This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Transcendental Meditation article. 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, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Other subpages
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Transcendental Meditation research was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transcendental Meditation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
TM-Sidhi program was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transcendental Meditation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Transcendental Meditation was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 31, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class 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. |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I'm adding this so we can begin to look at potential updates to the research on TM. I had requested above we not make changes until Doc James is back on Wikipedia or 6 months to give him a chance to be part of this. [1] I can't enforce this of course, but I am complying with this and hope others will too. I can add results from newer research if wanted.
Problematic sources
•Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2017)
[2]
Louise HartleyAngelique MavrodarisNadine FlowersEdzard ErnstKaren Ree
Withdrawn
From the review. This Cochrane Review has been superseded. See 'Meditation for the prevention and management of heart disease'. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
•Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (2006)
[3]
T Krisanaprakornkit 1, W Krisanaprakornkit, N Piyavhatkul, M Laopaiboon•"
Limited to two studies and only one on TM (Review of one primary study). Authors consider the review limited in scope/more research needed.
• Meditation practices for health: state of the research. (2007)
[4]
Maria B Ospina, Kenneth Bond, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Lisa Tjosvold, Ben Vandermeer, Yuanyuan Liang, Liza Bialy, Nicola Hooton, Nina Buscemi, Donna M Dryden, and Terry P Klassen
Archived Archived for historical reference only
More recent review/clinical updates
•Transcendental meditation for lowering blood pressure: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2017)
[5]
SooLiang Ooi, Melissa Giovino, Sok Cheon Pak
•First-line Psychotherapies for Military-Related PTSD (2020) /Clinical update (2020)
[6]
Maria M. Steenkamp, PhD1; Brett T. Litz, PhD2,3; Charles R. Marmar, MD4
In the article which I edited:The authors' analysis of a subset of these studies, those that studied specific categories of outcome, found that TM might perform better in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and improving markers of learning, memory, and self-actualization, but perform more poorly in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, improving attention and mindfulness and cognition, in comparison with other meditation approaches.
The source says: A thorough comparison of the three kinds of meditation was difficult, due in part to the small number of studies that used a given category of dependent measure. Again, we only included results that could be calculated from at least three studies. On the basis of these data...there might indeed be differential effects. Comparatively strong effects for TM...were found in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and being helpful in learning and memory and in self-realization...For mindfulness meditation, such comparatively strong effects were identified in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, and improving attention and mindfulness...(other meditation techniques) yielded a comparatively large effect in the category of cognition...TM yielded noticeably larger effects than mindfulness meditation for the categories negative emotions, neuroticism, trait anxiety, learning and memory, and self-realization. The opposite results were found for negative personality traits and self-concept, where the effects of mindfulness meditation were larger...For most of the specific categories that could be analyzed, we found quite a variation in effects. These results indicate that different approaches to meditation might have differential effects. To date, it is difficult, however, to deduce any consistent differences therefrom
...found that TM might perform better in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and improving markers of learning, memory, and self-actualization, but perform more poorly in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, improving attention and mindfulness and cognition, in comparison with other meditation approaches is not what the source says. See bold.
The source compares TM in this instance specifically to Mindfulness meditation not other meditation approaches See bold.
When using scientific sources I think we have to be very accurate in terms of language- to follow the source accurately. I don't think we can extrapolate. Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Could anyone point to the section of the review that specifically indicates this edit:
"There is no good evidence TM is of any use for reducing anxiety."
The review, author-conclusions states,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,...
I see two conclusions in reference to TM: One, that a small number of studies doesn't indicate conclusions for mediation therapy in general. And two, that TM compares to other kinds of relaxation therapies.
We could say," A 2006 review indicates no conclusions could be drawn on meditation as therapy, including TM, because of too few studies investigated.
The date is pertinent as is the reason the review cannot draw conclusions.
I'd note per MEDRS, WP:MEDDATE that this source, at 2006, is outdated. There are more recent, pertinent, MEDRS compliant sources than a source that is 18 years old, with two studies and only one that pertains to the topic of this article, and that states, no conclusions could be drawn.
There is no evidence, per this review, that the small number of studies reviewed can lead to evidence that meditation therapy is effective in anxiety reduction. The review does not say is of no use. That is an extrapolation, and not accurate per the review we are looking at.
Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Bon Courage. You've reverted with out any reason given. As I said here, the section is organized by date. You've removed the date. We do have another option. The review we are discussing has only one study on TM. Th authors conclude that with only that one study and whatever issues that study had no conclusions could be drawn. So per our own MEDRS guidelines this isn't a legitimate review since we are looking for replicated results. The whole thing should probably be removed. Further and again the review itself is outdated.
I have to wonder why you're insistent in removing the date and ignoring context. I refuse to get into some weird edit warring situation so if you honestly and with out bias feel it is appropriate to exclude the date when information has been ordered historically and since you also seem to have no reason to make that deletion I will leave the edit. I can't argue with what is illogical. If you do have a bias do you really think our readers are stupid enough to wonder about the bald statement now in the article which makes no logical sense. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Note: Cochrane is not the only reliable;e source. Littleolive oil ( talk) 00:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The source in question is poor per MEDRS. It includes 2 studies, only one is about TM. MEDRS is meant to protect the reader from "Fringe" information- information that may with time become mainstream, but not now. As long as we have physicians who use Wikipedia for diagnosis( I'd head for the door if my physician did this), we have a responsibility to include only replicated studies/information. This review, such as it is, is not showing replicated information.
The source very clearly says,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,..." the source does not make an overarching statement about anxiety and TM. This article is, however, making an over arching statement; we are misrepresenting the source in part by deliberately excluding context: The small number of studies does not allow any conclusions to be drawn. TM is comparable....
The section has been organized by date. WP:MEDSAY does not forbid basic information about the source being used. Using WP:MEDSAY as some kind of edit summary seems disingenuous to me. There is implied consensus in a years long stable article that you ignored in favor of your own edit leaving a bald, dateless inaccurate statement.
The MEDRS position would be to remove the source. There is no replication, and there was not enough information to draw any conclusions.
Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war and to enter the morass that follows that kind of contention. I attempted to compromise by agreeing with an edit you made, whether I bought the argument or not, but you went further with out agreement. I either walk away or am forced into an edit war. Is there frustration at being forced into such a position. Yes. But I don't care enough to engage in that kind of mess.
The article as it stands now is weaker than it was, if MEDRS is a legitimate standard. I think it is. Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war← not at all, you could raise a query at WT:MED. But if you are going to argue that a Cochrane review is poor or fringe you'd better have a strong case! It is hallmark of good systematic reviews that they exclude poor sources; poor reviews tend to include all sorts of crap. But surely the main point is that this is the ONLY review of TM/Anxiety in existence. Unless you know of others? Bon courage ( talk) 18:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
"The square root of 1%" is 10%. I'm not sure what 0.00016% is in relation to 1%, but it's not the square root. 2600:1700:37E0:6890:7CCA:BDEB:A173:B2C8 ( talk) 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Transcendental Meditation article. 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, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Other subpages
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Transcendental Meditation research was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transcendental Meditation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
TM-Sidhi program was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transcendental Meditation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Transcendental Meditation was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 31, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class 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. |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I'm adding this so we can begin to look at potential updates to the research on TM. I had requested above we not make changes until Doc James is back on Wikipedia or 6 months to give him a chance to be part of this. [1] I can't enforce this of course, but I am complying with this and hope others will too. I can add results from newer research if wanted.
Problematic sources
•Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2017)
[2]
Louise HartleyAngelique MavrodarisNadine FlowersEdzard ErnstKaren Ree
Withdrawn
From the review. This Cochrane Review has been superseded. See 'Meditation for the prevention and management of heart disease'. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
•Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (2006)
[3]
T Krisanaprakornkit 1, W Krisanaprakornkit, N Piyavhatkul, M Laopaiboon•"
Limited to two studies and only one on TM (Review of one primary study). Authors consider the review limited in scope/more research needed.
• Meditation practices for health: state of the research. (2007)
[4]
Maria B Ospina, Kenneth Bond, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Lisa Tjosvold, Ben Vandermeer, Yuanyuan Liang, Liza Bialy, Nicola Hooton, Nina Buscemi, Donna M Dryden, and Terry P Klassen
Archived Archived for historical reference only
More recent review/clinical updates
•Transcendental meditation for lowering blood pressure: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2017)
[5]
SooLiang Ooi, Melissa Giovino, Sok Cheon Pak
•First-line Psychotherapies for Military-Related PTSD (2020) /Clinical update (2020)
[6]
Maria M. Steenkamp, PhD1; Brett T. Litz, PhD2,3; Charles R. Marmar, MD4
In the article which I edited:The authors' analysis of a subset of these studies, those that studied specific categories of outcome, found that TM might perform better in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and improving markers of learning, memory, and self-actualization, but perform more poorly in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, improving attention and mindfulness and cognition, in comparison with other meditation approaches.
The source says: A thorough comparison of the three kinds of meditation was difficult, due in part to the small number of studies that used a given category of dependent measure. Again, we only included results that could be calculated from at least three studies. On the basis of these data...there might indeed be differential effects. Comparatively strong effects for TM...were found in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and being helpful in learning and memory and in self-realization...For mindfulness meditation, such comparatively strong effects were identified in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, and improving attention and mindfulness...(other meditation techniques) yielded a comparatively large effect in the category of cognition...TM yielded noticeably larger effects than mindfulness meditation for the categories negative emotions, neuroticism, trait anxiety, learning and memory, and self-realization. The opposite results were found for negative personality traits and self-concept, where the effects of mindfulness meditation were larger...For most of the specific categories that could be analyzed, we found quite a variation in effects. These results indicate that different approaches to meditation might have differential effects. To date, it is difficult, however, to deduce any consistent differences therefrom
...found that TM might perform better in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and improving markers of learning, memory, and self-actualization, but perform more poorly in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, improving attention and mindfulness and cognition, in comparison with other meditation approaches is not what the source says. See bold.
The source compares TM in this instance specifically to Mindfulness meditation not other meditation approaches See bold.
When using scientific sources I think we have to be very accurate in terms of language- to follow the source accurately. I don't think we can extrapolate. Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Could anyone point to the section of the review that specifically indicates this edit:
"There is no good evidence TM is of any use for reducing anxiety."
The review, author-conclusions states,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,...
I see two conclusions in reference to TM: One, that a small number of studies doesn't indicate conclusions for mediation therapy in general. And two, that TM compares to other kinds of relaxation therapies.
We could say," A 2006 review indicates no conclusions could be drawn on meditation as therapy, including TM, because of too few studies investigated.
The date is pertinent as is the reason the review cannot draw conclusions.
I'd note per MEDRS, WP:MEDDATE that this source, at 2006, is outdated. There are more recent, pertinent, MEDRS compliant sources than a source that is 18 years old, with two studies and only one that pertains to the topic of this article, and that states, no conclusions could be drawn.
There is no evidence, per this review, that the small number of studies reviewed can lead to evidence that meditation therapy is effective in anxiety reduction. The review does not say is of no use. That is an extrapolation, and not accurate per the review we are looking at.
Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Bon Courage. You've reverted with out any reason given. As I said here, the section is organized by date. You've removed the date. We do have another option. The review we are discussing has only one study on TM. Th authors conclude that with only that one study and whatever issues that study had no conclusions could be drawn. So per our own MEDRS guidelines this isn't a legitimate review since we are looking for replicated results. The whole thing should probably be removed. Further and again the review itself is outdated.
I have to wonder why you're insistent in removing the date and ignoring context. I refuse to get into some weird edit warring situation so if you honestly and with out bias feel it is appropriate to exclude the date when information has been ordered historically and since you also seem to have no reason to make that deletion I will leave the edit. I can't argue with what is illogical. If you do have a bias do you really think our readers are stupid enough to wonder about the bald statement now in the article which makes no logical sense. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Note: Cochrane is not the only reliable;e source. Littleolive oil ( talk) 00:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The source in question is poor per MEDRS. It includes 2 studies, only one is about TM. MEDRS is meant to protect the reader from "Fringe" information- information that may with time become mainstream, but not now. As long as we have physicians who use Wikipedia for diagnosis( I'd head for the door if my physician did this), we have a responsibility to include only replicated studies/information. This review, such as it is, is not showing replicated information.
The source very clearly says,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,..." the source does not make an overarching statement about anxiety and TM. This article is, however, making an over arching statement; we are misrepresenting the source in part by deliberately excluding context: The small number of studies does not allow any conclusions to be drawn. TM is comparable....
The section has been organized by date. WP:MEDSAY does not forbid basic information about the source being used. Using WP:MEDSAY as some kind of edit summary seems disingenuous to me. There is implied consensus in a years long stable article that you ignored in favor of your own edit leaving a bald, dateless inaccurate statement.
The MEDRS position would be to remove the source. There is no replication, and there was not enough information to draw any conclusions.
Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war and to enter the morass that follows that kind of contention. I attempted to compromise by agreeing with an edit you made, whether I bought the argument or not, but you went further with out agreement. I either walk away or am forced into an edit war. Is there frustration at being forced into such a position. Yes. But I don't care enough to engage in that kind of mess.
The article as it stands now is weaker than it was, if MEDRS is a legitimate standard. I think it is. Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war← not at all, you could raise a query at WT:MED. But if you are going to argue that a Cochrane review is poor or fringe you'd better have a strong case! It is hallmark of good systematic reviews that they exclude poor sources; poor reviews tend to include all sorts of crap. But surely the main point is that this is the ONLY review of TM/Anxiety in existence. Unless you know of others? Bon courage ( talk) 18:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
"The square root of 1%" is 10%. I'm not sure what 0.00016% is in relation to 1%, but it's not the square root. 2600:1700:37E0:6890:7CCA:BDEB:A173:B2C8 ( talk) 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)