This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
TM-Sidhi program redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Transcendental Meditation. |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
I haven't checked the sources being cited, but there are in fact only about a dozen published peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect, not hundreds, as the text says. One of those published papers documents five different studies. So that would make 16. Counting unpublished or self-published studies brings the total to around 50. I think what we should do is prepare a ref that lists the 12 published studies and then report that number in the text rather than citing an incorrect source. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
If there are numerous scholarly sources than I think it would be alright for them to take precedence over a more casual statement made by another author in a non-scholarly book.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a pretty complete list of the studies published in peer-reviewed journals. This doesn't include research reviews; it only includes empirical studies on the Maharishi Effect.
One of these reports five separate studies, and another reports two separate studies. I've noted that parenthetically. We can perhaps write that there are 14 peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect, or 19 separate, peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect. Perhaps for simplicity, we can say the former. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's science articles are not intended to provide formal instruction, but they are nonetheless an important and widely-used resource.[1] Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides, and high-quality non-specialist publications. Although news reports are sometimes inappropriate as reliable sources for the technical aspects of scientific results or theories, they may be useful when discussing the non-technical context or impact of science topics, particularly controversial ones.
The scope of this page is limited to the natural sciences, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, geoscience, physics, and interdiscliplinary fields. For articles about medicine, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). This page does not address reliability in context of the social sciences, biographical detail, social or political impact or controversy, or related non-scientific issues, even when these are presented in the context of a natural science article.
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources for a given purpose, or ask at a relevant Wikiproject such as WikiProject Science, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Biology, or any of the more narrowly targeted science-focused Wikiprojects. -- Uncreated ( talk) 21:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The source which describes the Maharishi effect as hypothetical societal benefit is: a b Dawson, Lorne L. (2003) Blackwell Publishing, Cults and New Religious Movements, page 47. -- Uncreated ( talk) 01:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Its cool if you want the article to conform to Medrs but the research section only contains facts from sources describing transcendental Meditation. Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi Programme are two different techniques, so it seems odd to me that you would remove content about research on the TM Sidhi programme and replace it with content about the TM Teachnique which like I said before is a different technique. -- Uncreated ( talk) 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
TM-Sidhi program redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Transcendental Meditation. |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
I haven't checked the sources being cited, but there are in fact only about a dozen published peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect, not hundreds, as the text says. One of those published papers documents five different studies. So that would make 16. Counting unpublished or self-published studies brings the total to around 50. I think what we should do is prepare a ref that lists the 12 published studies and then report that number in the text rather than citing an incorrect source. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
If there are numerous scholarly sources than I think it would be alright for them to take precedence over a more casual statement made by another author in a non-scholarly book.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a pretty complete list of the studies published in peer-reviewed journals. This doesn't include research reviews; it only includes empirical studies on the Maharishi Effect.
One of these reports five separate studies, and another reports two separate studies. I've noted that parenthetically. We can perhaps write that there are 14 peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect, or 19 separate, peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect. Perhaps for simplicity, we can say the former. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's science articles are not intended to provide formal instruction, but they are nonetheless an important and widely-used resource.[1] Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides, and high-quality non-specialist publications. Although news reports are sometimes inappropriate as reliable sources for the technical aspects of scientific results or theories, they may be useful when discussing the non-technical context or impact of science topics, particularly controversial ones.
The scope of this page is limited to the natural sciences, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, geoscience, physics, and interdiscliplinary fields. For articles about medicine, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). This page does not address reliability in context of the social sciences, biographical detail, social or political impact or controversy, or related non-scientific issues, even when these are presented in the context of a natural science article.
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources for a given purpose, or ask at a relevant Wikiproject such as WikiProject Science, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Biology, or any of the more narrowly targeted science-focused Wikiprojects. -- Uncreated ( talk) 21:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The source which describes the Maharishi effect as hypothetical societal benefit is: a b Dawson, Lorne L. (2003) Blackwell Publishing, Cults and New Religious Movements, page 47. -- Uncreated ( talk) 01:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Its cool if you want the article to conform to Medrs but the research section only contains facts from sources describing transcendental Meditation. Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi Programme are two different techniques, so it seems odd to me that you would remove content about research on the TM Sidhi programme and replace it with content about the TM Teachnique which like I said before is a different technique. -- Uncreated ( talk) 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)