Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Invincibility,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TM and TM technique

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

Transcendental Meditation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comment

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

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

Manipulation of the Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Added a paragraph in the Relationship to Religion section

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

• Replaced references in the Cult section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to bring things back to focus:

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

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

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

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

Socks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cult and orm johnson

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

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

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

Removal of Paragraph From Research Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure thing. Here is more copy from WP:MEDRS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shorten Cult Section

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

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

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

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

BB Ref your points for shortening it:

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

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

2: the section was disportionatley long for the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Aspect of SCI: Research in Consciousness

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

The First Sentence

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

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

My problem with this sentence is primarily the sources:

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

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

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

(ec)I don't think this is a useful exercise, since the sentence has been substantially changed, and while I did have some problems with the earlier wording, those problems have been addressed and I don't have a problem with the sentence as it now stands: Benson acknowledged methodological weaknesses and bias in the study he co-authored with Wallace, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology done in the 1970s had methodological weaknesses, and that early studies using control groups showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest.[47][48][49] [50] As I said above at least twice, the Eugene Register-Guard source isn't a good source and should be deleted. I haven't looked at the source listed at [50] but the sentence as worded is demonstrably accurate; the first part is well sourced in the 1971 Time article, and if the sources cited aren't the best sources for the rest of it, there are other, and no doubt better, sources attesting to the poor quality of the research overall, including up to the present day. Woonpton (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as the sole source for their work.[2] To avoid this indirect self-referencing, editors should ensure that material from news organizations is not the only existing source outside of Wikipedia. Generally, sources that predate the material's inclusion in Wikipedia are preferable.

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

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

undue weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note To 76.76.232.83

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

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

No consensus on massive article change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reword mantra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research split

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A review of scientific studies identified relaxation, concentration, an altered state of awareness, a suspension of logical thought and the maintenance of a self-observing attitude as the behavioral components of meditation;[5] it is accompanied by a host of biochemical and physical changes in the body that alter metabolism, heart rate, respiration, blood pressure and brain chemistry.[51] Meditation has been used in clinical settings as a method of stress and pain reduction. Meditation has also been studied specifically for its effects on stress.[52][53]

In June, 2007 the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine published an independent, peer-reviewed, meta-analysis of the state of meditation research, conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. The report reviewed 813 studies in five broad categories of meditation: mantra meditation, mindfulness meditation, yoga, Tai Chi, and Qi Gong. The report concluded that "[t]he therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature," and "[f]irm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence."[54] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine to delete all studies and just go with reviews and metaanlyses. We should consider that. There are many reviews and metaanalyses that haven't been added to the article that document the effects. Will, per WP:SET here are 3,300 news articles: [12].76.76.232.83 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Me too:

1,250 for transcendental meditation flying

2,470 for transcendental meditation ends war.

710 for transcendental meditation crime

,580 for transcendental meditation cost.

954 for transcendental meditation peace palaces.

332 for transcendental meditation invincibility

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

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

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

Deep Revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add Neutrality Tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand that to be the response of the TM Org to questions about the meaning of the mantras. But it is not a statement of fact as to how TM works. It is, as near as I can tell, a statement of the theories of SCI explaining how TM works. Since I do not profess to knowledge of the inner secrets of SCI or advanced TM training, I am in no position to judge whether that statement is a true statement of the theories of SCI or not. To take a page from your playbook, they could be lying about that. Maybe the way TM "really" works is by invoking the names of the demigods of the Vedas unbeknowst to the TM initiate. Or, alternatively, if some of the other research is to be believed, the sounds are indeed meaningless in the sense that any word can be used for mantra meditation, and achieve the same results as TM. So, you see, you need to think very carefully about what it means to use the word "fact". [13]Fladrif (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every morning a different IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Rewrite of "Cult Issues" Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have been compared to those of relaxation. Early studies by Michaels of catecholamines, biochemicals associated with stress, and of found that essentially the same results for TM versus rest and plasma renin activity found no significant difference between TM and rest.[48][49] A series of studies done in the lab of Archie Wilson at the University of California at Irvine between 1978 and 1996 found biochemical differences between the Transcendental Meditation technique and relaxation.[50].[51][52][53][54][55][56][57].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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