Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

General Comment on sources

There is a standard for WP:MEDRS compliant sources on Wikipedia. There is not a separate standard for TM articles.

A NB is usually a fair way to get editor input, but editor input does not trump WP:MEDRS

There is no standard that allows and editor to close a NB, and based on clear misassumptions. Note that two more comments came in after the NB was closed. The source doesn't matter to me. But making sure editors can go to NB with out fear does.(olive (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

Please feel free to add your own thread and heading and add your reply here if you wish, I won't move your post. Please don't reaarrange my post. Thanks.(olive (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

Footnotes 19-22

These do not look like reviews, at least not those I can access on the interwebs. They look like primary sources that have a little bit of narrative in the beginning. The narrative of a primary source does not make it a secondary source. The Epel paper (FN 19) is clearly a primary source, not a review.[1] It should be removed per clear consensus that primary sources cannot be used here. If the Austrailian article [2] (which I see is pointedly not linked to in footnote 20) qualifies as a RS under MEDRS, then we might as well include Readers Digest. The article pointedly disclaims to be a comprehensive review. This seriously is a joke - a bad one. I don't have access to FN21, so I have no idea what it is, but the other sources don't encourage me. The Castillo-Richmond article in Stroke is on its face a primary source. Inclusion of sources like these, and misrepresenting what they actually are, is a serious problem. Fladrif (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif . Please recheck those sources. Note the publications and the indexing.(olive (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC))

I have rechecked them. I am not commenting on the publications. 19 and 22 aren't reviews at all; they are primary sources - new research studies. If those are indexed as "reviews", the index is dead wrong. 20 expressly says it is not a comprehensive review - reading it it might as well be an article in some Sunday Supplement insert. I got no idea what #21 is. Fladrif (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• 19: is a research review. The bulk of the paper consists of a review of meditation research:

"Here we review meditation techniques theorized to positively modulate stress-related cognitive processes and arousal with implications for cellular aging. We first outline the theoretical claims and practice of mindfulness meditation, in particular, based on a large body of theory and research in this area, and examine other forms of meditation when applicable. We then review research linking mindfulness states, mindfulness meditation, and other types of meditation to aspects of stress cognition, coping, and emotional reactivity. Lastly, we review research linking meditation to stress arousal."

• 22: is the study itself in the review (19), and is not a supporting source but seems to be a link so the reader can access the study in the review. I'm not against removing it, but I do think the link helpful to the reader

• 20 Australian Family Physician is R source. Description of the journal:

"Australian Family Physician is the official journal of The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. AFP is a highly regarded, peer reviewed journal with a tradition of excellence spanning over 50 years. This is an article not a single study.

"AFP aims to provide relevant, evidence based, clearly articulated information to Australian GPs to assist them in providing the highest quality patient care; and to deliver an independent and stimulating voice that engages, informs, contributes to ongoing educational needs and provides a forum for debate and discussion."

• 21 Source in Primary Care (journal): An article not a single study.

19,20,21 are all Medline indexed.(olive (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC))

Use of primary source was proper

In the thread above, “Footnotes 19-22,” an editor contends that a primary source in this article is used improperly. He says, “The Castillo-Richmond article in Stroke is on its face a primary source. Inclusion of sources like these, and misrepresenting what they actually are, is a serious problem.” This editor is advised to read MEDRS, which states that primary sources may be used, and explains under what conditions: "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there is the potential for misuse" [3].

Three main points here: 1) the primary source cited must be reliable; 2) it must be used only occasionally, with care, and as an adjunct to secondary literature; 3) abiding by the preceding guards against potential misuse. The use of a primary source that is objected to here is actually a model example of how a primary source may be properly used, as per MEDRS. The primary source in question is used as a ref for the following sentence: "Independent research reviews also note that a 2000 study published in Stroke found that Transcendental Meditation, compared to health education, reduces atherosclerosis."

Addressing the three points noted above: 1) the reference is reliable by any standard. Stroke is a journal put out by the American Heart Assoc. and its impact factor is excellent, ranging between 6 and 7; 2) It is used with care and obviously as an adjunct to secondary literature, being the last of four references cited in this sentence, the others being secondary (research reviews). In addition, it is explicitly identified as a primary source --a "study" (primary source) that is noteworthy because of mention in reviews. This use also conforms to the guideline that primary sources only be used occasionally. I have just reviewed the 100+ references in this article. There are only two instances where a primary source is cited for the purpose of reporting a health benefit: this one, and one other which is also explicitly supplemented by secondary sources. EMP (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Heading

This appears to be an unfortunate pattern that has not been cured by the TMArbCom or being twice sanctioned for edit-warring and tendentious editing. You wanted to discuss the sources, but provided no reasoned discussion here. I asked for discussion at Project Medicine, and the discussion moved to RSN. Every single uninvolved editor at RSN concluded that Nutrition and Metabolism was not a reliable source for an article on medical research. When the discussion was closed because it had veered off-topic, you complained at multiple places. Discussion of other uninvolved editors and administrators confirmed that the matter had been properly resolved at RSN and that there was no irregularity in closing the discussion. You then, out of the blue, posture here days later that the process is unfair and you don't accept noticeboard input from RSN. Coincidentally, just like you don't accept decisions from COIN. Coincidentially, just like you don't accept that the TM ArbCom applied to everyone involved. Coincidentally just like you don't accept decisions at AE. Like Yogi Berra sez, That's too coincidental to be a coincidence!

I have no interest in your interpretation of these events. My comments stand.(olive (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

Now, as I see it:

• Nutrition and Metabolism is, by clear RSN consensus not a reliable source, and should not be used in this article.
• Only one uninvolved editor has weighed in on Health Science Journal, and that editor concludes that it is not a reliable source. I suspect that your antics have managed to scare off anyone else from commenting, but the reasons advanced for questioning Nutrition and Metabolism are magnified in the case of Health Science Journal. Though it does not involve publication fees, it is not included in any of the important medical journal lists such as PUBMED and MEDLINE, and has no other established reputation for reliability. WP:MEDRS requires that journals be "reputable". Reputable means that it has a reputation for reliability. A source that is not covered in any of the important medical journal lists, and that is not cited by other publications does not have the required reputation to meet MEDRS. It sells advertising, which is virtually unheard of for a reputable medical journal. The specific article appears to be outside the normal scope of the publication, which is ICU and critical care nursing, and the article's conclusions are not presented, just cherry picked portions plucked from the narrative to bootstrap primary sources that could not otherwise be used.
• RSN input would seem to indicate that, while they can be a concern in some cases, publication fees are not an automatic disqualfier in and of themselves for a journal, so I am withdrawing my objection to Humanistic Psychologist and Ethnicity and Disease on that basis. I continue, however, to object to the use to which those sources are being put. MEDRS requires that we report the conclusions of such sources, not cherry pick from the narrative to describe primary sources.
• Teachers College Review does not appear to involve medical research, so I withdraw my objection. Again, however, the use to which the source is put should be limited to its conclusions, not to bootstrap primary sources. Fladrif (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please limit your comments to the sources and leave out your personal asides about other editors. I'm happy to support every action I took in whatever forum is necessary. Your interpretation is only that. Thanks.(olive (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

You are likely to get your wish. That aside, do you actually have a substantive comment to make on any of the above sources and their use? Fladrif (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making threats.I will be joining the discussion in a day or two in whatever state it is in. I have RL issues to deal with. (olive (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

I see that Spicemix has started a new discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Listing_and_reliability Fladrif (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• The RSNB on the Hindawi source was a fiasco. Telling comments came in after the NB was closed form Short Brigade an academic and DGG a librarian. I would tend to agree with Short Brigade that the source was reliable but of a lower level than some.That said I have no trouble with not using it, and replacing it with something else. I'll add again that standards for MEDRS are also the standards for this article. We aren't going to apply more stringent standards here than the policies and guidelines dictate.

After NB was closed:

From AN/I:

While my personal opinion of Hindawi is that it's not in the same rank as the really top-notch journals (and I'm annoyed at getting spam from them), casting Hindawi as a vanity press is going too far. The editorial board for their journal in my field includes a number of highly regarded researchers, some whom I know well personally. (If you want to check for yourself see [6] and do a Google Scholar search for e.g., Guy Brasseur or Klaus Dethloff.) They wouldn't be on the board if there were shenanigans going on; these are people with established reputations to uphold. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo talk:

FWIW, I agree with your conclusion about these specific sources in this particular context, but I think the way you stated it is much too dogmatic. (On the general question of Hindawi, David E. there made a comment which is identical to my view, and very compatible with yours'.) RSN is not an arb noticeboard. If you consider the subject a matter of arb enforcement, it should be done there. I don't so consider it. what I suggest, is that you go back and do a little rewording. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• You can certainly add conclusions to the article on any secondary sourceI have no problem with that. We are using secondary sources here which are generally analysis of studies- primary sources or comments on primary sources . We cite what is in the review or other secondary source, and those reviews will be of course commenting on the content in the studies it is reviewing. We can and should cite what the secondary sources say which can include, but is not limited to, conclusions.(olive (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC))

Alright, to summarize so far: you concede that the Nutrition and Metabolism article is, by consensus, not a reliable source and should be removed from the article.

Do you also concede that the consensus of uninvolved editors who have commented directly on the source (and that would be a universe of two, sadly - one at RSN and one at MEDRS) is that the article from Health Science Journal is also not a reliable source and should be removed from the article? Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had commented on it at AN/I but maybe not. Anyway make that 3. N^oformation ^Talk 21:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Three uninvolved editors have stated, over three different noticeboards, that Health Science Journal is not a RS under MEDRS. No uninvolved editor has argued that it is a reliable source. Fladrif (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• My statement about the Hindawi source is above. This isn't a competition so conceding something isn't an issue. Further I am not saying the Hindawi isn't reliable . I think it is, and that view is supported by some editors who commented including an academic. Notice boards are not vote counts, they are ways of acquiring information so that we can have the best articles possible with the best sources. That said, I'm fine with taking the source out. This is my comment only. I'm not speaking for anyone else.

• If a source is Indexed in Medline that may be a reason for inclusion but the opposite, that an article is not included does not mean it can be excluded. Health Science Journal is indexed in multiple places, is peer reviewed and is a research and review journal in nursing. I don't see that these points have been addressed anywhere by any of those commenting against the source, and don't see any other good arguments that indicate this isn't a reliable source. However, in attempts to be collaborative, I think the source can be removed. Again I'm speaking for myself not any other editors. (olive (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

I did not ask if you conceded that these were not reliable sources. I do not expect you to concede that. I do not expect SpiceMix to concede that. I do not expect Early Morning Person to concede that. I asked if you conceded that the consensus of uninvolved editors at the relevant noticeboards was that these were not reliable sources, just as I conceded that the consensus of uninvolved editors was that being an author-pays open access journal was not an automatic disqualification as a RS. I did that not because I want to see you cry "Uncle"; I did it because I wanted to avoid the accusation being repeated once again that I am violating the TMArbCom if, after that consensus was reached (by a process you claim to have been irregular), I deleted the sources determined not to be reliable. Given your statements above, I am going to remove the references to Health Science Journal. Fladrif (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that my opposition is based on the journal being incredibly low impact (0.1 iirc). N^oformation ^Talk 22:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Judging by its frequent mention by eds in the discussion of Hindawi and Health Science Journal at RSN, impact factor would seem to be relevant—although one must be cautious because impact factor is not mentioned at all in either WP:MEDRS or WP:RS. Therefore if used, It must be used carefully, as one of several points to be weighed. I would suggest that the impact factor of the primary source should also be taken into consideration, since the main role of a research review is to establish the context of evidence quality. In the case of this Health Science Journal article, for example, the primary source cited was published in the American Journal of Hypertension, which has a good impact factor (3.129).

The status of the author is also important. For future cases I would suggest we take note of points made by two uninvolved editors, Andrew Dalby at RSN [4], and WAID at MEDRS talk [5], who point out that another important criteria for reliability is the status of the author: what kind of reputation they have, and whether their work has been cited elsewhere. This may also have swayed the issue here, since now that I’ve had time to look it up, I see that that one of the authors of the Health Science Journal articles, Liza Varvogli, has published in some leading journals, including the Annals of General Psychiatry, and the Journal of Pediatrics (Impact Factor: 4.1). A couple of these papers have been cited extensively elsewhere. EMP (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ethn & Dis, Humanistic Psychologist, T'rs College Record

In response to Fladrif's good faith remarks above:

Re: Ethnicity & Disease: 1) It may happen to be published by Allen Press, but it is also “the official peer-reviewed journal of ISHIB”. . . . (International Society on Hypertension in Blacks). According to the ISHIB website, “This refereed serial is indexed in Index Medicus, MEDLINE, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, and BIOSIS.” (see [6]). 2) Re: the supplement, and the contention that payment for inclusion in the supplement indicates that authors are “buying” their way in, please see the guidelines for submission to Ethnicity and Disease, including their supplements, which state that “All supplement materials will be subject to Ethn Dis editorial review and will be made compliant with Ethn Dis editorial standards and styles” here [7].

Also, note that Schneider's article is hosted on the NIH website, here [8] Would the National Institutes of Health post an article from a bogus journal? Early morning person (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: The Humanistic Psychologist: Fladrif says that it does not use blinded peer-review, yet a description by the publisher here [9] says just the opposite: “Peer Review Policy: All research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by two anonymous referees.”

Re: page charges for both of the above, the Wikipedia article on Open access journals [10] says, "Traditionally, many academic journals levied page charges, long before open access became a possibility." The current discussion of Hindawi Publishers at RSN would also seem to indicate that the payment of fees to a journal is not improper in scientific publishing.

Re: Teacher’s College Review. This journal is put out by the Teacher’s College at Columbia University. According to ERIC [11] it is peer-reviewed. According to the major scholarly publisher, Wiley, “Teachers College Record (TCR) publishes the very best scholarship in all areas of the field of education. Major articles include research, analysis, and commentary covering the full range of contemporary issues in education, education policy, and the history of education.” Its impact factor is modest, 0.429, but that puts it in the same range as Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, which is cited 7 times in the TM Research article, including the lead [12]. Early morning person (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, The Humanistic Psychologist does not normally use blind review: "The evaluation process is normally not blind, although any contributor may request a blind review at the time their material is submitted."(Emphasis added) [13]

This comment is from whom? Early morning person (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is somewhat ambiguous. Clearly this," initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by two anonymous referees.” is a blind review process, while this indicates something else

"The evaluation process is normally not blind, although any contributor may request a blind review."(olive (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

I wouldn't call it ambiguous. I'd call it inconsistent, as I see no way to reconcile the two statements. How do we choose which is correct? Always prefer the specific over the general. The statement that articles are reviewed anonymously is from a general description of the journal; the statement that it is not blind is in the specific instructions to prospective authors. Between the two, I would bet dollars to donuts that the specific instructions to authors that evaluation is not blind, and they must affirmatively request blind review if they desire it is the accurate description of the process, and that the general blurb is incorrect. Fladrif (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there some suggestion in WP:MEDRS that peer-review should be blinded? I just had a look and could not find any mention. Early morning person (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither any mention in WP:RS. Only guidance for type of peer-review seems to be that "the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" [14] Early morning person (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed Alternative and Comp Therapies ref

I have removed the reference, "Health Benefits of Meditation: What the Newest Research Shows" by Sala Horowitz, Alternative and Complementary Therapies 16 (4). Four reasons: 1) this publication, unlike the similarly titled Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, does not appear to be peer-reviewed [15]; 2) it does not appear to have an impact factor; 3) the author does not appear to have published in peer-reviewed journals; 4) it is not indexed in Medline. The only thing going for this article is that it cites a study that appeared in strong primary source [Nidich et al. (2009), American Journal of Hypertension]. I have added two other sources. If there is any objection, I am, of course open to discussion. EMP 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Forest plot, cont.

Does anyone have good reason to retain this graphic?[16] If not, let's delete it. Spicemix (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There did seem to be consensus for deleting it among some uninvolved editors at Arbcom. DocJames has argued that there was also a suggestion to reduce the whole article to two sentences, only citing Ospina. But I don't think there's a Wikipedia policy that would support that, since there are dozens of reliable sources in the article other than Ospina, including some top sources, such as a standard medical textbook and the leading Pediatrics journal with a high impact factor. Further, there is a considerable amount of research represented in the article that was outside the scope of Ospina, such as the pediatric research and studies done after September 2005. It's not clear why this particular finding represented by the graphic is given so much prominence, especially since the authors themselves say, "However, we cannot make strong inferences on which is the best intervention due to a lack of statistical power." The values for blood pressure reduction were based on "estimates," and the comparisons were all indirect. There were no statistically significant pair-wise comparisons involving the TM studies. Also, 99.99% of readers have no clue what a Forest Plot is and have little idea what they're looking at when they see this graphic, especially since the text is so small. So my suggestion would be to remove the graphic and replace it with a text summary, which would go in the Ospina section of the article. Here's what the graphic shows:

Combined estimates for the interventions examined in Ospina suggested that these interventions resulted in systolic blood pressure reductions ranging from 21.9 for Tai Chi to .03 for no treatment, waitlisted subjects. These estimates suggested that interventions such as Tai Chi, yoga, Qi Gong, contemplative meditation, biofeedback, relaxation response, buddhist meditation, and mantra meditation had a greater reduction than Transcendental Meditation. However, the authors caution that they were not able to make strong inferences due to lack of statistical power.

This is what the graphic says. According to the abstract, though, of these interventions, only TM, Qi Gong, and Buddhist meditation had a statistically significant effect on blood pressure, so many of the results, such as that for Tai Chi, could have been due to chance. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TimidGuy, I think this is the best summary of the issue so far. Your suggested text summary is more intelligible than the graphic, and would have less undue prominence. Do we think, given the authors' reservations, your own analysis and the opinions of other editors earlier in this discussion, that the text merits inclusion? It's a close call in my opinion, but it may be safer to include the information. Spicemix (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

David Orme-Johnson criticizes the authors' use of this graphic in his published commentary. He points out that it's misleading to have Tai Chi listed at the top as having a 32% chance of being the "best" form of meditation for treating systolic blood pressure: "The study authors leave this item in their tables, which is highly misleading to the statistically unsophisticated, even though they admit that 32% is not even close to statistical significance, given that 95% is the standard. In conventional scientific writing, it is not acceptable to say that something is effective, better, or best if it is not statistically significant at conventional levels." So there are two issues: 1) other than the three meditation techniques noted, the interventions didn't show statistically significant results; and 2) reporting a technique as best which only has a 32% probability of being the best is very misleading. I think inclusion hinges on whether there's a policy that says editors should be cautious about highlighting findings that aren't statistically significant. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Per consensus I've taken the graphic down and have left the replacement text here on the Talk page. I think there must be a presumption against filling out the article with non-significant and low-power findings. Spicemix (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That same graphic appears in the TM research section of the Transcendental Meditation article. It seems like that one should be removed also. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename section

I have renamed the "History" section to "First research on TM" since it does not cover the whole history of the TM research and just focuses on the beginning studies. If other editors have other suggestions for the name of this section, I am happy to discuss. --BwB (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There was discussion and agreement to have a History section as I remember and what we have in place is the beginning of that, I'd think rather than a completed section. So I'll return the heading pending addition of content. As well, many of the sections have content on early research so we don't need an individual section section for that aspect of the research. (olive (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC))

OK. --BwB (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of content

I will revert once to a change made by an uninvolved editor. I suggest changes be discussed on this talk page.(olive (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

Jayne 466 was not an editor who edited the TM pages. (olive (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

Lead still inadequate

In yesterday’s edit to the lead, undue weight, as usual, is being given to the Ospina et al. systematic review. There are other sources in this article that are equally reliable—and more up-to-date. (Ospina covered research only up to Sept 2005.) According to MEDRS, systematic reviews are just one of three highest quality sources of information on health research. In addition, a) academic and professional books are also described as “ideal sources” [17], and, b) meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials are described as “best evidence” [18].

Currently, this article reports findings on TM from several academic books of good quality, a meta-analysis, and an independent systematic review. These sources report on studies that have come out since Ospina, or are outside its scope, but are inexplicably not mentioned in the opening section.

Books: Vogel in Braunwald's Heart Disease (2007) refers to an Archives of Internal Medicine study published after the Sept 2005 cutoff date for acceptance of research in the Ospina study [19]. Also see Biaggioni (November 2012), [20] and Braboszcz, Claire, et al. (2009) and McGrady, Angele (2010) in academic textbooks published by Springer [21] [22].

Meta-analysis: Anderson et al. (2008) [23] also included research on TM and blood pressure that was not included in Ospina et al. due to their 2005 research cutoff date. It reported decreased blood pressure in TM subjects compared to control groups that included health education. Anderson et al. also included two studies by Barnes et al. that were excluded by Ospina due to their decision not to study adolescent health.

Independent systematic review: Black et al. (2009), [24] also included research on TM and blood pressure that was not included in Ospina et al. due to their 2005 research cutoff date.

Narrative reviews: MEDRS says that narrative reviews are also of value in establishing evidence quality. Nearly two dozen research reviews in this article report notable findings on TM and health. For ex: Olivo (2009) [25]; Fekete et al. (2007) [26]; Epel et al. (2009), [27]; and Pratt (2010) [28].

As it is, this lead ignores much key information from the article and so is in violation of Lead and NPOV. EMP (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)EMP (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that even the systematic reviews prominently mention (1) statistically significant health-promoting effects, even as they are cautioning (2) that the evidence is inconclusive and doesn't allow firm conclusions to be drawn, (3) that there are difficulties with study design and study quality, and that (4) studies have the potential for bias.

Now, it is inequitable for us to mention 2, 3 and 4 in our lead, but not to mention 1. It's not just inequitable, it's invidious. So we need to find some way of reflecting our sources impartially here. Right now, we are not doing so. Regards, --JN466 05:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is Anderson et al. a valid meta-analysis? Does anyone have any objections or cautions with regard to that source? --JN466 05:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

1) There is mention in the article that, “The review and its primary author were partially funded by Howard Settle, a proponent of TM.” However, this funding was disclosed, and the well-known publication it appeared in (American Journ of Hypertension, impact factor: 3.1) was obviously unconcerned because it published the article. But even more to the point, MEDRS rules quite clearly on this issue: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." If funding were a critical factor in determining scientific validity, then most pharmaceutical research would be implicated.

2) “Invidious” is a great word for the effect of the current lead. The lead narrowly focuses on just a few studies in just a couple of subject areas: anxiety and blood pressure. It not only ignores well-sourced, contrary evidence that is reported in the article in those two areas [29] [30] (anxiety) [31] [32] [33] [34] (blood pressure), but makes no mention of notable findings in several others: metabolic syndrome [35], coping with pain [36] [37], coping skills in general [38], atherosclerosis [39][40], mental health in the elderly [41], rehabilitation of offenders [42], and self-actualization [43], among others. As documented in the article, all these findings are reported in high-quality sources as defined by MEDRS. EMP (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the next step is to draft a version of this part of the lead which will accurately summarize per WP:LEAD, the findings indicated by the research as outlined in this article. I'd agree that parts of the lead are not impartial or equitable and that the effect is invidious. Time to move on to the next step?(olive (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC))

I created the section below to make the organization easier...I hope.(olive (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC))

MEDRS source

Does anyone know any ways in which Bainbridge and Stark's book [44] The future of religion: secularization, revival, and cult formation is compliant with WP:MEDRS? Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If nobody thinks this source is up to the requirements of MEDRS, then I suggest we remove it from the article. Spicemix (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It does not seem to be up to snuff re MEDRS. --BwB (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The source is not reliable for content dealing with health per WP:MEDRS:

Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

and should be removed.(olive (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

Mediation researcher

I'm not sure what this term means," mediation researcher" as a description for a researcher per content shown in this diff, [45]. Is there a better way to describe a researcher.(olive (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC))

Yes, a bit fuzzy. I looked at this man's background and would propose this more specific description based on that: "psychologist and medical researcher." What do you think?

EMP (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's better.(olive (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

Adjustment to 1st sentence of second para

The following sentence no longer adequately reflects the content of the article: “Independent systematic reviews have found that the research to date is insufficient to draw any conclusions as to the effects, if any, of TM in managing high blood pressure and anxiety.” In accord with WP:Lead and WP:NPOV, I have replaced it with a revised version: “Research reviews of benefits for TM show results ranging from inconclusive to clinically significant.”

Reasons:

1) There are now several high-quality RS’s in the article, including three medical textbooks from reputed publishers, and a meta-analysis, finding significant results re: blood pressure (see refs cited in new sentence); and several academic texts from respected publishers reporting significant effects for anxiety (see Anxiety section of article here [46].

2) Without specifically citing them all, the new sentence at least opens to the reader the possibility of other areas of well-referenced research in this article (some health-related, some not), which has hitherto been absent from in the opening section, e.g., metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance [47] atherosclerosis [48], coping with pain [49] and general coping skills [50], cognitive function [51], self-actualization [52], medical costs [53].

3) As uninvolved ed. JN466 noted on this page in May [54], it is inequitable and invidious to prominently mention some reviews that report inconclusive results, while excluding others that report significant results. This is especially true now, after a systematic review and other RS’s have responded to questions re: inconclusive evidence, design and study quality, and potential for bias, raised in the only studies that have until now been cited in the lead [55], [56]. I believe this very modest revision is a positive step in keeping with NPOV and Lead. EMP (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think what you have done is a good step forward in making the lead more neutral. However, I suggest the following wording for the new sentence that you have created. I think it is more specific and more neutral at the same time: "Research reviews concerning the potential benefits of the Transcendental Meditation technique have yielded results ranging from inconclusive to clinically significant." -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the word "benefit" correctly placed? "Research reviews on the TM technique show results that range from inconclusive to clinically significant benefits." (olive (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC))

Or maybe we shouldn't be using the word 'benefit' at all. Can we say results or effects instead of benefits?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. "Effects" is more in keeping with the scientific focus of this article. I'll revise.EMP (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

More complete list of refs

Here is a fuller list of refs for the sentence just added (backing the latter point re: significant results). The first six are the same as already cited, and are mostly medical textbooks or academic books. The half-dozen added are mostly research reviews, all from reputable journals.EMP (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Research reviews of benefits for TM show results ranging from inconclusive to clinically significant.

Comment

I adjusted slightly the new text you just added to the article, EMP, to point exclusively to the TM technique since around Wikipedia TM has come to mean both the technique and the movement. And thanks. Nice work.(olive (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

OK, no objection.EMP (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for breaking down the citations and providing quotes. That's a big time saver for the rest of us.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The citations below are the ones that were used to support the previous research summary in the lead. Do they all fall in the "inconclusive" category?

• Murphy M, Donovan S, Taylor E. The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation: A review of Contemporary Research with a Comprehensive Bibliography 1931–1996. Sausalito, California: Institute of Noetic Sciences; 1997.
• Cite book| last1 = Benson | first1 = Herbert | last2 = Klipper | first2 = Miriam Z. | title = The relaxation response | year = 2001 | publisher = Quill | location = New York, NY | isbn = 978-0-380-81595-1 | page = 61|url=http://books.google.com/?id=TJDGTP9Sa5UC&pg=PA61&dq=transcendental+meditation&q=transcendental%20meditation
• Cite book| first1=Stephen T. |last1=Sinatra|first2=James C. |last2=Roberts| last3 = Zucker | first3 = Martin | title = Reverse Heart Disease Now: Stop Deadly Cardiovascular Plaque Before It's Too Late | date = December 20, 2007| publisher = Wiley | location = | isbn = 978-0-470-22878-4 | page = 192|url=http://books.google.com/?id=4TfJqNA8sOIC&pg=PA192&dq=transcendental+meditationlr=#v=onepage&q=transcendental%20meditation
• Cite news|work=New Life magazine|date=Sept–Oct, 2003|first1=Frederick|last1=Travis|first2=Ken |last2=Chawkin
• cite web |url=http://www.cochrane.org/news/opportunities-jobs/methods-co-ordinator |title=Methods Co-ordinator | The Cochrane Collaboration |work=Cochrane Collabortion |accessdate= |quote=The Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, not-for-profit, research organisation
• Cite book|author=Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP.|url= http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf%7Ctitle= Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research|publisher= Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality|page=4|date = June 2007|quote=A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients
• Cite journal|author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N |title=Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) |journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev |volume=6 |issue= 6|pages=CD006507 |year=2010 |pmid=20556767 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2 |url= |quote =As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.|editor1-last=Krisanaprakornkit|editor1-first=Thawatchai
• Cite journal|author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M |title=Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders |journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=|issue=1 |pages=CD004998 |year=2006 |pmid=16437509 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2 |ref=harv| quote=The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety|editor1-last=Krisanaprakornkit|editor1-first=Thawatchai-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Several supported the assertion that research results are inconclusive, mainly the two Cochrane reviews by Krisanaprakornkit and the AHRQ review by Ospina. Others supported general points such as TM being one of the most researched forms of meditation and that there has been over $20 million in research funding from NIH. TimidGuy (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Walach ref

In the Research Quality section, Harald Walach makes a comment which is referenced to an article by him in the peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal, religions [57]. Although this journal is not an ideal source for a comment on a study of this type, the other two factors to be weighed in judging the validity of a reference—the publisher and the author—are strong. The publisher, MDPI, based in Switzerland, [58] is reputable, publishing several scientific journals that have been given official impact factors and are indexed on the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Scopus, and PubMed/MEDLINE. The author, Harald Walach, is a respected researcher. He is listed by PubMed as author or co-author of 70 papers [59], and was also a peer reviewer for the major 2007 government-funded study of meditation in health care that is referenced several times in this article [60]. EMP (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Contraindications

The contraindication section only cites one 'alternative medicine' book. Are there any studies that show contraindication or negative effects on individuals or populations? Arided (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I found this http://minet.org/www.trancenet.net/research/abs.shtml :

Castillo, Richard J. Depersonalization and meditation. Psychiatry; Interpersonal and Biological Processes. May 1990, pp158-168.

«A study of six long term TM practitioners that reveals their acceptance of depersonalized states of existence because they were led to believe this shows spiritual growth from the TM program. From a review of the literature on meditation and depersonalization, and interviews conducted with six meditators, this study concludes that: 1) meditation can cause depersonalization and derealization; 2) the meanings in the mind of the meditator regarding the experience of depersonalization will determine to a great extent whether anxiety is present as part of that experience; 3) there need not be any significant anxiety or impairment in social or occupational functioning as a result of depersonalization; 4) a depersonalized state can become an apparently permanent mode of functioning; 5) patients with depersonalization disorder may be treated through a process of symbolic healing -- that is, changing the meanings associated with depersonalization in the mind of the patient, thereby reducing anxiety and functional impairment; 6) panic/anxiety may be caused by depersonalization if catastrophic interpretations of depersonalization are present.»

and:

French, Alfred P. et al. Transcendental meditation, altered reality testing and behavioral change. A case report. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1975, p55.

«This paper presents the case of a thirty-nine year old woman who experienced altered reality testing and behavior several weeks after initiation into the TM program. It presents important evidence for a causal relationship between the practice of TM and her abnormal behavior.»

There are other items mentioned on that page. It seems that some summary should be included here. Arided (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Even more alarming: http://www.behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_meditation-harmful-abstracts.htm

«This study by Otis at the Stanford Research Institute involving 574 subjects revealed that the longer a person practiced TM the more adverse mental effects were recorded; that 70 percent of subjects recorded mental disorders of one degree or another.»

Again, something about this should probably be merged into the article. Arided (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. We generally stick to research reviews in this article, per consensus and per the MEDRS guideline, rather than individual studies. And we try to adhere to the guideline of preferring more recent sources. Note that the guideline explicitly disallows case studies. The strongest sources, such as the comprehensive government review by Ospina of over 800 studies, typically say that no adverse effects have been reported. TimidGuy (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This one seems to match the description? Perez-De-Abeniz, Alberto and Holmes, Jeremy. Meditation: Concepts, Effects and Uses in Therapy. International Journal of Psychotherapy, March 2000, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p49, 10p. Abstract: This article reviews 75 scientific selected articles in the field of meditation, including Transcendental Meditation among others. It summarizes definitions of meditation, psychological and physiological changes, and negative side-effects encountered by 62.9% of meditators studied. It's already cited at Research on meditation#Potential_adverse_effects_of_meditating, which would in any case be a good thing to cross-reference with in any case. Certainly there has to be some give and take between research reviews and individual studies in the name of WP:NPOV? It seems strange to cite one alternative medicine book, instead of individual papers! Here are some relatively recent papers (since 1990) that might be relevant, anyway:

• Lansky EP & St Louis EK. (2006). Transcendental meditation: A double-edged sword in epilepsy? Epilepsy & Behavior. Nov;9(3):394-400.
• Persinger, Michael A. (1992). Enhanced incidence of 'the sensed presence' in people who have learned to meditate; support for the right hemispheric intrusion hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75: 1308-1310.
• Persinger, M.A. (1993). Transcendental Meditation and general meditation are associated with enhanced complex partial epileptic-like signs: evidence for 'cognitive' kindling? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76: 80-82
• Lazarus, Arnold A.; Mayne, Tracy J. Relaxation: Some limitations, side effects, and proposed solutions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, Vol 27(2), 1990, 261-266.

Arided (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed your addition. Please wait for discussion. As well the wording is not really appropriate. Its not crticis of the movement who did the research, but scientists /researchers Trancnet is not a RS and I am looking for the review itself. I do have to leave for tonight. I will also leave a message for Timid Guy who commented above, and who is more knowledgable than me in this area. WP:MEDRS does not allow for primary sources.(olive (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

I'm not discounting your claim just want to have time to look for it, and check. The MEDRS standards are pretty stringent. While your source used and wording aren't appropriate, I believe, I've reverted myself per a good faith addition, until this can be discussed.(olive (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Arided, you mention Persinger 1992 and Lansky 2006. These are excellent examples for why we follow the WP:MEDRS guideline. Persinger's study on epilepsy is so weak that it was explicitly excluded from the US Government review of over 800 meditation studies published in 2007.[61] You can find it listed in Appendix E among the list of 280 excluded studies. Nevertheless, Lansky included it in his comprehensive review of the many papers and studies related to TM and epilepsy. He mentions it in the context of other research, including the sole clinical study on TM and epilepsy that's been done (which found that TM may help treat epilepsy). So in this article we report Lansky's conclusion, not the individual primary sources on which Lansky's review (a secondary source) is based. MEDRS exists in order to help insure compliance with WP:NPOV. Otherwise, editors might cherry pick from the hundreds of research studies, which are primary sources, instead of relying on experts to survey those primary sources and present their findings in research reviews, which are proper secondary sources. TimidGuy (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

@User:TimidGuy: I still think it's strange to cite only an alternative medicine book, without indicating that the other studies exist. It's not as if the one book is necessarily more authoritative than any given study. I'm just saying that there are studies that purport to show harmful effects in some populations. I think it's relevant to this article (which is itself a general purpose encyclopedia article, not a scientific study) to include this fact. Similarly, the Cold fusion article has to include a description of research that purports to show cold fusion in effect, as well as research that purports to show it doesn't work. All of that research has to be contextualized in the article. My point isn't to say that any of the research is good research or bad research, just that a page that talks about "Trancendental Meditation research" should not exclusively deal with this as a "medical phenomenon" but should also deal with it as a social or sociological phenomenon. The research exists, and represents or supports a significantly different view than some other research. Presumably there's a place for it somewhere in the article? Arided (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the research review by Perez-de-Albeniz, your quote above of the abstract is odd, since it doesn't match the abstract given by the journal[62]. Can you explain? TimidGuy (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just copy-pasted from http://www.behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_meditation-harmful-abstracts.htm (I guess it's an alternate "abstract" treatment by the author of that site). Arided (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Arided, I appreciate your wish to bring out all relevant points on this subject. A few concerns: 1. Please note that there is a section on epilepsy in this article here [63] which I believe summarises the latest research on this subject. TimidGuy explains the details on this above. 2. I had a look at the De-Abeniz and Holmes paper. The “abstract” you quote above, placed at the beginning of the version of the article as published on trancenet, is not written by De-Abeniz and Holmes but by someone at trancenet. This “abstract” is quite misleading because the study it purports to summarize does not mention any studies reporting negative effects from TM practice. It does report a few studies finding issues with other techniques. Its conclusion about the overall effect of meditation is actually positive, though cautiously so. 3. See [64] for info on the type of source you have cited, and why we can't use it. But I encourage you to continue to delve into this matter and satisfy yourself as to the real story, and bring out any points of interest that you may find. EMP (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see replies to User:TimidGuy above. Arided (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've fleshed out the article with some citations to papers that are cited in PubMed, and to a couple of books by a (then) Princeton researcher that provide an alternative perspective to the one that was initially cited in this section. Of the two papers, one of them was already mentioned in the current article. The other is an anecdotal paper, and it is clearly flagged as such in the text I introduced. I think it is worth including such papers because they get at the highly individual nature of responses to meditation. Again, this is not a specifically "medical" perspective. Note further discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#question:_MEDRS_versus_NPOV. Arided (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Carrington

The citations to Carrington should probably have a page number. I suspect that the information comes from here.[65] If that's the source, it seems like we should cite it rather than saying that she makes these points someplace in her books. TimidGuy (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

need for TM section at Research on meditation

Hi all, I wanted to invite you to write a subsection on Transcendental Meditation at Research on meditation. As of yet there is no such subsection despite the large amount of research that has been done on this type of meditation. Thanks for your efforts. It would probably go best at this part of the page Research_on_meditation#Research_by_style_of_meditation if you decide to do it. makeswell (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation -- and for the attention you've given the article on research on meditation. I may be able to help, since I've spent a lot of time looking at reviews of the research on TM, but unfortunately my time in WP is very limited. TimidGuy (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for a more wiki-like lead

Here I suggest a rewrite of the lead para that is more in accord with WP:MOS/Lead section in both style and content. It gives a little more summary detail, inviting the reader to continue to the rest of the article. Also I'm suggesting that History follow the lead, rather than launching immediately into the pretty technical Health Outcomes/Cardio section. I believe this is the more usual practice.

Here it is: (Note: this vsn is revised/shortened since posted Nov 21, afternoon)

Transcendental Meditation Research

Scientists have been conducting Transcendental Meditation research since the late 1960’s and to date more than 340 studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique have been published in peer-reviewed journals (refs). The Transcendental Meditation technique, often referred to as simply TM, is a specific form of mantra meditation (ref) developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. TM is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting with closed eyes.(ref)

It is reported to be one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched, meditation techniques (ref). Early studies, conducted at UCLA and Harvard, examined physiological changes during TM. The research subsequently branched out to include clinical applications, cognitive effects, mental health, medical costs, and rehabilitation. Beginning in the 1990s, a focus of research has been the effects of Transcendental Meditation on cardiovascular disease, with over $20 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health. (ref)

Research reviews of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have yielded results ranging from inconclusive[4][5][6][7] to clinically significant.[8][9][10][11][12] More research is needed (as before). . . . at several other universities. (refs)

History

Research on the Transcendental Meditation technique, "a scientifically framed, tradition-based technique,"[83] has been recognized as playing a significant role in the history of mind-body medicine,[84][82] and science writer Sharon Begley credited the Maharishi with "helping launch a legitimate new field of neuroscience."[85]

The first study, done at UCLA by Robert Keith Wallace and published in 1970 in Science, and a follow-up study in 1971 at Harvard by Wallace, Herbert Benson, and Archie Wilson, characterized Transcendental Meditation as a wakeful hypometabolic state, using measures such as EEG, oxygen consumption, respiratory rate, heart rate, blood lactate, blood pH, and skin resistance. The research suggested that Transcendental Meditation produced a state in which the body was at rest, yet the mind was alert.[52] Harvard's Benson termed this physiological response "the relaxation response" and hypothesized that meditation and other techniques trigger a physiological response in the body that is beyond simple relaxation. He developed a technique similar to Transcendental Meditation that he called "respiratory one method." Wallace then ended his collaboration with Benson, seeing TM as being more than a relaxation response.[52]

In the 1980s, researchers at MUM began a series of randomized controlled trials on the effects of TM on blood pressure in collaboration with hospitals and medical centers around the country. The first studies were published in Hypertension, a journal of the American Heart Association, in 1995 and 1996, and, based on those results, the National Institutes of Health funded additional clinical trials on risk factors for cardiovascular disease and on individuals suffering from cardiovascular disease.[52] Transcendental Meditation research has been conducted at more than 250 different research institutions and universities in 30 countries, and published in 100 journals.(ref)

Health Outcomes

(Cardio section needs work, but lets take that up another time . . .) EMP (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Early morning person (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think these ideas are good. However this (below) would be my suggested 'pruned version' that avoids quotes, detail and adjectives:

• Scientists have been conducting Transcendental Meditation research since the late 1960’s and 340 studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals (refs). The Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) is a form of mantra meditation (ref) developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (ref) and is reported to be among the most widely researched, meditation techniques (ref).
• Research on the Transcendental Meditation technique, [put this in the ref not the text: "a scientifically framed, tradition-based technique,"] has been recognized as a significant contribution to the history of mind-body medicine,[84][82] and helpful in the creation of a new field of neuroscience.[85] Early studies examined the physiological parameters of the meditation technique and subsequent research included clinical applications, cognitive effects, mental health, medical costs, and rehabilitation. Beginning in the 1990s, research focused on cardiovascular disease supported by multiple grants from the National Institutes of Health. (ref) Research reviews of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have yielded results ranging from inconclusive[4][5][6][7] to clinically significant.[8][9][10][11][12] Transcendental Meditation research has been conducted at more than 250 different research institutions and universities in 30 countries, and published in 100 journals.(ref)

The above would 1) define the topic and 2) summarize the History section. Subsequent paragraphs would, in my view, summarize the other major sections of the article. (with a total of 4 paragraphs per WP:MOS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I would make the following slight change to Kbob's version: remove "multiple" as a generalization and just say "grants from the National Institutes of Health." Its great when layers of edits on a lead are made possible. each layer adds another level of scrutiny while the original version breaks the ground for change....nice collaboration.(olive (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC))

Really good ideas for cutting it down to something more readable and accessible. I agree that the lead is better off without most of the current material in the 2nd para. All that is covered in the Research quality section and is too involved to be in the lead, for an article aimed at the general public. Early morning person (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This is excellent. I'd so go with Kbob's version and proceed as he suggests. TimidGuy (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Olive, the word "multiple" is not needed. Also, I would suggest that we keep the second paragraph of the current lead for now as it is an attempt to summarize the sections: Research Quality and Research Funding. However I think it needs to be rewritten and reduced to a couple of sentences with less detail, so as to avoid giving undue weight. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Did the edits as per the consensus here. Thanks for the very well-considered input. EMP 22:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, I've made some additional edits for flow, readability and balance as mentioned in my comments above. Please feel free to tweak as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Parking text removed from the lead

Removed text: Transcendental Meditation research has been conducted at more than 250 different research institutions and universities in 30 countries, and published in 100 journals.

• Cite journal

| first = Vernon A. Barnes
| last = 
| authorlink = vbarnes@georgiahealth.edu
| coauthors = David W. Orme-Johnson
| year = 2012
| month = 
| date =
| title = Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease in Adolescents and Adults through the Transcendental Meditation® Program: A Research Review Update
| quote =  Because the technique has been taught in a systematic and reliable way since its introduction, researchers have been assured that TM practitioners studied are using the identical procedure taught by instructors who have all had the same rigorous training, a distinct advantage over some other meditation techniques (79). This unique feature has made widespread research on the TM program feasible (80) and by now more than 600 research studies have been conducted at more than 250 universities and research centers. These studies were published in over 100 journals in the past 40 years, making TM one of the most widely researched types of meditation . . .
| journal = Current Hypertension Reviews
| volume = 8
| issue = 
| pages = 4
| doi =
| id = 
| url = 
| format =
| accessdate = Nov 22, 2012

I've copy edited the lead for flow, readability and balance. Please feel free to tweak as you see fit. I also removed the above sentence as I think it is a bit peacockish as the lead already been mentions that TM is the most highly research and has 340 peer reviewed studies. This text is better suited for the body of the article IMO. If the above conversation is related to this text than I apologize for stepping into the middle of something in progress and can replace the sentence if needed. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's tighter. Good edit. The info about the # of different institutions is in the Research quality section. EMP (talk 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Source & MEDRS?

I’m re-evaluating whether the following sentence, which I added to the Research quality section a couple of weeks ago, is indeed OK re: WP:MEDRS.

The sentence:

A 2012 report says that in the early days, the scientific community viewed research from Maharishi University of Management with skepticism, but that since the early 90’s “the institution is now well-regarded for its scholarly work.” [102]

The sentence is referenced to an article in Pacific Standard [66], an online news site. Although its science reporting is well-regarded [67], it nevertheless comes in the category of “popular press.” The quotation in the sentence (“the institution is now well-regarded for its scholarly work”) is in turn referenced to another popular source, an Iowa daily newspaper article titled, “Maharishi’s medical research gains respect.” [68] The Iowa paper is the Des Moines Register, an established publication.

This article says (referring to Maharishi University of Management) that “Major universities are asking the Fairfield college to join them in research on alternative medicine and therapies, millions of dollars are coming in from the National Institutes of Health, and medical journals are publishing more studies on which the university has worked . . . . The University of Iowa, University of California-Irvine and University of Hawaii are among schools conducting research with the school.”

Analysis: 1) WP:MEDRS, states “the popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles.” [69], and it also states that the popular press should not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure, because they “lack the context to judge experimental results.”

2) However, this popular source is not reporting a medical fact or figure, or the outcome of a biomedical experiment, but is reporting an apparent change in perception among the scientific community regarding the reputation of a university. We note that MEDRS allows for the use of “high-quality popular press” as a source for “social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information in a medical article.” (this is the beginning of the 3rd para under “Popular press” — the link in previous para).

Might this latter point apply here, meaning that the added sentence and ref is MEDRS compliant? EMP (talk 18:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am leaning towards deleting this sentence and ref. Using popular press to evaluate the scientific reputation of a research institution would not seem to fit with MEDRS. However, might it be OK to use the ref that is used by Pacific Standard, the Des Moines Register article, which notes that the Maharishi University collaborates in research with established universities. Could add a sentence to that effect, or simply add this ref to the sentence following the we are considering now: "Other scientists have said that a substantial amount of the research has been conducted at other universities: 250 different research institutions and universities in 30 countries worldwide." Comments? EMP (talk 17:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this,"Other scientists have said that a substantial amount of the research has been conducted at other universities: 250 different research institutions and universities in 30 countries worldwide." is probably fine although "Other" is weasel wording and as such might be overly general. You might inline cite to its source the claim, "other scientists". I'd agree that popular press reports may not be the best way to characterize a research institution, bur maybe OK for an overarching statement like the one you are suggesting.(olive (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

I'll add my two cents here:

I think its OK use the popular press to speak for the general public but I don't think its a reliable source to speak for the "scientific community" since its not part of that community. So if the source says the general public has a better view of the TM research that might be OK but its not reliable as a source for the perception of the scientific community.

This conversation also seems to be touching on the thread that I've started below regarding the lead sentence I've removed, so please take a look at that too. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid using popular sources for assertions regarding scientific research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation format

I find this citation format (above) to be a real hinderance when trying to edit an article as it requires a lot of scrolling up and down just to edit one or two sentences. Is there another cite tool format that could be used instead in future?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been using the admittedly awkward and sprawling format you note above because that's what I found here [70]. Would like to have a better alternative. Have any suggestion? EMP (talk 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi EMP, how about if you used the horizontal version shown here and below?

cite web |url= |title= |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=12 December 2012 (Just add {{ }} to create a template)

And thanks for all your great work to expand and improve the article :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to use the vertical template if it's more convenient, because one can simply delete the carriage returns. TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove sentence from the lead

• TM research has played a role in the history of mind-body medicine[69][70] and helped create a new field of neuroscience.[71]
• IMO the above sentence should be moved to the body of the article and out of the lead because the sources provided don't make a clear case that these views are widespread and substantiated to the degree that they belong in the lead. However, the sources are solid enough to support an attributed sentence in the body of the TMR article IMO and Olive seems to agree here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have wondered about that sentence myself. You state the problem very well. EMP (talk 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that move.(olive (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC))

Good suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. I didn't add the removed material back to body of article because I noticed that it is already there, at the end of the History section. I did, however transplant one of the refs, so that there is now an additional ref for that sentence in the History section. EMP (talk 18:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A sentence with inappropriate references

TM has been found to produce a set of characteristic responses such as reduced respiration, decreased breath volume, decreased :lactate and cortisol (hormones associated with stress), increased basal skin resistance, and slowed heartbeat.[66][71]

The first reference is not about physiological measurements and is not conclusive anyway. The second reference is about clinical cases. BTW, I have no intention to start editing the TM articles or even only discuss them in the talk pages, because it is too complicated. It just happens that I was hoping to find references on wikipedia. I found these inappropriate ones and I felt that I should mention it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at the sources. Note that both are research reviews and are reliable sources. And both give an overview of the physiological effects. There are many other sources, of course, but I happened to use these because they were already in the article and are compliant. TimidGuy (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure about the rules in Wikipedia. Speaking as a user, not as an editor under WP rules, I prefer when original sources or other sources with all the details are provided together with the reviews because I get directly all the information, especially if the titles of the reviews seems not to be related to what I am looking for.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)