Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Progress towards removing the COI2 tag?

Over at Template talk:COI2, User:Dreadstar has raised the question of how long a COI2 tag should remain in place. Though I'm not aware of a rule, I'd like to ask the editors on this page on the state of their progress toward removing the problem that this tag was intended to signal. Since User:Michaelbusch is the one who placed the tag back in November, perhaps he can state whether his rewriting effort is still making progress. I don't see that others are obstructing his work, it just seems like it's taking a while. Since it's his tag, he should take responsibility that progress is being made, IMHO. He could also state how much change would be needed before it can be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, there is no ongoing discussion, action or issue. I'll remove the template. Dreadstar † 07:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Orme-Johnson

Given the fact that the main editors of this article work for various parts of the TM organization - Olive Timid - it seems remarkable fair in its assessment of TM and counter arguments to it - and congratulations need to go to both in their fairness. (Although I would argue that TM "Yogic Flying" should be included or at least linked to, as the claims made about this by the organizations founder might through light on other claims made. Equally, I think some mention should be made that former teachers claim that the mantras given are the names of Hindu deities - this I think would have an impact on the use of people with certain religious beliefs)

However, while understanding the problematic nature - and indeed valuelessness of the term CULT. I have some reservations about the counter argument:

"David Orme-Johnson, former psychology professor and researcher at Maharishi University of Management and author of over 100 studies related to the Transcendental Meditation technique, cites research showing greater autonomy, independence, and innovative thought in TM practitioners, as well as increases in creativity, general intelligence and moral reasoning. Cult followers, according to Orme–Johnson allegedly operate on blind faith, and adherence, usually rigid, to arbitrary rules and authority, whereas Orme-Johnson notes that these studies indicate the ability of TM practitioners to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments." Firstly, because this simply links to his website and the fact that none of the 100 studies mentioned that "indicate the ability of TM practitioners to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments" are either referenced or pointed to. Given his close association with TM would not instead be possible to simply point to these studies? I think this would greatly enhance the work dome so far. Really2012 (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Really, for your kind comments. I would like to cite various studies regarding field independence and independent principle-based judgment, but I believe it would be in violation of the wikipedia policy regarding no original research. I think studies can only be cited if an expert has mentioned them in the context of this particular issue. TimidGuy (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks, although I should mention that there were many editors involved in this page, so credit must go to them as well. As TimidGuy mentions OR is a concern. David Orme -Johnson is considered an expert in Psychology and has many peer reviewed publications to his credit so we can use his site as a Wikipedia compliant source.(olive (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps the neutrality tag at the top of the article can be removed if a neutral reader such as Really2012 feels the article is fairly written. Roseapple (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with removal of the neutrality tag if no-one comes forward to name a specific problem that they believe needs fixing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag. Here are two problems:

1) The "Cult accusations" section is very weaselly and biased--someone "comments that TM practitioners display what he considers to be cult–like behaviors," but someone else "notes that these studies indicate the ability of TM practitioners to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments.

2) The article says "The relationship between the mind and physics is a matter of dispute among physicists." This is basically false. Rracecarr (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. These words are POV and have removed them.The three references in the first paragraph are three "heavy weights" in the cult field.(olive (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

Fine to leave the tags in place.(olive (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

So Olive fixed the objectionable language Rracecarr pointed out in the cult paragraph. Perhaps Rracecarr can improve the other section. Roseapple (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, please don't use my comments to suggest the neutrality tag should be removed - I'm afraid that this is not what I am suggesting. What i have said is that given the close - and paid full time - involvement with TM that the main editors of the article is remarkable unbiased - this does not mean that it is unbiased in a "normal" sense however. There is still very clever editing taking place to remove "controversial " areas of TM from the article. I am afraid the inclusion of Orme Johnson as evidence to counter the Cult argument is weak at best. The other points that I made in comments are of equal - and high relevance. Personally, I believe that if TM is to be considered non theological then and to be practiced by people of different faiths then mention needs to be made about the origins of the mantras used. Anyone with a basic understanding of esoteric Hindu thought will understand the importance of continued mantric repeating of a deities name. Equally, the claims made by the organization regarding yogic flying need to be included in my opinion. The Sidhu program is the natural extension of the mediation program mentioned here. Its claims are "controversial" to say the least and have to - in my opinion - throow doubt on other claims made by TM.

I believe presently that these are not included basically due to the nearly full time participation of the main TM associate editors - one would suspect that this would be easy to maintain when the said organization has it's own university and staff. Personally, I have no issues with TM and the "fairness of the article in some respects - as I said - should be applauded - however there does not excuse some of the more important omissions which, I think, are more important then inclusion of references to the cult ( both value ladden term in my opinon) issues for example. It is impossible to remove this tag in my opionion when the nearly "full time " editors are members of the argainsation whos wiki entry is under dispute - unless, perhaps, the issues I have mentioned are addressed. However, having read - quicly throw the discussion history I believe this will not be the case. Sorry

If these issues where examined I would be happy to suuport such a move. Really2012 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If the neutrality tag is to be kept due to lack of material on yogic flying, let's consider translating the material on yogic flying from the German Wikipedia. Anyone who reads German is invited to take a look. I notice that some of the article's references are in English. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Really, for your comments. Please do try to assume good faith. I try very hard to be a neutral editor. Note that Yogic Flying isn't part of the Transcendental Meditation technique. It's part of the TM-Sidhi program, which is a separate technique. Yogic Flying is covered in that article. Regarding the mantras being deities, I don't know anything about that and have never seen a reliable source on it. It's simply not a part of the teaching. In fact, the mantra isn't really a focal point in Transcendental Meditation. Much of the time during meditation, the person isn't even aware of the mantra. It's a meaningless sound the is used as a vehicle to allow the mind to follow its natural tendency. Hope that helps. TimidGuy (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TimidGuy is right. There is no known source stating that Maharishi equales Mantras with deities. The opposite ist true. He said once (unfortuntately I do not know source and time, but as far as I remember it was during one of his hundreds of speeches in the last 5 years on the public Maharishi Channel) (a) that every word of Rig Veda is a Mantra and (b) that the Mantras which are used in TM are all derived from Rig Veda.

Let me give an example: Someone does a soundcheck before a rock concert and says into the microphone "one, two, three, four, five". In fact these words "one, two, three" have a meaning in other contexts. But in the moment the soundchecker uses them they have not. In this moment they are only sound. Similar TM.

Btw: There is no known source outside postulating that the TM teachers or the meditators are ever asked to use these sounds connected to meaning. Therefore the statement of the article that the used sounds are to be used as meaningless sounds is neutral. --Josha52 (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The german article is following another concept as the english version on TM. this has something to do with the article history there. The german article is not only an article on the meditation technique TM. The german article is an article on the meditation technique and also on the TM-movement. Therefore a deeper coverage of the TM Sidhis is ok there, because there is no german article on the TM-Sdhis. The short coverage of the TM-Sidhis is ok here, because there is a more in depth article on the TM-Sidhis here. --Josha52 (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Olive/Timid - I have read, briefly, through the history of this article, so assume you are the same people each time and not a dedicated team at the TM University :-). Your comments, I am afraid, are the same as I have seen before and I am afraid do your selfs a dis-service. There are reliable sources as to the mantras used and indeed as to how these mantras are assigned. The lists are available from many places on the net - and indeed have been removed by yourselves on many occasions. You state that they do not come from reliable sources yet have been published by TM trained "trainers" It is difficult to see how one can get more reliable sources then this. All of these people have placed their biography's to be clearly seen. If you use the argument that they are former TM members and appear to be unhappy with the organization then you must remove the Orm Johnson links on the same basis, as a "former" member of your university staff and thus equally unreliable.

Your arguments about the Mantras being meaningless are equally not justified. For a devout Christan for example, to be reciting the name of a Hindu god unknowingly has many theological implications. Equally, to state that it is not important what the mantras mean either shows a lack of understanding of "esoteric" Hindu/Vedic thought and teaching or a willingness to hid this fact.

You are wrong. For a devout Christian the recitation of the name of a Hindu god is absolutely wihtout any implications. From his point of view those Hindu gods do not exist. Christian people do believe that there ist only one god. Therefore every other "god" is for him a fake and therefore meaningless - inclusive any "names". Nevertheless: Please give us one reliable source (one woukd be enough) which are stating that TM practitioners have consciously any "deities" in mind when they are practising TM. Give any reliable source which is stating that the meditator is asked to have a "god" in mind during meditation. Give any reliable source which is stating that Maharishi has ever equaled mantras to deities. Since these sources do not exist, all those who are saying those things are building their own theories about TM. Such theories are allowed, everybody can think what he wants. And for the case these theories stem from an reliable und relevant source they have to get incorporated into the article: as a theory. --Josha52 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the yogic flying - well one has to ask what the issue is here? It is part of TM teaching, it is most certainly an advanced part of TM training. If one is happy to state the benefits of basic TM training Way be ashamed of it's advanced practices? Equally, I see that there is no mention of TMs "peace through meditation program" (or whatever it's called) A process whereby TM has stated that by combined mediation of its practitioners it can decrees crime rates in a certain geographical area. Indeed, TM has used "peer reviewed" research to prove it's effectiveness - via your version of unified field theory no doubt. Again, there is no mention of this and it seems that previous discussions about including have been ignored. Again, why is the faculty staff of the organizations university so reticent about its inclusion?

Since the stated Maharishi effect is independent from TM-Sidhis but a sole postulated and tested claim for TM itself ("1-Percent-Effect") it has to be covered in the TM-article. Since there is an enhanced and tested "Enhanced Maharishi-Effect" (square root of 1 percent) which IS dependent of TM-Sidhis it must be covered in the same paragraph shortly and in the article on TM-Sidhis shortly. Both themes should be covered in a more in depth article on the Maharishi effect, because the theoretical and practical implications, the literature covering the theory and the discussion around it fills a big article in itself. --Josha52 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am now aware that this will descend in to a long argument which will not be won by those of us without the full time resources - or the interest - of others. Instead this will "drag-on" until the none TMer gets bored and the comments are then hidden within chat history.

Sorry, but this does neither the organization, its academic staff or it's leader any "favors" and is why I cannot be used to remove the NPOV type tag. Sorry. Really2012 (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A missing paragraph (Maharishi Effect) can never be a reason for a NPOV remark. The mantra-god discussion can be covered as special part in the "Controversies". Feel free to make suggestions. I for myself are not able to do this because I do not know very good the english literature and sources. I am not identical with Timid and/or Olive. --Josha52 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Josha: I like your suggestions alot. . The only thing that I would take exception to is the Christan/Hindu god thing. Alas, it would be relevant. In Christan - and indeed Christian-Judaic tradition it would be important. There is much talk in Christian literature - indeed including it's main "references" text, the bible - regarding the worship of "false gods" And Christianity would indeed recognize their existence although in fundamental Christianity at least they would be considered at the lest "demons" (no offense to more reasoned Christians and certainly no offense to any Hindi readers). Indeed, many of the present Christian Demons - and indeed saints - had their origins in "pagan" gods - although this would be strongly denied (see St Bridgett in Eire for example). This is a very fundamental point in Christan thought, indeed, as it would be in certain substantial parts of Judaic and Muslim thought also.

As to no evidence that Hindu deities names are used in the mantras - well, the net is filled with former TM trainers - who have proved this in their bios - who have published these lists - lists that5 have been removed from this article. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of the "esoteric" sciences can see them clearly.

Finally: "A missing paragraph (Maharishi Effect) can never be a reason for a NPOV remark." I would agree but this is not the only reason for this marker. The clever editing of the article to remove many "controversial" issues is important. The manner in which many reasoned suggestions for change are "buried" and the fact that as it stands the article is written and manged by facility staff of the Maharishi University are all very problematic issues.

I repeat, alot of this article is very "fair" and reasoned and all credit to "Olive" and "Timid" but the fact that TM emphasizes research into its techniques which are "successful" but seems to want to distance itself from equally important things such as the Maharishi Effect, yogi flying and mantras does the editors and organization a disservice. Just because these issues might be controversial to those that can't see beyond the end of a test-tube - or some orthodox religion - does not mean that you should be ashamed of them. Grasp "all" of your organizations philosophies and be proud of them and support them. You might want to try and support every piece of your ideology/phiolosophy.theology via "scientific" "peer-reviewed" sources but TM is ultimately a philosophy and it is not always possible to use imperial research to support your arguments./ Go this route and you enter a place where, like other extremists - you are trying - also using peer reviewed papers, "named" scientists" - to prove the world was "created" in 7 days, every species on the planet can fit on one boat,. etc, etc, etc.

To misqoute Lao Tzu, "The thing that can be named, is not the thing itself."

Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

O, and to genuinely try to prove that I am "neutral" I would fully support the removal of the Cult" issues sections. Based-on the evidence given there there are other branches of "spiritual" thought that should have a similar section - including branches of fundamentalist Christianity and fundamental Muslim thought. This notion of a "cult" is just so value laden I have no idea why Olive and Timid have taken the time to counter it. Isn't there some "wiki" guidelines regarding the dangers of using this term? Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Really. Yes, there is a wiki guideline regarding use of "cult": WP:WTA. There's also a policy that restricts use of self-published sources, which includes personal web sites:WP:V. The Maharishi Effect is a hypothesis related to group practice of the TM-Sidhi program and is covered in that article. TimidGuy (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of thread... OJ

Really thanks for your comments. I think you are asking some important questions and maybe along with Josha's comments I can provide some rationales for the information in this article.

First what you see today is the result of numerous hours of discussion with editors who had numerous views on the article and on TM . What you see is a result of consensus . Thats the Wikipedia way , and I support the neutrality of that completely.I have no desire to slant this article in anyway that is not neutral from any side of the coin .... I guess coins only have two side... but you get my meaning.

• In the course of discussion we found that entanglement of information was a problem . Where does TM end and the TM Sidhi program begin. How does Unified Field theory connect . The decision over time, that included many non-Tm supporters, was to keep this article strictly about the Technique itself and to make that the "line drawn in the sand" for what material to move onto its own article. There is so much information on this topic this article had become a monster.As well in mediations we were advised to shorten the article. We have happily, chopped it down and the topics removed have been or can be added to articles of their own.

• The research section refers to research done on the TM technique itself and not on any advanced programs such as the Sidhi program. Very stringent editing took place to make sure nothing was left that referred to anything but TM technique research. Information on other research such as the research done using the TM Sidhi program can be found on articles appropriate to the technique referenced.All of these articles are easy to find . I think most link from this article.

• The inclusion of mantra information was included at one point , but the truth is we cannot find definitive sources on what Mantras are being used. There is conflicting information . One source I found made reference to TM mantras meaning everyday things like wheel, I think it was. I can find that source for you if you want. All TM teachers have been recertified; that is, unless a teacher has been recertified they can't teach TM . Who knows what the information they have received was .Maybe we could guess but thats not reliable or verifiable WP:V,WP:R.In the end the sources for this information don 't seem to be Wikipedia compliant so the material has been removed.

• The cult section - anti TM material - has been sourced to reliable verifiable sources. So the material should stay. The word cult itself has numerous connotations as you mention, but attempting to synthesize information on that in the article to prove the material shouldn't be there is WP:OR .... So no can do.:)

• David Orme Johnson held a faculty position at MUM . Its a job, and he retired. He is however an expert in the field of Psychology , a researcher with numerous peer-reviewed publications , and in this reference, he is only referencing the research but is not giving an opinion.It is appropriate by Wikipedia standards to include the blog of an expert as a reliable source ..... Whatever he's doing now is not an issue . He's an expert. We can use the source, and the section is neutral containing material both for and against. My concern is: its and encyclopedia with standards and we have to uphold those standards here and on any other article we edit.

Really, I hope this helps explain the way in which this article in its present incarnation came into being.From my side only if we are completely neutral can this encyclopedia continue to exist. Thanks so much for your comments . It actually helps me summarize in my own mind what was done in the last year and why .(olive (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

You know "Olive" a sociologist with an interest in the sociology of religion would find the discussion page of this article far more illuminating then the article itself. :-) We most continue. Bear with me will I find the time.Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Timid: you said "WTA. There's also a policy that restricts use of self-published sources, which includes personal web sites" That excludes Orm Johnson then - especially given his links with TM and your university. It makes no difference that he is an expert in Psychology. Shall I remove him or you? Or should we ask the wiki skeptics group? Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Really. I'm sorry I should have explained that the policy WP:V also includes an exception for experts who have been published in third-party sources: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." He's an expert on Transcendental Meditation and psychology, and he has nearly 100 publications in academic journals, so it seems like his web site fits the exception. I agree that It would be great if we could find additional sources.

If you'd like to make changes to the article, please make a suggestion. If you want to add that the mantras used in Transcendental Meditation are the names of gods, maybe try to find a published source. It would be great if we could work together. But it feels like mostly you've been making accusations instead of explaining why you think specific changes would add something to this article about Transcendental Meditation. This is a page for discussion, not making accusations. How can we come to consensus if you make a suggestion, make an accusation, and then drop the subject and make more accusations if other editors don't immediately agree to changing the focus of the article? In fact, we recently made significant changes to the article based on extensive discussion. We deleted factual material that was documented simply because an editor felt it made the article sound promotional. I didn't object to those changes because I was sincerely trying to make the article neutral. I feel like it has a nice balance. I regret the recent changes that Rracecarr made because I feel like it altered that balance and distorted the spirit of neutrality that we were striving for. TimidGuy (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you get the wrong idea Timidguy. Let me explain - I should really make my position clear - I am a "TMer" - practice everyday, without fail - although in fairness over the years have learned a number of other techniques non of which I feel are incompatible and non of which are less important then others. Indeed, often use various techniques during commenting in WIKI - I find it useful. My issues with certain people within the "movement" are clear within this article. In a desperate attempt to make TM a scientifically, empirically backed "proof" there is a desperate attempt by some to keep away from those areas of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's teaching which are either impossible to prove empirically at this stage or more "spiritual" n nature. For whatever reason - no doubt to gain back-door acceptance in to the secular world - there are those in TM who seem to want to -if not deny then "brush aside" that TM is part of the Vedic tradition and is thus a spiritual one. All of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Thoughts and teaching are thus important. Why pretend that they do not exist in this article? Anyone interested in TM in the first instance will come here first. Are we to a assume that the editors believe that other aspects of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are so bizarre they need to be prepare first? As I said, this policy does TM a great disservice and reflects a a policy I have seen grow not from Maharishi but the Maharishi University of Management - as if the "movements "intellectual elite" and I use the term loosely - are ashamed of it;s spiritual dimension.

This is similar to the sort of research that is used to support TM#s effectiveness in reducing psychsocialphysiological stress and its - sometimes recorded - benefits to health. The positive effects of mediation, in most but not all, has long been researched and recorded. This is nothing new yet is often present by those academics within the TM movement as if it is exclusive, One could of course quote that when it is compared to other forms of mediation it appears more effective but this will only every be in the short term. Anyone who has studied vedic science will understand that internalization of a mantra will induce a form of mediation quicker then any other. This does not mean that it is either better or worse , although the some thought, a large part indeed, will suggest that this is less then a desirable method in the long term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012forgotpassword (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your position. Very interesting. I think that one reason this article has its current shape is that it reflects the sources. Wikipedia emphasizes using the academic literature and mainstream media as sources. The academic literature almost exclusively is focused on scientific research. And probably a majority of the articles in mainstream media also report on various studies. Wikipedia editors are constrained by sources -- we're not really free to say whatever we want. Already this article has been criticized in the past for using too many "in-house" sources. Anyway, it's interesting to discuss this. Not sure what the answer is. TimidGuy (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Really , I think that the term "spiritual" you use here is really critical in understanding what is in the article. I don't think anyone disagrees that TM can be a spiritual discipline, although there are many people who use the technique because of its ability to normalize the bodies systems ie: relieve stress and the effects stress has on the body. There's plenty of research on that and that's what's here. This doesn't mean that other systems may also have some of these effects. Just that this is the TM article so we're talking about TM.

There is a clear differentiation and delineation in the literature between religion and spirituality. A religion may be spiritual , but spirituality does not necessarily include religion. Religion is a possible subset of the more inclusive spirituality. Spirituality can be defined and is, in much literature, as a search for something higher . Religion is the more or less formal structure human beings establish around spirituality. The Vedas seem to predate formal religion.In this instance then, they might be considered spiritual but not religious. Hinduism is a highly borderless religion that has developed out of the older spiritual Vedas. Hinduism may contain aspects of the Vedas but the Vedas predate Hinduism so one can't say Veda is Hinduism . I believe Maharishi connects the spiritual practice of TM to the Vedas rather than to any organized religion.

In this article I thought it was necessary to show that there are concerns among religious groups about TM and religion. Archbishop Cardinal Sin.... interesting name , eh, pretty much summed it all up in his pastoral statement so I used that. Its pretty unemotional and seems to reference most Christian religions . There are also writers who have spoken about TM as a spiritual practice used to combat life's stress on the emotional Psychological level . We have references for that . Beyond that we can't create synthesis of material in the article about either of these topics .... Its un Wikipedia and is called, as we know OR.

Whatever any editor puts in this article is limited by the reliability and verifiability of the source. I'm not sure what exactly you'd like to see in the article. If its about Maharishi himself there is a separate article for that. Well,lets keep talking. I'm sure TG has insights as well.(olive (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive: "Archbishop Cardinal Sin.... interesting name" indeed :-) . I would like to see - specifically with in this article - more references to the TM-Sidhi Program - and naturally Yogic Flying. As the main TM website itself says: "The TM-Sidhi program is a natural extension of the Transcendental Meditation® program and may be learned after two months of regular practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique" It is recognized by Maharishi as an important part of TM, he has stated this on many occasions - to excluded a mention of it is simply not logical within the context of an entry on TM, especially as a TM practitioner should be ready for it within two months TM practice. I am aware that it makes some of the "intellectuals in the "movement" "uneasy" a situation much different to the early 80's oddly enough - as its effects are more difficult to prove empirically and indeed it has been the cause of derision amongst some. However, can you/we really ignore it? I'm aware that you will say it is covered in it's own entry elsewhere - but to not even give a brief overview here? And a link to that article. Should we really be ashamed of something that Maharishi has said its intention is to "To develop higher states of consciousness, bring Life into accord with natural law,and create heaven on earth"? Simply, despite concerted efforts by some within MUM it is empirically difficult rationalize or "prove"? I posted this elsewhere today regarding the desperate attempt by some - and no offense to either of you I can assure you - to empericise "spirituality" - it may give a clearer understanding to you of my particular POV =- you will need to stay with it to the end of it's 4 minutes :-) By the way, in my "non spiritual life" I am a scientist - its no doubt obvious from the poor grammar and spelling ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkck99hyYWk Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of section TM Sidhi porogram

Hi, Really .... actually the whole decision as far as I can remember in regards to the TM Sidhi program just had to do with length and trying to find the place to draw the line ... I think its possible to add something but lets discuss it further ... maybe TG will weigh in on this.(olive (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive: thanks for your reply. I do hope so. I'm afraid that I will be a little absent over the next few weeks - i have an horrendous research proposal that needs completing in "real life". However, I will attempt to to contribute when possible. To be honest regarding the articles length - there are far, far longer articles then this one and I should think it would be possible to offset any such objections easily. Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

However, I think it should be nothing more then an overview with a link to the relevant wiki article. Equally, I think there should be little need to analyze, critise or support it here - that is done elsewhere. Just my view. Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing "public charter school principals" and OR

Since this sentence seemed to be a point of contention and since the addition by Rracecar is not correct, as far as all of the sources I have seen go, the best and most obvious move is to remove the sentence completely. It really is a redundant piece of information that serves no purpose.(olive (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

In no references that I have seen does Orme - Johnson say that he believes in the "paranormal Maharishi effect". Connecting his comments on this research with the view that this is a paranormal phenomenon is synthesis of material and violates WP:OR.(olive (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

Agree with your first move, disagree with your second. His web page makes it perfectly clear he's a believer. Rracecarr (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rracecarr...A believer in what? If he says I believe this is paranormal you can use it and we can leave it in. If you are surmising from what he says that he believes that this research was effective .... and you construe that to mean he believes this is paranormal or you are defining this to be paranormal (your words) .... well hey ... thats straight up OR as we know ....We have to take the information out if that's the case. Think on it maybe... see what you come up with.(olive (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

and Hey I see you put back in the redundant material on MUM .... the material that you are adding is all available via link. Leaving it in here is redundant and so weakens the structure of the paragraph. What's the point in leaving it here? Could you explain?(olive (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

Hi. The Maharishi Effect is straight up paranormal. Can it be explained by science as we know it? No. Ok, it's paranormal. That's not OR, that's the definition of paranormal.

As for the info on MUM, it is important that it be included. David Orme-Johnson is being presented as a researcher who has shown that TM has beneficial effects. Readers should not have to click on the name of the university that employed him, and read that separate article, in order to discover that it is not unaffiliated with the TM movement, but rather is at the very heart of it. There is an important conflict of interest that should not be glossed over.Rracecarr (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Racecarr. I think your edits are a bit of overkill. In any case, the research that he cites isn't his own, but rather was done at Harvard and York University. There are other studies, too, done at other universities. David OJ is simply making the connection between these studies and specific cult accusations. Maharishi University of Management is mentioned previously in the article as being a research center for Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And it seems redundant to say a second time that Maharishi is the founder of Transcendental Meditation, since that's already in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This guy should not even be in the article in the context of "controversy", as he is clearly not an independent source of information of experts' opinions about the effects of TM. I have not tried to remove discussion of his views entirely, but it is very important to make it clear that he's not an independent researcher.Rracecarr (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source that says the Maharishi effect is paranormal you are either expressing your opinion or are creating OR ....I understand your view but its an encyclopedia(olive (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but this is getting extremely aggravating. Of course it's paranormal. There is no question whether it's paranormal. The Maharishi Effect is the idea that something people do in one place INSIDE THEIR OWN HEADS has an influence on the behavior of other people in other places. There is no known physical explanation for this effect. That is what paranormal means. See post above. Do you need a citation that an apple is a fruit? Is that OR? Is that an opinion? Give me a break. Rracecarr (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why this should be aggravating. Its just a nice little discussion.: ) You shouldn't add paranormal because its not sourced. Not if we're playing Wikipedia rules, and I am. OJ doesn't say this on the web-site. You are pulling a word out of the air... read... its not sourced, and assuming to use it. Whether the Maharishi effect is paranormal or not, whatever you define that to be is not the issue, and is as well a whole other discussion. Apple is a fruit is really a far fetched comparison, unless you live in a place where there are no apples and no fruit and then you'd probably have to source the references for the lay reader who has no clue what an apple is.(olive (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Defintions of Paronormal:

Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation. www.upisociety.com/vocabulary.html

Describes events or abilities beyond or above normal human powers or senses. www.reiki.nu/treatment/healing/dictionary4/dictionary4.html

Pertaining to a direct effect upon the physical world through means that are not amenable to scientific analysis. May include magic, psionics, and mutant powers. www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/myths/SocDefs.html

Approaching paranormal phenomena from a research perspective is often difficult because even when the phenomena are seen as real they may be difficult to explain using existing rules or theory. By definition, paranormal phenomena exist outside of conventional norms. Skeptics contend that they don't exist at all. Despite this challenge, studies on the paranormal are periodically conducted by researchers from various disciplines. Some researchers study just the beliefs in paranormal phenomena regardless of whether the phenomena actually exist. wiki

The "Maharishi Effect" is certainly easily defined by these terms and thus it is a paranormal "effect"

I'm also with the inclusion of Orm Johnsons affiliation with MUM and a brief explanation of what MUM is within this context. This is highly important within the scope of encyclopedic entry as it clarifies his position statement and that his defense of TM against occult charges may be heavily value laden.

On this basis I equally believe that this description should be reinserted. Indeed, somewhat disapointed as I thought it was the MUM affilated editors who had inserted it Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. lets just begin here with assume good faith. I like any other editor here work very hard to edit in the most neutral way possible. Let me add, that there is no reason for me to influence this material except in the most neutral way possible. That kind of editing will not serve the knowledge this article presents. Either that knowledge can stand truth or it can't . I'm not making that decision here. That said, thanks for you definition of paranormal .... But, and again.... thats not the issue. We are dealing with two pillars of Wikipedia policy .... verifiable and reliable .... and we can add OR to that .Please show me the quote that states that OJ considered this to be paranormal or that anywhere in this literature does the word paranormal arise . Then where did the word come from . It was introduced by an editor .... thats not encyclopedic for a word that requires a definition such as the definition you just added to the discussion. As an aside, The original linked reference to MUM was decided on with the consensus of editors editing at that time and was deemed the appropriate way to indicate Orme-Johnson's former affiliation with the university.(olive (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive: Thank you for your feedback, however, I am not convinced that it actually counters the argument for leaving the section as it is. The basic thrust of your argument is that it was decided sometime ago to with the wording that it presently has. However, WIKI is very much a "living" encyclopedia - it's very nature allows continuous edits. Simply because in the past a decision was made that this was the correct style to use does not mean that it is now. I personally like the new edit and believe it makes any "political" position that might exist in Orm Johnson's opinion clear. I am sure as a nurural editor you would want to make sure everyones position was clear Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't meant to counter the argument, just an explanation for what is there now, since you seem to have some concern about why the material was added and by whom. The counter is simply redundancy, and the poor paragraph structure that comes out of using redundant information. Attempting to make some kind of extra point about the fact that OJ was a faculty member at MUM is not a neutral view in my mind, but is right up there with a hit over the back of the head with a two by four. The point is being made multiple times. That in my mind is not the major flaw in this section though. It is still with adding words requiring definition that are not sourced.(olive (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Well, gosh. I thought I did a nice job of revising Rracecarr's version. I left in the point that Maharishi founded MUM, I made a wiki link to Maharishi Effect, but I didn't think we needed to say for a second time that Maharishi created Transcendental Meditation. And do we really need to say that everyone practices Transcendental Meditation at Maharishi University of Management? TimidGuy (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Timid - I'am afraid so, if they are being used to counter a critism of said organiastion - unless of course they are ashamed of their affiliation - which is an issue of little concern to us here I am afraid Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with the Wikipedia guideline assume good faith. I'm not sure of the referents for your use of "they," so I don't understand your comment. TimidGuy (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Timid: Sorry you have lost me - no idea what you are on about - apologies. Anyway, seems thats settled then. Now all we need to do is address the other issues I have raised including the introduction of the Sidhu Program - which seems to have stalled abit. I think Olive was waiting on your impute TG Really2012back (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My fault. I was making two different points: one, noting Wikipedia policy that suggests that it may not be appropriate to make accusations or speculate on motives, and the second that I didn't understand your post because of the unclear referents. No matter.

I'd rather leave the TM-Sidhi program to its own article, since it's a different technique. No point in confusing readers. Only a tiny percentage of people who learn Transcendental Meditation also later learn the more advanced TM-Sidhi program, which is then practiced in addition to Transcendental Meditation. This article is about Transcendental Meditation, and there's a huge amount that could be said about it -- a number of major areas of research that haven't been touched on. So no point in introducing something peripheral. Better to cover more of the research on Transcendental Meditation, such as the studies done at UC Irvine which clearly distinguish the physiological state from relaxation. Also, we had two paragraphs of material about the cumulative effects sourced to peer-reviewed studies that was deleted without comment. We should probably put that back (and in fact had consensus to do so). Which reminds me, I want to delete a sentence in the current article. Will start a separate thread on that. TimidGuy (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with you TG - the Sidhu programs does need to be included - it has been stated by your leader as an obvious extension of the practice in TM and is obtainable within two months of TM. As it is simply an extension of the mantras it makes perfect sense and needs to be included. The only thing now is how that should be done.

As to the peer reviewed studies as I have said in the Sidhu article I am happy to leave this in - but where these have been managed by members of MUM, we need to include a reference to this each time they are cited - in the interest of clarity of course Really2012back (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. I can't agree to changing the focus of this article. If we can't come to an agreement, we can use one of Wikipedia's dispute procedures. TimidGuy (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with TG on both points. Since the decision to remove TM Sidhis out of this article was supported by a number of editors I agree to continue to support this decision. TG also brings in several new pertinent points. Please note these studies are peer-reviewed and published in respected publications. Adding some sort of qualifier for every such study is inappropriate. I will also support dispute resolution procedures for any and all of this.(olive (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

As per deletion of paranormal: I've said all I can say on this. The word is not and cannot be referenced from OJ's website and is OR. Since we are dealing with a Wikipedia policy I will not back down on this.(olive (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

I don't think it was referenced on the Orm site - I think this is simply a matter of wording - within all definitions of the term the marhisian effect - or whatever it is called is a Paranormal effect, by any definition of that word. Racccarr could have used any other number of words , psudo-scientific for example, but wisely chose the non value laden paranormal. Indeed, having re looked at the article I think it maybe wise to reclassify it - although keeping the "alternative health" marker I think. I was thinking logically it could fit under paranormal and also Spiritual or perhaps "new age" Not sure which really - I must start another discussion I suppose - o well Really2012back (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

O sorry Olive I didn't read your full point. Not back down? Goodness I don't think theres any need for such defensive reaction. Lets try and get on and work this out. I personally am off to meditate for a moment and I am sure things will seem clearer - they always do you.know Really2012back (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Really. I think you misunderstand . This isn't a defensive stanse. Rather, this is a statement of position regarding my ability to make concessions. There are places in Wikipedia where one must and has to compromise. However my position is that when it comes to no OR, WP:OR or any of the pillars of Wikipedia policy I can't bend. This is a larger issue than this article but has to do with Wikipedia and neutrality as a whole. The point must be about a verifiable source and there isn't one. So inclusion of the word paranormal whatever other discussion swarm around it comes down to "the bottom line". It needs a reference to be included. Thats all. Short, sweet and simple. Really simple .(olive (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

As well might be helpful for us to remember this is a contentious article and inclusion of material should be discussed and should be supported by the editors involved ie: consensus.Thats the way to make this work the best. (olive (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive: I agree with your last point - and I think you will notice i have only ever discussed changes but not directly made them - at least not yet. However, what seems to happen is this.

i make a point, lets say about the inclusion of the Sidhu program. there is much back and through with you and TG. this goes on for some time - then i will get agreement with either you or Tg - you in this case. rather then make changes myself I will leave it up to you guys - nothing happens. i mention it again and then the the one of you says no and then threatens to raise a dispute. i have traveled the history of this article and i am not the only one to have experienced this or noted it. If these is not a fair preci what has happened then I aoplogis but that it howit appears to meand also others

I am a neutral editor - but when a new age science makes claims to have health benefits - including reducing cortisone, and increasing live expectancy by 25% in the case of patients recovering form carioic shock - then i do have more then a passing interest and indeed, under my professional body have an obligation to examine it.

So let us start a fresh slightly shall we. Let us list each of the contentious "sentences" and here come up with alternative wording as to how they should, or should not be included.

As I presently see it these are:

1 The label of paranormal once within the article 2 The inclusion of the sidhu program as natural extension of the general TM method 3 Some way of high lighten research cited which has been conducted by members or associates of MUM 4 The inclusion of some critique sites - where those critiquing have been published or are experts in their field. This is on the basis of Orm Johnsons sites inclusion =- although this maybe a contentious issue but needs to be addressed.

I think these are the main issues at the moment and if we can all work together over each point and look at how this can be addressed and worded - constructing the sentences here in talk - I think we can ALL: benefit. Thoughts Olive TG? Peace Really2012back (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Really. Before we start afresh .... I would like to make something clear . Timid guy and I both have the ability to think independently, and we do not always agree. There is no such pattern as you seem to indicate in this discussion between our editing . Since we are both neutral editors there may be a strong desire to enforce Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and we both know this area, TG probably better than I do, and are attempting to keep a highly contentious article in the neutral zone. Thats all. I'm going to look at your points so maybe comment in a few minutes. Thanks for summarizing this.(olive (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

I believe we have to present Transcendental Meditation as it's presented in the academic literature and in the mainstream media. Both exclusively use that term to refer to a technique of meditation that entails sitting for 20 minutes with one's eyes closed and following the procedure for the specific technique. The TM-Sidhi program is a different technique, learned separately, with different instructions, practiced separately from Transcendental Meditation. Wikipedia is supposed to follow published sources in the way that topics are presented. We also need to present the topic weighted relative to those sources. TimidGuy (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Martinphi's points.(olive (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Concerns regarding nutrality of research

To counter the statement: "A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[41" The following phrase has been used: "Other researchers have found that the Transcendental Meditation technique has no correlation with these conditions.[42]" The reseach article used to support this is: ^ Herron, Robert E., et al: 1996, “Cost-Effective Hypertension Management: Comparison of Drug Therapies with an Alternative Program,” The American Journal of Managed Care Vol. 11, No. 4, p. 433 However, having read the article in question I am not even convinced that this is actually what it says. However, of even greater worry to me is the nutrality of the researchers concerned. While I have not checked all of them as yet I note that Robert H. Schneider, is Professer of Physiology at MUM - which jas to through some doubt in to nutrality, Charles N. Alexander worked closley with Orm Johnson see for example " Reducing Conflict and Enhancing Quality of Life in Israel Using the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program: Explanation of a Social Research Project", Kenneth G. Walton, Ph.D, is Associate Professor, Neurochemistry Laboratory MUM, etc

Indeed, I am presently struggling to find people in this research paper who are not in someway positively connected to MUM. (Shall begin to look more closely at the other research cited throughout this article later. can it not be possible to find a paper not run by TMers to support this counter argument. Or perhaps we need to add within the article in all cases of research affiliation with MUM and the researches authors? That seems a little tedious but I suppose we can look at it. Indeed, perhaps this needs further investgation and insertion in this artcle asa seperate section? 02:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Really2012forgotpassword (talk)

We could consider deleting Otis. It wasn't peer reviewed and was a self-selected survey -- which is absolutely the weakest research design. I wonder if it's even considered a research design. TimidGuy (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That comment doesn't really address my questions Timid - but it is late However, I would say that at lest it does appear to be neutral - unlike the research used to counter it. Ans still falls within the WIKI definition of relieble sources. Thoughts?:-)Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion of research in Wikipedia is peer review and quality of publication. Rest assured this has been discussed and investigated multiple times. My mind shudders at going through this yet again. But be my guest(olive (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive: Indeed, I agree I was just surprised that Tidid wished to raise it again - but I am happy to discuss Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted three studies

I deleted the following:

and cumulative effects in the mind with regular practice.(Travis, Arenander & DuBois 2004), body (Barnes, Treiber & Davis 2001) and behavior (Barnes, Bauza & Treiber 2003).

Two of the studies (Barnes) don't really seem to show cumulative effects. One is simply another hypertension study and the other looks at classroom behavior. Neither is longitudinal. The third study could go in a possible section on cumulative effects (which was deleted some time ago and which we had consensus to restore. It had been deleted without any discussion and was sourced to peer-reviewed research). TimidGuy (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Towards consensus

Summarizing discussions -please add points

As per Really's Suggestion: ( pasted here for ease) 1 The label of paranormal once within the article 2 The inclusion of the sidhu program as natural extension of the general TM method 3 Some way of high lighten research cited which has been conducted by members or associates of MUM 4 The inclusion of some critique sites - where those critiquing have been published or are experts in their field. This is on the basis of Orm Johnsons sites inclusion =- although this maybe a contentious issue but needs to be addressed.

Issues of contention:

1. Paranormal, Orm Johnson, Maharishi effect.

I'd like to suggest we look at this group of words since there's more trouble here than just with paranormal:

"proponent of the paranormal Maharishi Effect,"

Against inclusion:

• Proponent is not sourced, so inclusion of the word violates WP:V. Assuming without a verifiable source that OJ is a proponent of the Maharishi Effect also violates WP:OR.

OJ has published the research and summarizes it. I quote a scientist friend on this:

he has been a researcher of it and has published (again in top peer reviewed journals) on it - he simply studied it and reported what he found - to suggest or imply anything else is to introduce OR and to implicate not only David, but the reviewers who critiqued and accepted the findings for publication and the journal editors who published the papers

• Paranormal is not sourced. Inclusion violates WP:V and WP:RS. Adding the word here means synthesizing of material had to occur since there is no source. This is original research and violates WP:OR

For inclusion:add points —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Olive let us break it down as we would for our students. Very reasonable - although I cringe now re-reading my sentence structure - must be tired. Just to clarify things further - because there are so many points - can we give each item its own subheading - just to ease discussion . So if we could perhaps rename this heading: Issue of contention Paranormal, Orm Johnson, Maharishi effect.

Can I suggest one other thing, let us look at each thing not from our own POV but the real reason for this article and that is that people who come to Wiki who seek impartial information about TM get get just that; honest, non value laden, "truth" about this mediative practice. Looking at each, Paranormal: Personally I think this is a matter of semantics - on everyones behave myself included. What is not important here is whether the Marhisha effect is paranormal, new age, empirically proven or pseudoscience. I think It would have been just as easy for raccar to have said the new-age Maharishi effect, the empirically proven Maharishi effect, the pseudo scientific Maharishi effect. What he is doing here is making a judgment on how best to classify this effect - he is not saying that this is how Orme Johnson would classify it but how an independent, external observer would classify this process given the evidence and definition of paranormal. Now before even attempting to clarify this - if we indeed need to in the context of this article - let us look as to why it was necessary in the firstly place.

The point of identifying Orm Johnsons close affiliation with MUM is that it MIGHT - but that doesn't mean it does - throw some skepticism on the fact that he is the source used to counter this cult argument. I think we have all now agreed that that it is important to mention this affiliation - although we might differ on how to word this. And this we can look look at next. So, we might just have said : " David Orme-Johnson, former psychology professor and researcher at Maharishi University of Management (founded by the creator of TM, a place at which all students and faculty practice TM every day), and author of over 100 studies related to the Transcendental Meditation technique, cites research...."

Doing this we identify to the reader that he might be biased - or might not and to some that he may not be the best person to counter the cult argument - or perhaps by his close association with TM he is the best person. If that makes sense - we are simply clarifying his back round and how this might effect our judgment of his analysis.

On this basis what does the expression "..proponent[54] of the paranormal Maharishi Effect..." bring to the first time reader and more importantly is it important to the discussion in question? I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. It is obvious that what we are discussing here is TM and not the Maharishi effect - a different thing. Whether this effect is classified as paranormal, pseudoscience, empirically proven, etc is not important in this context - what is important is whether it adds to the readers understanding. Personally, at this stage I am unsure it does. Really2012back (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Really, for your articulate thoughts on this. I agree with your basic point that it's good to identify David OJ as a researcher on Transcendental Meditation and fine to identify him as a former faculty member. He's expressing a point of view -- that there are studies relevant to the issue -- and it's good that the reader know the basis of his perspective. Also, as you say, it not only puts his comments in perspective, but from another point of view suggests that he may be an apt person to comment. And if we could word the sentence gracefully, i think it's okay to say that MUM was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. And that much seems to suffice. TimidGuy (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you TG . I have made a brief suggested rewrite of "offending" sentence. Perhaps you might do the same from your perspective here while we wait for Rracecarr to comment? I think that will keep us "moving forward". Peace. Really2012back (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize there are a number of issues here. Let's start with the easiest one: paranormal. This is probably the fifth time I've written this exact argument on this page. It has never been responded to, only flatly contradicted. It is painfully, slap-you-in-the-face obvious that the Maharishi Effect is paranormal. Paranormal is just an adjective that describes stuff people claim about the physical world which modern science cannot explain. Modern science does not have an explanation for the Maharishi effect. That is a simple fact. Paranormal is not a rare word: it gets 35,000,000 Google hits. So there is no need to insult the intelligence of readers by including a definition. It could of course be wikilinked, which is isn't at present.

Arguing about whether the Maharishi Effect is paranormal is silly. If we cannot agree on this obvious point I see little prospect for progress toward broader consensus. There is no point beating our heads together if we can't agree on the blatantly obvious. Rracecarr (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rracecarr. You see, I agree that its silly because I cannot agree with you in any way about the arguments that you are making. The Word is non-compliant per Wikipedia policy and so how can I say its fine put it in . I feel badly that this aggravates you .... I do very much so . But I also feel I am upholding a certain standard per Wikiopedia here. I include a quote, that may clarify my position:

reporting that a change in "A" (whatever that might be) is correlated to a change in "B" is straight science based on statistical analysis - that this is repeated in many separate studies is scientifically more compelling and substantiates the statistical link - further the research results themselves are not unusual or "paranormal" (for which there is no generally accepted scientific definition in any case)

Quotes are more useful if you say where they're from. Anyway, it's not called the "Maharishi Correlation". Rracecarr (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I did mention that the quote was from a friend, I can add because its general: scientist, PH.D, Stanford.I don't want to take credit for his comment. I appreciate the point this discussion is at because I think you honestly disagree with, or don't see my point, and that is heartening since there is an honest difference of opinion.

If the word is not referenced we could as Really pointed out pull out any number of words to describe the ME.... why choose this one -paranormal- or any other for that matter. The point is if we are to be encyclopedic then that choice of words has to come from the reference, not from the editor. No reference. No word. If we as editors assume to take the information, in, for example this case the OJ site and choose a word we feel describes the information - then its original to us - one way of describing original research. The word is value ladened as is any adjective. Should this be written without the adjective? A WP: editor by definition is not creating something original, or new but is merely writing using knowledge that unless completely commonplace is contained in referenced sources.(olive (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

There are not citations after every word. It is common knowledge that science (as it stands at present) cannot explain a bunch of people meditating in one place influencing something about the physical world somewhere else.Rracecarr (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rraccarr... My comment and opinion are serious and honest and I assume you opinion is too. Adding fact tags on every word is an extreme and not what I'm suggesting . Nor am I suggesting that the term Paranormal cannot be applied to ME if someone really wants to push the definition that way. There are two issues here . You are focused on the fact that in your mind ME is paranormal and everyone should know it . And I am saying, hey, thats fine. Prove it with the reference. If you can't, its not encyclopedic.(olive (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

As for including some comment about the university .... founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who developed the TM technique .... fine.... but to add, where every student and every faculty practices the TM technique .... is in my mind weak in terms of structure of the paragraph . My background is in English literature /writing/ linguistics/ that area and this is weak in terms of the writing of it, because it re references something that we can say much more easily and already have said with a wiki-link. Encyclopedic writing should be precise without extraneous material. I've spent a lot of time hacking away some very nice writing in some articles recently and its not nice for a writer type to have to do that but that's the situation in an encyclopedia .... So I would be willing to go with the following.(olive (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

David Orme-Johnson, former psychology professor and researcher at Maharishi University of Management (founded by Maharsihi Mahesh Yogi creator of the TM technique)...

Looks like Olive didn't sign her comment above. Rracecarr, you seem not to have read the discussion -- in particular the comments above by Really, which helpfully analyze why these qualifying statements are there and to what extent. TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how it seems, but I certainly read it. Really didn't address the issue I'm stuck on: that ME is paranormal and it's inane to argue otherwise. Really questioned whether the word (or whole phrase) belongs the article or not. I feel that it does, but, unlike the fact that ME is paranormal, that IS a matter of opinion. Rracecarr (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It seems like we'd need consensus on whether the phrase should be there. If we don't have consensus to include it, then we need not address how it should be worded. TimidGuy (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You have a point. However, my aim is partly to establish some sort of baseline of reality and logic--without these there can be no useful argument. I have doubts about the likelihood of a productive debate with editors who won't acknowledge bald facts. Rracecarr (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe assume good faith and move on rather than getting stuck on this. Given that several editors think that the qualifying statements are a bit of overkill, I think you need to defend your version. TimidGuy (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we have come a little unstuck here, however, I think that is my fault not explaining myself fully perhaps.

We have two different arguments here:

1 - How we should structure the reference to Orm Johnson - i.e. how much - briefly - information do we need to give about him for the new reader to decide how to evaluate his counter argument that TM is a "cult". Ie, what information does the new reader need to help their decision process? To me they need to know:

1 That He is a TM researcher 2 That he is qualified in psychology. 3 That he has worked at MUM - for many years 4 That he is an avid supporter of the TM technique. 5 That he is a TM meditator.

All of these facts need to be clarified in a description of who he is - and I think we all have agreed to this - although Olive has concerns about how this can be described aesthetically - which is a very good point and one we can easily address.

2 However, our biggest 2 points of contention here seem to be:

1 That the ME is paranormal process 2 That OJ is a proponent of this technique.

Before getting our selfs embroiled in a discussion of whether these two factors are true - which I think we need to when we hopefully next turn to the Sidhu Program article in WIKI. - do we need to include this information here? It is certain that we are not discussing the ME in the cult section - the cult accusations come from the practice of the TM technique - and perhaps how this effect grows during the Sidhu Program although I am unaware that this has ever been stated.

So, will defining the ME as paranormal - or anything else - be helpful to the reader in this paragraph? Will it add anything further to their ability to judge OJ's ability to counter arguments that TM is a cult? Personally, I feel not. Thoughts.

Olive: I have a PhD in "science" - or at least a few of them and, if we are going to name check universities, a far older and more "respected" university then Stanford, my university tie proves it  :-P. As well as lecturing in my particular "brand" of science - in which I am also involved in an "applied manner" I also,lecture on the philosophy of science and I am afraid that the definition of science/non paranormal given by your friend is not correct. This is oversimplified perhaps but: It is not just necessary to show that A causes B. You must also assign a reasonable explanation - within the confines of known "science - whether physics, chemistry, physiology, biochemistry, etc, etc how A causes B. For example, The Druid priest may have conducted a ritual every winter solstice to make sure that the Sun was reborn three days latter. Each year it did, this does not mean that the Druids sun ritual caused the sun to rise although - from their point of view a did indeed cause B. Anther example, each year a "primitive" group of people notice that certain species of bird - lets call this species "Foolish" - fly south , before the nights grow shorter, the snows come, it gets colder, the crops begin to die - let us call this time winter. Noticing this year after year - these people come to the reasoned argument - based on logic designed by one of their philosophers - that A cause B. Thus they decide, through observation and statistical analysis that it is the Foolish flying south at a certain time each year that "cause" winter - A causes B.

TM is a little like this I am afraid. I am aware that some of your physicists have attempted to explain the ME using versions of unified field theory but these have not been accept and are to heavily - and indeed to easily, argued against to use as a valid theory. (lets be honest every "new age theory has attempted to do so). In very simply terms ME "works" by the power of thought to influence the environment and actions of others. This IS a "paranormal" effect - one might even argue some form of psychokinesis. Therese no way to explain it within present scientific knowledge and research into it simple cannot control all of the variables yet to even support it's causal effect. Neither have enough studies been done to even try to.

However, - although I think we will have to address this issue eventually, even if only within the context of the Sidhu Program entry - I repeat is this important at this stage in the article - ie does it have relevance to OJs ability to counter the cult allegations? Really2012back (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Really - as a clarification . This friend does not work at MUM, and is not affiliated with MUM, and is not one of my physicists. I am in no way touting his credentials. I don't have to. Rracecarr felt the quote without knowing who said it was not much use. I was merely giving a sense of the credentials. (olive (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive - sorry it was a joke, hence the :-P symbol at the end, And I know you didn't say MUM you said Stanford - I assume the university - I was being facetious, but in a good mannered way :-). my apologies. O, and I have no difficulty academic credetials of MUM staff - you seem to have some good peole working there. Really2012back (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh! No apologies necessary. I don't like to continue on if there are misunderstandings.(olive (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, Really, for your analysis. I guess if Rracecarr doesn't respond in a convincing way, we have consensus to edit that sentence a bit. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I agree that working on the paragraph here is a good idea. But first, here's a suggestion: how 'bout we just get rid of the paragraph? Replace it with "People affiliated with the TM movement have disagreed" or something equivalent, providing as a reference David Orme's website. This makes it clear that he is not impartial, eliminating both my "overkill" edits which are there to make it clear that Orme has a COI (could be regarded as my POV) as well as the phrase about "100 studies", which is there to make it clear that Orme is a serious researcher whose opinion matters (POV the other way). The section is already called "Cult accusations" (incidentally, I think we can find a better word than "accusations")--it is not necessary for half of it to be TM people's denial of those allegations. One short sentence is sufficient for that.

Again, if this idea isn't popular, let's bring the paragraph here and work on it. Rracecarr (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a not unresonable solution Rracecarr - or even "At least one advocate of TM have has responded by stating ..." Something like that? Really2012back (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Really and Rracecarr. It feels like we're working together. Let's do bring the paragraph here and work on it. Perhaps start a new thread. I guess from my point of view, I'd like to include the connection that he makes to the research. Of course I'm happy to make clear that David isn't impartial. (Technically, though I don't quite see it as COI, since he has no financial ties.) TimidGuy (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Really2012, that wording could work fine, depending on what goes in the place of the ellipsis. TG, in my opinion, any quote from Orme regarding TM research needs to be accompanied by 2 pieces of information: 1) He practices (or did in the past) TM every day (this establishes that he is not an uninvolved commentator); and 2) he conducts research to try to prove the existence of paranormal effects (this sheds light on his scientific credibility). Rracecarr (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We should perhaps carry on in the other section, but as an aside here, I can't resist debating a bit. : ) And I really do need to get some other work done, so can't spend much time at this. Paranormal seems, in my mind, to be a point of view. The researchers lay out a theory that they feel is credible -- their point of view. Also, why would doing research on the Maharishi Effect relate to his credibility? Are you saying that there are simply certain hypotheses that shouldn't be researched? TimidGuy (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point here is that some claims -- hypotheses, you wrote -- aren't properly formulated for scientific study. Naturezak (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: TG,sorry just read your comment "If he ever goes before ArbCom, his violation of the three-revert rule and the subsequent warning by an Admin will be a serious mark against him. Ultimately we're still going to want to get consensus on that edit." Seems a little harsh - firstly he reverted it once, secondly you yourseldf have been accused of edit wars, three the issues of yourself and COI - have been raised on many occassions. Just noting. Really2012back (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See [1]. TimidGuy (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG, I m sureyou would befar better at it then me - please Really2012back (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)start the process.

Rewrite OJ paragraph

Since both Really's and TG comments indicate we should be able to move ahead, I have rephrased the sentence under discussion. Some changes include:

• Added in reference to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as founder of University, but not about students practicing TM and so on .....overkill, tedious reading , redundant...
• I did add something about peer review since there seems to be questions about OJ's affiliations and his competency. However I'm not attached to the addition . I would hate to get into another long discussion on this area, and so thought this might deflect concerns.

And of course, open for discussion.(olive (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive: Thank you for that - however 2 things:

1 We really need to give rcecccar time to res[pond. 2 Given the disputed nature of the article lets work out how the sentnce - for everything we are going to do - structure in here first please and then once we have agreement commit to the page. Really2012back (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Add, for example many of the studies he is citing are his own or those of those affiliated with MUM. Can we simply bring the paragraph in here and work on it. This might be longer but the best in the long run. Equally, while Im not convinced of the paronormal tag, it maybe wise to mention tm is studied each day at the university and other factors trelavent to this pararaph ref Orm Johnson. Because Racc has not had time to respond yet I have reverted the item till we he can and we all agree on how it should be structured Really2012back (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Its fine to bring the paragraph here. The points you make have been discussed ad infinitum, but if you wish to continue discussing its fine. We might want to put a time limit on how long we wait for Rracecarr since he may be busy with RL. At any rate ... its all fine with me. I'll add the paragraph tomorrow,if you like.(olive (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive: the points I make may indeed have been discussed ad infinitum, but not resolved and certainly not enough to alllow a rewrite at this stage. It is true that Rracecarr maybe busy with RL - this is why we need to give him time to respond - a day is hardley enough time. Also, I have given thought to his inclussion of the discription paronormal and may have more to say iof he does not respond. . Really2012back (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC) . Really2012back (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I said its fine with me. I completely agree to give Rracecarr time to respondif he wants to, but the discussion should move ahead anyway. I would suggest you discuss paranormal at any point.Rracecarr and I did have a very long discussion on the word paranormal and a lot has been said. The bottom line is that if its not sourced we can't use it. That's Wikipedia policy on WP:Reliability, Wikipedia:Verifiablity, and Wikipedia:Original Research —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Olive the word "The" isn't sourced in the article but it is used never-the-less. I believe this is how your "discussion" went with Raccacer" which ended up with you cited some friend from Standford on an incorrect description of the scientific method. So, no it is not resolved and - again - you miss-use wiki guidelines to further your own cause. The "effect" in question is paranormal and it may require that template being applied to its own article and perhaps this one by association. if you would like me to do so then we can discuss. Really2012back (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition: As both I and Rracecarr have said the association between paronormal and "the effect" in question does not need referencing - however should you want to refernce this word - a waste of time reallt - you can do so using this Evaluating Heterodox Theories Journal article by Evan Fales; Social Forces, Vol. 76, 1997 - I shall look for more. S I have said /I have yet to decide whether to argue for its inclusion. I had decided against it but perhaps I am wrong Really2012back (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition 2 I'm a fast reader: I notice that in his book "Maharishi Effect: A Personal Journey Through the Movement That Transformed American Spirituality" Geoff Gilpin cites the efect as being paronormal. Indeed, considering that this book won awards, was published by a major publisher there is no mention of it in the wiki artcle here. I assume we will need to address this? Really2012back (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition 3 in A Methodological Critique of a Test of the Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp. 745-755

The author refers to the paronormal effects of the ..um..."Maharisi effect" Really2012back (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you wish for me to continue or do you think these are enough references? Really2012back (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, if you have a reference and its reliable and verifiable it can be used, if not no, according to Wikipedia policy. No references for the word paranormal were given in the discussion I had with Rracecarr, and the onus to find the reference is on the editor who wishes to add the word. Rraceacrr added this word to the section. Please reread the discussion to note where the discussion ended. The fact that two editors decide its fine to use a word in an article or not is immaterial. On a contentious article, what has to matter is the WP policy or the article would be, and has been a mess. I don't bend on Wikipedia policy because adherence to those policies is what keeps Wikipedia neutral, and I examine everything I do to make sure I am as neutral as I can be. I believe the book is an appropriate reference, and probably the study as well although I don't have them. If they are not then they can be removed later. Unfortunately, I find your comment on this to be inappropriate, insulting, unfair, and with an attempt to threaten, and shows a lack of good faith.(olive (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Reality is subjective experince Olive and if that is how you feel then I am sorry. Really2012back (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that one of our Christian Fundamentalist friends has removed the clarification of who OJ is and his back round on the basis that this is "hype". I give up. I'm going away, I don't want to play anymore. No wonder MUM is so involved in this article - Poor sods. A battle between the hoppers and "I'm going to get sucked-up into the sky at any momenters". "Now how can I speed this up? I know, I'll reinstate the Israeli state to generate conflict in the middle East - and fulfill bible "prophecy" while electing complete warmongering, prolife "nutters" to the white house - although they are believers". I don't want to play anymore, There is no logic to this at all. No wonder I dislike getting involved in religious articles. Hopping for peace and charging for it? Sounds better then praying for Armageddon and damming homosexual men to "eternal damnation in ...um..."hell". I've had enough, out of here. Peace Really2012back (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL TimidGuy (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Effects on the physiology

This needs rewording:

"Effects on the physiology

Research studies have described specific physiological effects that occur during the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. The first of these studies was published in the early 1970’s in Science,[11] American Journal of Physiology,[12] and Scientific American.[13]

This research found that the Transcendental Meditation technique produced a physiological state that was termed "restful alertness." During the practice of the technique the physiology becomes relaxed, as indicated by significant reductions in respiration, minute ventilation, tidal volume, blood lactate, and significant increases in basal skin resistance, yet EEG measurements showed increased coherence and integration of brain functioning,[14] indicating that the physiology was alert rather than asleep.[15]

Studies suggest that this state of physiology promotes regulation of cortisol and other hormones associated with chronic stress and a healthier regulation of serotonin (a neurotransmitter associated with mood).[16]"

In its present state it is missleading - a brief examination of pubmed presently shows the results of 755 peer reviewed studies finding exactly the same results for other mediative practices including Tai Chi. As it presently reads it seems thatthis efects - are to only be found in TM. We need to re-wright to take this into account. Thoughts Really2012back (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's misleading. It's simply citing several studies and saying what the findings were. TimidGuy (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG. I think you are partly right and a very good point. I'm really not suggesting a major re-write and perhaps my comment seems a little harsh and I did not explain my self correctly sorry. Let me do so and we can discus's

Again, for the new reader coming to the article further information, they will of course want to know what physiological effects the practice of TM meditation has - if any. And indeed, we can see that it does seem to have some good positive effects. However, it would, I think it can be argued necessary to point out that the same effects can be found in a wide range of meditative practices. This is especial so as the article mentions in place studies done by those associated with MUM, etc that found TM had more positive effects then other practices - at least one study.

Equally, as you know, have criticized TM studies due to bias and poor methodology, i think that ut would actually su[pport the "positive" effects of TM by pointing out that these have been also found in a wide range of other mediative practices also. I think some times the "positve" effects of TM and meditation get confused with with other aspects and are seen negatively. Really2012back (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The re-write I was thinking would be something like: "As with many other meditave practices such as yoga, tai chi, etc, Research studies have described specific physiological effects that occur during..."

Something like this TG. Just a mention nothing to contentious and keeping the focus on TM. What do you think? Really2012back (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with this paragraph is the implication that "restful alertness" is other than the plateau state following any method of relaxation. That practitioners demonstrate this physiological state is not a confirmation of the theoretical claims of TM. Naturezak (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your wording, Really, but it just doesn't seem necessary. Anyway, I'm curious, do you have examples of studies showing those specific effects? TimidGuy (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

TG - it depends on how you do your search either in Medline or Pubmed.The following is Pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez. These are available to the general public and to be honest I have deliberately left the search wide - 1465 results.I assume at MUM you will have academic access to Medline, CINAHL,COCHRANE, etc. This engine's are far better IMO and what I recommend to my students however, pubmed is where I tell them to start - at least in the first year.Have a play around using different search criteria related to meditation and you will see what Imean. hose outside of "medicine" find it easy to believe that it is only TM that shows these results. This is in great part due to MUM and the fact that other meditative techniques are simply not that good at this type or promotion or simply do not think it is relevant - hence the research tends to be done by far less personally interested parties. I am old TG - and have been through this debate with my own medical council back in the 80s - 84 to be precise. Although those supporters of what has become known as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction MBSR are becoming a more organized group - no doubt due the the involvement of University of Massachusetts Medical School and the fact that in USA these courses, videos, etc are offered free. Due to University of Massachusetts Medical School there has been an explosion in peer reviewed papers - check http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/research/index.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=42066.

You will see that not only do these studies show the benefits you mention but even seem to show benefits in patient with Epilepsy, ADHD a, schizophrenia and even chronic hepatitis C.

You can see from this why I believe that it is important for the new reader that these findings are not specific to TM or indeed that other practices have found even greater benefit. Peace my friend Really2012back (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Naturezak sorry i didn't see your comment. I agree completely and would have to say that it is the same with other mediative techniques - I think it is for this reason that most meditation teachers simply remove themselves from the argument and do not cite the research. All of these statements to outcome - except psychosocial effects as self reported perhaps - are only valued if you accept fully the more "extreme" ends of the psychosocialphysioimmunological/gene repair - theory/s of "health" and these are far from excepted despite 1000s of research papers and peer reviewed journals specifically written for them - indeed, since the mid/late 90s these theories seem to be falling out of favor. Fully agree.Although oddly, not a debate i wish to enter into - I have bben through this far to many times in RL - and am frankly a tad bored of it. Really2012back (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Really. It just doesn't make sense to me to add a reference to other forms of meditation or other mind/body techniques. It's as if the article about the Macintosh operating system, when describing the features were to include a phrase saying, "As with the Windows OS, the Macintosh . . . ."

Also, I think it may be misleading because it suggests that other approaches entail all of these same specific effects. But I don't think that that's supported by research. In fact, I think that research is showing that different kinds of meditation have different physiological correlates. For example, we wouldn't want to imply that other mind/body techniques show the same neurophysiological effects. Fred Travis presented a paper about a year ago in which he compared Tibetan Buddhist meditation, mindfulness meditation, and the Transcendental Meditation technique using neural imaging and EEG data. Tibetan meditation is strenuous, with EEG readings in the 40 Hz range, or otherwise known as gamma waves. In addition, neural imaging shows that the brain is very active. In mindfulness meditation, the brain appears to be imbalanced, with considerable activity in the left front cortex -- the part of the brain associated with evaluating. In contrast, EEG patterns during the Transcendental Meditation technique characteristically show global coherent alpha waves. Fred says that this EEG pattern isn’t seen in other practices of meditation. Neural imaging of the practice of Transcendental Meditation shows that the front and back of the brain, the attentional system, are more awake and active than when one is just sitting with one’s eyes closed, while the thalamus, which is the gateway of experience, is less active. He said that this is another indication of "restful alertness." The attentional system is alert, while the mental experience is inward rather than outward.

Also, I don't think we could properly generalize and say that the clinical effects are generally similar among mind/body approaches. Seems like we'd properly need to have metaanlayses saying such.

I just don't understand why this article can't simply say, as it does, that research has been done on Transcendental Meditation and it shows these effects. I'm not convinced that it's in any way misleading, and I don't think it implies in any way that other techniques don't have physiological effects.. On the other hand, if we aren't careful we could end up inserting something that would indeed be misleading by suggesting a commonality that may not exist. Eager to know your thoughts on this. TimidGuy (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG - while a good point I would have to disagree, The MAC/PC analogy is a good one but it would be common knowledge to everyone that you can use a MAC to word process as well as a PC - although the results would be a tad different. Readers new to this subject -meditation - would be unaware that you the effects achieved in TM - and so well documented in this article by supporting research - are just as easily achieved by so many other sources. To use the the same analogy. It would be like saying: "research by watts, watts and watts has proven that an IPM PC can allow the reader to play an electronic version of patience easily and with no difficulty" Well, yes but the same is possible on a PC. It really does appear at the moment that this effects are specific to TM meditation - and this is blatantly untrue. I am not questioning that it should be unbiased - Ie - as is the case - a combination of Tia Chi and Yoga - has appeared to show an increase in life expectancy in HIV patients yet no such research has found a link with TM.

However, what we have here are standard effects that need to be shown as the same for most forms of meditation. As to Travis's research - sheer nonsense I am afraid. Gamma waves are "strenuous"? what? "...mindfulness meditation, the brain appears to be imbalanced" The brain is imbalanced? I like you TG and understand you are not a scientist and certainly not a physiologist or nuropshysiologist. Indedd, "inbalanced maybe a good thig and what one would be looking for. I havn'e the time here but perhaps this might help -if its the right study -im in a rish Takahashi T, Murata T, Hamada T, Omori M, Kosaka H, Kikuchi M, Yoshida H, Wada Y.

Department of Neuropsychiatry, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, Matsuoka-cho, Fukui 910-1193, Japan.

Anyway, my friend here in this article it is the the positive effects on physiological effects that are generally being cited, cortisone levels, etc - ie control of biomedical markers that are considered responsible by "some" in leading to "illness" these - and the fact that people self report to a feeling of "restfullness" yet more alert with "increasded" "cognitive function" are not unique to TM and this needs needs to be stressed.Really2012back (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, what is the best way of doing this? Simply adding the statment "as with other meditiative practices such as .....it has been found that TM..." or can we thisnk of a different way of doing it? Really2012back (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

PS,I noticed that Fred Travis is another highly active TMer http://www.fredtravis.com/ - is any research in TM with "positive effects" actually done by non TMrs? Joke. :-) Peace my friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 08:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

At least we're completely agreed on one point: I'm ignorant regarding physiology and neurophysiology. : ) However, I just don't see how one can say there are standard effects with most forms of meditation. What about my basic point above that the neurophsyiological correlates vary among different types of meditation, in this case as measured by EEG and neural imaging? Also, the researchers use "restful alertness" to refer to a constellation of effects, and I don't think a similar constellation is seen in other forms of meditation.

(As an aside, this interesting discussion is pointing out some problems with the writing in this section, as I'm coming to realize that certain things aren't clear and that also it may be conflating the characterization of restful alertness with the effects of restful alertness. This needs to be looked into.) TimidGuy (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

TG, Well, you ain't doing to bad bud, However, back to "restful alertness" the reason you are struggling with that - as I think you have pointed out accidental, is that there is no such medical/scientific concept - outside of TM it would seem - its "a made up" concept with absolutely no grounding in any science/medical/psychological text book. I believe it owes its origins to a term coined sometime in the early 7o's at the beginning of that decades craze for studies on meditation - in a paper studying TM. Its absolute nonsense - but I really didn't want to get into that and won't - I promise. As to the neurophsyiological correlates, well again you really don't want me to go down that road - but Travis "party trick" at pro TM conferences is always a good laugh. One can see the non science student wowing all over the place,(even if they have no idea whats going on.) as a young TMer is dragged out - electrodes in place - and told to begin meditation

However, the other things are shown to be lowered or heightened depending,such as, plasma cortisol levels, increased vasodilation here, dilation there, increased alertness, academic performance etc, etc, etc. have been found to take place in many other forms of meditation - these are simply the results of successful meditation - this cannot be argued.

For example the lines:

"Studies suggest that this state of physiology promotes regulation of cortisol and other hormones associated with chronic stress and a healthier regulation of serotonin (a neurotransmitter associated with mood)" This found repeatly with other forms of meditation It has to be necessary to mention this - without getting into details - not to would turn this from an encyclopedic entery into a brochure - and I really believe that is not what you want. Tell you what though, I'll do you a deal,you can keep "restful wakefullness" especial for TM. Don't say I never do you any favors :-). Although, I should point out that restful alertness seems to have been kidnapped by other al;ternative medicine people noy. Seems the highly published - and thus wiki compliant - Harold Bloomfield, M.D. says you can achieve this using some Ayurvedic herbal remedies he seems to be selling: http://soulfulliving.com/quintessentialpeace.htm, theres another company offering restful wakefulness in a bottle: http://www.functiondrinks.com/science-va.php, Seems your days are nearly up TG So, how to proceed. Really2012back (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the cited studies that appeared in 1970, for example, you'll see the specific constellation of physiological correlates. They show that the body is at rest yet the brain is alert. The researchers used the phrase restful alertness to refer to this state. My point is that one can't generalize that all meditations have the same physiological correlates. I don't think you'll find research that shows that another form of meditation has the specific constellation of correlates. And I've shown that EEG and neural imaging indicate that the activity of the brain varies among different technique (information from a paper which Fred presented at a conference). For these reasons it wouldn't seem appropriate to add the sort of generalized phrase you originally suggested.

If you want to say that certain results are found repeatedly with other forms of meditation, then you'll need to convince me that it's relevant to the article. Maybe find another Wikipedia article where something similar is done. And of course I'm eager to see some sources. We'd also have to consider whether it's original research to take a study that doesn't mention Transcendental Meditation and say that the results are the same as Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry TG I don't "need" to convince you of anything. I know its not what you mean but that makes it sound like you "own" the article. i have stated reasonably that as it is presently worded the results stated are found across a wide range of meditative practices. so far that only ones i cannot find else where are:

It reduces your biological age by 12 years - you can keep that one.

Alert wakefullness - a meaningless term, you can keep that one.

Doing other forms of meditation are able to alter reality and make people do what you want them to - you can keep that one.

Unless, you can show that TM is unique in:

"Research studies have described specific physiological effects that occur during the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. The first of these studies was published in the early 1970’s in Science,[11] American Journal of Physiology,[12] and Scientific American.[13], and Studies have reported finding a positive correlation between the Transcendental Meditation technique and various health-related conditions, including reduction of high blood pressure,[17] younger biological age,[18] decreased insomnia,[19] reduction of high cholesterol,[20] reduced illness and medical expenditures,[21] decreased outpatient visits,[22] decreased cigarette smoking,[23] decreased alcohol use,[24]. and decreased anxiety.[25]. Then this are nothing more then general events found in nearly all other meditative practices. Unless this wiki article is a promotional item only for TM there is no reason why each can not be proceed by "As with other other mediative practices it has been found that TM...." this would be the correct encyclopedic entry - without doubt.Really2012back (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit: TG. Of course should you want a recent, peer reviewed meta study which has examined mediation, the effects of mediation and states that the results of TM are the same - and comparable to other forms of meditation , then I suppose you would want to read this recent report: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf. Page 29 on wards will be of interest to you. You will also notice that it critiques the assumptions of improvement in health made by TM - and indeed all other meditative practices. i think you will find this report fully WIKI compliant and we can reference this rather then then the 1000s of studies in Pubmed for example - might save some time really. And of course - as I think you were worried about - not being original research.

So, how shall we go about the editing process? Really2012back (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Really. A new day, another Wikipedia discussion. : ) I typically come here first thing in the morning, before meditation, before breakfast.

Regarding my being convinced, I was referring to the fact that the guidelines say that there should be a consensus when making changes to an article. Of course, if I object to something that falls within the guidelines, then that undermines my credibility as an editor and puts me at risk. So that's why I go along with reasonable suggestions, even if, as in the past, it's meant removing factual and documented information, such as the list of famous people who practice Transcendental Meditation or a small summary list of the major universities and research institutions where studies have been conducted. If I dispute a suggestion that someone makes and say I'm not convinced, it means that given my experience of how articles should be written and given my knowledge of the policies and guidelines, it seems like the suggested addition or edit isn't warranted. Of course, one can edit war, as Rracecarr did to enforce his change, but in the end that's counterproductive. If he ever goes before ArbCom, his violation of the three-revert rule and the subsequent warning by an Admin will be a serious mark against him. Ultimately we're still going to want to get consensus on that edit.

I do think we need to provide a source for any sort of generalization you want to make that puts Transcendental Meditation in the context of other meditations, per WP:V and WP:NOR. I'm only slightly familiar with the AHRQ review, and also with the problems with it, including the fact that two of the peer reviewers found that it was problematic and has many errors and recommended that it not be released. I've only spent about 10 minutes skimming the 200 pages but from what I recall, it cites research on Transcendental Meditation as being the most rigorous. I think it also says that clinical studies show that Transcendental Meditation reduces hypertension about the same amount as health education. There are also other metaanlayses, including two about Transcendental Meditation in Current Hypertension Reports within the last year or so. I believe that the AHRQ review only included randomized controlled trials and focused on clinical research, both of which are a small subset of research on Transcendental Meditation. Maybe make a suggestion what you'd like to include from AHRQ. (And we'll need to consider what to do about the reviewers' comments.) TimidGuy (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG, just a quickie - heading off to Oxford - you might know it? :-). I hope your mediation went well and that everything is well with the world. Aye, I have read the critique also, am familiar with it's author etc - and don't agree but hey, that would be original research. TG I think I'm coming across as an arse and that is not meant. Personally, i' m not bothered about the critique of TM - or indeed, any other form of meditation in that report. I do believe that it is correct about alot of it's comments regarding meditation research - alas. Although to me it missed a golden opportunity to critique these called "health benefits" of the changes in physiology this research believes it detects. But I have said before this is an argument I have had in RL for many years and I'm to bored with to get involved here. My main point, is that the way the article is written at the moment it appears that TM is alone in the changes many of the changes that occur. There are two ways to rectify this:

1 State exactly what those changes are - ie list the exact levels of changes in biomedical markers. <2> Admit that there are common changes thought meditation and say so - where they occur - briefly. Personally, I wouldn't go down the route of citing the report in question and it's critics - but hell thats your decision.#

I shall leave you in peace for the weekend my friend, enjoy it, etc. Peace Really2012back (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Really, for your kind comments. Hope you enjoyed your trip to Oxford. By the way, I think you said you're in Athens. I spent five days there over 30 years ago and cherish the memories.

I just can't see that there's a problem because I don't feel like the article implies anything. It's fine if you can find a source that compares the relative effects of Transcendental Meditation with other forms. That can go in. I do think it would be a violation of the Wikipedia policy of no original research to adopt the approach you indicate above. We can't ourselves research the effects of various forms of meditation and then put them in here by way of comparison. That's original research as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Such comparison must have been published. TimidGuy (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

HI TG Athens~? I have been but alas no I don't live there - wish I did. I Oxford was Oxford - same old - you know what it's like - but enjoyable, thank you. I think thats a slight misunderstanding of no original research but perhaps that is my fault. That ruling refers to original unpublished research basically. This ismy fault asi am not explaining what i mean correctly TG - sorry. If the article said for example - "TM has been shown to decrease cortisol plasma levels by 23% below physiologically norms" for example -and other meditation research said that other forms of meditation showed decreases below 50% for example - then you would be right -it wouldnotbepossibletocompare - due to the large difference. However, using my example - the article presen;ty says-lowers cortisol levels -well this has been found an my studies -these are generalizations in the article. Now, if you can re-write top make it more precise and then prove that other studies found vastly different results in other meditation types we would be in agreement. perhaps you can re-right to make it more precise and then we can discuss. however, if it was for example, research found TM reduced plasma cortisol levels - on average -by 5% and and other studies found 6% percent then we could worth it as - these are similar findings as in othermeditaive meditave. To not associate them the difference would need to be clearly defined by the research as large. This is not possible everything however, for example no mediative research claims to reduce a persons age by 12 years (would love to see this research by the way) so that would;dbe specific to TM. Hope that makes sense -must dash. Really2012back (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand. Why would one need to prove that studies on other meditation techniques found something different? This article is about Transcendental Meditation, and it's simply reporting research on Transcendental Meditation. It's not claiming uniqueness. The policy on disallowing original research says, in a nutshell, you're not supposed to put in any information that hasn't been published in a reliable source. And you're not supposed to draw conclusions that haven't been drawn by a published reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

TG I am really struggling why you can't grasp this. "Why would one need to prove that studies on other meditation techniques found something different?" Not asking you to. I am saying that tm results are very similiar - in most instances - to the results of other meditiaion practicees - or at least as the article is presently written. "disallowing original research says, in a nutshell, you're not supposed to put in any information that hasn't been published in a reliable source." I think I sent you to both pubmed and the article you dislike so much that proves - without orginal, research that TM is not unique in the effects it has - as you have just said "it doesn't claim to be unique. Why then - unless this was a huge advert for TM - is it so difficult to say, "as with other forms of mediation it has been found that TM can....." This is fact, this is correct but may not be something that the general reader would be aware of.

What is the rational for the existence of an Encyclopedias? From the very first one written in the Enlightenment Europe? It was to educate and inform the reader about subjects. Why is this so "wrong"? I am struggling with your argument and use of the policy on disallowing original research. Saying that TM has the same sort of effects as other forms of meditation is not drawing conclusions - it is obviously fact. Drawing conclusions would be:

Example 1 Tai Chi is mediation. TM is mediation. Tai chi can/is meditations conducted while moving thus TM can be conducted while moving.

Example 2 TM is a form of meditation that been shown to decrease biological age by 12 years. Tai Chi is meditation thus Tai chi can reduce biological age by 12 years.

Come TG use that fine brain of yours my friend. This isn't difficult stuff - even in the humanities  :-) Really2012back (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my brain. : ) I guess it's difficult for me to say "As with other forms of meditation . . . ." because we need a source that says it. I guess I'm not convinced that it's an obvious fact that Transcendental Meditation is the same as other forms of meditation. I've shown, for example, that the neurophysiological correlates are different. Regarding original research, you need to find a source that says that Transcendental Meditation is the same as other forms of meditation. We aren't allowed to draw that conclusion and put it in Wikipedia. TimidGuy (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG - sorry for my absence - hope all is well my friend. This report states so http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf. Really2012back (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Edit: Does Meditation Enhance Cognition and Brain Longevity? Doraiswamy PM, Xiong GL. One year pre-post intervention follow-up of psychological, immune, endocrine and blood pressure outcomes of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in breast and prostate cancer outpatients. Brain Behav Immun. 2007 Nov;21(8):1038-49. Epub 2007 May 22. Robert McComb JJ, Tacon A, Randolph P, Caldera Y. Abstract A pilot study to examine the effects of a mindfulness-based stress-reduction and relaxation program on levels of stress hormones, physical functioning, and submaximal exercise responses. J Altern Complement Med. 2004 Oct;10(5):819-27 Really2012back (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit: J Altern Complement Med. 2006 Oct;12(8):817-32. Systematic review of the efficacy of meditation techniques as treatments for medical illness. Arias AJ, Steinberg K, Banga A, Trestman RL. Department of Psychiatry, University of Connecticut Medical School, Farmington, CT, USA. arias@psychiatry.uchc.edu

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/mindbody.htm

Hi, Really. It just doesn't seem like we could ever use your proposed wording, since it's clear that Transcendental Meditation isn't identical with other forms of meditation in every respect. Scores of parameters have been studied, both qualitative and quantitative physiological correlates, as well as clinical, sociological, psychological, education, etc. etc. studies. And again, you'd need a source, but it seems unlikely that any source would ever say this, or that anyone would even attempt to compare various forms of meditation related to scores of parameters.

Thanks for finding these studies. I guess I don't see how studies on mindfulness are relevant to this article. Do the 20 RCTs in the review by Arias include studies on Transcendental Meditation? I don't see how one could make any sort of inference from the Daraiswamy, other than studies have been done on the relationship of meditation to cognitive function. (And unfortunately the authors of this study didn't notice the egregious error by Canter and Ernst.) AHRQ is relevant to only a very small subset of research on Transcendental Meditation, and certainly couldn't be used to justify the assertion that the effects of Transcendental Mediation are the same as other forms of meditation.

I guess I still don't see why it's relevant to talk about other forms of meditation in an article on Transcendental Meditation. Does the article on Oxford include comparative information about Cambridge? Does the article on Windows include comparative info about the Macintosh? Does the article on the U.K. include comparative information with the U.S.? If your goal is to educate the reader, why not develop the article on Health applications and clinical studies of meditation, and then we can link to that article from this article? I'd be willing to make it a prominent See Also link in this physiology section. TimidGuy (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

TG Apologies, I understand what has been happening now and my fault. I was trying to follow WIKI guidelines completely - and perhaps thinking to much like a scientist. While you have been thinking specifically like a pro TMer and no insult meant at all, only that you are thinking in to great a specific. To any of us "in the field" it has been long considered that there may be some link between psychosocial stress, physioimmuniology and stress coping mechanisms. Of the latter, Meditation has been long considered. Now, it must be understood at that here, the "type" of meditation is not important, only that it "works". If you read a paragraph from the article/page from NCCMA I pointed you to (fully wiki compliant).

"Meditation and Imaging

"Meditation, one of the most common mind-body interventions, is a conscious mental process that induces a set of integrated physiological changes termed the relaxation response. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been used to identify and characterize the brain regions that are active during meditation. This research suggests that various parts of the brain known to be involved in attention and in the control of the autonomic nervous system are activated, providing a neurochemical and anatomical basis for the effects of meditation on various physiological activities.13 Recent studies involving imaging are advancing the understanding of mind-body mechanisms. For example, meditation has been shown in one study to produce significant increases in left-sided anterior brain activity, which is associated with positive emotional states. Moreover, in this same study, meditation was associated with increases in antibody titers to influenza vaccine, suggesting potential linkages among meditation, positive emotional states, localized brain responses, and improved immune function."

You will notice no mention of TM here - it is meditation in general. In the general literature of undergraduate/graduate doctors for example - the general medical psychology textbooks will mention meditation and then perhaps list some and their physiological/psychological effects. Each of the studies I have given you will use the term meditation has been found to/thought to/argued that - etc. All of the studies -but let us keep it simple by using the page i have just quoted for the "layman/woman" - refer to mediation, has been cited to....." So, within these terms and any of the references given - one must begin an article on TM which cites its physiological effects by saying something like. "T|M, like many other forms of meditation has been found to....." The only way to avoid this - within WIKI rules which you are so familiar with - would be if TM is actually not a form of meditation but something else. A religion for example, or practical magic, paranormal training, etc. Equally, any other Mediative practice quoted in WIKI would need to say the same thing. You could of course qualify this statement - as long as it was true and referenced: "however, TM has been found to be more effective then (list mediative practices)in the control of ...." But you have just stated the problem with this and that is finding studies that have looked at them in complete comparison. Edit: Perhaps to simplify this for the "laywomen/man" A read through this book - or if you do not have access to it then the extracts here http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/index.htm You will notice that it is meditiaon in general and it's physiological effects that are mentioned. While it is understood that diffeent forms of medititaion may have different physological responces - although in noway "proved" in the research - it is understoad that all - or virtually all - do have these effects. Really2012back (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for not making myself clear - I will begin a draft re-writwe for everyones consideration.Really2012back (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

DRAFT : PHYSIOLOGY: Effects on the physiology As with a range of other meditative technigues(ref:http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/mindbody.htm#intervention) - such as Yoga Meditation, Tai Chi, MBSR, Buddhist Meditation - research studies have described specific physiological effects that occur during the practice of Transcendental Meditation. Specifically in relation to TM the first of these studies was published in the early 1970’s in Science,[11] American Journal of Physiology,[12] and Scientific American.[13] This research found that the Transcendental Meditation technique produced a physiological state that, early researchers termed "restful alertness." As with other forms of meditation, during the practice of TM the physiology becomes relaxed, as indicated by significant reductions in respiration, minute ventilation, tidal volume, blood lactate, and significant increases in basal skin resistance, while EEG measurements show increased coherence and integration of brain functioning,[14] indicating that the physiology was alert rather than asleep.[15] Studies suggest that this state of physiology promotes regulation of cortisol and other hormones associated with chronic stress and a healthier regulation of serotonin (a neurotransmitter associated with mood).[16]

I think from here it s obviouse how the rest should be structered. Personally, I am happy wity just the :http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/mindbody.htm#intervention - easy for the new rreader to find, reliable, etc - however we can include more refernces if neccessary. Really2012back (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AHRQ is generalizing among forms of meditation and explicitly mentions that different types of meditation have different neurophysiological correlates. It's extremely odd to force this kind of generalization onto the article about Transcendental Meditation. This article is about the specific effects of Transcendental Meditation. Your draft can never be factually correct, since not all the parameters of Transcendental Meditation have been studied with reference to other forms. And it's essentially meaningless. It's like going to the article on Macintosh and saying that this or that operating system replicates this or that feature of the Macintosh. It's fine if your perspective is meditation in general. You can add this to the article on Mediation but you should not start generalizing specific forms of meditation. Also, as i've noted, the specific constellation of physiological correlates associated with Transcendental Meditation has not been found with other forms of meditation. And even if they were, it would still not be relevant to this article. I doubt that the editors who've written articles on other forms of meditation would be any more receptive to your notion of generalizing in this way. What's wrong with the compromise that I proposed? TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree TG - this is standard comparison. As i have said, if you wish to make it specific to TM then you need to be more Specific. I.E TM reduces plasma cortisol revels by exactly - x amount. This is not the case at the moment. Alas, I feel however that this is getting nowhere at the moment - and I am afraid that this is due to the fact that you work for the organization that we're discussing - fully understandable that you have such loyalties and I am not criticizing. However, this has simply gone on long enough - you ask for examples - wiki acceptable - that state that meditation has all of the similarities for meditation stated in the article. I have provided this. I have also, given note to research that MUM has conducted which has found that differences - this is clear in my draft. Yet you still protest. I have been extreamly patient with your obviouse COI yet I feel this has been ignored. Alas i think it is time to take to mediation regarding this one matter. Would you like to start my friend or shall I?Really2012back (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be much more detail in this article from the ~200 peer reviewed research studies published on TM over the last 40 years at research institutions worldwide, and I have been looking into this for awhile. I disagree with an approach to attempt to generalize across different modalities. This is typically not done in the literature and is even less appropriate in an encyclopedic entry.Duedilly (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Really, I didn't understand that you were suggesting more specificity. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with your suggested additions, which I've shown are counterfactual. Other techniques simply haven't studied all the parameters. And there are clear neurophysiolgocial differences. Probably other differences too, such that the generalizing statements aren't accurate. But even if they were, it's still not clear that it's appropriate to an article on Transcendental Meditation to talk about other techniques. Certainly textbooks and AHRQ can make general statements about meditation, and I agree that there are certain physiological manifestations of the relaxation response common to relaxation and other forms of meditation. But those generalizations can only be made on the basis of the study of specific techniques. This article characterizes one of those specific techniques. Why don't you create an article on the Relaxation response and make your point? Why push this article toward being an article on that?

Certainly I'm open to mediation. Feel free to initiate it. TimidGuy (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TG - Sorry, I am growing a tad bored of this. A have repeated on numerous occasions that the article begins with generalizations it says and I quote:

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

This is simply to general. All meditation has been shown to to have specific effects during practice. i have provided you with direct evidence of this and material which states exactly the same thing regarding other forms of mediation in general - which include TM.

It continues:

." During the practice of the technique the physiology becomes relaxed, as indicated by significant reductions in respiration, minute ventilation, tidal volume, blood lactate, and significant increases in basal skin resistance, yet EEG measurements showed increased coherence and integration of brain functioning," This is exactly as described for many other forms of meditation. I have provided you with evidence of this and pointed you to wiki compliant sources to support this - as requested by yourself.

I wrote a revision of the paragraph here for you to comment on and suggest suggestions before it was added. You stated that there were response that had not been found/researched to occur in other forms of meditation - reduction in medical expenditure, reduction in biological age by 12 years, etc. I took this into account as you can see above. The need for clear understanding that TM is not unique in this finds needs to be stated for not only is it encyclopedic but follows wiki guidelines about articles about companies and products - i have provided you with this guidelines twice now but again: "Material published by a trading organization is a view of how that organization looks on itself however it will also have a marketing component and may lack neutrality" In addition WIKI says:

"Any judgments in Wikipedia with regard to trading organizations should be explicitly referenced and caveated with comments as to the reliability and range of sources used." The reasons for this should be obviously. In the case of TM the website claims that the "benefits" of TM meditation are unique and not to be found in other forms of meditation. It is obvious that this would be said as TM is a trademarked product sold at 2300 dollars in the USA and different amounts. We have noted that the federal organization which I have directed you to which says:

Over the past 20 years, mind-body medicinePractices that focus on the interactions among the brain, mind, body, and behavior, with the intent to use the mind to affect physical functioning and promote health. Examples include meditation and yoga. has provided considerable evidence that psychological factors can play a substantive role in the development and progression of coronary artery disease. There is evidence that mind-body interventions can be effective in the treatment of coronary artery disease, enhancing the effect of standard cardiac rehabilitation in reducing all-cause mortality and cardiac event recurrences for up to 2 years.5 Mind-body interventions have also been applied to various types of pain. Clinical trials indicate that these interventions may be a particularly effective adjunct in the management of arthritis, with reductions in pain maintained for up to 4 years and reductions in the number of physician visits.6 When applied to more general acute and chronic pain management, headache, and low-back pain, mind-body interventions show some evidence of effects, although results vary based on the patient population and type of intervention studied.7 Evidence from multiple studies with various types of cancer patients suggests that mind-body interventions can improve mood, quality of life, and coping, as well as ameliorate disease- and treatment-related symptoms, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting, and pain.8 Some studies have suggested that mind-body interventions can alter various immune parameters, but it is unclear whether these alterations are of sufficient magnitude to have an impact on disease progression or prognosis.9,10

Over the past 20 years, mind-body medicinePractices that focus on the interactions among the brain, mind, body, and behavior, with the intent to use the mind to affect physical functioning and promote health. Examples include meditation and yoga. has provided considerable evidence that psychological factors can play a substantive role in the development and progression of coronary artery disease. There is evidence that mind-body interventions can be effective in the treatment of coronary artery disease, enhancing the effect of standard cardiac rehabilitation in reducing all-cause mortality and cardiac event recurrences for up to 2 years.5 Mind-body interventions have also been applied to various types of pain. Clinical trials indicate that these interventions may be a particularly effective adjunct in the management of arthritis, with reductions in pain maintained for up to 4 years and reductions in the number of physician visits.6 When applied to more general acute and chronic pain management, headache, and low-back pain, mind-body interventions show some evidence of effects, although results vary based on the patient population and type of intervention studied.7 Evidence from multiple studies with various types of cancer patients suggests that mind-body interventions can improve mood, quality of life, and coping, as well as ameliorate disease- and treatment-related symptoms, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting, and pain.8 Some studies have suggested that mind-body interventions can alter various immune parameters, but it is unclear whether these alterations are of sufficient magnitude to have an impact on disease progression or prognosis.9,10

I have also directed you to published studies, textbooks, etc which state the same. The most of the effects cited under physiology - have been found in many other forms of mediation. This is fact. Those effects unique to TM, the ability to fly, walk through walls, reduction in biological age by 12 years - have not been found elsewhere and I have, in the draft, commented on this.

I think I have been more then "fair" and have followed wiki guidelines beyond the norm. If you are not prepared to make suggestions to the text then i will insert as is - having "cleaned it up a bit". I await your constructive response, or indeed anyone elses impute. Really2012back (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comments in the other thread. And let's continue there. In brief, there is no justification for talking about other meditations in an article on Transcendental Meditation. It simply isn't Wikipedia style. Neither should this article include information on the TM-Sidhi program, which by the way doesn't offer the ability to fly or walk through walls. TimidGuy (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In brief, there IS justification for contextualizing the claims of TM with reference to other meditation methods. By omitting the reference Really2012back is suggestion, the implication is made that there are unique physiological correlates to TM practice -- the research shows that there is not. And the article should absolutely mention the TM-Sidhi program; does it make any sense to mention, say, Catholic contemplative practices, without placing them in the larger context of sacramental life? Just as Catholics can pray without partaking of the sacraments, practitioners of TM can meditate without participating in TM-Sidhi protocols, but the reader will have been seriously underinformed and mislead if the relationship between the one and the other is not mentioned. Finally, it is an invalid point of contention to claim that the proposed change is not "Wikipedia style", TimidGuy. As a longtime editor, you should know better than to try to define the quite heterogeneous style of WP according to your own preferences. Naturezak (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Naturezak. If you follow the threads, you'll see that I agreed to have a few sentences of intro that follow the AHRQ generalization about the physiological effects of meditation. I'm willing to do that -- seems like it could work well. There are indeed unique physiological correlates to TM, so I wouldn't make any statement beyond the generalization in AHRQ. What's the relationship of TM to the TM-Sidhi program? An article in Wikipedia must derive from two main sources: the academic literature and mainstream media. In both of those, Transcendental Meditation is treated separately from the TM-Sidhi program. Regarding Wikipedia style, you'd need to read the other threads in which I offer analogies to other topics as a way of suggesting the inappropriateness of mixing topics. TimidGuy (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to continue the discussion; I have thoroughly examined the literature, and have yet to find unique physiological correlates of TM. We've discussed this before, but I recall pointing out that each paper your proffered as providing evidence for a unique physiological signature did not do so -- such statements can only follow from an actual misrepresentation of the conclusions of the published research. As for TM-Sidhi, is it not "a natural extension" of the TM method? Naturezak (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TG, as you know, I said that I was going to stay out of this but your comment: "What's the relationship of TM to the TM-Sidhi program?" Is clearly ridiculous my friend and is as disappointing to me as you and Olive removing the fact that you are TMers/work from MUM in your pages - sorry.

I quote from your own web page - TM that is: What is the TM-Sidhi Program? The TM-Sidhi program is an advanced program of Maharishi Vedic Science and TechnologySM, the complete science and technology of Natural Law. The TM-Sidhi program is a natural extension of the Transcendental Meditation® program and may be learned after two months of regular practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. Practice of the TM-Sidhi program accelerates the progress of the individual towards realizing his full potential -- the state of enlightenment.

If the TM organisation is ashamed of it perhaps dropping it from the website and making it part of your occult knowledge for adepts might be best. Till then it needs to be mentioned. I am with nat for its inclusion. I think that there should be no more long discussions if it should, but now work should begin on how.

Sorry. Really2012back (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NatureZak, we have indeed discussed it, and the one study that we looked at closely showed that there was a differential effect between those practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique and the relaxation control group. Regarding differential effects of various meditation techniques, a good example is their varying effects in the brain, as I've noted several times in these threads (and as noted in the AHRQ quote that Dr. Really posted).

Regarding the TM-Sidhi program, I stand by what I said: neither the academic literature nor the mainstream media consider it a part of the Transcendental Meditation technique. We have no choice but to hew to these sources, per Wikipedia policy. Nor does the quote you reference say that it's part of the Transcendental Meditation technique. It would distort this article to go into it here. It's well covered in its own article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Range of studies

Range of studies

Studies have reported finding a positive correlation between the Transcendental Meditation technique and various health-related conditions, including reduction of high blood pressure,[17] younger biological age,[18] decreased insomnia,[19] reduction of high cholesterol,[20] reduced illness and medical expenditures,[21] decreased outpatient visits,[22] decreased cigarette smoking,[23] decreased alcohol use,[24]. and decreased anxiety.[25].

Same as above, same finding 1000s of studies in other mediative practices - how can this be included? Really2012back (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How is it relevant? This is an article on Transcendental Meditation. I'd be interested to see an example of those thousands. Perhaps an example of another study on meditation showing decreased outpatient visits and medical expenditure. TimidGuy (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

TG - again, good point, please see my respnce above. Really2012back (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RE_WRITE

AS with other mediative techniques of differing disciplines (ref)- Tai Chi, MBSR, Yoga, etc - studies have reported finding a positive correlation between the Transcendental Meditation technique and various health-related conditions, including reduction of "high" blood pressure,[17] ,[18] decreased insomnia, decreased cigarette smoking,[23], a reduction of "high" cholesterol[20], decreased alcohol use,[24]. and decreased anxiety.[25]. Unique to TM, studies have been conducted which claim that TM practitioners show: younger biological age, reduced medical expenditures,[21] and decreased outpatient visits,[22) Also, unique to TM, advanced practice - recommended after 2 months "basic" TM practice, claims to bulid on these health improvements while generating the unusal physiological abilties. These include giving the practitioner the ability to fly - yogic flying - walk-through walls, and other paranormal abilities. Really2012back (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Really2012back (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My arguments in the other thread apply. As an aside, I'd be curious if you've found another study showing reduced medical expenditures and decreased outpatient visits. The TM-Sidhi program doesn't belong in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you notice TG,I said these were reported exclusivly to tm Really2012back (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Appreciate your making the distinction. By the way, note that this article is kind of a conglomeration from many different hands. I didn't write this section. And it's sort of an arbitrary collection of a small number of parameters. We could actually make it much longer, something that's been discussed in the past. In any case, I still think it's odd to mention other techniques, per my comment in the other thread. Why not the compromise that I suggested in the other thread? It would suit your purpose but still keep this article on Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG, I have looked at this closely, and I i think I know why you don't want this distinction made - I have noted on the TM website that the effects of mediation are stated as being exclusive to TM. And my friend I do genuinely understand your loyalty to a spirtual pratcice that is such an important part of your life and I genuinely don't wish to cause offense. Your suggestion is good but simply does not go far enough in my opinion. I have explained the rational various times and provide the support for it in reliable source as you have requested - yet we still seem to not be able to come to agreement. You will also notice that i have not tried to reduce the impact of TM mediation in anyway and made it clear that there have been additional effects noted for TM that have not been researched in other mediative practices - I have attempted to make this distinction clear. Why not look at the way I have drafted this and come up with a draft that you feel would be more appropriate? If we can work collaboratively together I believe we can construct something accurate in the confines of an encyclopedic entry. Peace my friend. Really2012back (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guideline assume good faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. My point of view is exactly as I've argued. Which is, that it's extremely odd to talk about other topics in the context of this article on Transcendental Meditation -- and counter to the conventions of Wikipedia. I feel like my compromise is very generous. At the top of the research section we could have a See Also. This is commonly done in articles -- an indented and graphically distinct pointer to another article. You can add all of your information about other techniques to that article. It could say "See also Health applications and clinical studies of meditation for information on other forms of meditation and their effect on the physiology." (I can't guarantee other editors will go along with this suggestion.) Too see how this sort of pointer looks in practice, see the article on Meditation, in particular the section on Health applications[2]. Then you could add detailed research about the effects of other meditation. And it would really be great if you put together a short article on the relaxation response. Right now there's only a disambiguation page, but no sense that this has become a generic term to refer to a common response in the physiology to meditation and relaxation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

TG: A good suggestion - and not an unreasonable one at all my friend, but I have my hands full with just this article and 2 others -I try not to concentrate on to many at the same time.

No, I think I have answered these questions on the previous thread. The suggestions I have made are simple, straight forword and easy to implement.We shall continue with them. The only thing now is to decide is it to be in the form I have suggested or if someone else can come up with a better way of wording it. Have we included to much information on the TM-Sidhi Program for example. Or not enough in this context? Do we need to name the other mediative techniques or just say others and include the reference suggested? If there are any in there that charge money to teach them I would not like to encourage it personally. I have the strange belief that any easy way to improve peoples health and bring world peace - especially from a spiritual perspective -should be free, but it seems that nothing comes cheap these days. Really2012back (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You simply haven't made your case. There is no reason to add information about another topic in this article. You should maybe get wider experience in Wikipedia so that you can see that such addition just isn't appropriate. You don't have consensus on this edit. Please don't start edit warring. Also, you don't seem to understand the use of sources. You can only add something to this article comparing Transcendental Meditation to other techniques if such comparison has been made in a published article. AHRQ doesn't make a comparison, nor do the other studies you cited make comparisons. You'd need to find a metaanalysis such as this one by Maxwell Rainforth[3]. And then it would simply be one study that would be cited -- and wouldn't be the basis for the sort of generalization that you want to make. TimidGuy (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your other comment. Thanks much. Let me give it some thought. TimidGuy (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift

In 2003 a study in the journal, Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, reviewed ten randomized, controlled trials that looked at the effect of the Transcendental Meditation technique on cognitive function. Four trials showed a significant effect on cognitive function, while the remaining trials showed mixed results. Study authors, Canter and Ernst, noted that the four positive trials used subjects who had already intended to learn the Transcendental Meditation technique, and attributed the significant positive results to an expectation effect.[39] Orme-Johnson, co-author of one of these trials, has critiqued this study, noting errors and omissions.[40]

Simply not acceptable to quote from a critiqued articles website to counter a peer reviewed examination. It is normal practice for a research author to publish a reply to any such criticism in the journal cited. This does not seem to have happened in this case. Sorry simply not acceptable. and needs to be removedReally2012back (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines. You should look at the study. It's really weak -- and, egregiously, they counted one study twice.TimidGuy (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

TG. I hate to say it, but I think it might be right at a stretch to be honest - but perhaps you are right. Let us get the other issues out of the way first. Really2012back (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Working copy... Orme Johnson paragraph

Added working copy for group editing purposes.(olive (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Orme-Johnson paragraph - working

David Orme-Johnson, former psychology professor and researcher at Maharishi University of Management (which was founded by the inventor of TM, and at which all students and faculty practice TM every day), believer in the paranormal Maharishi Effect, and author of over 100 studies related to the Transcendental Meditation technique, cites research showing greater autonomy, innovative thought, and increases in creativity, general intelligence and moral reasoning in TM practitioners. According to Orme–Johnson cult followers operate on blind faith and adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, and these studies indicate the ability of TM practitioners to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments.

Here's the version I wrote. I felt like it was less redundant with info elsewhere in the article and perhaps better stylistically. And for now I'm even willing to add in "paranormal," though I'd rather not cite Geoff Gilpin's book in this context, because he's using "Maharishi Effect" metaphorically and isn't a scientist and isn't focusing on the research.

David Orme-Johnson, former psychology professor and researcher at Maharishi University of Management (which was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) and author of over 100 studies related to the Transcendental Meditation technique and the paranormal Maharishi Effect,

cites . . . TimidGuy (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Argg! If some one can just tell me why it is important to mention .."paranormal Maharishi effect" I will be happy - that I have argued it's is paronormal is neither here nor there. Why do we need to mention it in the this context?  :-)Really2012back (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I would agree with you that it's not necessary in this context. Should we also omit mention of "Maharishi Effect" in this context? TimidGuy (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Really2012back (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)sounds good to me but does need to mention OJ is a strong propent of TM

Its fine with me to not add paranormal... no surprise. I feel its just not necessarily appropriate here.(olive (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

TG's version seems fine to me as well with noted: removal of "paranormal", and discussion on whether "Maharishi effect" and "proponent" are needed here.(olive (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

I suppose we need raccare to respond really, i would suspect that he has reasons for the paronormal tag - they are simply ones that I don#t "get ate the moment. However, if it continues the way it is going it will return to the way it was - it is very important that OJ's association, practice and support for TM is understood. A non interested , unbiased researcher would not have created the website that he has. This needs to be clarified. No matter wither he has previously been published hehas been an d continues to be - a close supporting member of the TM movement, This has to be clarified. But let us continue. Really2012back (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing new to say--but here, again, is what I think: of course I agree that OJ's relationship with TM must be made abundantly clear. But I also think it's important to point out his interest in the paranormal. He is being presented as a scientific source ("has published over 100 studies", etc) and, as an unfamiliar scientifically-minded reader, I would certainly want to know about his fringe interests. His affiliation with TM does not mean the things he says are necessarily wrong, but disclosing it reveals a possible source of bias; analogously, his interest in and support of paranormal effects does not mean that things he says are wrong, but including it sheds light on the likelihood of his being taken seriously by mainstream scientists. Again, this is relevant because he is being built up as a well-published scientific researcher. Rracecarr (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some new information here Rracecarr that should be noted. Really has a couple of sources for paranormal so the question is are they compliant, and if they are should they be included. The last time we talked :0)... there were no sources. For me that was a big issue . Using paranormal without sources would have been OR.

• We don't have any source saying OJ himself has an interest in the paranormal. We can possibly quote sources as saying that the ME effect is paranormal.
• I'm not sure his fringe interests are any of our business. He's an artist too, and maybe he believes in God, and maybe he likes ballroom dancing ... who knows .... all we can look at whether his research is peer reviewed in the appropriate kind of journals. I do understand your point , but I think in terms of WP policy we can only go so far in judging what TM may have to do with his research unless we have sources. I don't see that we can claim bias if the reviewers don't. That's outside the bounds of our knowledge. We can't suggest that this is a possibility without sources again because that would discredit, without proof, a lot of people: OJ, the reviewers, the journals themselves.
• I think its fair to note he is a former faculty member at MUM founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi..... I really think that links OJ to TM and whatever that might suggest... and without bias. (olive (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive Race: I now I think I understand the point of the Paranormal tag. As such OJ is being used here as little more then a "character witness". It is not his or anyone Else's research on TM being a cult but his assumptions - based on research that mainly he has carried out that on TM - form which he is making assumptions. for this reason Race sees it as important to understand all of his interests and research in TM, including the ME, to allow the reader to make a judgment on his abilities to comment. I see the logic now i think. However, i need to rush out - I have one of those horrible "local flights" to catch - I will comment further when i return if this has not been settled. peace Really2012back (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

O I forgot, as its starting to look a little neglected can we also begin discussion on how we can include the other mediative practices and the effects found in TM - see physiology studies, etc above. Really2012back (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if everyone has looked at the web page that's cited. David is simply explicitly making a logical connection between research that's been done by others and the common criticism by anticultists, including a statement by Hassan in the cited Washington Post article, that Transcendental Meditation is a form of mind control. He cites two of the studies, but I believe there are quite a number of others. As I understand it, these generally look at a standardized psychological assessment called "field independence," a measure of independent thinking. Also, research, if i remember correctly, has looked at stages of moral development as defined by Kohlberg. Charles Alexander for his PhD research at Harvard actually went into Walpole prison and taught Transcendental Meditation to murderers and then assessed their development on Kohlberg's scale. David isn't being used as a "character witness." I wish I didn't even need to mention him but could just cite the various studies myself that would counter the suggestion by anticultists that Transcendental Meditation "seeks to strip individuals of the ability to think and choose freely." But I believe that may be a violation of WP:NOR. What do you think? TimidGuy (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, TG, that would be my understanding as well. Use of the studies themselves to create the counterpoint for neutrality to the first paragraph in the section would be a violation of WP:OR. Orme Johnson's is commenting on the research rather than commenting on his own research, and he is a creditable researcher as his own peer-reviewed studies indicate. We can therefore use his comments and site as Wikipedia reliable. I would love to nail down some of the points in this paragraph and get a consensus of some kind so we can move on to other discussions.(olive (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

I understand but never-the-less he is making an unpublished judgment based on his interpretation of research conducted, which achieved positive - for TM - results while extrapolating this against an argument that TM is a cult - he has never conducted such research to counter the argument made. He is certainly, pro TM with close ties to the movement. Thus, his opinions on his website - for they are no more then this - must be seen from this perspective,indeed, OJ says himself on his website:

"This website ... is strictly an expression of my own understanding and personal experiences, stated as candidly and as clearly as I can."

It is also, clear that from his site he "believes" in TM mediated effects for which there is no established agreement in the scientific community that they even exist - never-the less proved they exist - which he states as absolutes> I quote:

"There have been 51 studies showing that the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program (which includes Yogic Flying) improves the quality of life in the larger society; the findings of which have been published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented and published in the proceedings of professional conferences."

Yogic flying? It is difficult to argue against allowing a new reader the opportunity of assessing a counter arguments conditionals based on this knowledge.

Races argument, and indeed mine, is that the reader must understand his interests and those ideas within the TM movement that he supports. Realistically, he should not be used at all - but as the TM movement are struggling to find any further supporting evidence I, personally and with reservations am reluctantly agreeing to it all. Perhaps on that basis,and using LO/TGs well structured sentence re-right we could say: On his personal website, David Orme-Johnson, former psychology professor and researcher at the TM affiliated and owned Maharishi University of Management (founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) author author of over 100 studies related to the Transcendental Meditation technique and proponent of the paranormal Maharishi Effect - including Yogic flying, argues..." Really2012back (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is good, but the problem is that this is unencyclopedic. When I say overkill, I mean that you don't need to say the same thing seven times. Mentioning that he's done 100 studies and Transcendental Meditation and is former faculty member and researcher at Maharishi University of Management, as well as giving a link to his web site, is ample to clue the reader that he has a point of view. You don't need to beat the reader over the head.

If we're going to beat the reader over the head, then why wouldn't we spell out for the reader that Hassan has a vested interest, that it's important to his deprogramming business to identify cults and get people stirred up about them. And why wouldn't we let readers know that the publisher of Persinger's book is a small Christian press. And also that Persinger is most well known for his very controversial theory relating UFO sightings with plate techtonics -- a theory which itself has paranormal aspects (per Rutkowski). If we did that, and certainly an argument could be made, imagine how unreadable this encyclopedia would be. I say leave Hassan and Persinger as they are, and shorten the long list of POV commentary that was tacked on to David OJ. TimidGuy (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

TG, no you are quite right , in the interests of fairness and balance I think it is indeed necessary to mention all of those things - if they are relevant and referenced - about the critiques too. Very fair. I shall await on their addition or begin work on them myself. Really2012back (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reversal of Aging

Goodness, I missed this one - according to the official website daily TM - not sidhu program - reverse your biological age by 12 years! http://www.tm.org/discover/research/reversal_aging.html Goodness, we must get this into the wiki enetry as soon as possible - under physiological effects of course. Now how best to do it? Really2012back (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

end to war.

Sorry if im adding to much here but according to the TM website again: Maharishi predicted in 1960 that if just one percent of the world’s population practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique, there would be an end to war. In 1974, scientists noted a growing number of cities where one percent of the population had learned the Transcendental Meditaition technique. They looked at crime statistics in these “one percent” cities, they found that when a city reached the one percent level there was a decrease in the crime rate. At the same time, matched control cities maintained an increase in crime rate—as did the United States as a whole. They named this phenomenon the Maharishi Effect.

I know the ME has a seperate section but I didn't realise that Maharisi said this would ha[ppen from tm and not the tm Sidhu program. Really need to include some of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research and Wikipedia synthesis of material

Really, the examples you have given are very clear examples of synthesis of material, and therefore Original Research according to Wikipedia policy. Material included in the article must have a direct reference relating to that inclusion. For example: Tai Chi is shown by ... such and such a study... to have the same effects as Transcendental Meditation.(olive (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Oops. Apology I see that you mean these to be examples of OR. However, inclusion of material requires verifiability and reliable sources that are specific, named, and clearly advance the position of the material included. Without this, inclusion of material is not possible by Wikipedia policy.(olive (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

In terms of Wikipedia policy concern, is not with fact, but with the reference. The reader is not being educated by me , the editor, but by the material I "edit" and include with the reference. That's how the reader can be sure that what he/she is reading has a basis in something else than opinion.(olive (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

Um...Im in agreement with you Olive the examples I gave are synthesis - or to be exact they are assuming a from B. This would be against wiki policy but what i am suggesting isn't deriving A from B as the examples i give do, they are simply repeating research, peer reviewed facts. They say, for example, "Orm Johnson, Some One Else Working At MUM, Someone Else Working At MUM, and Research Paid By MUM (2001) found that after daily TM meditation plasma cortisol levels were reduced compared to those prior to mediation. Similarly: "Non TMr, Non working for MUM and Research Not Funded By MUM (2001) found that after daily yoga meditation practice plasma cortisone levels were lower then before meditation."

If TM is mediation, and Yoga Meditation is meditation - which TM admits - the only real difference you cite (apart from bringing world peace, making people younger, flying, walking through walks, etc) is that TM needs no effort. So, if TM is meditation - and not something else, and other forms of meditation are meditation and not something else, then the statement: "TM reduces plasma Cortisol levels just as other forms of mediation such as ...." must make sense. It isn't extrapolating or deriving, it is fact. Now I now your knot a scientist Olive but surely you must access your students on critical reasoning in your classes? Or are things different in education in the USA? If they are, my apologies for, in this case, assuming.

Another example that would be wrong would be this:

Orm Johnson, TM researcher and writer of over 100 - peer reviewed papers on TM has stated that advanced TM meditaion - the Sidhu Program - will allow you to fly (Orm Johnson: 2007) Thus, as TM is meditation and so is Tai Chi - conducting Tai Chi meditaion will allow you to fly. This is obviously wrong Really2012back (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Really2012back (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC) "

'Edit, sorry Olive, my apologies, I see what you mean I think. You must have missed part of my conversation with TG - the danger of starting a new section connected to another. I have cited the references finding the same results already to TG above - and of course these would need to be included in the final draft. Apologies - its late here :-)Really2012back (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)'Bold text

Concerns about research and wiki COI rules

Hi all, I am aware that most people are very upto date here regarding wiki rules POV, COI, etc. Because of this have taken to reading them with interest and while doing so, and looking at the research done on the physiological effects of TM, have grown concerned how these should might be in conflict of wiki rules.

For example if we use the prominent research - quoted in the article a number of times: Am J Hypertens (2005) 18, 88–98; doi: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2004.08.027 A randomized controlled trial of stress reduction in African Americans treated for hypertension for over one year*

Of it's authors Robert H. Schneider1, Charles N. Alexander1,2,3,4,5,6, Frank Staggers2,3, David W. Orme-Johnson1, Maxwell Rainforth1, John W. Salerno1, William Sheppard3, Amparo Castillo-Richmond4, Vernon A. Barnes5 and Sanford I. Nidich1 At the time of writing only 2 of its 10 authors were not working for MUM - of these one is closely associated with TM and the other completed his PHD thesis at the university. All of the others are/were at that time members of the MUM faculty - from Physiology to Education.

AS TM is a registered trademark (registered to: licensed to Maharishi Vedic Development Corporation) and thus in WIKI - and indeed legal terms - a cooperate entity or at least part of a corporate entity. Can the article use research by the companies staff to support its effectiveness? It is certain that we will need to mention this every time it occurs in the article - that the "research was conducted by TM employees - but can we reasonably use it at all under wiki reliable sources/COI. I shall check the rest of the research this week -. Thoughts? NB It is interesting to note that the various authors but for one - at the time did not mention their association to MUM. can anyone confirm if they were members of the faculty at the time or did this occur after this very positive research? It maybe worth chasing up with Am J Hypertens so that this is included/understood. Having been involved in the peer review process I personally unstood - at least in Europe that such declarations should be made - I am assuming an oversight. Really2012back (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Apologies it seems that TM, MUM, etc, etc are actually all trademarks and belong to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. It would thus be this legal entity and its associations that we should be concerned with under WIKI guidelines. Sorry.Really2012back (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Really. The bottom line is that, if these are peer reviewed studies, then that means as you know that a board independent of the university in question evaluated these studies for inclusion into their respective journals. Wikipedia guidelines are quite simple and very clear on this. These studies are reliable by Wikipedia standards if they meet these criteria. I believe it would be appropriate to check and make sure all studies were peer reviewed and so comply with WP standards. If they are, they may be included in the article.(olive (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Alas Olive you are incorrect - which is unusual you are normally so well aware of wiki guidlines. MUM is part of Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation and indeed a Trademark of this corporation - this is stated on the MUM website and I have qouted it below. they are thus both part of the same legal intity - an incorperated intity indeed. WIKI says this by the way.

"Material published by a trading organisation is a view of how that organisation looks on itself however it will also have a marketing component and may lack neutrality. If this material is used it should carry a caveat to indicate this risk and should be corroborated with independent reporting if possible. The accounts and notes to the accounts for all publicly listed companies are required to have been independently audited and will contain a statement to that effect, possibly with caveats considered significant by the auditors. Smaller companies and partnerships which are not publicly listed may have audited accounts. These accounts should provide a reliable view as to the financial health of the organisation however this is subject to the accounting principles applied, which should be identified in the notes. Due to the specialised skills required to assess financial health this material should not be used in isolation, a more acceptable judgement of the organisation can be obtained from investment analysis conducted in some segments of the business press, stock markets and significant investment vehicles. It should be noted that in some cases these assessments may be confidential. Any judgements in Wikipedia with regard to trading organisations should be explicitly referenced and caveated with comments as to the reliability and range of sources used.

Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed. Many articles are excluded from peer-reviewed journals because they report what is in the opinion of the editors unimportant or questionable research. In particular be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed, or one that reports material in a field different from its usual focus. (See the Marty Rimm and Sokal affairs.)

The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud. (See the Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy and the Schön affair.)

Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but often there is an easier way. The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs.

There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy. Significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, but must be identified as minority views and not given the same depth of coverage as the majority view. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.)

Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers. Really2012back (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As per your citation of Wikipedia: MUM is not a "trading organization" but an independent, accredited university whose name is I believe licensed under MVEDC, but which is financially independent of the corporation ...as I understand it , and "Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed.", and those are the peer reviewed studies and journals that can be included in this article.(olive (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

I believe that is simply not good enough Olive, we would need independent confirmation of this - a publicly available financial report might do. Never-the-less there is a clear legal relationship. Your university system is much different to much of Europe. It is still possible for a University to be accredited and still part of a corporate entity. It is unlikey that this is not the case here - why on earth would a public company license a trading name - which is used with reserve to something that it did not have connections with.

"Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed.", and those are the peer reviewed studies and journals that can be included in this article." Indeed, but as I highlighted The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true." and "Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus"

However, we might be able to use it but must follow wiki guidelines already mentioned plus these: " "Any judgments in Wikipedia with regard to trading organizations should be explicitly referenced and caveated with comments as to the reliability and range of sources used."

So, we will no doubt have to return to my original suggestion and note the authors connection with the corporate trademark in question TM. I know, it's a pain each time but we must, as you always point out - keep strictly to wiki rules. Really2012back (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maharishi University of Management is not in any way a part Maharishi Vedic Development Corporation. The University is separately incorporated. You're reading too much into this. The various organizations associated with Maharishi have sought to protect their trademarks. That's pretty much the sole function of MVED, which is a legal entity holding those trademarks, from what I understand. These various corporate structures are independent but use the trade names under sublicense. TimidGuy (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you TG - so for confirmation, you will be able to point us to the publicly available accounts to confirm this? As you always say, original research is discounted in WIKi - this would of course be necessary to prove. Equally, the fact that they are all registered tradmarks - even if that is for protective resons does indeed show a connection? Or can you provide examples elsewhere in wiki were this has happened? Really2012back (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't proven otherwise. This is indeed an interesting question. The person I'd need to talk to is out of the country, but there may be someone else I could check with. Again, I think you're reading too much into the fact that the various registered and common law trademarks are used under sublicense or with permission. We don't even know, given the legend statement, which is the case for MUM. TimidGuy (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus" I reiterate that if these are indeed peer reviewed studies they can be included as references in this article or any other by Wikipedia standards. Although, I am not in any way commenting on the "truth" contained in these studies, I assume the studies if peer reviewed were scrutinized before acceptance for publication. Note that truth is not the first standard for Wikipedia policy but verifiability is. These two policies refer back to peer review, as you have noted: "cite peer-reviewed scientific publications. I would suggest that beyond the scrutiny of a panel of jurors who adjudicate the studies we are not in position to ascertain the truth, whatever that is, of the studies. Wikipedia mentions, "that for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is,", and 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge", and is not in the business of establishing what truth is because "truth" as discussed here is a subjective not an objective construct. After all, Einstein himself found mistakes in his own theories years after they had been published.(olive (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Hi Olive. It is interesting that you cite that wiki says varifiability rather then "truth" and I agree - however, WIKI is very exact regarding, claims made by and research about, companies. It states:

Any judgments in Wikipedia with regard to trading organizations should be explicitly referenced and caveated with comments as to the reliability and range of sources used.

Given that a lot of the research cited in this article was conducted by staff of MUM then, under these guidelines, while it would be ok to quote it, we would need to add a caveat regarding the association of the researchers to MUM. Something which was not made clear for example on the articles submission - in the case of the example I have given. I am not saying that staff at MUM are wrong to conduct this research - given the associations I would expect it, and lets be honest, researchers try to do research in things in which they are interested, so this is not unique. However, because this is a commercial product it is important, within the context of this entry, to make this association clear. What is problomatic for me is how to comment on this without prejudicing that research either way in the minds of the reader. Really2012back (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Must be Olives influence, but you know I was thinking this opening sentence is a tad "unwieldy" and indeed incorrect.

Transcendental Meditation, or TM, is the trademarked name of a meditation technique introduced in 1958 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Surely it would be better to say: Transcendental Meditation, or TM, is the trademarked name of Maharishi Vedic Development Corporation, a multinational, multi-million dollar company chaired by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Gosh, how is this my influence? The article is about the TM technique, a trademarked name for a meditation technique, and thats all... c'est tout. TM is not the trademarked name for MVDC, and the article is not about MVDC.(olive (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Apologies Olive you are correct and again my mistake: It should be Trademark of Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. All rights reserved. See, you are a good influence on me  :-) I qoute from the TM website:

® Transcendental Meditation, TM, TM-Sidhi, Maharishi Ayur-Veda, Maharishi Ayurveda, Science of Creative Intelligence, Maharishi, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, Maharishi Global Construction, Maharishi Yoga, Maharishi Yagya, Maharishi Vedic Astrology, Maharishi Jyotish, Maharishi Gandharva Veda, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology, Maharishi Instant Relief, Instant Relief, Maharishi Rejuvenation, Maharishi Rasayana Program, Maharishi Vedic Management, Maharishi Corporate Development Program, Consciousness-Based, Maharishi Vedic University, Maharishi Vedic School, Maharishi Vedic Center, Maharishi Ayur-Veda School, Maharishi Ayur-Veda University, Maharishi Ayur-Veda College, Maharishi Ayur-Veda Foundation, Maharishi Ayur-Veda Medical Center, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, Maharishi Medical Center, Maharishi Vedic Medical Center, Maharishi Medical College, Maharishi Vedic, Maharishi Vedic Medicine, Maharishi Vedic Psychology, Maharishi Self-Pulse, Maharishi Heaven on Earth, Maharishi Center for Excellence in Management, Maharishi Vedic Management, Maharishi Master Management, Natural Law Based Management, Maharishi Corporate Revitalization Program, Maharishi Global Administration through Natural Law, Maharishi Vedic Development Fund, Thousand-Headed Purusha, Maharishi Thousand-Headed Purusha, Maharishi Purusha, Purusha, Thousand-Headed Mother Divine, Mother Divine, Ideal Girls' School, 24 Hour Bliss, Spiritual University of America, Breath of Serenity, Maharishi Amrit Kalash, Maharishi College of Vedic Medicine, Vedic Science, Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi Vedic Observatory, Vastu Vidya, Maharishi Vastu, Time Zone Capital, Council of Supreme Intelligence, Prevention Wing of the Military, are registered or common law trademarks licensed to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation and used under sublicense.

Clearly as a registered trademark we must make sure that it is understood firstly, that it is a registered TM and secondly - and correctly - who to. We don't want the wrath of TMs legal department down us :-) My apologies. NB Query, I have to ask - curiosity and all that - the registered trademark "24 Hour Bliss" what "product" is that? Sounds intriguing?

Yogic Fl;ying

TG said in the section regarding Physiology.

"TM-Sidhi program, which by the way doesn't offer the ability to fly"

I'm afraid TG this confirms my fear that you may not be the best person to comment on this article or indeed edit it.

From the TM website: One aspect of the TM-Sidhi program is called Yogic Flying. During the first stage of Yogic Flying, the body lifts up and moves forward in short hops.http://www.tm.org/sidhi/index.html

This of course leaves the question, what happens in stage two and three. Luckily, MUM was able to answer this, along with some of your leading academic staff including John Haglin, physicist, MUM academic staff member and former candidate for presidency of the USA. This he did on this video where he states, along with other members of the MUM academic team, that TM practitioners will/have reached stage 3 of yogic flying which will/has allowed them to fly 60, 000 feet in the air. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHwhGUo90jw The references are fully WIKI compliant. Really2012back (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm speaking from experience. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Experience is different from OR how?Naturezak (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

lol, TG, you know I promise I will leave you inpeace soon. Infact the rest of the day is yours. I shall sit here and listen Haitink's Beethoven cycle, then mediate - honest! :-) Peace my friend Addition, perhaps you are right in your sugestion regarding other meditation. If you can come up with a way of doing it with-out me having to do any other work per your suggestion? Really2012back (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)-

Am under deadline and don't have much time today. In brief, the comparisons you suggested and the mention of other techniques both seemed problematic. So I bridled at your specific suggestions. On the other hand, it occurred to me that I like the summary paragraph you pulled from AHRQ. It's true that meditation techniques and relaxation have certain generalized effects. The idea I had was that we could get around the problem by being less specific. Naturezak deleted the overall intro to this section, such that now there's nothing. But we could have a sort of general contextual paragraph noting these generalized effects, noting the differing neurophysiological correlates, and citing a source such as AHRQ or a textbook. Then we could simply proceed by giving the research on Transcendental Meditation. This context could be meaningful and helpful to a general reader, if done in accordance with guidelines, and could possibly contribute to a sense of neutrality. I'd then also like to add a short section which reports the very interesting research done in the lab of Archie Wilson at the University of California, Irvine, that found a range of biochemical and other markers that distinguish Transcendental Meditation from simple relaxation. Anyway, just an idea. TimidGuy (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, there is no research that indicates a biochemical signature for TM that is distinguishable from relaxation. You are welcome to cite the particular paper from Wilson, and the relevant data, if you can explain how they support your assertion. Naturezak (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG, as you know I wasn't going to comment further on the article but as a final note, that suggestion sound very reasonable - not sure about including the research ref TM V Simple relaxation - as simple relaxation is not a mediative technique and might muddy the waters a bit. However, perfectly good when speaking only about TM. However, will leave it in your capable hands: Peace. 20:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Really2012back (talk)

When did the focus of the article change?

I may come to regret jumping in here but...

Having spent the last 2-3 days reading through ALL of the archived Talk pages (and yes, I'm exhausted :-), I couldn't let Olive's statement "...The article is about the TM technique, a trademarked name for a meditation technique, and thats all... " stand without a comment.

In the early days of this Talk, there was a repetition, over and over, by Sethie, that this article is NOT simply about the technique of TM but in fact was about the entire movement. This was, IIRC, agreed upon at the time. When did this change? Clearly, a quick scan of the current introduction indicates that the change happened, perhaps as a result of the gradual dropping-out of those "opposed" to the TM movement.

Please point me to the Talk page where this shift in focus was agreed upon in a consensus. I am concerned that this may have been a (possibly subconscious) attempt to eliminate the opposing viewpoint, through a "shift in venue" that limited the article to the technique, which is much less open to criticism.

Please prove me wrong...

ACushen (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the changes were proposed and discussed on the Talk page. Sethie at one point objected to making the TM-Sidhi program a separate article but then agreed after discussion. There has been consensus for the changes. Most of this was around November and December 2006, if I remember correctly. Nothing was deleted. Separate articles were created. TimidGuy (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that shift happened just as I began to edit at Wikipedia. As I understand it the article had also become so long and unwieldy that there were discussions at different times as to how to deal with that. One of the solutions was to delineate the different programs into separate articles and to keep the TM section strictly TM. Its pretty easy to let one topic bleed into another and then you're left with this overly long article again . Actually there has been a lot of work by different editors to even cut the TM page down further. All of the other pages are linked from the TM page so everything is relatively transparent for anyone who is interested.(olive (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

I do recall that a split was suggested by a commenter as a result of an RfC. I don't recall that this specific issue was recommended and "consensussed" (not that it's a word, but... :-) to be split. My apologies. I will go back and review the Talk pages in question. Thanks. ACushen (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal

Gosh Racecarr... we've been through this so many times ....you don't have a source for paranormal, so for the section to be encyclopedia compliant it should be removed or sourced....I'm not going to fight you on it. As it is its OR. I think the language you removed was a good edit and good move on your part.(olive (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Hi, Racecarr. I deleted the material you added for two reasons. First, that the Maharishi Effect is paranormal is a point of view. Certainly, the researchers, who have developed what they think is a theoretical framework that explains it, don't think that it's paranormal. Therefore, both sides would need to be presented. And that is way off topic in this article, and is better dealt with in the article on the TM-Sidhi program. Second, I feel you're applying a double standard when you insert deprecating terms such as "paranormal" and "parody" yet argue for the removal of "peer reviewed" in the TM-Sidhi article, saying that it was prestige-enhancing. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys are right. We've been through this several times. I think we can all agree that the Maharishi Effect involves influencing the behavior of others remotely by meditating. I think we can all agree that modern science has no explanation for this effect. That is all paranormal means. It is really silly to try to prove that "paranormal is OR" by assertion. If you don't like the word paranormal, how 'bout "an effect unsupported by current scientific knowledge"? It means the same thing.Rracecarr (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

TG, to your double standard point, I'm not surprised you think I'm adding POV words, positive and negative. You have a vested interest in TM, and see things through those glasses. However, in both cases, I'm trying to get to NPOV. To say, look the study got an Award!!! without letting the reader know that the award is a joke and a criticism is not honest. Similarly, to quote research by someone with ties to TM and with fringe beliefs about its powers without revealing the conflict of interest is disingenuous. The words you see as POV, I see as necessary to avoid dishonesty. Look, I'd never heard of TM before coming to this article. Which of us do you think is more likely to have a neutral point of view on the subject? Your knowledge of the technique etc is valuable in keeping the article accurate. But there are also potential COI problems. Rracecarr (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Olive, I honestly can't believe we're back to "no reference" and OR. I feel like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill. Have you forgotten the references provided by Really? Would you like me to copy them from above? Rracecarr (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey,Sisyphus. I didn't put an unsourced word back into the section. Racacarr its not sourced .... thats just policy, and its not an everyday well used word for the reader. Am I rigid about policy .... absolutely yes.(olive (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Again, we've covered this. I've even mined the article and found other equally or less common words. Anyway, just because a word is not extremely common does not mean it needs to be referenced. If you're worried people won't know what it means, we can link it. If you insist on a ref, ok, feel free to add one of the 3 provided by Really. I don't think a reference is necessary. Rracecarr (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you know the rules .... you want the word, you add the reference.

Olive, we never seem to get anywhere. You claim to be strict on policy, but you are arguing based on how common a word is. Where in policy does it say that how common a word is has anything to do with whether it must be referenced? If anyone isn't sure, they can click on it.

Given that the Maharishi Effect cannot be explained by mainstream science (about which fact there is no argument), it is paranormal. That's what paranormal means. Instead of just repeating, over and over, "you want the word, you need the reference," why don't you address that very simple argument? Do you disagree that mainstream science cannot explain the effect? Do you disagree about the meaning of paranormal? If you do not, you are logically bound to agree with the characterization.

If you refuse to concede that a reference is not needed, you can add one. They have been provided, here on the talk page. I won't add them because I think it would be like referencing the fact that an apple is a fruit.Rracecarr (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way. It is obvious that OJ has connections to TM. We already have that in the section. Adding too much makes the section look POV because we are beating the reader over the head with it. If there are words that are less common that are concerns in the article, please point them out. They should be referenced, changed or removed.

And by the way .... having a working knowledge of TM does not make an editor non-neutral .I am very rigid and consistent about policy for this very reason . I must stick to the rules.(olive (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Racecarr, I can't see that you've addressed my NPOV argument. Regarding your response to second argument, I have no problem with identifying David OJ's relationship to Transcendental Meditation. But it's not clear in what sense David has, as you say, fringe beliefs about the powers of Transcendental Meditation. Perhaps you meant to say fringe beliefs about the powers of the TM-Sidhi program, which is a different meditation technique. I have no problem with mentioning in this context that he has researched Transcendental Meditation and the Maharishi Effect, and wiki linking the latter term to the article on TM-Sidhi program. (That was my original revision of your insertion.[4]) What is disingenuous about that? I do hope you'll respond to my first argument. Regarding your overall response, I would make exactly the same claim -- I'm just trying to make this article compliant with NPOV.

As an ironic aside, note that Persinger, whose book is cited in this section, may be most well known for his controversial theory regarding UFO sitings, and has been criticized on exactly the same grounds as the Maharishi Effect researchers -- action at a distance with no known cause. And of course, one could argue that we should note that his book was published by a small Christian press and that Hassan as a professional deprogrammer has a vested interest in identifying cults. But I think it's tedious noting these sorts of qualifying statements. I would simply like to go with my original revision, minus the detail "over 100 studies." TimidGuy (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm... that's why it says Hassan is a deprogrammer--because of the possible COI. I would never try to remove that fact, because it would not be NPOV. I think your analogy between Hassan and OJ is apt. I never tried to argue that we should explicitly state in the article that David OJ has a vested interest in skewing his science--I just want the facts to be there, so that readers can draw their own conclusions, same as is done with Hassan. You don't have to tell readers that having been a CAN deprogammer may give Hassan a bias. They can figure that out. You don't have to tell readers that OJ's fringe beliefs may give him one. They can figure that out as well. But both facts should be included. I do not think that readers can be left on their own to figure out that the Maharishi Effect is paranormal. Who's ever heard of the Maharishi Effect? Rracecarr (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rracecarr. I still don't see that you've addressed my point regarding paranormal and NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, your point seems to be that since some fringe scientists think they have an explanation, it's not fair to call the effect paranormal. But that doesn't work, because nothing at all would be paranormal. Someone can come up with an "explanation" for anything anyone has ever claimed, in seriousness or in jest. Mainstream science has no explanation for the Maharishi Effect, and that is the very definition of paranormal. I see no reason, according to NPOV, why ME cannot be so characterized. I also don't follow your argument that "both sides need to be presented." That seems incorrect according to WP:WEIGHT. The Earth article does not discuss the other side--the one that claims it is flat.Rracecarr (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rracearr

• You are making several points . I am not arguing about the commonality

of a word. I am arguing OR and POV. These phrases are POV thinking:

"I think we can all agree that the Maharishi Effect involves influencing the behavior of others remotely by meditating. I think we can all agree that modern science has no explanation for this effect."

• Who is defining "mainstream" science. Science is not a distinct separate entity, but is an complex collection of disciplines. Who decides where mainstream ends and fringe begins. Fringe in the past has become mainstream in the present . .... you are making the distinctions here, and if you do .... its POV and OR and synthesis.

• There is no "we can all agree"on a word in an encyclopedia unless it is something as common as fruit . We have been through that argument too ....fruit and paranormal are not in the same category of commonly understood words.

• A link is not a reference, and if its necessary to explain something with a link its not understood by the majority, and we we are dealing with synthesis of material.

• No, I have no desire to discuss the Maharishi Effect here . We have a really good example of what happens in an article if you discuss the topic rather than the article. Take a look a What the Bleep. What an morass of discussion that goes nowhere. The ME has been researched and replicated . I won't say more than that . You have stated your objections to the research and I respect that. No more discussion needed. And no I won't reference paranormal. I didn't add it, and I do not think it should be there, nor am I sure that Really's reference actually reference this word . I'd have to check .... can't remember them actually.

Wikipedia notes that the onus is on the editor who adds the material to reference it. That would be you.

Rracecarr where this goes form here is an edit war , and I 'm not going there. I stick by my platforms on Wikipedia policy, and I believe you are incorrect in your arguments, but I won't fight you on it. Leave the word in place if its that important to you. TG may have a different position. For now, thats where I stand.(olive (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

I see Olive was writing at the same time I was. Here's the response I'd written to Rracecarr: From WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as 'the truth', in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." The researchers feel that they have a theoretical framework and have published that in peer-reviewed journals. This is missing from this context. And my point is that it would be unwieldy to include both points of view here, and that saying paranormal by itself would seem to be a violation of NPOV (asserted as "the truth"). I suggest that we simply say that he's a "researcher on Transcendental Meditation and on the controversial Maharishi Effect," and wiki link the latter to the article on the TM-Sidhi program. That should do it. Nothing is hidden, nothing is disingenuous. If the reader wants to know what the controversy is -- and find out both points of view -- he or she can go to the article on the TM-Sidhi program.

(And I guess I'm uncomfortable with your characterizing them as "fringe scientists." They have all published much more extensively in mainstream areas than they have on the Maharishi Effect.) TimidGuy (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" seems a good compromise.(olive (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

It's not controversial. It is, for the most part, ignored, just like most paranormal claims. If you don't recognize ME as fringe science, I'm sure we can resolve that with an RfC. Rracecarr (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rracecarr.... you can if you wish go to RfC, perhaps that would be best.... but you are arguing for something that I have agreed to leave in place. Why are you creating a fight where there isn't one.I wonder how that will look in an RfC. As well we were discussing one word, paranormal, in the context of this article, and suggesting words that might have a more universal understanding .... but now .... this has become about fringe science. Interesting...(olive (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

I was responding to TG, who did not agree to leave paranormal in place (if this is a "fight," it's not only me creating it--it's TG as well. Takes two to tango.). I was also responding to TG, who argued that we would need to include the "other side". Please don't try to insinuate that I'm the one distorting the discussion. I'm just straight up responding. Rracecarr (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No not insinuating anything.... I am being straight up too.... you suggested taking this to RfC to deal with fringe science and I don' think that is what is being discussed here by any of us. If TG wants to continue discussing an alternative to me just walking away, then that seems fine to me, but if you suggest taking this to RfC which as I said is fine, then we need to characterize what is being discussed and its not fringe, and its not whether ME is paranormal, but is about whether the sources say ME is paranormal. Is there another word that is more universally understood than paranormal , that is not cliche ridden? Or is there a reference? .... yea there's that word again.....TG makes a point as per Wikipedia and that is, neutral means you show both sides. Whats wrong with that?(olive (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Rracecarr, you haven't really responded to my point regarding NPOV. I didn't argue whether the Maharishi Effect is fringe science. I'm not arguing whether it's paranormal. I'm pointing out that the researchers themselves don't consider it paranormal and have offered a theoretical framework in peer-reviewed publications to explain the phenomenon suggested by the data they present, and that this is missing. Only one point of view is represented, that it's paranormal -- which violates the section of the policy I quoted above. A way to resolve it would be to use the more neutral word "controversial." It could be an acceptable compromise. Again quoting policy: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." TimidGuy (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I did respond. I don't need to repeat myself. Rracecarr (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but had to comment - this seems jsut such a silly argument: If you require a reference for "paranormal" and the Mararishi effect then Geoff Gilpin - cited in the MUM WIKI entry as an alumni of MUM, published author and certainly an "expert" in TM and the ME has called the ME paranormal, see here for an easy reference in his essay Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Miracles, Quantum Failure: http://www.geoffgilpin.com/pdfs/Quantum-Failure.pdf

There are actually a lot of places where this definition is given but this is an easy one for you to find.I think you will find this fully complies with WIKI rules - of which you are so stringent as you say Really2012back (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Really. It's not a matter of requiring a reference. You might want to read the posts in this thread. I'm suggesting that the use of "paranormal" in this context isn't in compliance with WP:NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rracecarr. You must be referring to your post on UNDUE. Sorry I didn't address that. I don't think that in a context that mentions the Maharishi Effect, it's a violation of undue weight to acknowledge the researchers' own theoretical framework. And it's a violation of NPOV not to acknowledge it. Again, a simple solution in this situation is to use a more neutral word. TimidGuy (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG you know, I think we have been through this before but here is the argument:

Are there citations that state the ME is paranormal? Yes

Is OJ - and is there evidence there-of - a proponent of the ME? Yes

So, without original research it is fine to say that OJ is a proponent of the paranormal ME - it does not matter whether he thinks that ME is paranormal or not. For example he might have said that he likes Wagner, Bruckner and Brahms - but never mentioned the Romantic period. If a WIKI editor says that OJ likes classical music conductors from the Romantic period, Wagner, Bruckner and Brahms this does not mean the editor is wrong simply for saying so - indeed s/he would be correct. If however, he said that he did not consider Wagner and Bruckner to have composed in the "style" of the Romantic movement then it might be necessary to add something like, although in his 2006 essay OJ stated that he believed that Wagner and Bruckner did not...blah, blah, blah.

Thats it, just wanted to say that, it just appears a silly arqument to me. But there you have it. Back to my Brittin/Curzion Mozart piano concerto no 20 - not Wagner ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Really. But I can't see that you've addressed my point regarding NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not TG. Nevermind - not my area TM anyway. Peace :-) Really2012back (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have been following the discussions on this page for over a year now and have followed with interest the continuing evolution of the article.

I have decided to enter into the fray...

I wanted to comment on the use of the word Paranormal in regards to it characterizing the Maharishi effect.

I think it would be better to delete the word Paranormal and link the words "Maharishi Effect" directly to the section in the TM-Sidhi Program article where the Maharishi Effect is described in detail.

My thinking is that this would be more neutral. The use of the word Paranormal in the sentence seems forced. More importance seems to be given to the word Paranormal than the Mahrishi effect since it is linked to its wiki page.

Why not delete the word Paranormal, link the Maharishi effect to the TM-Sidhi Program page where the reader can find out in far more detail what the Maharishi effect is and they can then make up there own mind.

--Jack Lindin (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. And welcome to Wikipedia. Your suggestion is certainly in line with what I have been recommending. We would probably just link to the TM-Sidhi article rather than the section on the Maharishi Effect, since the Wikipedia guidelines recommend linking to subheadings (due to the fact that they often change, and then result in a broken link, whereas the article name is more stable). TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome Timid Guy. So should the link just be created?...I'm not sure how to create the Link myself...but perhaps someone could either explain to me how it is done or do it them selves. Just reading through the discussion on the use of the word Paranormal, the crux of the position to use it seems to lie in Rracecarr statement that "I do not think that readers can be left on their own to figure out that the Maharishi Effect is paranormal." Why not? Just let the readers figure out on there own what the Maharishi effect is or is not? --Jack Lindin (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and made the change based on the policy regarding neutral point of view. What do you think of the wording? I used "controversial," which was discussed above as a compromise. TimidGuy (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"controversial" is certainly a more neutral word. If to keep both parties happy it is used as a compromise, so be it. --Jack Lindin (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC) It would be better though if we could link the maharishi effect directly to the section where the Maharishi effect is discussed on the TM Sidhi Program Page. People might go there and becuase they immediately do not see any information on the maharishi effect they might become discouraged. --Jack Lindin (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. I've implemented your suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaced paranormal, new SPA notwithstanding. Rracecarr (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rracecarr, you haven't addressed the issues I've raised. I addressed your point about UNDUE. This clearly violates NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, removing it clearly violates NPOV. Rracecarr (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rracecarr. You haven't explained why it violates NPOV. You need to address the points I've raised -- rather than simply edit warring to enforce your edits. TimidGuy (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've stated my case several times. Repeating ourselves endlessly is counterproductive. Many talk pages dozens of kilobytes long could be boiled down to a page or two if people would stop reiterating things. My position, in brief, once again, is that if David OR is going to stay in the article, it needs to be clear that he's a supporter of the ME, which is verifiably paranormal, because it is relevant to his credibility. Rracecarr (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rracecarr. Thanks for discussing. I guess I'm going to reiterate until you address my central point regarding NPOV. Yes, it is verifiable that some people say that the Maharishi Effect is paranormal. But you're ignoring NPOV. It's also verifiable -- in a series of peer-reviewed studies -- that the researchers have developed a theoretical framework and that they don't consider the Maharishi Effect paranormal. Per NPOV, there are multiple points of view. Would be great if you could address this point -- and the fact that by using the adjective "paranormal" in this context you are only acknowledging one point of view. I have other problems with what you're saying, but I'd really like to address this one, which is the most clear cut. Again, here is the relevant section of the policy: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as 'the truth', in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. . . " TimidGuy (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Arg. I have addressed it. You are correct to bring up "undue weight". Giving a soap box to pseudoscientists would violate that principle. It is verifiable that some people believe that the earth is flat, or that it doesn't go around the sun. Where in the earth article is that point of view addressed? It isn't, because that would be giving the point of view undue weight. Rracecarr (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I addressed your point about UNDUE above. Happy to do so again. It's not relevant here. If this were an article on reducing crime for example, then you're right: it could be possibly be a violation of UNDUE to incorporate this research. But it can't possibly a violation of undue weight in a context where the Maharishi Effect is itself the point. To ignore the researchers' own perspective regarding their own research is a violation of NPOV. Also the section on undue weight says this: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them," which would support my previous point. TimidGuy (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" is certainly the most neutral word, as Jack pointed out above. Roseapple (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" is misleading. "Paranormal" is accurate. Controversial would imply there was controversy within the scientific community. There isn't. Rracecarr (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a sincere attempt at a compromise. Then to meet the requirement of NPOV, we can simply not have an adjective. Or you could make another suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think thats the best idea, not to use an adjective at all. People can simply click on the link if they want to know what the maharishi effect is. --Jack Lindin (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Best idea yet Roseapple (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure why the maharishi effect is even mentioned. Why not just have: "David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management (at which all students and faculty practice TM daily) who has researched Transcendental Meditation, cites studies..." The article is about trancendental meditation...not the maharishi effect. David is being used as an expert source to comment on TM so its appropriate that its mentioned that he has studied TM and that he was a proffesor at MUM etc...but he's not being used to comment on the maharishi effect so I'm not sure why it would be relevent to add that piece of info on the end. --Jack Lindin (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think racc is including it because it puts things "in-context" as to his reliably as a "wittiness for the defense". this has been discussed previously jack,. I think racc could have also included "author of "The cosmic psyche: An introduction to Maharishi's Vedic Psychology: The fulfillment of modern psychology" and "The cosmic psyche as the unified source of creation: Verification through scientific principles, direct experience, and scientific research." to help put in context OJs views on psychology as it is his psychology degree that is been used as the main reason for his inclusion. And hi there by the way :-)

Just an idea but i think Rrace is following wiki guidelines about claims made by/on behave of "products"/commercial ventures - where closer then "normal attention needs to be given to research/comments supporting them. The problem you have here - as I have stated before - is using OJ as the counter to the "Cult" accusations. While I am aware that he says that he is "retired" he has just completed a study with Zhang-Hee Cho (Apparently the "inventor of PET scans - I wonder if anyone has mentioned that to Michael Phelps?) and Robert Schneider. Schnider is a MUM employee and the study was commissioned by MUM. He obviously is still working for TM. Honestly, I'm trying to stay out of this but this entire section is blatantly un-encyclopedic. Just change it to TM responds by saying or finding another source for goodness sake. Go on, make my day - as a facist creation of Hollywood cinema once said.Really2012back (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

First, there is no justification for blatantly attempting to impugn a researcher's credibility by bringing in other irrelevant research that they have published. It is neither NPOV nor encyclopedic. Secondly, the irrelevant research on the so-called "ME" is definitely a part of accepted science, even if controversial. There were a large body of scientists who participated in the publication of the many various studies - the authors, editors, reviewers and publishers - all of whom followed the long established scientific peer review process to determine the validity and worthiness of publishing the studies. It is clearly WP:POV and WP:OR to suggest anything else and then to make edits based upon those incorrect assumptions. Not only should the word "paranormal" not be used, but the entire irrelevant reference to which the word refers has only been added (admittedly by the editor) to attempt to bias wikipedia readers. As such, this clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Duedilly (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Really, to quote you mate "to help put in context OJs views on psychology as it is his psychology degree that is been used as the main reason for his inclusion." I don't think we can or should attempt to put OJs views on psychology in context because what ever views we think he has would just be our opinion. Duedilly I think you make some good points. --Jack Lindin (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The rest of MUM joins the fray - don't you people have lectures to give? ;-) (I'm joking) POV gets quoted a lot around this but can I point you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Business_and_Commerce It is clear from this that we need to analyze OJ contribution closely. Maybe we need to completely look at how he is cited. I will repeat that it is purely un-encyclopaedic to use OJ as a counter to any cult accusations. He is clearly to closely connected with the legal, profit making entity which is TM. Equally, it might be argued, that just the two studies that I have quoted suggest that his psychological models are closely informed by the spiritual/philosophical views of TM. This needs to be informed to the reader. I'm sorry, I really want to not be involved in this article - there are far "worse" religions then TM out there. Indeed, if you check the talk history you will see that I have argued for the removal of the cult section in the past. However, OJs comments, coming from his background, his close financial and philosophical ties to TM are clearly POV in this section. This is not a statement from a peer-reviewed source but - what he himself says on his website - his personal opinion. A personal opinion that is informed by his philosophical and spiritual “support” of TM.

Duedilly. I'm afraid your argument misunderstands the reason for the inclusion. Firstly - to say that stating OJ "supports" the ME does not - and I think was not meant to - impugn a researcher's credibility. It is meant to provide a brief background to his "beliefs" relating to TM so that any reader can make a judgment on how best to accept his personal opinion about any cult issues related to TM - the same is the case with the two articles I have cited which suggest his psychological "models" are influenced by core believes within TM. The reader needs to be aware of this - especially if he is using reasoning based within his profession as a researcher and informed expert in psychology to counter the cult claims.

Your argument that "ME" is definitely a part of accepted science" is clearly nonsense. I assume from the fact that you have said that you are not a scientist, so please do not think that I am personally "attacking" your comment. The ME is certainly not part of accepted science and in the main - rightly or wrongly - is ignored outside of MUM researchers. When it is cited it is to argue that they research or argued mechanisms of causation are clearly pseudoscience or to be ridiculed.. It is far from "accepted part of science" and the fact that that you believe that clearly shows that we need to be cause with the general reader regarding definitions of ME.

Your comment: "There were a large body of scientists who participated in the publication of the many various studies - the authors, editors, reviewers and publishers - all of whom followed the long established scientific peer review process to determine the validity and worthiness of publishing the studies." Firstly, there have not been a "large body" but a rather small amount non of which have ever been repeated. The large body of scientists is actually a very small body most - if not all - with close ties to TM often working for MUM at the same time. Finally, all of whom followed the long established scientific peer review process". Can I point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Cite_peer-reviewed_scientific_publications_and_check_community_consensus. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Business_and_Commerce. I can assure that religiously informed scientists have published papers arguing that the earths age is 12, 000 - or whatever it's supposed to be. That they have equally published research which "proves" that has not only never occurred but is impossible. However, despite been published by "scientist" in peer reviewed publications they are far from "accepted. I repeat, I have no personal "issues" with Tm and have no concerns whether TM is a cult, my concern is the way that the argument is countered. This constant attempt to hide that fact that this is TM responding, for me, throws great doubt on the credibility of the article as a whole and must do so also for any reader that comes to it - how you TM/MUM guys cannot see this is beyond me most of the time. Really2012back (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC) )

Hi, Really. Just want to clarify a few points. David Orme-Johnson is still doing research but is not employed by any organization related to Transcendental Meditation. He has no financial ties. Also, note that the guideline you cite several times is an essay and not an official guideline. But most of all, your final comment is a patently unfair straw man argument. No one has tried to hide the fact that "TM is responding." Every version has clearly stated his connection with research on Transcendental Meditation and no one is contesting inclusion of the fact that he was formerly on faculty. I hope we can address the issue of NPOV that i've raised, which you seem not to have read and which Rracecarr hasn't addressed (other than his comment about undue weight, which I have twice suggested isn't relevant to this context). TimidGuy (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG. To say that he is doing research funded by MUM yet say he is not employed by any organization connected to TM is simply silly. Strawman argument TG? And no one tried to hid his connections to TM? I would ask you to re-read the talk pages over the past few months regarding this issue - but I digress. f it is indeed, TM that is responding - say so as the article on Scientology does regarding the same issue. I will read your comments about NPOV above - it seems there is a fair bit and I need to go through. Can i just say again, remove the section on cults, find another person/s to argue the case or admit this is TM itself directly responding. This would really correct this problem quickly. Really2012back (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Hi TG, having read your NPOV and "equal weighing" comments I agree, thats why - as I stated many times when I cared that the ME effect - or at least the TM Sidhi program needs to be included in this entry. Indeed, your argument supports what i have said along: included information of the Sidhi program here. This easily resolves the issues you and rac feel you are having. Really2012back (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I invite you to point out where anyone suggested that David's relationship to Transcendental Meditation not be included. It's simply not true. Broadening the article wouldn't resolve the matter, it would only further distort the article. That's why the best solution is to mention the Maharishi Effect in a neutral way and then link to that in the TM-Sidhi article. Also, I don't understand in what sense David is "arguing the case." The section says that an anticultist says that TM is a form of mind control. Research such as that using a standardized assessment called field independence, which is associated with autonomous thinking, has shown that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique have greater field independence. This isn't even David's research. He's not stating his opinion, he's not interpreting the research, he's just pointing out that this research exists. What case is he arguing? TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

TG: 1 - there are no scholarly, peer reviewed research papers that say that that members of cults have a low, high or "normal" "field independence/depend ce" score. This is a psychometric test used, mainly, in educational psychology. He is using data extracted from a small study on a group TM of volunteers to access applications of TM to learning. He is interpreting research and making an argument based on that interpretation. using data acquired by TM researcher. 2 - If TM was a cult - and I am not saying it is - but if it was, would you take seriously the arguments of a member of that cult using research conducted by that cult on members of the cult? Adding to this, that the research has nothing to do with cults but learning? His entire argument is an interpretation of data. 3 looking through the history of the article Tg i see that it was you that originally added the OJ argument. I also, note it was in place for over a year till an extend discussion meant that his association with MUM was added - at your suggestion I might add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your point is good that the only way the studies would be self-evident rebuttals and not violate the proscription against original research would be if there were also studies on cult members that used the same measures. I have no problem with attributing the logical connection to David OJ. (Note that he's referencing a number of studies that use a range of measures, of which field independence is one.) And since you looked at the article history, you've seen that when I added David I included his connection to TM research. And at no point has anyone tried to hide his connection to TM. (It occurs to me, though, that you may be using "TM" in a sense that's unfamiliar to me.) So we still need to address the problem with NPOV that you acknowledged (short of distorting the article by changing its scope). TimidGuy (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, TG. the other "studies" he refers to are not studies - they are 20 and 30 year old doctoral thesis and under wiki guidelines should not be cited - which they are within this article by the way. They also have nothing to do with "cults". The NPOV issue - at least as far as you understand it - can only be addressed by re-including the Sidhu program in the article. Race's argument is that that the reader needs to have a good grasp of OJ's POV and with this I completely agree. He thinks that OJ is proponent of ME and that that this needs to be included - which i agree. He believes that it is important for the reader to know that ME is a paranormal effect, as this will help the reader better evaluate OJs reasoning and POV - which I agree. You however, do not like the term paranormal - I suspect because TM perceives it self as a vedic "science" movement rather then a spiritual one. However, clearly the ME effect is paranormal. I have no difficulty with this term at all and, oddly do not see it as a negative - but there you go. Can I stated that the only place where the tag "paranormal" is "problematic" seems to be in this article - making it even more difficult to use the term "controversial". the effect is certainly not controversial at all - but simply ignored by the science community (I exclude the physics department at MUM - and that is really meant with no offense.) I'm sorry TG, I really don't want to be involved in this but i entered simply because some of the arguments were - from my point of view - incorrect and the article that you have worked so hard on was grossly un-encyclopedic in the cult counter claim (as you know, I don't even agree with "cult" being in the article so this is not because I am "anti TM movement" or are attempting either to suggest that TM is a cult or to ridicule the argument. If that was the case then I would point out a number of "issues" but have no intention of doing so. By the way, I was not that unhappy with the linking to the sidhi article as you did. perhaps this might be the way forward - and paranormal was removed- so that the connection between OJ and the Tm movement was shown in its full extent. Anyway, thats it. I'm out of here - its up to race to take this further, if thats the case etc. Frankly I'm bored with wiki although there are a few article's I making suggestions to at the moment I would like to get finished and are "important". It is, as always a pleasure "chatting". peace. Really2012back (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. Really. I agree with your suggestion regarding the way forward. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I said that I was not going to do anything else on this but it it seems my unconscious has other thoughts. While working on other things the following re-write popped into my head. I felt that perhaps it might be more natural while satisfying everyone - with work:

David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management and ongoing researcher in both Transcendental Meditation and the controversial Maharishi Effect, states on his unashamedly pro TM website, that TM is not a cult. He supports this argument using data, unrelated to cult studies, which he believs, may indicate the ability of TM practitioners to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments - a fact that he claims is contrary to those traits found in cult members. [4]

Surely this might be more accurate and also neutral. I haver removed the links to the doctoral thesis obviously and the other study but it would be easy for anyone interested to follow the Link to OJs website to look at this if they required further information - it seem counter intuitive to cite them directly as they are simply part of Ojs argument - and are also not wiki compliant. Its just a draft and would need "cleaning-up" but states the case more accurately while removing the offending "paranormal" reference.

Hi Really and TG...would the use of TM-Sidhi Program including Yogic Flying be more appropriate than the a reference to the maharishi effect... the paragraph would read... "David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management (at which all students and faculty practice TM daily) who has researched Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi Program including Yogic Flying, cites studies by..." Really you mentioned that earler in the discussion "The NPOV issue - at least as far as you understand it - can only be addressed by re-including the Sidhu program in the article." I think this would address that point and be a more neutral and broader POV of OJ than refering to the ME. --Jack Lindin (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Also OJ is being referenced as an expert in Psychology...perhaps the paragraph should mention he is one...maybe " Psychologist David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management (at which all students and faculty practice TM daily) who has researched Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi Program including Yogic Flying, cites studies by..."--Jack Lindin (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack and Really, for trying to work through this. I very much appreciate it. I do think, though, that now that ScienceApologist is participating, it will make any changes exceedingly difficult. He has a huge reputation on Wikipedia and a large network of like-minded individuals. I'm inclined to leave things as they are for the time being. TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

TG: If its not "right" it's not "right" it should be revised. Re-reading my version now - in the clear light of day" The wording actually looks a tad "POV" - it wasn't meant to but the way it turned out - removely of "unashamedly pro" with something a tad more "nutreal". Anyway, it was only an idea. I'll leave it with you. Really2012back (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

New pictures

These pictures are now available: [5], [6], [7]. If ok for all I wolud insert [8]. --Josha52 (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

People who believe that this subject is scientific should not edit this article's section about science

This edit restores NPOV to the article over the objections of those who believe that this subject can magically affect the world in mechanistic ways science does not recognize. We must be clear that the people doing the "research" are obviously deluded and biased. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

SA, thanks for your opinion.(olive (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Recent additions to the religion section

I had reservations about two additions to the religion section in the Controversies section of the article. The first was the claim that the mantras are the names of deities. I don't believe the source for this information complies with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability since it's a self-published source. And the addition about the school in Antrim didn't make sense to me. It's not self evident, for example, that learning Sanskrit in a private school is a religious controversy. I would think that a source would need to be found that identifies it as a major controversy. If this school is to be included in the article, maybe there could be an entry in the External LInks section. TimidGuy (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New research

Ospina/Bond showed 2007 in a meta analysis that many of the studies on different meditation techniques are poor. this is relevant because they examined over 800 studies, and TM was one of the most studied issues. Now Anderson showed in a meta analysis using objective quality assessments and meta-analyses that TM significantly lowers high blood pressure Science Daily said that the Anderson study "reinforce an earlier study that found Transcendental Meditation produces a statistically significant reduction in high blood pressure that was not found with other forms of relaxation, meditation, biofeedback or stress management".

May be someone else would like to put this in the article (my english is not good enough). --Josha52 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)