Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Moved School Programs Section

I have moved the School Programs section out of the Reception section. I have left the lawsuit in the Reception section but his could be moved up also, depending on what other editors think.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why we'd have the teaching in the schools, and the lawsuit concerning that teaching, split across the article. The two things are directly related.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have also removed the section title "Reception" and made "Relationship to Religion and Spirituality" its own section. I don't see any sense in having a section with only one sub heading. If more topics related to Reception are added later we can re-create the Reception heading as needed.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical Acceptance

Is this a possible secondary source that could be used to show acceptance by the medical community of Transcendental Meditation? http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/alerts/hypertension_stroke/JohnsHopkinsHealthAlertsHypertensionStroke_3159-1.html#read --Uncreated (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given this some thought, and thanks for the suggestion. It almost doesn't seem like we need to add something like this. The research speaks for itself, especially the publications by the AMA and the American Heart Association. Plus, one doesn't know whether that web page represents the views of Johns Hopkins. And we need to avoid starting to sound promotional: As endorsed by Johns Hopkins University. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

History section - technique vs. movement

In the expectation of a long discussion I'm starting a fresh thread to discuss the split between the history of the technique and the history of the movement. I've copied the existing text from this article to /History draft, and then I've bolded those parts which appear to me to concern the technique more than the organizations. So the unbolded material would be cut from this article, and the bolded material deleted from the TMM article. That's just a rough cut and the final versions in each article would need to be adapted further. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, you did a good job in your History Draft. I added bold to two more sentences. I don't think this will require all that much discussion, but I may be wrong.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either Will's or Kbob's version.... I think the two sentences Kbob bolded are borderline in the sense they could be about the movement or about the technique so either version would be accurate in my mind.(olive (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

It may be necessary to include some information in both articles, but we should try to minimize the duplication.   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

TM in schools

The Newsweek article about TM in schools is quite balanced. However, in taking info from the article we only represent one view. Seems like we could add sentence or two representing the other view. Also, seems like we could add a sentence on the research on that Detroit school. Also, this section on schools doesn't give the reasons why educators are introducing TM in the schools. We could add a sentence referencing this New York Times article. [1] This may help the balance in this section. As it is now, it just notes the use of TM in schools and then gives criticism of this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that this sentence "Lynn says that the Americans United for Separation of Church is keeping a close legal eye on the TM movement and that there are no imminent cases as of May 2008." has made its way back into the article. Wonder why it is here since it is clearly abut the TMM. Should it not be removed and placed in the TMM page? --BwB (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed this sentence "Lynn says that the Americans United for Separation of Church is keeping a close legal eye on the TM movement and that there are no imminent cases as of May 2008." --BwB (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While he does use the phrase "TM movement", the comment is clearly about the teaching of the TM technique in schools.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I removed this at one time. It doesn't really say anything in terms of the technique or the article for that manner except by some far reaching implication. Seems like just filler, and I would remove it again for that reason.(olive (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

That sentence doesn't really add anything. I agree wtih TG that the Newsweek article has other assertions that might be added.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Added a couple points. Should we consider moving the whole section to TM movement article? TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We discussed which article this material was best suited for in #Moving forward, above. My last thought on th matter was that it doesn't seem to concern any particular organizations, except perhaps the Lynch Foundation, so it was better suited for this article.   Will Beback  talk  16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Since TM Movement article also includes the educational aspects of the org. I would think that article should content on the schools should be included there as well as here. In some case there will have to be overlapping of content, I would think. (olive (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

There's no point in duplicating the same text in both articles. If we add a section on the Lynch Foundation to the TMM article then that would logically include a mention of their funding for TM training in schools.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have to use the same content. There 's a lot of information on the technique in the schools. I am concerned that we are introducing artificial delineations by attempting to decide if content goes in one place or the other when the information is really about both. Is the DLF a TM Movement org? ... I think its independent of the TM org although it does promote teaching of the technique. Maybe someone with more info could comment on that.(olive (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

The DLF is using MVED trademarks with permission, or as a sub-licensee.[2] Important figures in the movement, especially Hagelin, are on the board. The DLF's sole activity is the promotion of TM. I don't see how it could be viewed as outside of the TMM. The DLF is included in the template. If it isn't part of the movement then it should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes , but, Hagelin could be on the board of the Methodist Church and maybe he is too, but that doesn't make the Church TMM. I'm fine with its inclusion, but attempting top clarify a point.(olive (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

• If a further 1% can be persuaded to take up yogic flying in groups, world peace would follow, according to the Transcendental Meditation Movement, of which Lynch is the public face. [3]

If everyone on the board of a Methodist Church was a TM practitioner or official, and if that Methodist Church's official purpose was to promote TM, then it'd be reasonable to consider it a part of the TMM.   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a short section to the TMM article about the DLF.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this reasoning, actually. Some newspaper may say Lynch is the face of TM... but Lynch is a whole lot more than that... What we are coming up against is who defines what TM Movement means. I am defining it as one of the official programs or organizations which DLF is not. I don 't see it here [4]. You are categorizing and defining what TM Movement means. However. i'm quibbling so i'll back off. Lets see what others have to say. Thanks Will.(olive (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

Is this page the definition of the TMM? http://www.mum.edu/disclosures/copyright.html I don't see the Maharishi Foundation, Ltd., on that page either, but it's undoubtedly a part of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No Maharishi Foundation is not there since it is the entity which sub licenses to MVEDC rather than itself being a licensed program or organization.(olive (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

I have a question about that on the TMM talk page. Another entity not on the MUM list is Global Country of World Peace. Overall, I don't think that list is really useful for anything beyond its stated purpose - a list of trademarks licensed to the MVEDC.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Conference presentation

Someone added the conference presentation yesterday by Robert Schneider at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association. This is now being widely reported in the media. But is a conference presentation considered a reliable source? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This essay seems suggests that the abstracts of conferences are not reliable sources. [5]

I'm not familiar with the vetting procedure for conference presentations. Perhaps that would be the telling point. If presentations are juried before acceptance then there would be little or no difference than a publication... and the AHA is a reputable association.(olive (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Although news sources are not the best sources for medical studies and or reports, if this content is retained it should probably be worded to say that, the BBC has reported on a study presented at the 2009 AHA conference.(olive (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

With this additional article in Science NOW. [6] I would think this AHA presentation could be included, again, within context of the publication.(olive (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

In answer to the question of olive above, yes, most reputable scientific and medical conferences require peer review of their submitted abstracts. The approved ones are generally of high quality. This is far more scrutiny than most articles in the mainstream media receive. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

TM and MVAH

I see that TM has been connected to MVAH in the lede. However, we do not much about MVAH in the article. Is the lede not supposed to summarize the main points of the article, not just be a random collections of facts? --BwB (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll add more about the place of TM in the MVAH to the text of the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I created a short section to put the MVAH into context vis a vis TM.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Will. --BwB (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove Tags

I have removed the tags which were at the top of the article for many months. When I asked on this talk page a few weeks ago, "what needs to be done to correct the article and remove the tags?" The only request was for a section on the course fee for TM. We can continue that discussion but in the mean time I don't see why the tags have to remain as all editors said they were open to the idea of including something on the TM fees as long as there were reliable sources and it doesn't give a commercial feel to the article. If we continue that discussion, here is one more ref that we can add to the list we were accumulating. -- — Kbob • Talk • 04:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. --BwB (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, clicking on this last reference (2) gives me a newspaper page, but I couldn't find anything relevant to TM. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, it seems that the link has been updated to a different article. I'll see if I can find it. thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"NPOV" tags are perhaps among the most useless bits of text on Wikipedia. I'm less and less inclined to defend their use. That said, this article does not yet include all significant points of view on all issues, and so is technically out of compliance with WP:NPOV. Let's make sure that such tags are unnecessary.   Will Beback  talk  09:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The rub is in this word "significant." What is significant to one editor is not necessarily so to another. So the discussion goes on. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, how is it that every mention of literature on adverse effects of the practice of TM has been excised from the article? The paragraph that used to be here is still in Research_studies_on_the_applications_of_Transcendental_Meditation#Studies_on_adverse_effects_of_Meditation but not one word here. Not even a cross-reference. Interesting. Also, all mention of the German study is gone. Even the TM Movement acknowledges that some people suffer adverse effects from TM and TM-Sidhi, and has a name for it "unstressing".Fladrif (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Unstressing" is not considered an "adverse effect" of TM, but a natural part of the practice. This is what TM does - it removes stress from the mind and body. This is how health, etc. improves. --BwB (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The TM Movement says that there are no adverse effects from TM, but that if someone experiences adverse effects, it's "unstressing", and a natural part of the process. Claiming that an adverse effect is really a positive effect is an interesting bit of self-deception, but you can call a pork chop a lamb chop all day, but it's still a pork chop. Also, am I not correct in understanding that the cause of "unstressing" is the release of bad karma from past lives?[7][8][9][10][11] [12][13]Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Flad, we know what you think of TM. One can either dig up the most negative material possible on TM while someone else digs up the most positive. Neither is a definitive look at the technique.

I'm fine with the tags being there. NPOV is an overall description on non neutrality, and is not just in reference to either negative or positive weight for or against the technique, If the article is biased against the technique the tags should be there as well as if it is biased for the technique.(olive (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

You have no idea whatsoever what I think about TM, and if you think you do you are sadly and grossly mistaken. Now, rather than engage in further personal attacks, are you interested in actually responding to the substance of my comments?Fladrif (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No personal attack intended. That someone would not support TM is not in my book a negative, just a matter of choice which I have no interest in judging. You give a pretty good imitation of some one whose view on TM is less than positive since almost all posts include a jab at some aspect of TM, but you're right no one knows really what someone else thinks. I apologize.

As I understand. the words un stressing or normalizing are, in context of the TM organization, a description of a natural process in which the body and nervous system experience "rest". Described as deeper than sleep, but not a replacement for sleep, the kinds of normalizing processes we know go on with any kind of rest can be experienced. However, because the rest is deep, deep kinds of normalizing may occur. When the technique is practiced properly it is simple, natural to the way the mind works, and is a pleasant experience. Once someone learns the technique in the US they may at any time (for life) ask for their meditation to be checked (free of charge ) which helps make sure the effortless, easiness, natural aspect of the technique is continued. Normalizing is not a negative side effect but a natural effect of rest. When we sleep, one kind of rest, the body attempts to normalize itself, to throw off fatigue, to return to its pre fatigue state... and the result of a more rested physiology is generally pleasant no matter the kind of depth of rest we get.

I am not a TM teacher but this is how I understand the technique to work.... and this is the meaning of the word "unstressing" within the TM organization.(olive (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

A fairly good explanation, Olive. One point I would add is that it is due to rest that the body releases stress. As you say, when someone does TM, research shows that the body gets deep rest. When this rest occurs the body naturally starts to release stress. It is a more stress-free body that allows one to enjoy life more and to have better health. So releasing stress is a normal things that happens during TM. So releasing stress is a good thing for health. It is common knowledge in the medical profession that stress can cause ill-health. --BwB (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the article, is there material that's missing that should be included? If sources discuss "unstressing" then let's mention it.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which was my original point. There are reliable sources and studies that some people have adverse effects from meditation, including in particular from TM. All that stuff was removed from the article. After I pointed out that it was removed here but was in the TM Research article and at least should be cross-referenced, TG deleted it from the Research article. The TM Movement says, no, there are no adverse effects, if someone claims to have experienced are adverse effects, it's just "unstressing", a normal part of the process and not adverse at all.Shouldn't this material be part of this article?Fladrif (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If reliable sources cite studies that show adverse effects of the TM technique specifically they should be included. I assume you didn't mean adverse effects of meditation which isn't the business of this article. I'd prefer to have TG comment on the removal of any studies. Since he is as careful an editor as anyone else here, I think he probably has a reason for whatever he did or didn't do. (olive (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

As well, obviously we will need to consider the ratio of the adverse studies affects to the positive effects studies as one way to determine "weight".(olive (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

That's problematic in this context because of the sheer numbers of studies authored by MUM researchers. If one person writes ten books on one side of an issue, and three people write three books on another side, then the one person doesn't necessarily deserve three times as much weight. The more neutral way of assigning weight would be according to reviews of the studies and citations by non-MUM scholars.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the disregard for peer review and reputable publication. I do understand your concern, but this is becoming problematic for me as an editor. If it were a few studies we could possibly question the peer review process per Wikipedia, but its hundreds. And research has been carried on by many other institutions. This comes up time and time again.... so my thought is to see what's out there in terms of adverse effect studies and possibly also ask for input from outside. I understand what you're saying but it just doesn't hold water for me in terms of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is mean to reflect the sources such as they are, not to reflect our opinion on the sources. Per WP:Fringe adverse effects from the technique would seem to be a very minority view. Anyway lets look at the sources.(olive (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

NPOV calls on us to report all significant points of view with weight relative to their prominence. Just because the MUM conducts 100 studies that doesn't necessarily mean their view is substantially more prominent than one study published by uninvolved researchers. For starters, I think we should avoid giving much space to studies that haven't been reviewed, reported on, or directly replicated. As we often hear, the TM movement has conducted over 600 studies. Those studies, and even abstracts of them, are available elsewhere. We don't need to devote a paragraph to each one here. If there have been 12 studies showing that the ME lowers crime, but those studies haven't gotten any attention or review, then all we need to say is that there have been 12 studies on that topic, their general results. We shouldn't give details of how the studies were conducted, etc.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets establish a base line of understanding that we all can agree on. There are about 350 peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals and more coming in all the time. There are about 800 studies total. We are concerned with the 350 peer reviewed studies. 350 peer reviewed studies indicates a strong acceptance by the scientific community . There is no reason to doubt the integrity of the research, and who does the research does not enter into it. That's the job of the peer review panel. As well, many of these studies were co-authored. There are no "involved" editors except as personal opinion here. If there are 100 studies, not carried on by MUM, but buy legitimate researchers, and if they are peer reviewed and published in reputable journals, they are appropriate for inclusion here, and no, one study by a so- called someone else does not create an NPOV to balance these 100 studies. The one or two studies are most likely a fringe view, and either deserves a brief inclusion or no inclusion at all ... Per Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Without looking at the studies individually, I'm not sure how we can say that "There is no reason to doubt the integrity of the research, and who does the research does not enter into it".   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A baseline of understanding would be nice, but as we've gone over this same material again and again, I doubt we will ever get there. Publication of 350 peer review studies does not say anything about whether the rearch is accepted. The vast majority of the published studies - well over 90% - have been found (not by me, by the Ospina Bond and the UKentucky metaanalyses) to have not been conducted or documented properly and scientifically, and that no conclusions whatsoever can be legimately derived from the remaining body of research. Per WP:MEDRS metaanalyses like these are the most reliable source of all to use in articles about medical research. Frankly, this article should be boiled down to just about that: MUM has pumped out nearly 1000 studies, 90% of which are inadequately conducted or documented, and the rest is insufficient to draw any legimate conclusions. That would be accurate, unbiased, and reliably sourced, and would not put undue weight on the individual studies, the basis for whose inclusion in these articles has never once been explained or rationalized, other than they've been cribbed from various MUM and TM Org websites. Fladrif (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't always agree with Fladrif, but I am in general agreement with the above post. I would phrase it differently; there would be no need to say "MUM has pumped out nearly 1000 studies;" that's not encyclopedic. But I do agree that the neutral and encyclopedic way to cover research on the medical and physiological effects of TM would be to cite the best meta-analysis, which was an excellent and thorough and very recent analysis, and be done with it. And no, Orme-Johnson's ludicrous "critique" of this study should not be given equal weight with the study itself, nor used as excuse not to include what constitutes the definitive research on the topic. Woonpton (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept Woonpton's friendly amendment to my suggestion. Something more like,

The TM Movement states that approximately 800 studies on medical effects of Transcendental Mediation have been conducted, of which approximately 350 have been published in peer-reviewed publications, showing a wide range of health benefits and theraputic applications.^FN A meta-analyses published in 2007 and supplemented in 2008 of all of the published research on medical effects of meditation, including 230 studies of Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi, concluded that well over 90% of such research was not reliably conducted or documented, and that the remaining low-quality studies using small patient samples provided inadequate bases to draw any firm conclusions as to the theraputic effects of meditation practices, and that the choice of one meditation practice over another is a matter of individual experience and personal preference. ^FN

And, then delete the balance of the research material. Fladrif (talk)

The issue in this discussion comes down, again and again to questioning the studies because the researchers may be TM meditators or because there may a connection to MUM on some level. I've repeated the same points multiple times so I have to assume; I'm not clear, you don't understand; or we disagree. If I'm not clear let me know ... if we still disagree after all of this time , we need outside eyes on this.(olive (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure what your question is. But when it comes to sources, we should evaluate them individually as they're proposed. It's not really productive to have extensive discussion on hypothetical issues.   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a question, and there is no "question" that studies must be evaluated individually....However, weight must be determined, as must NPOV, and fringe. The discussion began with "studies on adverse effects". Lets see where that goes.(olive (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, it's not correct to say that a study that's not a randomized controlled trial is inadequately conducted. If we only included randomized controlled trials, then we'd automatically exclude the studies that you inserted. In fact, Persinger didn't make the cut. Ospina Bond excluded it from their review because that study didn't have a control group. Otis didn't have a control group. Woonpton, who's to say which is the best metaanalysis? There are a number of them. Also, Ospina bond revised the scores of the studies and in their 2008 publication of their review acknowledged that it may not be possible to double blind meditation studies. TimidGuy (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing that a NIH-funded, independently conducted, peer-reviewed meta-analysis, which is the highest authority of questions of medical research per WP:MEDRS is wrong about what is and what is not a properly conducted study. The possiblity that meditation studies cannot be double-binnded does not mean that unblinded meditation studies are good studies; rather, it suggests that it may be impossible to do good studies of meditation.Fladrif (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is, Ospina Bond used the Jadad Scale to evaluate the studies. Double blinding is the basis of the Jadad Scale. Note that Ospina Bond did a review that included a number of meta-analyses. One was on TM and hypertension. They concluded that TM has a significant effect on hypertension. Two of the 12 studies in the meta-analysis scored good or better on the Jadad Scale -- meeting their criterion for high quality. They subsequently raised all the scores of the studies, nearly doubling the total number that scored good or better on the Jadad Scale. In their JACM article, they say that readers can request the list. But they won't give it out. I've requested it several times. We have no way of knowing how many of the TM studies were among those that scored good or better on the basis of the revised scores. My guess would be that at least several more met the standard. Plus, a randomized controlled trial that came out in 2006, after their cutoff, received a good evaluation on Jadad in the Kentucky meta-analysis. That means that perhaps half the hypertension studies shave scored good or better on Jadad. TimidGuy (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't know... but you guess...perhaps half? What fuels this groundless speculation in diametrical opposition to the black letters on the white page in plain English? The UKentucky study said that only 3 of 9 TN studies were "high quality" IIRC. O-B revisited only got to 10% acceptable overall. How that gets you to "perhaps half" is beyond my wildest imagination, but apparently not beyond yours. The point is...Ospina Bond concluded that even the "good" studies were insufficient to draw any valid conclusion about the medical effects of meditation, and there was no basis in any of these studies to prefer TM over any other medititation technique, or visa-versa. The addendum changed none of those conclusions. Fladrif (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right. I don't know. They won't release the scores. I got the figure of half by looking at the subset of 12 in their meta-analysis. Two of the 12 did well on Jadad. And likely several more would with single blinding being the criterion. And the Paul-Labrador study likely would. So that would be 6 out of 13. I'm confident I'll be able to eventually get the list. My mistake regarding Kentucky. It looks like they created their own scale adapted from Jadad. TimidGuy (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Studies on adverse effects

If I understand correctly, Fladrif is saying that sourced material has been removed from this article, the same material that was recently deleted and restored to the research article.[14] Where was the deletion of this material discussed?   Will Beback  talk  06:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That was good timing, since I've just emerged from searching that very question in the archives (my interest wasn't connection to the deletion in question but I was refreshing my memory about what turns out to have been one of these discussions). It looks like the most recent discussion about this material was here, but it's a short discussion over several months and doesn't appear to have produced a mandate for deletion.

There is extensive discussion in Archive 22 about Otis specifically, which went to the RS noticeboard. The issue was whether Otis should be removed because it was not peer-reviewed, but that position was not suppported by uninvolved commentors on the noticeboard, including JN466 who came from the noticeboard to the talk page to participate in the discussion. I recommend reviewing that entire set of threads. Woonpton (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All of this was discussed. The most recent removal was Persinger and Otis, probably in August or September. I believe it was Duedilly who proposed removing those, and I think at least one other editor agreed. In that thread I pointed out a problem with Persinger (I questioned why he didn't know exactly how many of his subjects practiced TM). After some time passed and no one had disagreed, those two studies were removed and no one objected. Woonpton, I recall that you posted a comment in a different thread (in February?) saying that you thought that the Otis study was weak. I'm curious why. I removed the Glueck paragraph because it completely misrepresents the study, which found that TM was effective in treating psychiatric patients, and because the paragraph contained the falsehood that the study said that two subjects attempted suicide. I posted on the Talk page why I removed it (I was editing as an IP at the time). That would have been in August, I believe. The Lazarus paper is two pages in which he gives some impressions and is similar to a case study, except that it doesn't use the sort of in-depth analysis that a case study does. It doesn't meet the standard of WP:MEDRS, which says that case studies fall below the threshold for includes. This was discussed and the only one who disagreed was Fladrif. The study was removed. The paragraph on the Carrington and Ephron paper in the TM research article so completely misrepresents the study that it's a falsehood. Carrington and Ephron used TM as an effective adjunct to their psychotherapeutic and psychoanalytic patients. As part of their discussion they said that they found that TM facilitates bringing repressed material to conscious awareness and permits more rapid recovery in the patients. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This gets down to what originally piqued my interest in these articles. TimidGuy completely misrepresentation the findings of these studies. It is a repeated pattern that I first noticed with the Ospina Bond metaanalysis, and that gets repeated again and again. If something unfavorable or unflattering to the TM movement manages to find its way into these articles, and he is unsuccessful in getting it deleted entirely, he reinterprets the results, cherry picking a sentence or phrase here and there if he can, so that black becomes white, up becomes down, and a criticism becomes a compliment. It is not an isolated incident here and there; it is a consistent and disruptive pattern of behavior. I'll not go to what I think is motivating this blatant twisting of the source material. But, no rational, reasonable, impartial person reasonably conversant with the English language could in good faith and with a straght face claim that these studies say what TG claims they say.Fladrif (talk) 15:24, 9

December 2009 (UTC)

As I have asked before Flad, the "message" not the "messenger". Many thanks. --BwB (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets not get sidetracked. Best to stick to the matter at hand, and deal with the studies, not the editor. If there is a serious interest in putting these studies back into the article . Lets take one at a a time and discuss. (olive (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

• My comment on Otis is in one of the threads on Archive 22 which I recommended people should review. I did think Otis was weak, but I don't remember why. I suspect it may have been in the statistics, but I'd have to go back and review the study again to be sure, since my comment didn't go into detail about why I found it weak. I do know that my objections were not consonant with others' objections, such as the fact that it wasn't peer-reviewed (in the areas of the hard sciences and rigorous social sciences, peer review means something; in other areas it's not my impression or experience that peer review means anything useful in terms of the quality of the research, either way) or with Orme-Johnson's objections, which were trivial, uninformed, and off the point. I said that if I were writing this article, Otis would not be included because to my mind it doesn't merit encyclopedic inclusion, but one should be careful not to make too much of that statement, because there are a great many pro-TM studies I wouldn't include for the same reason, were I writing this article. I have no opinion, by the way, on studies in the adverse reaction listing other than Otis, having not looked at any of the rest of them. Woonpton (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty bizarre. Fladrif, I have accurately characterized the findings of Glueck and Carrington, and have accurately characterized the Lazarus paper, which isn't a scientific study (no study design, not methodology, no data, etc.). If you stand by everything that you inserted, please tell me on what page Glueck mentions suicide. To my mind, it's a very serious matter to put falsehoods in Wikipedia. TimidGuy (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If our text misrepresents significant sources then we should fix the text rather than deleting it outright.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, are we argeed that the Otis study is weak and should NOT be included in the article? Can we please deal with this study only for the moment, finish discussion on it alone, and then move on to other issues? My small brain finds it simpler that way. --BwB (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Carrington is already in this article. I'll correct Glueck. Lazarus doesn't meet MEDRS and should be deleted. TimidGuy (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Was there a consensus on Lazarus? I see a discussion of it here[15], but not a consensus on it. Perhaps we need to re-open that discussion.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has yet explained why they think Lazarus meets MEDRS. So that would be a good place to begin. TimidGuy (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we are jumping around again. Is there consensus that Otis should go? --BwB (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A) What's the basis for saying that "Otis is weak"? B) Have we agreed that WP:MEDRS is the correct standard for the studies on TM?   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Otis is weak as a source because it wasn't published in a refereed academic journal. It's weak as a study because there was no control group, nor was there pre- and post-testing. The questionnaire was untested, ad hoc, and poorly designed, using biased language. Subjects were asked to compare their current state with how they remembered their state being months and years earlier. The study compared non-equivalent group. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No. If you have forgotten, or weren't present for, the discussion this summer where the argument about Otis and peer review went to RS/N, please re-read that discussion in Archive 22, as I recommended in this very thread, above. Also in archive 22, you'll find my comments on the rest of Orme-Johnson's list. I've been trying to find Otis online to refresh my memory on what my objections were to it; I know I read it online before, but now I can't seem to locate it. Does anyone have that link?Woonpton (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To make it easier for you, here's that section in the archives. Reading it over, I see that we were all there; all the editors taking part in this thread commented in that thread. I can see how when new editors come to an article, it may be necessary to have a fresh discussion of the same issues (or preferably, point back to previous discussions), but it should not be necessary for the same editors to have the same discussion again that they have all participated in a short time ago. What I find curious is that when TimidGuy deleted this material from the article, his edit summary pointed to the archives for a rationale for the deletion, but the archived discussion does not show a consensus to remove this study. Here I'll reproduce one comment from an uninvolved editor, but it's much better to read the discussion in its entirety and I urge you all, again, to read the whole thing, please:

As for peer-reviewed or not peer-reviewed, just because a study is peer-reviewed does not mean it is widely regarded as a definitive study; and if a study appears in a book, rather than a peer-reviewed journal, it does not automatically mean that it is no good. The book in question had editors, who would have looked at the material they were going to include; that is not unlike peer review. We regularly quote chapters in academic books. The publisher is reputable, the author was at the Stanford Research Institute, the book is well cited, and so is the chapter concerned. Editors may want to look at what those who cited the chapter said about it: [4] A summary of Otis' study can be found on page 132 of this book: [5] I think this gives a good idea of how this study (and other, related studies) might be summarised. It is not hostile to TM, does not try to score a point against it or advertise it, just gives an overview of research, balanced by caveats. Please have a look at it. JN466 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And here's my comment from that archive about some of Orme-Johnson's criticisms. Again, it's much beter to read the entire discussion with the comments in context:

After watching this ongoing discussion for quite a while, I finally got curious and read the Otis paper. I find olive's objections to it unpersuasive and mostly irrelevant. The peer-review argument has been well discussed and disposed of by others, and I hope we'll hear no more of that. Some of the other objections: yes, the participants are self-selected in the sense that only the people who returned surveys are included, but that is true of *all* survey research, not just this one, so it's not particularly useful as a criticism of this particular study. The idea that the research is flawed because only negative characteristics are listed is a very odd objection and may be a result of an incomplete understanding of the rules of survey design. It's true that in survey design you want to vary the way the questions are asked, some from a positive direction and some from a negative direction, but this wasn't the usual kind of survey that asks questions or makes statements that respondents agree or disagree with; the rule about negative phrasing doesn't apply here, and to invoke it suggests a sort of grasping at straws rather than an honest critique of the research. That the characteristics rated in the checklist are all negative is neither here nor there. The checklist is in the tradition of diagnostic checklists of all kinds; were we to question all checklists containing only negative characteristics, we'd have to throw out the entire DSM. Which actually might not be a bad idea, but that's never going to happen. Woonpton (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Woonpton's point is correct: "...just because a study is peer-reviewed does not mean it is widely regarded as a definitive study; ..." The point needs to be made here that studies that involve some kind of statistics can be either hypothesis testing or hypothesis generating. The criteria with which a hypothesis testing study is judged are far more strict than for a hypothesis generating study. For all the reasons mentioned by various participants in this discussion, including the reasons stated in the August discussion alluded to above, the Otis article falls far short of qualifying as a hypothesis testing study. It is wholly inadequate to use it as a test of the hypothesis that the TM technique is (or, for the null hypothesis, is not) a source of adverse effects. On the other hand, although weak, it's results might be cited as indicating that this hypothesis is worthy of investigation. To arrive at a fair and scientific point of view, then, any mention of the article in the context of the TM technique would best present the article in this light. The only published (in this case self-published, but possibly acceptable as per WP guidelines) critique that has been mentioned is the Orme-Johnson one. So if the Otis article is mentioned, then it would be important to have a critique that helps to put it in proper perspective. This would be the Orme-Johnson one unless someone has a better source. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is where it was discussed most recently.[16] No one objected, and it may have been Duedilly who deleted it from this article. I wasn't part of the earlier discussion that Woonpton has quoted. One thing that really confuses me about this study[17] is that if I understand it correctly, in every case it's reporting something that was a pre-existing condition. I don't understand why, if it was pre-existing, Otis seems to be saying that TM caused it, calling it an "adverse effect." He seems to use the term "adverse changes" and "adverse effects" interchangeably. I also don't understand how many items were on the survey. It seems to indicated that there were 30 but he reports only 10. Is that correct? Also, not being a scientist, I don't understand statistics, so it would be helpful if someone could explain the following: the survey doesn't ask if the adverse change is caused by TM. It just asks whether or not there was an adverse change. If there is a correlation between length of time practicing TM and an adverse change, does that mean that TM caused the change, even though the study didn't ask if TM caused the change? Also, if 5% of the subjects who had been practicing TM for 18 months showed an adverse change, and 95% show a positive change, for example, does statistical analysis allow one to conclude that TM causes adverse change in that 5%? Or is it possible that something else in that person's life caused him or her to become more antisocial? Hope someone has some insights. I really don't understand this study. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A few points of clarification: (1) The link TimidGuy provides here is the first link I gave at the top of this thread. I didn't pay much attention to that short discussion, which only mentioned Otis briefly once, as I thought the question about Otis had been decided (against deletion) in the more thorough earlier discussion, and I wasn't familiar with the other studies. (2) TimidGuy is correct that he wasn't part of that earlier discussion; I thought everyone had participated in that, but I was wrong, and I apologize. But it still seems reasonable, when someone has been pointed to the earlier discussion, that they would read it and be aware of the consensus that developed there. (3) I wouldn't, for the purpose of this article, use the distinction ChemProf is making; it would just confuse readers when the distinction in real life isn't so clear and wouldn't necessarily distinguish between this study and many of the pro-TM studies. (4) It was JN466, an uninvolved editor who participated in the discussion of Otis at RS/N, who wrote "...just because a study is peer-reviewed does not mean it is widely regarded as a definitive study; ..." not I, although I do agree with the point and with the rest of JN466's comments in that thread.

re: TimidGuy's questions about Otis. (1) if I understand it correctly, in every case it's reporting something that was a pre-existing condition. This is not a correct understanding. For each symptom (this is a symptom checklist, not a survey in the usual sense, BTW) the respondent was asked to indicate whether the particular symptom was a problem for them before TM as well as indicating any direction and degree of change in any symptom after starting TM. So there is a clear distinction between pre-existing conditions and conditions that began after the advent of TM; those existing before TM would be indicated by a check in the "existed before TM" box; those that began after beginning TM would not. But the important point of the research is the percentage of practitioners who reported symptoms changing for the worse; whether the condition existed before TM matters less than the fact that the longer people had practiced TM, the more inclined they were to report worsening symptoms. (Table 3 is especially telling). I don't know what it means, but it's interesting data that should be at least briefly mentioned. I don't see anywhere that Otis is claiming that TM "caused" symptoms, pre-existing or not, he's simply presenting data showing that some people report worsening symptoms while practicing TM.

(2) it seems clear from the paper that there were 30 items in the symptom checklist, but that only the ones on which at least 5% of any group had reported worsening effects were included in the report. This is perfectly reasonable. (3) it would not be standard practice to ask respondents if TM caused their symptoms. Their answers to that question would not be relevant; how would they know? It would be like asking a smoker to decide whether smoking caused their emphysema, or asking a day trader whether the color of the tie they wear determines whether the stock goes up or down. They might have opinions about it, but their opinions wouldn't be useful in determining the cause of the phenomenon. And anyway, as noted before, Otis isn't arguing that TM caused the symptoms, only noting that a substantial portion of people responding reported that some symptoms worsened during the practice of TM. The assignment of cause requires much more sophisticated design and analysis than is provided here (or is provided in much of the research in this field) and I don't believe the purpose of this research is to assign cause (though Otis might have been more careful in his use of language in that regard) simply to report some data, which are worth noting.

(4) The question of whether the same respondents would report positive effects from TM is outside the scope of this study, whose purpose was to determine whether the anecdotal reports the author had been getting about adverse effects would be evident in a larger, more systematic sample. He used pre-existing data, a survey that had been sent out randomly to TM practitioners some time earlier, and analyzed those data in terms of adverse effects. It might have been nice to give a table showing the total responses, both positive and negative, to put these data in some perspective; I would have liked that as a bonus, but the omission of the positive data doesn't affect the study, since the study isn't about effects of TM in general, only about reported negative effects.

The other day I mentioned that I couldn't remember what my objections to the study were when I characterized it several months ago as "weak," except I did remember that they weren't the same objections that have been argued here repeatedly. I've now reviewed the study, and my perception has changed since the last reading. At that time I hadn't looked at any of the TM-meditation studies and was looking at this study in the context of research in the outside world, in which context this study seemed fairly weak to me. But now that I've read more of the TM studies, and looking at this study within the context of TM studies in general, this one doesn't seem particularly weak in comparison. I have a couple of small specific criticisms, such as a possible conflation of the validation of the checklists with the subsequent finding that the dropouts differed significantly from people who stayed in the program, and that Otis used language that seemed to overinterpret the data in drawing conclusions, but neither of those are serious or important enough to question including the study; the data are there to be seen, the data aren't in question, and it's the data that are worth noting.

What concerns me more is the intensity and duration of scrutiny and the immense firepower expended on this one poor little study, while pro-TM studies have not been examined so thoroughly by editors here. This seems way unbalanced to me. Either no studies should be examined to this extent, or they should all be subjected to the same minute scrutiny.Woonpton (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is peer review and publication in a "reputable" publication. Because Otis does not meet that particular threshold for inclusion, discussion had to ensue as to why this study should be included. The other studies in this article are peer reviewed and publication would seem to be "reputable" (to quote Wikipedia), so in general less reason to discuss. As well there are hundreds, (350), of studies on the benefits of TM that meet threshold for inclusion and another 450 or so that are not peer reviewed and may be at the same standard as the Otis study. Relative to those numbers of TM studies are a very very few studies on adverse effects . These few adverse effect studies then become per Wikipedia minority viewpoints, and such viewpoints often require more extensive discussion as to reasons to include if they should be included at all.(olive (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

That is absolutely false. Peer reviewed papers independently published are reliable sources. But, being peer reviewed is absolutely NOT a prerequisite to being a reliable source for Wikipedia. We have gone through this again and again. Why do you continue to make up policies out of thin air that have no basis whatsoever in Wikipedia policy or guidelines? Otis was published by an independent, reputable publisher in a book with an independent editor. There is no policy basis to exclude his study whatsoever.Fladrif (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And why don't you read my post. I am telling Woonpton why possibly there has been so much discussion on this since he stated some concern. I did not state a position one way or the other. If some editors need to discuss, there needs to be discussions, so get over it. That's Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

The Otis piece was published by Aldine Transaction, a reputable publisher. The book also has a second piece on TM.[18]   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The book has at least 14 studies on TM. Thanks, Woonpton. That's very helpful. I understand it better now and really appreciate your taking the time to explain. Please tell me if I understand correctly that the respondent only filled in those lines where they checked the box that it was a problem. Otis says, "The subject was asked to indicate in Column 1 whether the category was a problem before he or she started TM and to check Columns 2, 3, 4, or 5 to indicate the extent and kind of change (positive or negative) noted since starting TM." Also, thanks for clarifying that Otis is not positing that TM caused the symptoms. One of the difficulties with using a study that hasn't been published in a refereed journal is that in a sense it somewhat stands outside the dialog of science. If a study is published in a journal, those within the field have the opportunity to respond. That's part of the process.TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're still misunderstanding this; as I've already explained, your belief that only pre-existing conditions were considered is not a correct understanding. If your understanding were correct, column 1 would serve no purpose and would be eliminated; only the other colums, now numbered 1-4, would be there and the instructions would say "Please consider only conditions that existed before you started TM." Which frankly would make no sense. I think the problem may be in a misreading of a word in Otis's summary of the instructions (unfortunately we can't see the actual instructions, so the summary will have to suffice.) The respondent isn't being asked to confirm *that* the symptom existed before TM; the respondent is only being asked to indicate *whether* the symptom existed before TM. A symptom that for a particular respondent existed before TM would have a check in column 1 as well as a check in one of columns 2-5. A symptom which for a particular respondent didn't exist before TM but appeared after TM would not have a check in column 1 but would have a check in one of columns 2-5. I'm not sure why this is so hard, and the suggestion that Otis is claiming that conditions that existed before TM were "caused" by TM, is fallacious; that's not anything he said or implied.

As for the peer-review business, this was all discussed and resolved at RS/N last summer, and it's tiresome to have to keep referring back to that discussion again and again. Why do we even take things to noticeboards if we're going to ignore the advice we get there and go on making the same arguments as if they hadn't already been rejected by uninvolved editors? As an uninvolved editor at that noticeboard wrote, (quoted in blockquote above) the book was published by a reputable publisher, the author of the study was at Stanford Research Institute, and the book was edited by more than one author; the process of choosing articles for an edited book is very similar to the process of peer review. Please, let's drop the arguments against this article on the basis of it being not peer-reviewed. Besides, the fact that statements in this article are cited to the "peer-reviewed" Journal of Scientific Exploration rather shows the bankruptcy of the whole peer-review idea for this topic area. As I said earlier in this thread, in the hard sciences and in the more scientific areas of social sciences, peer review does mean something in terms of weeding out bad research or improving research before it is published; in some other areas, it seems to mean nothing at all and shouldn't be invoked as a necessary or even sufficient requirement for inclusion. Woonpton (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Woonpton. I was simply trying to understand what the instructions were and how the symptom checklist was filled out. I think your reading of the summary may be correct. Does the indication of whether it was a pre-existing problem figure into the research in any way? Regarding causality, I really appreciate your clear statement in this regard. In citing this would we use the phrase "adverse effects," which I think for a general reader would imply causality? TimidGuy (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TimidGuy that if the Otis paper does not show causality (and I agree with Woonpton that it does not), then the title for the section should not contain the words "adverse effects" which suggests causality. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AHA presentation -- MEDRS disallows conference presentations

I opened a thread on this earlier, but we didn't have much discussion. I didn't think it was compliant. And now I see that MEDRS has just recently added a couple sentences saying that conference abstracts don't suffice. And MEDRS clearly disallows popular media. So even though this got worldwide coverage, we probably shouldn't put it in.

In 2009, at a conference of the American Heart Association, researchers at the Medical College in Wisconsin with the Maharishi University in Iowa, found that heart disease patients who practice Transcendental Meditation have nearly 50% lower rates of heart attack, stroke, and death. Researchers randomly assigned 201 African Americans to meditate or to make lifestyle changes. After nine years, the meditation group had a 47% reduction in deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The African American men and women were 59 years old, on average, and had narrowing of the arteries in their hearts. The meditation group practiced for 20 minutes twice a day. The other group, the lifestyle change group, received education classes in traditional risk factors, including dietary modification and exercise. In the meditating group, in addition to the reductions in death, heart attacks and strokes, there was a clinically significant drop (5mm Hg) in blood pressure as well as a significant reduction in psychological stress in some participants. Researchers likened the effect of Transcendental Meditation to finding a new drug for preventing heart disease. The study was funded by a £2.3m grant from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

It's too bad, because it was put in by a brand new editor who tried really hard to do things the right way. I'll leave a note on his page. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to omit a widely reported matter. While the findings may not be rigorous, they are obviously notable. I think we should report it in some manner. Perhaps something like, "Robert Schneider, of the MUM, presented to a 2009 AHA conference findings supporting the benefits of TM." We don't need to omit all mention of it.   Will Beback  talk  12:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In would tend to agree with TG . If this doesn't meet a threshold for significance per sources then we should not include it . Perhaps, what we could/should discuss is, whether it does, on some level, meet requirements for inclusion. I really do not want to start adding anything to the articles unless we are strictly adhering to, and noting that adherence, for the record, in discussion. Not doing so begins the creation of a very slippery slope. My next question would be, why is this significant enough for inclusion per Wikipedia policy/guidelines?(olive (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

The finding was reported in dozens of newspapers and other media.[19] If not included in the research section, we could put it elsewhere, like the history section.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be fine in another section and given the results of the study I would think it might be eventually be published in which case it could be moved into the study section.(olive (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

I put a condensed version back into the article. It "reads" a little odd in the history section. Anyway revert or move as needed.(olive (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks. I re-wrote it a bit. You're right that when the study is published we can move it to the research section.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but it just seems a little odd, since this is just one of many many instances in which a TM study has received worldwide media coverage. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Every issue that's received wide-spread attention should be highlighted in the article. Issues that haven't should receive less weight.   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)