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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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.

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.[1]) 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: [2], [3], [4]. If ok for all I wolud insert [5]. --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)

Thanks, Josha. I've sort of been wondering what to do about these metaanalyses. In addition to Ospina/Bond (which was discussed above as AHRQ), there have been two metaanalyses in Current Hypertension Reports in the past year or two. I suppose we could lump them all into one sentence. AHRQ, if I remember correctly, actually found that TM reduces hypertension about the same as health education. (The press reports weren't completely accurate in their characterization of the study. ) I wonder if this would make any sense to a general reader. TimidGuy (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Anderson metaanalyses is only about TM and therefore highly relevant. And as far as I understand it was made BECAUSE other metaanalses said that research on meditation in general is not very good so far. Anderson et.al. could show now that at least 9 studies on TM are very good, and they could show that from this rigorous point of view the blood pressure reduction of TM practitioners is highly significant.--Josha52 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It may indeed have been a response to AHRQ, as was the metaanalysis by Rainforth in December in Current Hypertension Reports. I do think Anderson is worthy of inclusion. I guess I've been ambivalent about mention of AHRQ because at least two of the peer reviewers recommended against its release in its current form. The peer review by Walach is especially damning.[6] Not only did he find methodological problems, but when he looked at a specific facet of the study in depth as a specimen he found many errors, such as coding errors and errors in recording data. TimidGuy (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The depth by which you are looking into these materials is marvellous. In regard to the german article I am wondering how far a WP author has to go ;-) Someone who is not skilled in scientific things would have no chance to write such an article in such a way :-( But I will follow your advice: Is it really important how the peers are structured? Or is it good enough *that* a study is peer reviewd to be a relevant and reliable source? Nevertheless: I’ll respect the standpoint of those who are doing the job here since so long; I am not so deep into the science matter. --Josha52 (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions

Per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS I've reverted recent additions to the article. Some material was inaccurate, such as that suggesting all the research has been done in-house. Other material cited sources that violate WP:SPS. And some material, such as about the Rajas, wasn't sourced at all, violating WP:NOR. Some of this could possibly be included, such as the Psychology Today article. But we'll need to discuss. The Raja material, if sourced, could be included in Global Country of World Peace, which is the Wikipedia article that talks about the "TM organization." The Beatles material repeats material in the article on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Further, we have consensus not to include the various celebrities who practice Transcendental Meditation and to keep this article focused just on the technique itself. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The information on the sidhis would go in the article on the TM-Sidhi program,which is a separate technique from TranscendentaL Meditation. A source would be needed so that it's not in violation of WP:NOR. TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

More Reasons to Question the Neutrality of this Article

The previous discussion acknowledges that most of the pro-TM research comes from within the TM community. This alone gives us reason to question the objectivity of the research. It should be assumed that any individual in any religious organization has an emotional investement in affirming his or her perception of positive outcome of the practices of their particular group. It should also be assumed that such individuals have an emotional investment in maintaining their social status within that group, and that furthermore, such standing is dependent on the approval of the group leader. In cults and religious organizations in general, the vested interest of the rank and file is typically divorced from whatever material interests may motivate the group leaders. The term "vested interest" does not refer exclusively to monetary interests, as TimidGuy seems to imply.

In general, it should be noted that scientific research is never entirely free of bias. Scientifc method merely ensures that bias will be kept to a minumum, most of the time. This is why research from a single source is never considered to be definitive, and why the pro-TM research, emanating as it does from a single source - the Maharishi University and affiliates, cannot be considered definitive. When we note that this organization has a history of duping respected medical journals, "The Maharishi Caper: Or How to Hoodwink Top Medical Journals" http://www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htm , we are justified in questioning the objectivity of the section on "Research in Medical journals".

The section on "Effects on the Physiology" relies heavily on outdated citations from the early 1970s, and on numerous "suggestions" drawn from an article that has been refuted in "The influence of meditation versus rest on physiological arousal: a second examination", pp. 81-103 David S. Holmes http://www.adolphus.nl/xcrpts/xcwest.html .

A quick Google search on the term "Maharishi Effect" or "Transcendental Meditation" reveals dozens of instances of peer reviewed research documenting negative effects of Transcendental Meditation. A quick review of this information shows that most of the negative reports come from people who do not have a vested interest in promoting the TM organization. One of the first such sites we come across is Behind the TM Facade, a site included in the links at the bottom of the Wiki article. One wonders if the author of this article even bothered to look at this site. Its overview of scientific documentation is divided into subsections on Research Abstracts, Altering Biochemistry, and the Serotonin Model, containing dozens of studies questioning the physiological benefits alleged in the "Effects on the Physiology" section. Furthermore, much of this material documents clinically measurable physiological damage. (The Personal Stories section, while interesting, is not considered scientific, consisting as it does of testimonials.) A balanced discussion requires a look at this material. Instead, this article gives more weight to the suggestions and unsubstantiated claims in favour of the pro-TM bias, while giving merely a cursory nod to the negative studies.

If the authors of this article have any scientific credentials for asserting an opinion on the studies cited here, readers have a right to know what those qualifications are. Until then, I would rely on the opinions of people such as Dr. Herbert Benson, director emeritus of the Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, who pratices TM. (Medicine is not a science, it's an empiric practice). In a recent NYTimes article, he stated that the claims of TM are unproven http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/22peace.html .

If you are going to drag science in to support claims of the paranormal, then you have an obligation to show in what way your science is relevant to the claims purported. This article, on the other hand, is merely a collection of citations which the authors have found favourable to their point of view, while ignoring a wealth of counterveiling evidence.

When we see that James Randi's attempts to verify claims of the Maharishi Effect on lowered crime rates in nearby communities showed that such claims could not in fact be verified by empirical evidence, we are entitled to view the TM research with a huge grain of salt. We are also entitled to ask why the crime rate at the Maharishi's University does not seem to support TM's claims http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/02/usa.theobserver. Yet the wiki article merely mentions these incidents in passing.

And why would we bother with meditation when the Maharishi himself definitively claims, in this Larry King interview, that all we need for personal change is the intention to change http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/12/lklw.00.html ? George Orwell once suggested, in a discussion of Ghandi, that a saint should be judged guilty until proven innocent. I think this transcript shows that such advice should be applied equally to the Maharishi. Just look at his slanderous comment on the medical profession, which suggests that they are all in it for the money and are therfore all corrupt! (I'm new to this wiki thing. I may have put this in the wrong section)ermadogErmadog (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Please understand that Google isn't a good resource for investigating research on Transcendental Meditation. Personal web sites put online by ideological opponents greatly skew and misrepresent the research. You'd get a much truer picture by using a medical index. Which would also reveal that the research on Transcendental Meditation is more broadly based than you characterize. TimidGuy (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you expect me to keep a civil tone in my discourse with you, you will have to drop your condescending tone. Your suggestion that I learn how to perform good research is uncalled for, demonstrates bad faith on your part and abnegates any obligation on my part to be civil with you. You should also drop the ad hominem attacks on "ideological opponents" and learn to adress the actual controversies.

Your suggestion that a medical index would somehow produce a "truer" picture of the current state of TM research indicates that you have failed to take my point that medicine is an empiric practice, not a science. It also indicates that you are unaware of the history of fads and quackery in medicine's checkered past, and of TM's demonstrated fraud in this reguard. It also suggests that Dr. Herbert Benson, mentioned above, has either failed to keep current with the salient research in his field, has read it but failed to understand it, or has read it but is lying about it in order to keep his job. It also begs the question: why would you consider the medical field to be authoritative when the Maharishi has characterized it as corrupt? You think you're more enlightened than he is? Because you do more meditation than he does? Or because TM is not really as enlightening for the Maharishi as it is for others?

You have acknowledged in the discussion on the TM-Sidhi programme that, in fact, much of the research on which you rely is partisan - i.e., produced by persons associated with the TM movement. Now you are back to claiming that the research is more broadly based. So, which is it? And how exactly do you assess scientific claims? What are your science credentials?

My two salient points in this discussion are: 1. a balanced discussion requires that controversy be addressed, and not swept under the rug as you attempt to do; and 2. studies which "suggest" various physiological effects do nothing at all to establish the main claims of the TM movement, as stated in you article, that TM allows the practitioner to "connect with a field of unlimited potential" and attain a state of higher consciousness which can somehow be permanently maintained throughout mundane life.

Address these issues honestly and we can have a civil discussion. ermadogErmadog (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Ermadog, if I seemed condescending. I did think it was important to point out, though, that Wikipedia doesn't consider such web sites to be reliable sources -- and for that reason a Google web search isn't a good means of getting balanced information about the scientific research.

Also, you may want to be cautious about conflating Transcendental Meditation with the TM-Sidhi program. They are different techniques and there are different bodies of research associated with them. Research on Transcendental Meditation is broadly based. Research on the TM-Sidhi program/Maharishi Effect is, as far as I know, pretty much limited to Maharishi University of Management. Herbert Benson was commenting on the TM-Sidhi program/Maharishi Effect research. I don't think he'd make the same statement about research on Transcendental Meditation, some of which he himself conducted at Harvard.

Studies which "suggest" an effect are the most common. That's the language that scientists generally use. They don't typically say something is proven. I am unaware of any controversy regarding research on Transcendental Meditation that has been reported in mainstream media or in the scientific literature.

We did have a section on the research on higher states of consciousness in this article, but an editor deleted it without explanation. We could maybe put that back in. In fact, I think we had consensus to do so. I've deleted the phrase "field of unlimited potential." I do think that without any context that it indeed could be problematic. TimidGuy (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to know whether you are naive, disingenuous or downright fraudulent. The wiki standards on reliable sources state that information from blogs and forum posts are questionable because there is no way of verifying claims made in such such sites. This is overstating the case. Bloggers and posters sometimes do provide references, and when they do, these referrences can be checked. It is then possible to either cite the blog or post containing the referrence -- in order to show the discussion which arose around that referrence -- or to make direct use of the referrence itself.

The web sites to which I drew your attention, on the other hand, contain compendiums of extracts from independent, peer, reviewed research critical of TM and from mainstrem media sources. These sites are among the first hits that come up in a Google search. The fact that you are unaware of these studies indicates to me that you have not conducted the most basic, most readily available research into the criticisms of TM. You are making claims about TM which you expect the general public to find believable. You have an obligation to examine the criticisms and represent them in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, you expect us to dismiss these studies simply because extracts have appeared in web sites owned by "disgruntled" ex-cultists. This is disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst.

Are you seriously claiming that you are unaware of the Ospin/Bond meta-analysis mentioned by Josha52? From his discription, this analysis indicates that you need to throw out, or at least seriously reassess, all the pro-TM research from before 2007. (edit by ermadog: I forgot to sign this sentence when I added it before before)ermadogErmadog (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Did you bother to read the nytimes article on Benson? He did not make a distinction between TM and the Sidhi program. The article referrenced the Maharishi Effect, which you assert is an effect of TM. According to the Sidhi article, the Sidhi programme merely accelerates the benefits of TM. There is no mention of adding new benefits. I anyone is conflating TM with Sidhi, it is the Maharishi, according to the Sidhi article. Benson specifically states that there has been no independent study of this effect. Presumably, he is aware of his own research.

Reviews of scientific research typically describe an effect as having been "shown" or "demonstrated" if the experiment has indeed shown what it had been hoped would be shown. If the results are inconclusive but "promising", then ambiguous terms such as "suggested" are typically used. If the science you have been reviewing is predominanantly drawn from the social sciences and the medical field, it is no wonder you are somewhat confused. The standards for inclusion in these publications is much lower than for the fields of natural science - see Victor Stenger's "Bioenergetic Fields" in "The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine," Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring/Summer 1999. This article refutes the life force concept which is the basis of the entire Ayurvedic so-called science.

I've just found another list of anti-TM studies. You've actually studied them? You know that they are all flawed? http://www.bswa.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=DESC&topic_id=3059&forum=2 And your judgement is based on what scientific credentials?

You have still failed to show how your studies, if proven to be valid science, somehow actually proves that TM is a valid means of achieving higher consciousness. Since a belief in this claim does require a leap of faith, then TM must be classifiesd as a religious practice, and can validly be regarded as a form of stealth religion. ermadog207.34.100.40 (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A search in a standard medical index finds over 250 studies on Transcendental Meditation. Those studies generally show that Transcendental Meditation has beneficial effects on mind and body. I am vaguely familiar with the handful of studies that are typically listed on attack sites. I glanced at the link you mentioned and the first study that popped out was Otis, which I'm somewhat familiar with. The attack sites usually list this study and don't generally mention that it wasn't peer reviewed. As I've noted, they greatly skew things and it's hard to get an accurate picture of the research from them. I'm somewhat familiar with Ospin/Bond -- and with the problems that the peer reviewers found, which is why at least two of the 10 peer reviewers recommended that it not be released. Their metaanalysis found, if I remember correctly, that Transcendental Meditation does reduce hypertension about the same as health education (teaching people to use diet and exercise to control hypertension). I did skim the NY Times article that mentions Benson. I got the distinct impression that the context was a discussion of the Maharishi Effect, which is hypothesized to be associated with group practice of the TM-Sidhi program. All of the published peer-reviewed studies of this effect are studies of group practice of the TM-Sidhi program.

I believe that the research section in this article is generally representative of the range of findings, positive and negative. If we mention every negative study, then we'd also want to mention every one of the hundreds of positive studies. By the way, there have been several metaanalyses in the past couple years in addition to Ospin/Bond, and they state that Transcendental Meditation is an effective treatment for hypertension. The most recent was in March by researchers at the University of Kentucky and published in the American Journal of Hypertension.

I hope I've addressed some of your points. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious! Quantity trumps quality? You must be joking! Since you obviously failed to take note the lower standards of science found in medical journals which I referrenced earlier, here is Stenger's discussion

"In my field of particle physics, reputable journals such as Physical Review Letters will not publish any claim of a new phenomenon, such as evidence for the top quark or the mass of the neutrino, unless the data have a "significance level" of 10-4 or less. This means that if the same experiment were repeated 10,000 times, the reported effect would have been produced artifactually, as a statistical fluctuation or systematic error, no more than once on average.

In medicine, and related fields such as psychology and pharmacology, and in the social sciences as well, the significance level for publication in the best journals is typically five percent. That is, the experiment need only be repeated twenty times, on average, to have the reported effect not be real but to result from an artifact of the experiment. This means that every twentieth paper you read could be a fluke, although many, of course, exceed the significance threshold and so the fraction of reliable results is probably, thankfully, much greater.

This very loose criterion in the human sciences is justified by the very reasonable argument that any new result should be put to use as soon as possible in case it may save lives. Indeed, medical researchers are placed under pressures, unheard of in the rest of science, to make their results available well before they can be confirmed by criteria and procedures that are quite conventional in other disciplines. Also, in many cases this is perhaps the best that can be done, given the greater complexity of the human body or human social systems compared to the typical systems studied in physics. Still, it might do well for the human disciplines to tighten up a bit. They will avoid much confusion, and very likely make better progress, as fewer researchers waste time and money following blind alleys that are suggested by research already "published in peer-reviewed journals."

We might ask: What criterion should be applied to those studies that claim to show some therapy works, when that therapy violates well established scientific principles, such as the conventional laws of physics? For example, should we publish an experiment that indicates Therapeutic Touch works where the significance level is five percent? I argue that we should not. Given the difficulty of accurately estimating errors in any human experiment, any such claims are far more likely to be wrong than one in twenty. One in one are more likely to be wrong.

I am not advocating censorship - just tighter standards to apply for any extraordinary claim, in physics and medicine. When the significance level for bioenergetic fields reaches 0.01 percent, that is, one in ten thousand chances for an artifact, then publish away and watch physicists scramble for an alternative to their conventional theories of matter.

If bioenergetic fields exist, then some two hundred years of physics, chemistry, and biology has to be re-evaluated. I would insist that any experiment claiming their existence be forced to obey the same criteria that particle physicists and other forefront researchers must obey, a significance level of one part in ten thousand rather than one part in twenty. It is one thing to publish a low significance result that does not violate known principles; it is another to publish one that forces science to undergo a paradigm-shift and redirect the limited resources of research to areas that are extremely unlikely to produce any pay-off.

Much of alternative medicine is based on claims that violate well established scientific principles. Those that require the existence of a bioenergetic field, whether therapeutic touch or acupuncture, should be asked to meet the same criteria as anyone else who claims a phenomenon whose existence goes beyond established science. They have an enormous burden of proof, and it is time that society laid it on their thin shoulders."

Since the Wiki audience is a general public with varying degrees of scientific literacy, you have an obligation to note that the significance of your cited findings has not been established.

Your continued disingenuousness in the matter of negative studies on TM is bordering on the fraudulent. You first insist that all of these studies must be flawed because they are published on the personal web sites of ex-TM practitioners. By that criteria, you must exclude studies conducted by persons who were practicing TM when they conducted their studies. Can you verify that all of the studies yuo cite meet this criteria? No, you can't. You cite Orme-Johnson's "rebuttal" of no-effect studies. Not only is he himself a practitioner of TM, he presents flawed critiques. A few of the critiques I looked at offer no referrences to check.

Now that I have forced you to actually take a look at some studies, you have taken a cursory look at one study referrenced on one site. You see that it is flawed and you grandiosely announce that it appears on a lot of ant-TM web sites implying, intentionally I assume, to indicate that all of the studies are similarly flawed. This is a logical fallacy known as "guilt by association" http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm .

As for the Ospina/Bond study, it as been published in a peer review journal. Up to now, this has been your sole criteria for determining whether a pro-TM study is worthy of mention. It is one the most recent, and therefore most up-to-date evaluation of meditation studies. If you wish, you could include this caveat included in the study ' "This report's conclusions shouldn't be taken as a sign that meditation doesn't work," Bond says'. http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8572 ermadog207.34.100.40 (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that you have no understanding of how to evaluate science claims in order to present a balanced overview of the current state of research. The most you can do is include a general statement to the effect that studies have appeared in peer review journals indicating some measurable physiological effects commonly associated with relaxation, and that there have also been peer reviewed studies questioning the validity of many such studies. Your referrences should be included in a "For Further Reading" section, rather than in the referrence section. When you include citations in the body of the article, you give them an appearance of undue weight. ermadogErmadog (talk)

I don't see how Stenger's analysis applies, since Transcendental Meditation doesn't entail bioenergetic fields. It isn't "based on claims that violate well established scientific principles." Note that you are putting words in my mouth, claiming that I've said things that I haven't said. Also, you didn't force me to look at any studies. I've glanced at them in the past, and am most familiar with the problematic studies that have been previously discussed here such as the so-called German study and Otis. I was surprised to hear that Ospin/Bond was published in a peer reviewed journal. Can you tell me which journal? Regarding this research section as a whole, I believe that it conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your continued dishonesty in our discussions abnegates any responsibility I might have to treat you with any civility at all. This will be my last communication with you. For the record:

1. If you re-read the Stenger citation, you will see that he compares the scientific standards in medicine and the social sciences in general with those in the natural sciences. His remarks in that reguard apply to most of the peer review journals you tout so highly. If I took some time, I could dig up countless citations from other scientists in confirmation.In general, if you are relying on the publication in a peer review journal to establish the validity of any study, you are committing a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

2. "Glancing" at a few of the reports does not at all qualify as an indepth review. If you do not have the time to review each and every negative report on the various web sites -- a daunting task, to be sure, which I do not expect you to undertake -- you are not qualified to represent the other side in any way. You have an obligation to look for an authoritative study of these studies and to cite that. Failing that, you have an obligation to give citations from the other side as much weight as you give to your side. Failing that, you have an ogbligation to add a qualifier to the science section to the effect that "The significance of these studies has not been established. The exact role of the various physiological phenomenon in relaxation has not yet been established."

3. Nowhere did I draw your attention to the German study, nor the Otis study. To imply that I did is to put words in my mouth. I did draw your attention to the Holmes study, and to the collection of studies cited at the Behind the TM Facade website, which you choose to ignore. If you are implying that these studies must be flawed because the others might be, you are, as I pointed out before, committing a logical fallacy known as guilt by association.

4. I do have to apologize on one point. The link to which I referred you for the Ospina/Bond study says it has been published, but does not specifically state it was in a peer review journal. Nonetheless, reports have appeared in mainstream media, and in the pubmed public http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17764203 database qualifying it for inclusion according to Wiki guidelines. The minority who recommended it not be published have been overruled.

If you find yourself unable to respond in a reasonable fashion, you are inviting edit wars. ermadogErmadog (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I still don't think Stenger is relevant to this article. Dismissing all medical research is an extreme position. Under Wikipedia policy, this peer-reviewed research being cited meets the highest standard for inclusion. I believe that wikipedia policy on neutral point of view would require that relative weight be determined by the relative weight in the scientific literature. I didn't say that you drew my attention to the Otis and German studies. I said that they had been previously discussed on this Talk page. Ospina Bond was a report released by the government. I doubt it would pass peer review in a scientific journal. But in any case, it says Transcendental Meditation lowers blood pressure. The only dispute is how much. This peer review found that there were many errors in their assessment of the Transcendental Meditation studies that skewed their evaluation.[7] Two subsequent metaanalyses, both of which cite at least one study published subsequent to the Ospina Bond survey, also found that Transcendental Meditation lowers blood pressure. And there was an additional metaanlysis about a year and a half ago.

The website Behind the TM Facade is very misleading. The Otis study wasn't peer reviewed. The German study wasn't published in an academic journal and wasn't scientific. Some of the studies cited aren't even about Transcendental Meditation. By the way, the recent metaanlysis of randomized controlled trials on hypertension by the researchers at the University of Kentucky comments on the anecdotal reports of negative psychological effects: "The anecdotal reports of adverse psychological effects30 or increased seizures30 have not been documented in randomized controlled trials. Two of the randomized controlled trials in this review5,13 indicated that psychological function was improved with Transcendental Meditation, while another study6 collected information but did not mention differences in side effects between groups. Rigorous analyses of available data suggest that Transcendental Meditation tends to decrease anxiety and have other psychological benefits.31–33 Further analyses are required to assess these effects." TimidGuy (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Another comment about Behind the TM Facade and the manner in which it misleads people. It says Kropinski was awarded $138,000 in his lawsuit but doesn't tell you that this award was overturned by the appellate court. TimidGuy (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a similar discussion in the German Wikipedia. TM is just very effective in giving themselve a scientific appearance. I recommend you to read this Artical from Social forces by Barry Markovsky. [8] 62.214.210.53 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Markovsky is critiquing a study published in Yale's Journal of Conflict Resolution that looked at the Maharishi Effect, which is hypothesized to be associated with group practice of the TM-Sidhi program. The Maharishi Effect is covered in the Wikipedia article on the TM-Sidhi program, which is a different mental technique from Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OR

There is no attempt in this article to prove TM is a means of attaining higher states of consciouseness nor should there be. Such a supposition and the additional research to support the idea would constitute OR and is a Wikipedia no,no. The format here is to lay out how TM describes itself. If there is a source and there is, that says TM proponents believe higher states are achived that can be added . If there are reliable, verifiable sources that say something else that can be added.(olive (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Additionally, attempting to prove TM is a religion is also OR. There are those who believe this is so and they have been mentioned . There are those who believe the opposite and they have been added as both additions are from reliable sources.(olive (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

The article quite clearly states that the TM technique does not require faith. Yet, a belief in the possibility of one of its goals -- the attainment of a higher state of consciousness -- does require a leap of faith. If this article is going to referrence the Maharishis's claims on this point, it must clarify the terms "consciousness" and "higher consciousness". It must referrence his explanaition of how TM induces this state. His "theory of consciousness" as stated in the article is not a theory at all but a hypthetical model of seven putative forms of consciousness arrayed in an arbitrary hierarchy, one which is at variance with numerous other models proposed by various modern psychologists (all such models are in my opinion pretty arbitrary).

There is no attempt to clarify these points. Instead, a variety of spurious studies on the physiological effects of TM are mentioned with no explanation of their purpose in this article. Further down, TM is discussed as a relaxation technique. The overall impression is that all of these disparate issues are somehow related.

This is a recognized technique in pseudoscience, con artistry, and outright fraud: present an ambiguous claim, introduce some irrelevant science, add in a sort of reasonable sounding claim and present the whole thing as a unified whole.

The section on Relationship to Religion and Spirituality should emphasize that the use of TM as a relaxation technique -- a goal not included in the Maharishi's claim -- does not require religious or spiritual belief.

The Maharishi's claim, of course, constitutes OR (I assume OR means Original Research) because it is admittedly based on his own interpretation of Vedic scripture and is not backed up by scientific research. ermadog207.34.100.40 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be okay with removing the paragraph on higher states of consciousness from the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OR is something different than the kind of original research you are discussing here. The talk page is the place to discuss the article and opinions on the article . Opinion, as well as attempting to present proof for a hypothesis are not encyclopedic, or appropriate in Wikapedia articles, although of course perfectly acceptable in a research context . The sections you mention may seem unrelated in terms of proving a point . They are, however, not meant to prove a point ....WP:OR, but are instead the accumulated knowledge gleaned from reliable WP:R, verifiable, WP:V sources. Whether Mahrishi's claims are opinion, experience, or whatever, again has no place in the article in that we are merely stating what he has said about the technique, its effects, and so on, but cannot in Wikipedia do other than present the information and the references.

Note that the section on religion and spirituality makes reference to a source that discusses the use of TM as a technique for relaxation and as a spiritual technique, very different than a religious technique. The article was in the past much longer than it is now but was trimmed considerably over time as per the agreement of many editors, so the references and information in many areas have been shortened and made to be, to the point.(olive (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

I have removed the section on "Higher States". However, the article now, does not say anything about goals of this meditation technique , so I wouldl like to add something like that, but in simple laymen's langauge, later today(olive (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

If you reread the comments to which you are responding, you will see that I am not talking about proof as such, I am talking about the appearance of connectedness. I have no problem with the idea of meditation as a relaxation technique. What I have problems with are sloppy science and sloppy reasoning. If you re-include remarks about higher consciousness in the goals section, the science citations appear to be intended to support those goals in some unspoken, fuzzy manner. Since New Age woowoo queens do have a track record of using unspoken inferrence as a rhetorical device, you need to be very clear about your presentation of your material. An example is the introduction in the section on religion and spirituality. You quote that the TM movement states "the Transcendental Meditation technique does not require faith, belief, or a change in lifestyle to be effective". This is a bit weasily. The term "effective" needs to be qualified with "as a relaxation technique". To leave it unqualified suggests that it is effective in achieving the goals stated by the TM movement which do include unverifiable claims reguarding spirituality and consciousness. ermadogErmadog (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good suggestion. There has been extensive research on Transcendental Consciousness and maybe about a half dozen studies on subjects experiencing higher states of consciousness, but while the research shows unique physiological and psychological markers associated with these states, it doesn't actually specifically use this terminology when looking at higher states. So it could be referenced in this article but couldn't explicitly be tied to higher states. For now, I like Ermadog's suggestion and the simpler focus. Will be eager to hear what Olive or anyone else thinks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is measnt by simpler focus. I think it would be fine to add a qualifier to "effective". I want to mention that our job on this articlee is to present the information on TM that is availavble in a balanced way . Part of that is how the TM organization defines itself, and it is appropriate and important to include this information. To assume that what TM says it is is actuall what it is would be be to misunderstand the encyclopedic position on information which does not include creating original Research on the article itself, nor does it support the synthesis of material to prove some point or other . I might add for Ermadog's point of reference that this article was co-written by multiple editors many of whom do not support the Transcendental Meditation technique and its related programs. To assume this article was written by TM people would be inaccurate.(olive (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

In what way are these editors qualified to assess the science involved? ermadogErmadog (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They are qualified in the way that any editor is qualified to edit on Wikipedia. No on echecks to see who is doing what or what their credentials are. That is not the nature of this project . Although you might consider yourself qualified to edit here, what if a physicist comes along and says hey, I'm more qualified than you are, push off. Well, that just isn't the nature of this encyclopedia. Although one might have concerns with such a system, still what makes a collaborative project work is the awareness that all have a right to edit here, and all must be respected for whatever they bring to an article . That is true civility, a Wikipedia fundamental policy. There is also no way of judging the expertise of even those educated in a field. There are editors who although not formally educated seem to be more knowledgable than the educated editors . It is, however, truly impossible to make those judgement calls, so we don't . As for the editors who edited this article, some were scientists, amd others were those who were interested in either a positive or negative way and wanted input. That's the nature of Wikipdia.(olive (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Under the Procedure and Goals section, I would be happy with something along the lines of "As conceived by the Maharishi, the technique was originally intended to help the practitioner achieve what he called "a higher state of consciousness". However, it has also been accepted as a relaxation technique by those uninterested in the religious aspect." This generic description of the non-religious aspect would, of course, be supported by citations already in the other sections. There should be no attempt to define what is meant by "higher state of consciousness" because that could easily spin off into a whole new page of its own. For instance, this overview of current research suggests that we should be talking about "broader consciousness" rather than "higher conscsiousness", which corresponsd more accurately with the ancient concept of "the oceanic feeling" http://discovermagazine.com/2006/dec/god-experiments. I am suggestiong that we avoid definition entirely. You could provide a link to some place where the Maharishi defines his term.

In the business world, the evaluation of a candidate's suitability for employment are based in part on his proven track record. In some instances, this might even superscede his academic qualifications in importance. In the scientific world, a scientist is judged not only by his academic qualifications, but also by his track record, as measured by frequency and quality of publications, by how extensively his research has been used by others to produce measurable results, and by quantity and quality of whatever technology that may have been arisen from that research. Only after all these factors (and probably more) have been taken into account can his authority on a particular point be assessed.

The science citations currently in the article present a subtle picture of POV. They are weighted in favour of a general idea that science somehow supports the idea that TM can be a usefull relaxation technique. Positive reports are given considerable discussion, negative reports are mentioned in passing. The reader has no way of knowing how representaive a picture has been presented. The suspicion of cherrypicking of evidence is merited. Having read the discussion page here and on the TM-Sidhi page, I am aware that timidguy is confused on the matter of bias and has been accused of editing out neutral findings. My questions to him have been designed to gain an understanding from him as to how well he currently understands objective assessment of scientific claims. My conclusion is that he does not have this understanding. He is therefore not qualified to discuss these claims, but only to mention them and provide referrences. Since no one here seems qualified to do the requisite assessment, I would be satisfied with a simple disclaimer to the effect that "the significance of these findings has not been established." ermadogErmadog (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Transcendetal Meditation technique had been studied extensivley . There over 150 peer reviewed publications in respected publications. As far as Wikipedia goes that is criteria for inclusion . There are many less publications that demonstrate the negative aspects of the technique. The ratio of the positive research to the negative research must be reflected in this article as per WP: Weight, as it is. Where the positions reversed the ratio also would have to be reversed. I think it is possible to add qualifiers as you suggest, as long as they do not constitute a synthesis of material or OR. That's something that can be looked at. As I said concerning your concerns about who edits this article , editors are seldom in postion to judge any other editor as you have TimidGuy, and I would mention that your continued accusatory comments, greatly lacking in civilty, concerning his truthfulness violates WP:CIVILITY, and I unfortunately, would feel forced to report them and you, if they continue.(olive (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Ermadog, given your tone and your accusations, and the barrage of discussion, it's been hard to glean your point. And maybe that's partly my fault, since I'm busy with other things. But I think you stated it effectively, concisely, and clearly above -- how does one know that this article gives a representative picture? It's a crucial question. And of course it's a matter of judgment. My argument has been that a good way to get an idea is to do a search in medical or science index. This is completely neutral. It has the disadvantage of not giving any indication of which journals are the more established. But it can give a quick snapshot. And often the title, and in every case the abstract, will tell you how well controlled the study was -- which is one way of determining quality (along with number of subjects, etc.). Generally peer reviewed journals are accorded much more respect than those that aren't peer reviewed. As you know, peer review generally means that an article submitted for publication is evaluated blindly by at least two experts in the field. (Blindly means that the peer reviewer doesn't know who the author is, such that there will be no favoritism.) Most of the journals indexed in Pubmed are peer reviewed. It reports over 260 studies on Transcendental Meditation. Beyond peer review, research design can also be an indication of quality. What we're looking for is how well one can establish causality. There are many research designs for establishing causality, generally using a control group, as you likely know. And as you probably know, one of the most respected designs (and one of the most difficult and expensive) is a randomized controlled trial. I think there have been a couple dozen randomized controlled trials on Transcendental Meditation in the past 15 years. This goes a long way toward establishing causality. And if the studies show varying results, as is common in science, one can then do a metaanalysis -- an extremely statistically complicated method of correlating the results. Some feel that this is the grail of research. Others feel that metaanalyses can easily be manipulated by arbitrary exclusion criteria.

So with Transcendental Meditation, we have over 200 peer reviewed studies, we have randomized controlled trials, and we have metaanlyses. As the Kentucky study noted, there are no randomized controlled trials showing negative psychological outcomes. If there are peer reviewed studies showing negative effects, it can't be more than a few. Certainly we know that all of the studies listed on Behind the Facade haven't met this standard. And of course there are no metaanlyses of randomized controlled trials.

Another indicator of how representative it is could be its treatment in the mainstream media. If you do a search in Google News Archives on the hypertension research (which is one small part of the research on Transcendental Meditation), it returns over 600 media reports in mainstream publications[9]. None of these suggest that somehow this research is misleading or not representative of the research on Transcendental Meditation. Anyway, hope this helps. I really do need to get back to work. I've already spent way too much time here today. But I wish I could spend more. This is an important discussion, and I think your questions and comments are sincere. TimidGuy (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you TimidGuy. My concern is with the impression made by any science claims on a public whose understanding of scientific method is questionable. My concern arises from my own experience in trying to assess, as a general reader, science claims as made available from a wide variety of sources available to the general reader such as reports in mainstream media as well as in specialized media such as publications promoting alternative medicine, as well as various sceptic publications. My interests are eclectic and not specialized. I am not able to assess the actual science involved, but merely the appearance to the general public. In general, the public tends to assign equal weight to all scientific pronouncements in general. In reality, equal weight is not merited. An initial report in a peer review journal is of very little significance. All it does is alert the relevant research community that there appears to be a phenomenon here that might be worthy of further studies. Any follow-up studies would carry much more weight in the scientific community. In the Research in Medical journals section, the 18 year study mentioned in the second paragraph would seem to carry more weight than the shorter studies. However, it is a study of only 202 people. How significant is that when compared with the 10,000 instances required in the natural sciences, as mentioned in the Stenger quote I provided earlier?

Likewise, the fact that there are very few studies reporting negative effects does not mean very much. It could mean that few people found the more positive reports to be of sufficient interest to warrant further study. Or it could mean that no one has as yet figured out how to devise a competent study of the falsifiablity of the alleged phenomenon. In the wiki guidelines on consensus, silence is taken to mean consent. In the scientific community, silence on peer review findings could mean indifference or lack of funding.

The Kentucky meta analysis referrenced in the last sentence of the Research in Medical Journals section analysed only 9 studies. How significant is that? Likewise the statistics quoted are not placed in any context. The general public has no way of knowing how significant a drop of 4.7 mm HG in systolic blood pressure is. If you can't provide context, drop the statistics.

From my reading on brain blood chemistry associated with antidepressants used to treat insomnia, I recognize that the elements cited do play a role in depression, but that these roles are generally not all that well understood, especially as they all interact with many other such elements in the brain many of which are not well understood. Until this picture is better understood, any effect of TM on any of these elements, if proven, cannot be properly assessed. The study cited in the last sentence of this paragraph is one of short-term duration -- four months -- and is therefore of very little value.

Any studies conducted on women or minorities is naturally suspect in view of medicine's questionable history in these areas. The Tuskegee study, now completely discredited http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/library/wdc-lib/historical/medical_history/bad_blood/ , is one of the most notorious in this regard. Studies of women and minorities must be handled with extra care. Can you show that such care was used in the study reported in the Hypertension journal?

The above is just a small sample of the many concerns I would raise if I were to do a detailed assessment of this article. The overall appearance is that studies of dubious significance -- short term, small samples -- have been used to pad the article, giving a general appearance that, in layman's terms, "science says TM is good for relaxation." This sentence is not intended to be accusatory; I'm just telling you how the situation appears to me. I have no idea what your intentions were, that is why I questioned your competence. Your claim that TM has been studied extensively is just not warranted by the evidence cited in the article.

There is also no way of knowing how TM compares with other forms of meditation and relaxation, based on the presentation in this article. ermadog207.34.100.40 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Olive. I usually don't respond to personal attacks on my "lack of civility" because I consider them to be diversionary tactics intended to derail discussion of the actual discussion. Such attacks create "stress" and "hostility" in me; but I usually don't go whining to the moderators about it unless the attacks are very serious. when I invited you to substantiate your accusations on the TM-Sidhi programme discussion page, you declined to do so. According to the Wiki policy on consensus, your silence means consent on your part -- you are agreeing that you cannot substantiate your charges. ermdog207.34.100.40 (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved discussion. Response on my talk page.(olive (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Ermadog, I don't have much time at the moment. But I wanted to just make a couple comments regarding the significance of the research. In general, a randomized controlled study with over 120 subjects is about as good as it gets in medical research. Also, in medical studies of behavior interventions, the norm is about a six-week study. This is because it's often difficult to get subjects to comply for a longer period than that. By way of contrast, the studies on Transcendental Meditation have typically been 4 or 6 months, which period is usually characterized in the literature as a long-term study. That these studies have been published in top medical journals and have been widely reported by the major national media shows that they are taken seriously. The New York Times ignores most journals and most lesser studies. This article simply reflects Transcendental Meditation as its been reported in the scientific literature and in the mainstream national media. This is what Wikpedia does. These two broad areas of sources which are accepted as sources in Wikipedia indicate that Transcendental Meditation has specific effects on mind and body.

Regarding some of your other points, a metaanlysis in December in Current Hypertension Reports found that Transcendental Meditation is more effective at reducing hypertension than other relaxation techniques. Also, a metaanlysis of nine randomized controlled studies is highly significant. Such randomized controlled studies with over 100 subjects are rare. Having nine that met the initial inclusion criterion is significant. The Kentucky study itself summarizes how significant this particular blood pressure reduction is. If we add this metaanalysis to the article, we can quote that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:57, 28

April 2008 (UTC)

Article and Neutrality

The article ist really in a poor condition, I recommend you to translate the German article that is far better. 62.214.210.53 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article does not even tell me what Transcendental Meditation is. 70.254.3.19 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What about health dangers! Seriously, look those up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.124.246 (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Posting new material here for discussion

An anonymous IP added the following, which I feel bears discussion:

Transcendental Meditation, scientifically, is a dissociative trance state, one that increases suggestibility. Students at Maharishi University globally attend what is known as "Forest Academy," a course in which students are instructed to practice meditation as many as four times daily, while watching tapes of Maharishi and his philosophies. It has been alleged that this is a form of mind control. The language Maharishi uses is what is known as "Trance Logic," A repetitive, circular way of speaking that postulates upon initial statements, easily accepted by the suggestible brain.

If we say that something is scientific, we should cite research that says so. I don't recall having seen research on this. The most recent metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials said that these trials don't show any negative psychological effects and that they do show psychological benefits. We would also need a source for the Forest Academy information. The article already says that Transcendental Meditation is a form of mind control in the cult section. If we want to add this additional information, we'd need a source. TimidGuy (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Course fee has been reduced

As documented at [10], the course fee for TM instruction in the USA has been reduced to $2000, with additional reductions for students and family members. The article still states (as of this date) that the course fee is $2500. David (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David . I was aware of this awhile ago but there were no sources at that point. Nice to have a source so that information can be added to the article.(olive (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC))

Recent addition to physiology section

Moving new material here for discussion:

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

and its publication precedes some of the most significant research.

---

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

---

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

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

In general, I feel your additions, as they currently stand, may not be in accord with Wikipedia policy. I feel your treatment of Canter & Ernst is a violation of undue weight. It can be added, but it's a violation of undue weight to not put it in the context of the of other research, reviews and metaanalyses. (And it should go in the proper section in this article.) In addition to Anderson, recent studies include a metaanalysis in Current Hypertension Reports [11] and a review in Current Hypertension Reviews.[12] If you feel that the Anderson metaanalysis isn't credible because of methodology, you would need, per Wikipedia policy, to find a source that says this. This metaanlaysis was published in a top medical journal, so it must have some merit. Also, if we include Canter & Ernst, we would need to include information from the response that was published (which, for example, noted their own biases). A metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials is considered a high-quality assessment in this Wikipedia page.Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Reliable_sources#Assess_the_quality_of_evidence_available In sum, giving Canter & Ernst so much weight out of context isn't really appropriate. You can't cherry pick a review that has a strong point of view and not put it in context of the other literature, per Wikipedia policy.

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

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

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

---

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

Next steps on physiology section

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

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

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

Moved here for editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restored NSR Meditation footnote

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

References on NSR Meditation

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

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

Large deletions on a contentious article without discussion

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

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

Deletion of Orme-Johnson links and material

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

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

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

From discussion page: Olive and Naturzak

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

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

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

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

Naturzak. Your comments from my user Talk page are inappropriate.[13] You threatened to take this to Arbitration and I suggested you do Do not twist my words making it look as if I made this suggestion. You also have accused me of having an established reputation as a wiki lawyer. I consider this comment to be an incivility. In future if you wish to make these kinds of comments do it here in front of the whole community. I will no longer discuss this on my talk page. Further your deletion of the Orme-Johnson material has been discussed extensively in the past. Please note the archives. I will as well be checking all of your changes since you made many in a short period of time on a contentious article without discussion.(olive (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orne-Johnson's opinion may constitute and expert opinion given his publication record; however, what is at dispute here is if individuals other than Orne-Johnson and a few of his collaborators can reproduce any of the claims he's made. Biased expert opinion is worthless.

Third Opinion

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

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

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

Possible revisions as per outside opinions: Work space

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

Text in place now:

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

Possible changes to text are in "bold":

According to Orme–Johnson cult followers are allegedly said to operate on blind faith and adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, while these studies would indicate the ability of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments.[53]

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

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