -- if at all. A rigorous randomized-controlled trial published in a peer-reviewed journal merits more emphasis. A metaanalysis is even more significant (since, as you likely know, it gathers all studies regardless of result and pools the statistics to determine an overall effect). When i say number, I mean that if there are 10 studies showing positive effects on the psychology and one that shows negative effects, the points of view shouldn't somehow seem equivalent (which I feel the "detractors" convention connotes). Rather, they should follow the policy of WP:NPOV and be weighted accordingly. Of course, it becomes a bit of an art: there are so many studies that we could never include all of them. So we'd have to survey them and select a representative sampling of the best. I wasn't quite clear on what you meant by lowering the bar. I think that in every case we'll need to observe WP:NPOV and related policies and guidelines.

As it stands right now, the material in the article on effects on the psychology (as opposed to cognitive function) is unbalanced, because Otis is included but no research showing positive effects. So it's good that we're looking at this. Ideally we'd replace Otis with something better. TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, been a little busy of late. TG while I might agree with some of: "The so-called German study has been extensively discussed here. It wasn't a scientific study. Kropinski lost his suit. TimidGuy (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What I think you maybe doing here - and I use this only as an example of the the argument being made by MUM staff above - could be accused of original research. As WIKI editors it is not our job to decide whether research or an "experts opinion" are right or wrong and include/exclude them on that basis. According to WIKI rules we most include the research or published opinion no matter what our personal thoughts or even that of other "experts". If there is a counter argument - and it comes from a reliable source who can be cited then that counter argument can be placed. We should we certainly should not however exclude research from source considered reliable by WIKI. The7thdr (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the German study fails the Wikipedia standard for inclusion, because it fails WP:Verifiablity and WP: Reliability because it was not peer reviewed nor was it published in a reliable journal (that are usually peer reviewed themselves). Although one certainly "researches" to find this out, I don't believe this is what is meant by WP:OR. OR would refer to a case in which we took a study and from that study extrapolated some other information. For example, in a non science environment: If I am commenting on a painter and then linking to one of his paintings, I can only include a comment on the painting as per another source for example a reviewer might have said the painting is about severity and apocalypse. I as an editor can't analyze the painting and make some comment. I can only include the comments from a reliable source on painting. My comment on the painting is not acceptable in an encyclopedia which is just a collecting place for information rather than a place for new ideas. So with a study like the German study, and for most scientific research, we have some pretty simple tests for its inclusion - objectivity - and that objective standard is peer review which means that a panel of jurors have in effect judged the study as reliable and verifiable enough for publication. Without that standard anyone could include a so called study on anything in Wikipedia and the reader would have no way of knowing unless familiar with the scientific methods, and procedures on research and studies, whether the inclusion was valid, You probably are familiar with all of this .... Just my thinking patterns here in trying to explain Wikipedia as I understand it. (olive (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Sorry to sound argumentative LO , but not having been peer reviewed does not mean that it cannot be included. If that was the case than OJ's stuff about "cults" would need to be excluded. Both you and TG by have made this point over and over again regarding OJ. Is it put together by "experts" in the field, etc, etc? I believe it is. I can look up the rules if you want but know that you know them

"...and that objective standard is peer review" This would exclude the comments by OJ. If you wish to go with this argument I am sure there are those that would not mind The7thdr (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. If it helps I don't believe a word of it - the study that is - but it exists nevertheless. Attempting to ignore it is harmful I believe. But this is personal opinion, not related to WIKI policy The7thdr (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction. By that I don't believe it's general conclusions about meditation in general, I can obviously not comment on it's conclusions on TM as I have very little direct experience. The7thdr (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

One should be argumentative ... its fine ... that's what this discussion page is for :o).

Peer review refers to actual inclusion of research ... so the German study, not peer reviewed, is not a good candidate for inclusion in the research /studies area. A comment on a topic by someone whom is considered and expert in the field is a definite possibility for inclusion.Its a different kind of included material than research. As a psychologist commenting on the research,( not his own research) on behaviours commonly associated with cult, OJ certainly qualifies as an expert. Two very different kinds of inclusion.(olive (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

The German study....revisited

I'm on my way out right now 7th, so just a quick note. The German study was extensively discussed in the past. There were serious concerns with the study and of course it wasn't peer reviewed . A government agency is only a reliable source if the study is peer reviewed .... because again government agencies are not necessarily expert or honest. At any rate, this has nothing to do with my opinion but rather with extensive discussions in the past and the resultant conclusions and consensus reached at that time . We could revisit this discussion again if need be.(olive (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

That might need to be the case LO. I personally am not bothered enough, however, peer review is not the only criteria for inclusion - many books are included in WIKI article. If every article could only be discussed using peer reviewed sources it would not be possible to fill much in wiki.

I am not aware of any wiki rule or guideline that says government body sources are unreliable but if you can point this out.

The main issue is self publication. Not only is this study not self published but it is also Notable as it was used in a high profile court case and except as reliable evidence by the judges therein. It thus manages to meet to criteria for inclusion: Notability and coming form an accepted wiki source - both the organization and the court. I would like rather then a long drawn out argument to concentrate on these two facts. No original research should be included, including references to the studies repeatably, etc. If these can be sourced than they can be dealt with within the article. The7thdr (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a scientific study -- no literature review, no research design, no sampling procedure, no scientific methodology. What makes it a scientific study? It wasn't accepted as reliable evidence by judges. Already this article is in violation of NPOV, because it includes Otis but none of the many studies showing psychological benefits. I've just been looking at a few. This research is broad, looking at many different areas of psychological health. Off the top of my head, I'd recommend using Eppley's metaanalysis of studies looking at state trait anxiety, Alexander's randomized controlled trial referenced by Anderson as being rigorous, and the study by Gelderloos and Hermans for starters. TimidGuy (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No one said it used scientific methodology (A study does not need to use scientific methodology to be included in WIKI)it is a report by a government agency - it is still acceptable for this reason and also it's notability - there have been few government agency reports which so damningly condemned a commercial organization. It matters not what you or my personal opinion about it - that is not our job as wiki editors. If you can find published, reliable sources that support your views this maybe included in the section regarding it.

Also, can you also please point out the reference that said the Judge would not allow it? I was under the impression it had been accepted - especially in German high court. The7thdr (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

NB: I have just had a read through the study it did indeed use "scientific" methodology; however, this study used quantitative rather qualitative methodologies. This is the most common form of research methodology in the social sciences. As to not having any research design - again if refernce can be found to support this viewpoint perhaps they can be included - so long as they follow full WIKI regulations. However, I find this difficult to imagaine given the authors thank Professor Bernherd Kraak of the Institute for International Educational Research (Institut Fur Internationale Padagogische Forschung), for his help in the construction of the questionnaires —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You stated that it was accepted by judges. Do you have a source? What quantitative methodology did it use? What statistical significance did it report? TimidGuy (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

TG, forgive my rudeness but:

"What quantitative methodology did it use? What statistical significance did it report?" Go and have a read yourself if you are that bothered - however, this would constitute original research if you mentioned it in the article - unless it is firmly mentioned in the study,. I mentioned it here purely out of courtesy to your earlier comments. You would need to provide reliable source who refer to this - noting NPOV of course and use of resource to support a certain point of view.

"You stated that it was accepted by judges. Do you have a source" Yes the German legal record: 1 BvR 881/89. This of course was in the German High Court. Do you have another that says it wasn't? The7thdr (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that this "study " can't be included in the article unless it was peer reviewed. We just can't throw out that major Wikipedia qualification for inclusion. As well, in asking for the quantitative methodology, stat. significance TG, and I are asking for Wikipedia reliability references. Of course one is "bothered" because unless these points are substantiated the study can't be used in this article.

Bold = concerns with Methodology:

"The documentary evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs and by the Defendant does not demonstrate that individuals who are actively involved in the Transcendental Meditation movement, or meditate according to the Transcendental Meditation technique, are more susceptible to mental illness than the average population.

The “Documentation about the Effect of Youth Religion on Minors in Specific Cases” prepared by the “Action for Mental and Psychic Freedom,” and the “Documentation on Transcendental Meditation,” as well as the study “Differential Effects of the Practice of Transcendental Meditation” prepared by the Institute for Youth and Society, headquartered in Bensheim, are not based on a scientific sampling.

These studies dealt only with isolated cases, and only persons who are hostile to the movement were interviewed. Moreover, in well over half the cases studied the persons interviewed had no direct knowledge, since the information was obtained from third parties, i.e., parents or spouses, without the presence of those who had been directly involved. These studies were prepared by religious-ideological opponents of the Transcendental Meditation movement, and are obviously biased.” [18]

This the study not only fails the peer review stipulation it also fails as a reliable study WP:Reliable because there were major flaws in, at the very least. its methodology. I'm not sure how you see this can be included.(olive (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Not to sure where you found that quote LO - perhaps if you could provide a reference? If it is from the lower German courts as I point out above this was overthrown by the German High Court 1 BvR 881/89.

Again, your argument regarding peer review makes no sense in line with your previous arguments for OJs inclusion. You know that this is incorrect and a weak argument surely?

NB: I see, back to quoting OJ again? So now he has become a legal expert? This is mainly his personal opinion - and not peer reviewed. It is something of an oxymoron surely given your final comment? :). It maybe possible - assuming agreement between editors and in line with WIKI guidelines can be reached - to include OJ personal opinion on the early outcome in the article perhaps. The7thdr (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope this (above) is quoting a conclusion on the study as per the reiability point above. I am simply giving you a place/source to read it, since I don't have the study and conclusions in hand.(olive (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

If you can find the original source then this can be included in any "reputably" to the research. however, note will need to be made that the high court ruling did not draw the same conclusions and did not criticize the study. The7thdr (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The material Olive posted is verbatim from a certified translation of the lower court ruling. Maybe you could quote the relevant passage of the high court ruling. Does it dispute that the report wasn't based on a scientific sampling, was religiously ideologically motivated, and that the documentary evidence doesn't show that people who practice TM are susceptible to mental illness than the general population? TimidGuy (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"The material Olive posted is verbatim from a certified translation of the lower court ruling" Then perhaps you can cite that source and point to a copy of it on something other than a personal website?

To answer your second question TG One assumes it didn't need to, it simply overturned the lower courts ruling stating that the German Gov had the right to warn it's citizens against dangerous cults and sects - especially those that put its youth at risk and that the research papers conclusions were valid in this resepct. As I said, if your german is up to scratch perhaps you could read it yourself :)

As I said, if you can find the original source for that quote - not one from a personal website - it maybe used in the critique.

PS Oddly, I just noticed that this whole court case - upheld as you know - is not included in the article. This will need to be included also. The7thdr (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The source I would cite would be the court judgment, just as you have. One can't assume anything regarding the higher court judgment, especially when it explicitly said otherwise: "“The federal government has not asserted a general or in any event significant, frequent and determinable causal relationship between membership in the Transcendental Meditation movement and the appearance of mental disorders.” Again, this is from a certified translation of the higher court ruling. So basically we have a report claiming to show that TM is harmful, a lower court saying that the study was bogus, and a higher court saying that the federal government has not asserted that mental disorders are associated with the practice of Transcendental Meditation. I'd have to say that this is somewhat inconclusive. TimidGuy (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tg, been somewhat busy. I don't disagree, and have never said I have. What I don't understand is that this case - which set a precedent in the German legal system and is oft quoted both there and the literature of "new age religions" - is not included in this article? It is certainly highly notable. Why is not included? It is certainly highly notable in the history of TM. The7thdr (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally am not in a position to judge the notability of this case in the German legal system, but if it was notable then it would need to be included in an article on the German legal system linked to a source that indicates its notability. I have never seen a source in any reliable source that indicates this was notable to the TM organization, that is, that the organization considered it notable. The case was fraught with concerns, and in terms of implicating the TM organization was a non-starter, so I'm not sure how we could consider it notable or in what way it could be included. The standard for notability on such a study would have been peer-review as I guess I've mentioned, but the study wasn't reviewed possibly because it had so many problems. I guess we've been through this before . I'm not sure what else to say or what might have changed in order that we consider this material acceptable for inclusion for Wikipedia, in my mind at least. Maybe some one else has a different idea(olive (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

Notable recent news events

I was wondering - while discussing TM and Germany - do you think this should be included in the article? It received much news attention in Germany and mainland Europe.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=k357ErdUQyk

The7thdr (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

English language coverage of the event in a major newspaper; for those that don't speak German http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/nov/20/davidlynch

The7thdr (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly we wouldn't be able to use YouTube as a source. It's not clear that the Guardian article is directly related to this article or would go in the one on the organization that teaches Transcendental Meditation. In any case, it is, again, a matter of WP:NPOV. I do hope you'll look at this policy, especially the information regarding weight and proportionate representation. There have literally been thousands of media reports about David Lynch's presentations on Transcendental Meditation in the U.S., Europe, and Israel. About 99% of them are completely positive. You can do a search in Google News archives. Wikipedia strives to be balanced. If we included something about this event in a related Wikipedia article, then we'd want to include something about 100 other such events, all of which were reported positively, including his meetings with heads of state in France and Israel. TimidGuy (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I was trying to make a point about WP:NPOV. I am beginning to find that a zen dialogue methods are needed when talking to you TM people; must be all that "relaxed wakefulness" :)

stay with me on this one above. The7thdr (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)