This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
I have been reading thru the article again to get a overall sense of the coherence of the material. While there are many areas that need attention, this section called "Range of Studies" grabbed my attention. I am wondering why we need this section? Perhaps the content could be included in the other Research sections. The section currently reads:
Moved the "Range of Studies" section to the top of the Research section. It makes sense to have this as an opening and then the details to follow. -- BwB ( talk) 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit that this is just silly: highlighting an author of an early study acknowledging the limitations of the study. The study itself probably acknowledges its limitations. This is the norm. It's not a scandal. These first studies are included for historical reasons. WP:MEDRS says that such a section can be included. Let's just rename the section, move out later studies, and let the history section be a history section. It's also historically important because this early research got so much national mediation attention, such as the Time magazine article that is referenced. Outside of the History section, I suggest that we simply exclude any study that didn't have a control group. According to Ospina Bond, there are over 200 studies on TM that do have control groups. That gives us plenty of material to work with. And I'd be fine if we excluded any study based on an ad hoc questionnaires. 76.76.232.130 ( talk) 10:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The text below is not supported by the citation. There is nothing in the source that mentions Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi or a Board of Trustees.
I removed the sentence below as it was not supported by the source. If another source can be found the content can be put back in the article. One portion of the sentence below was contained in the source re: SRF certificate says "religious" corp, so I incorporated this point into the first sentence where it fit better anyway.
We need to be careful about cherry picking material from sources. In the "Principles" section we find the new sentence "The technique is practiced morning and evening for 15-20 minutes each time but is not recommended before bed.[30]" with a reference to a Time article. However, on reading the article one finds many small details of the TM practice mentioned, but only the "not recommended before bed" point is chosen. This may seem like a small point, but it is indicative of cherry picking that other editors have highlighted above. -- BwB ( talk) 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the above text which is a slight variation of the text I removed a few days ago and posted on this talk page and gave reasons for the removal of each sentence. My reasons for removal in nutshell are it makes statements about medical research using periodicals as a source in violation of WP:MEDRS. Furthermore the text makes sweeping generalizations on decades of peer reviewed published research which occurred decades after the publication of the sourced periodicals (which are invalid sources anyway). I welcome comments from other editors so that we can have resolution and consensus.-- Kbob ( talk) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There are additional problems in that some of the text is grossly inaccurate. For example, in the first half of the first sentence it says "some researchers" but the article only mentions Benson. So this is an exaggeration. The sentence also refers to "earlier studies" but in fact the article refers to one single earlier study. A second misrepresentation. I think this deleted section needs some serious work before it can be consider for posting in the article.-- Kbob ( talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Therefore it is undue to mention or refer to this same study a second time in another section. Don't you agree?-- Kbob ( talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Cult issues
While Transcendental Meditation is a mental technique, not requiring the practicinar (sic) to believe anything (sic), to change their existing beliefs, or become a member of any organization, it has been asserted that the organization teaching the TM technique exhibit charactistics (sic)of a cult. These include: Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, [98]; and, Michael A. Persinger's in his book, TM and Cult Mania, published in 1980.[99].
However, Clarke and Linzey, argue that for the ordinary membership of TM their lives and daily concerns are little - if at all - affected by it's cult nature. Instead they claim, as is the case for Scientology, it is only the core membership, who must give total dedication to the movement [100]
According to David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management , cult followers are said to allegedly operate on blind faith and adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, while these studies would indicate the ability of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments.[101]; Marc Galanter MD, Professor of Psychiatry at NYU in his book "Cults: Faith and healing Coercion (who prefers the term Charismatic Movement to Cult)[102]
My problem with this sentence is primarily the sources:
So regardless of how we interpret WP:MEDRS, this sentence is not accurate and does not seem to cite good, reliable sources. What do others think?--
Kbob (
talk)
16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
By and large, I've got no problem with the various edits made in the article today to this text, with one concern. In
|this diff I think that adding a date creates a misleading impression. To say that "As of 1984" the scientific mainstream did not support claim that TM had unique effects on blood flow and chemistry is to imply that a change in position may have taken place in the scientific community since the article was published.. I know it's not asserted positively that things have changed in the meantime, but the wording suggests the possibility. Now, we all know that no-one outside the TM Org thinks these claims are valid, and studies such as the Ospina Bond metanalysis conclude that, whatever benefits TM may have, they aren't unique to TM. That's the scientific mainstream view. And, don't say "go find a more recent source that says TM isn't mainstream". The burden falls on the other side of the proposition. Anybody claiming that, since 1984 TM's assertions of its unique benefits flowing from blood flow and chemistry and SCI and I don't know what all else is now mainstream science, had better come up with a darned good, independent source to back it up. Thoughts?
Fladrif (
talk)
19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Today I moved some text from this section and moved it to the "Adverse Effects" section. The text and sources remain intact. I have also added some text with sources to the "Adverse Effects" section to show that there are studies countering the claims made by Fenwick. -- BwB ( talk) 15:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Reread the source and reedited this section to give a more accurate wording. -- BwB ( talk) 00:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If we want to remain neutral, use of the term "movement" to describe the legal entities responsible for offering instruction in the Transcendental Meditation technique is not acceptable. It is a pejorative term with distinct connotations and has no legal status. (No one can petition the TM "movement." We can only petition a legal organization.) I suggest a new expression such as "the legal entities offering instruction in the technique." Does anyone have a better expression than this? Also, we might question the accuracy of the number 60 in this sentence. The whole sentence is a newspaper article quote of one instructor. Did he just pull this from thin air? ChemistryProf ( talk) 10:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
.
I would like to remove the following paragraph from the article:
Here are my reasons:
Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[5]
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. -- Kbob ( talk) 02:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The sentence below from the Origin section may also need to be deleted for the same reasons as stated above.
And this one also:
These are good points and I agree it is deserving of some discussion. On the one hand Fladrif has given some valid references where the document is mentioned and referred to as the Maharishi's book. On the other hand we have some additional things to consider:
I don't see anything in the linked page above that says this was Maharishi's first published book... am I missing something. One of the issues here is not whether the book is self published or its use is a kind of extrapolation of information which technically I believe it is , but rather, if this is an instance of ignore all rules WP:IAR, and use the book because it is cited by the Organization... (Is it? I don't see that in this link but maybe in the links above -I'll check later when I have time,) Do we as a group feel the book is worth including anyway, and if the inclusion will create other concerns that is, set a precedent for inclusion of non compliant material. Because the source is cited somewhere else doesn't mean its compliant for Wikipedia, but we could include it if there's agreement for it. and ...I guess I'm the dumb one with my l'il ol' 183 IQ.( olive ( talk) 18:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
The entire copy contained on the title page appears as follows:
Working on it now. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 01:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)) This won't be up until tomorrow now. Some computer problems-new computer. Should have it sortd out by tomorrow.( olive ( talk) 02:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC))
We need page numbers and/or links that go directly to the source page. At present we have only links to the book covers.
How about a page number for this one too, anyone? Thanks for your help.
Also need page number for this source otherwise the sentence may be challenged and removed.
Explain, in addition to the question above, why these changes without discussion. These can hardly be described as "cleanup".
Its articles of incorporation stated that the Foundation's primary purpose for formation was spiritual, and in Article 11 that "this corporation is a religious one. The educational purpose shall be to give instruction in a simple system of meditation." [12]
In case you didn't see this earlier, I am pasting it here. The actual quote from the source (Price) states: "It was called the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation. A certificate of incorporation, written in 1961, made no bones about the fact that "this corporation is a religious one" (article eleven)." [ [19]] So for accuracy I have noted that there are two reliable sources with conflicting information. Why is there conflicting info? I don't know. Maybe they incorporated in another state in 1961. I have no idea. I am just accurately recording in the article what the sources say.-- Kbob ( talk) 17:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Enrollment in the Transcendental Meditation course in the United States dropped from a peak of 40,000 per month in 1975, to 3,000 to 10,000 per month two years later partly because the Maharishi invited several thousand TM teachers to his headquarters in Switzerland. [14] [15] [16] None of these sources support the "3000 to 10,000". They say 3000. Leyland says below 10,000. That's not 3000 to 10,000.
OK Fladrif here is what the sources say:
So one sources says 4,000 per month and the other says "fewer than 10,000". How would you suggest we represent this range in the sentence?-- Kbob ( talk) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
But this, to me, seems to be cherry picking the source and cherry picking data within the source. You are saying because Bainbridge's is a more valid source than Time Magazine. Bainbridge provides no footnote or indication as to where he obtained his info and I'm sure Time Magazine does its homework. We can't second guess our sources. Maybe we should just say that there was a significant decline in enrollment from its peak of 40,000 in 1975 to significantly lower numbers in 1977. Then the reader can check the sources themselves if they want more detail. Its not our job to assimilate conflicting source info nor should we cherry pick data from within sources. All of that is POV and Original Research and we don't want to do that. -- Kbob ( talk) 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Justify replacing this:
Original version-- Benson acknowledged methodological weaknesses and bias in the study he co-authored with Wallace, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology done in the 1970s had methodological weaknesses, and that early studies using control groups showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest. [18] [19] [20] [21] According to a 1984 article in the New York Times, claims by researchers associated with the Maharishi University of Management that TM has unique effects on body chemistry and blood flow different from other relaxation methods were not shared by the scientific community at large, [22] and TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice. [23] A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research concluded that the interest in meditation as a therapy for health-problems such as hypertension, stress and chronic pain is based on anecdotal evidence and studies of poor quality, and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced". [24] [9]
"He points out that his study is "very biased" because it reported only on people who had learned meditation and continued to practice it; there was no control group of others who tried to end their addiction without the aid of TM. Also, Benson is careful to note, the reports of the 1,862 drug users were subjective—they merely answered Benson and Wallace's questionnaires. Benson feels that better-controlled studies are needed. "What we're looking at is a behavioral type of approach to various disease patterns," he says, "to see whether changing one's behavior by meditation will help. As kooky as this sounds to many people, it has just got to be investigated." Otherwise, Benson says, no one can tell if TM is indeed useful."
OK, got it, didn't see the second page. So on page one Bensons says the study showed dramatic reduction of drug use and then on page 2 he says the study is inconclusive and biased. So how about we put something like this in the article:
David S. Holmes of the University of Kansas, writing in the journal American Psychologist earlier this year, charged that the empirical literature on the physiology of meditation was rife with methodological weaknesses, and that the 20 studies he could find that used proper controls had uniformly showed meditation to be no more effective than rest in reducing somatic arousal - the body traits associated with stress. His conclusion, which has stirred the ire of meditation proponents, was that the personal and professional use of meditation as an antidote for high somatic arousal is not justified by the existing research data.
Over the last several years many scientists have, in fact, retracted the claims made in the early 1970's of meditation's physiological uniqueness. Deane H. Shapiro Jr., director of the Executive Stress Management Center at the University of California at Irvine and co-editor of a new anthology of meditation research, acknowledged that studies to date show no physiological differences between meditation and other self-regulation strategies in use by clinicians, such as progressive muscle relaxation, biofeedback and self-hypnosis, and often, no differences between meditation and 'just sitting.'
At the same time Dr. Shapiro, in a written reply to Dr. Holmes's article, questions whether those identified as resting in many past studies could have served as proper control groups for comparison. He argues that people resting, especially during an experiment, might often be falling into a meditation-like state.
... In a position not supported by most scientists outside the T.M. movement, researchers at the Mahareshi International University in Fairfield, Iowa, maintain that T.M. has subtle effects on body chemistry and blood flow different from those induced by other formal relaxation methods, let alone ordinary rest.
The others don't let me just cut and paste, so I'm going to ask you to just read them more carefully. Fladrif ( talk) 19:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
With this (what Kbob wrote)
Kbob's version now in the article:In her book "Stress Management" author Cotton says: “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” [24]] Cotton, Dorothy H.G., Stress Managemetn: An Integrated Approach to Therapy Psychology Press, 1990
Fladrif ( talk) 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
TM is not science. TM is a technique. Wikipedia does not require us to say, "TM is not a part of either the scientific consensus nor the medical mainstream." What Wikipedia requires is creation of an article that by representing viewpoints according to their importance/weight creates an article that is neutral in tone. I can't see that we can take statements out of context . In doing so we are not citing the information we are creating information, and that is OR. I think what Kbob is saying is that we have to cite what the study said, and what it said goes beyond what you cited. If there is a place in the article to say TM is not in the mainstream I'm not against citing that, but we have to cite what is said, and we have to cite it within context otherwise yes its OR... because we are selectively choosing to leave in or take out material. The issue here is about referencing seems to me not about proving TM to be one thing or another. If TM is considered outside mainstream science and there are good sources that are talking about that why not cite that. The best " so called science" started outside the mainstream so its not a negative or positive view. Einstein was not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not sure I'm making sense here and if not I apologize .... This is about how we interpret a reference, and I'm in favour of watching for context.( olive ( talk) 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
That phrase was: TM is.... "outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice". To correct this I placed Cotton's entire sentence in the article: “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” So the phrase that Fladrif wanted in the article (see italics above) but in its proper context. This gives the reader accurate info so that they can decide for themselves.-- Kbob ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
__________________________________________________________________________
Prior Version: A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research concluded that the interest in meditation as a therapy for health-problems such as hypertension, stress and chronic pain is based on anecdotal evidence and studies of poor quality, and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced".[64][65]
Kbob's version now in the article: A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research was performed on five broad categories of meditation practices including mantra meditation, Mindfulness Meditation, Yoga, Tai Chi and Qi Gong. The report said that "meta-analysis based on low quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM, Qi Gong and Zen Bhuddist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure" and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced". [25] [9]According to a 1984 article in the New York Times, fifteen years of research on multiple kinds of meditation techniques has left the question of meditation's physiological effects more confused than clarified. [26]
To create my version I went directly to the opening remarks of the Ospina/Bond study, entitled "Structured Abstract" which gave a summary of the study as follows:
Because the study examines several kinds of meditation and relaxation techniques I took sentences that specifically mention the article topic ie TM.-- Kbob ( talk) 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is this included? Twice? According to Time Magazine Transcendental Meditation owes something to all major religious traditions—Christianity, Judaism and Islam, as well as the Eastern faiths— because at one time or another they have included both meditation and the repetition of a mantra-like word. [27] Fladrif ( talk) 17:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This study that I just deleted from the Adverse Effects section highly recommends the use of Transcendental Meditation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. There is no mention of adverse effects as an outcome of this study. And certainly there was no mention of suicide attempts. (Do be careful about lifting material from anti-TM websites.) So I've deleted this study for now. Unrelated to the outcomes presented in this study, however, is a nicely nuanced discussion of how TM effects a free interchange of information between the cerebral hemispheres, which allows repressed material to come to conscious awareness. The article stresses the therapeutic value of this while also noting that it can sometimes be uncomfortable. I don't have time to work on this, but it could make a nice addition to the article. And it seems like it should be done in the context of their strong recommendation of TM as a treatment for psychiatric disorders. In any case, the summary of this study that had been put in the Adverse Effects section didn't reflect accurately what it says, and apparently made up the bit about suicide attempts. There are, however, two or three other published reports on this study, so it's possible that suicide attempts were mentioned in one of those. (But given their thorough discussion in this paper, it seems unlikely.) 76.76.232.130 ( talk) 16:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I looked this guy Glueck up on the Internet, his resume is impressive [ [26]] not to be confused with his father, Bernard Sr, who was also a researcher:
Not that any of the "cut and slash" editors here will care, but I worked in Dr. Glueck's lab (as the computer programmer, mostly analyzing brainwave synchronization) in 1973 at the Institute of Living. The experiments were done on resident teenagers, comparing a group using TM with a standard muscle relaxation technique, Alpha wave biofeedback, and a control group. The hospital had a computer system that allowed the nurses to enter clinical notes on their patients wherever the nurses were four times a day. The study was carefully done, run by two Ph.D.s, relied heavily on the MMPI, and concluded that TM was useful in the treatment of a variety of psychiatric disorders.
Frankly, it seemed to me that TM was way more useful than what the other groups did, if only because the TM group loved it and continued it after the study was over. Glueck's son was a TM teacher who sometimes worked with us in the Hartford TM center (a really nice guy, like his father). And no, nobody was harmed by this simple, natural, and relaxing technique, as the five or so people who publish vocal diatribes against TM everywhere probably wish had happened. Those were heady days when we assumed that everyone would adopt TM everywhere, just because we had done high quality research that had a practical recommendation as its conclusion. Boy, were we wrong. Most people are just blasé about anything new. David spector ( talk) 22:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed a short bit of content on cost of TM in the US in an effort to help remedy the concern that the section sounds like an advert. I'm not attached to the edit so if others aren't comfortable with it, please revert. Since Wikipedia isn't American, and since I believe fee structures are different in every country, listing the cost of fees in this country but not others seems a little lopsided.( olive ( talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC))
I have three points for consideration by the group:
I think we need to consider all of these elements in our decision. What do others think?-- Kbob ( talk) 01:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
For everyone's reference and discussion. Here are the fees as listed on the official TM web site: Special Reduced Fees Through September 30th In order to help more people immediately participate in our TM courses, the fees are being reduced by 25% from now through the end of September. Course fees for the United States are now:
-- Kbob ( talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to summarize where we are at in this thread. The section under discussion is Teaching Procedures. Currently it has an Advertisement tag. Olive removed the sentence about price. I have edited the remaining section down to less than 3 sentences and giving it a more straightforward, encyclopedic tone. BWB says he might like to cut it back further. So I want to be clear that, Will, you stand alone as the sole editor who wants to include something in the section about the price. Since we are a group and we function via consensus I am willing to try and accommodate your desire. You have suggested we have a summary of the fees. OK, but it should be an accurate summary such as "current fees range from $375 to $1500" instead of vague phrases like: "thousands of dollars". Also if you want to summarize fees from the past then the summary should also be accurate and should say spomething like "past fees ranged from $35 to $2,500". We should not cherry pick fees from a specific range of years. What do you suggest we do?-- Kbob ( talk) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have seen several news articles that mention in passing that TM is high priced. Sometimes they even state the price, sometimes not. But in my research for this article I do not recall seeing any significant discussion about controversy over the price of TM. By the way Will, I appreciate your interjecting a little humor in your comment. I think a little tasteful, humor on the page is good now and then. Cheers! -- Kbob ( talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed the word "instruction" to "interview" to give the correct sequence to the 7 steps of learning TM -- BwB ( talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Posted question about Beacon Light of the Himalayas here: [27] ( olive ( talk) 03:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC))
Unlike most other articles here at W, this one has become quite a hodgepodge of standard description of TM as originates from the TM Movement itself, the inappropriate revealing of knowledge given to TM teachers for their use in teaching, and legal and other citations meant to show that TM is or fosters a cult mentality and/or is harmful. Largely missing is objective criticism of unsubstantiated claims made in the name of TM (such as the Maharishi Effect and the orientation of buildings) and the high price that keeps most interested people from learning TM (this very important aspect of TM in the real world seems to be treated like The Emperor's New Clothes here; I believe I am the only person to see its importance or to try to get it into the article over a period measured in years).
The article now reads like an amateurish concatenation of random material from the Web, lacking in coherence, continuity, and readability. It is embarrassing, and clearly the result of a handful of people with wildly differing points of view having nothing better to do than to "own" the article and spend their time arguing over it.
If I were someone who came across the term "Transcendental Meditation" and wanted to learn about it from my favorite site, W, I would be quite confused after reading this. I could come away with the opinion that TM is some harmful, weird "thing" that is marketed with hundreds of false studies, or I could come away with the opinion that TM is the best thing, fully supported by science and religion alike, depending on many factors including which parts of the article particularly caught my eye.
What I'd really like to see is two articles: a "TM - Pro" article that gives a complete and readable exposition of TM from the point of view of TM teachers and practitioners (collectively, the TM Movement), and a separate article, "TM - Con", that gives a complete and readable exposition of TM from the point of view of those who think TM is dangerous, or is a cult, or is religious.
Focusing on the improvement of both sides, pro and con, the result might be two very good articles, each standing on its own as helpful to readers. By reading both articles, visitors could come away with a much better understanding of TM as having two descriptions, depending on the polarization of the authors.
If someone were reading the articles to determine the policy of their organization toward TM, having a full, unmixed exposition of each side would be far more helpful than one article that keeps spiking in either direction.
If someone were reading the articles to determine if TM was something they might consider learning, it would similarly be helpful to be able to get a complete view of each side.
Similar analysis applies to many other reasons that people are interested in reading about TM in W. The present editors have done a very poor job (I think even they know it), yet are psychologically unable to go away. I'm sure each one thinks that if they go away, the "other side" will make the article far worse. I'm sure this would not be the case. If everyone truly wanted neutrality, they'd allow neutral editors to take over. Instead, we have the same three or five people lurking here for many months at a time, acting all huffy and authoritative and scaring away people who could actually improve the article.
Okay, well, if you all want to see the article improve, please consider my proposal of breaking it into two individually complete articles, pro and con. Then the present editors could stay and make each article really great without interference from the "other side" editors and potential contributors like me would finally feel safe to contribute again. David spector ( talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't have to be two articles. How about one article written in two parts with a big horizontal line between the two parts? Furthermore, I don't care whether the first part is the pro or the con part. Just so it gets done so the world can find out about the two descriptions of TM in a well-written way and we can get on with it. It's not sensible to keep arguing about this, that, and the other, and leave the article the way it is. Let's just replace the article with an empty space headed "Opposed to TM" and "In Favor of TM" (in either order) and start filling both sections in with beautiful prose (I'm half jesting here, but I've lost my patience and I hope all the current editors join me in losing patience with continuing as we have). David spector ( talk) 22:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The7thdr ( talk) 11:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone like to give an opinion on this section of the talk page? [28] The conversation is not progressing and might benefit from the input of others. Thanks! -- Kbob ( talk) 18:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This section has some very refreshing introspection. Please don't stop! If we all look at ourselves and our behavior honestly, completely, and openly, there is a chance of working together to improve the article instead of reveling in the usual secret Schadenfreude of unending argument over tiny, unimportant, almost manufactured controversies. I think we should all take Kbob's lead and apologize to each other. Maybe over a nice beverage. David spector ( talk) 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I came over here from the discussions at WP:COIN and hesitate to get directly involved in editing this controversial article. But I did want to question the following text found in the "origin" section:
What does the adulation of the Guru contribute to the understanding of Trancendental Meditation? Especially the way it's worded. I would recommend just removing those sentences as not being useful to the article. -- Atama chat 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The quote at the top of the thread that Atama has commented on is taken from the Beacon Light, which is under discussion here [30]. -- Kbob 02:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion regarding the source of the quote being discussed above has been moved to the RS noticeboard. [33]
I made a typo correction changing the words "at" to "and". Is the AFSCI still in existence? If not, we need to change the tense of the verbs in this section (or maybe it should be done anyway since we are talking about the past). -- BwB ( talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
And the reference is to a Time article from 1975, so the tense should be changed? Are folks OK with me editing this section a little without changing content and references? -- BwB ( talk) 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Edits made to reflect that AFSCI's activities were in the past (change tense of verbs mainly). No sources changed. -- BwB ( talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In 1975 the television station KSCI began broadcasting in Los Angeles on Channel 18. It featured prerecorded presentations by the Maharishi and variety shows featuring such famous meditators such as Stevie Wonder, Peggy Lee and the Beach Boys. Station KSCI's goal was to report only good news.[59]
I placed the above info in the History section two days ago. I found it in a 1975 Time Mag article on TM and thought it was interesting history. However, now I am thinking maybe its extraneous to the article and having second thoughts. What do others think?-- Kbob ( talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This may be a fussy detail but there is discussion here right now about whether some studies refer to the TM technique or other forms of meditations. I think we always need to be very clear what we are talking about even if somewhat redundant to prevent misunderstanding and more long dragged out discussion. My opinion of course.( olive ( talk) 12:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
My understanding of the copyright issue is that the two terms, Transcendental Meditation and TM, are properly used as modifiers of technique or program. So either can be used as long as either technique or program follows it. ChemistryProf ( talk) 09:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate everyone’s input (see talk topic 40, Use of Term “Movement”), but I am still bothered by the choice of reference cited, by the use of the word “movement,” and now by the sentence as a whole. Actually, the main reason for my concern goes beyond the sentence itself. If the lede is the place to define the title term of the article and to give an enticing preview of what is to follow, then the first sentence accomplishes the basic definition, but the rest of the lede does nothing to inform us of what is to come, not to mention making it enticing. This is reason enough to consider replacing the current second sentence with one or more others that better fulfill this aim, while maintaining neutrality, balance, and accuracy.
The article now has six main topical subheadings. The Research section is by far the largest, and a word or two about the research would certainly be appropriate in the lede. Then the question becomes, “Do we need to include some reference to each of the other main areas?” These are: Teaching Procedure, Principles, History, and Reception/Lawsuits. I could go either way, that is, either including something about each of the main areas or only mentioning the nature and amount of research as a notable fact about the technique. What do others think? ChemistryProf ( talk) 18:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
What about “Among meditation techniques, it has been the most heavily researched scientifically.(ref)”? This sounds better to me. ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I like your version better, Kbob. Do we have enough editor approvals to go ahead and insert it? The original suggestion was to substitute this one for the current second sentence. By the way, on my computer I still get the Kurt Vonnegut interview for reference 1 and now an article on DNA for reference 2. Reference 2 will now be changed, if we have a quorum, but how did these refs get messed up? Do we have a saboteur at work? ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this sentence from Chem is fine, if others agree, let's put it in.
Here is another quote we could take a few words from:
This looks better to me for a lede since the date is 2008.( olive ( talk) 23:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC))
The lede should be an introduction and summary with good references. Details then follow in the body of the article. With that in mind I would suggest we consider adding just this much:
Then we can discuss NIH, 600 studies etc in the body of the article as needed.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I also like the sentence Chem has suggested and have added it to the article along with the two reliable sources cited earlier in this thread that support the statement that TM is reported to be the most widely practiced and researched form of meditation. Editors are, of course, free to fine tune the new addition as needed and/or continue to discuss this sentence here if necessary.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ospina
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
I have been reading thru the article again to get a overall sense of the coherence of the material. While there are many areas that need attention, this section called "Range of Studies" grabbed my attention. I am wondering why we need this section? Perhaps the content could be included in the other Research sections. The section currently reads:
Moved the "Range of Studies" section to the top of the Research section. It makes sense to have this as an opening and then the details to follow. -- BwB ( talk) 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit that this is just silly: highlighting an author of an early study acknowledging the limitations of the study. The study itself probably acknowledges its limitations. This is the norm. It's not a scandal. These first studies are included for historical reasons. WP:MEDRS says that such a section can be included. Let's just rename the section, move out later studies, and let the history section be a history section. It's also historically important because this early research got so much national mediation attention, such as the Time magazine article that is referenced. Outside of the History section, I suggest that we simply exclude any study that didn't have a control group. According to Ospina Bond, there are over 200 studies on TM that do have control groups. That gives us plenty of material to work with. And I'd be fine if we excluded any study based on an ad hoc questionnaires. 76.76.232.130 ( talk) 10:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The text below is not supported by the citation. There is nothing in the source that mentions Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi or a Board of Trustees.
I removed the sentence below as it was not supported by the source. If another source can be found the content can be put back in the article. One portion of the sentence below was contained in the source re: SRF certificate says "religious" corp, so I incorporated this point into the first sentence where it fit better anyway.
We need to be careful about cherry picking material from sources. In the "Principles" section we find the new sentence "The technique is practiced morning and evening for 15-20 minutes each time but is not recommended before bed.[30]" with a reference to a Time article. However, on reading the article one finds many small details of the TM practice mentioned, but only the "not recommended before bed" point is chosen. This may seem like a small point, but it is indicative of cherry picking that other editors have highlighted above. -- BwB ( talk) 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the above text which is a slight variation of the text I removed a few days ago and posted on this talk page and gave reasons for the removal of each sentence. My reasons for removal in nutshell are it makes statements about medical research using periodicals as a source in violation of WP:MEDRS. Furthermore the text makes sweeping generalizations on decades of peer reviewed published research which occurred decades after the publication of the sourced periodicals (which are invalid sources anyway). I welcome comments from other editors so that we can have resolution and consensus.-- Kbob ( talk) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There are additional problems in that some of the text is grossly inaccurate. For example, in the first half of the first sentence it says "some researchers" but the article only mentions Benson. So this is an exaggeration. The sentence also refers to "earlier studies" but in fact the article refers to one single earlier study. A second misrepresentation. I think this deleted section needs some serious work before it can be consider for posting in the article.-- Kbob ( talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Therefore it is undue to mention or refer to this same study a second time in another section. Don't you agree?-- Kbob ( talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Cult issues
While Transcendental Meditation is a mental technique, not requiring the practicinar (sic) to believe anything (sic), to change their existing beliefs, or become a member of any organization, it has been asserted that the organization teaching the TM technique exhibit charactistics (sic)of a cult. These include: Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, [98]; and, Michael A. Persinger's in his book, TM and Cult Mania, published in 1980.[99].
However, Clarke and Linzey, argue that for the ordinary membership of TM their lives and daily concerns are little - if at all - affected by it's cult nature. Instead they claim, as is the case for Scientology, it is only the core membership, who must give total dedication to the movement [100]
According to David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management , cult followers are said to allegedly operate on blind faith and adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, while these studies would indicate the ability of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments.[101]; Marc Galanter MD, Professor of Psychiatry at NYU in his book "Cults: Faith and healing Coercion (who prefers the term Charismatic Movement to Cult)[102]
My problem with this sentence is primarily the sources:
So regardless of how we interpret WP:MEDRS, this sentence is not accurate and does not seem to cite good, reliable sources. What do others think?--
Kbob (
talk)
16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
By and large, I've got no problem with the various edits made in the article today to this text, with one concern. In
|this diff I think that adding a date creates a misleading impression. To say that "As of 1984" the scientific mainstream did not support claim that TM had unique effects on blood flow and chemistry is to imply that a change in position may have taken place in the scientific community since the article was published.. I know it's not asserted positively that things have changed in the meantime, but the wording suggests the possibility. Now, we all know that no-one outside the TM Org thinks these claims are valid, and studies such as the Ospina Bond metanalysis conclude that, whatever benefits TM may have, they aren't unique to TM. That's the scientific mainstream view. And, don't say "go find a more recent source that says TM isn't mainstream". The burden falls on the other side of the proposition. Anybody claiming that, since 1984 TM's assertions of its unique benefits flowing from blood flow and chemistry and SCI and I don't know what all else is now mainstream science, had better come up with a darned good, independent source to back it up. Thoughts?
Fladrif (
talk)
19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Today I moved some text from this section and moved it to the "Adverse Effects" section. The text and sources remain intact. I have also added some text with sources to the "Adverse Effects" section to show that there are studies countering the claims made by Fenwick. -- BwB ( talk) 15:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Reread the source and reedited this section to give a more accurate wording. -- BwB ( talk) 00:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If we want to remain neutral, use of the term "movement" to describe the legal entities responsible for offering instruction in the Transcendental Meditation technique is not acceptable. It is a pejorative term with distinct connotations and has no legal status. (No one can petition the TM "movement." We can only petition a legal organization.) I suggest a new expression such as "the legal entities offering instruction in the technique." Does anyone have a better expression than this? Also, we might question the accuracy of the number 60 in this sentence. The whole sentence is a newspaper article quote of one instructor. Did he just pull this from thin air? ChemistryProf ( talk) 10:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
.
I would like to remove the following paragraph from the article:
Here are my reasons:
Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[5]
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. -- Kbob ( talk) 02:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The sentence below from the Origin section may also need to be deleted for the same reasons as stated above.
And this one also:
These are good points and I agree it is deserving of some discussion. On the one hand Fladrif has given some valid references where the document is mentioned and referred to as the Maharishi's book. On the other hand we have some additional things to consider:
I don't see anything in the linked page above that says this was Maharishi's first published book... am I missing something. One of the issues here is not whether the book is self published or its use is a kind of extrapolation of information which technically I believe it is , but rather, if this is an instance of ignore all rules WP:IAR, and use the book because it is cited by the Organization... (Is it? I don't see that in this link but maybe in the links above -I'll check later when I have time,) Do we as a group feel the book is worth including anyway, and if the inclusion will create other concerns that is, set a precedent for inclusion of non compliant material. Because the source is cited somewhere else doesn't mean its compliant for Wikipedia, but we could include it if there's agreement for it. and ...I guess I'm the dumb one with my l'il ol' 183 IQ.( olive ( talk) 18:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
The entire copy contained on the title page appears as follows:
Working on it now. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 01:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)) This won't be up until tomorrow now. Some computer problems-new computer. Should have it sortd out by tomorrow.( olive ( talk) 02:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC))
We need page numbers and/or links that go directly to the source page. At present we have only links to the book covers.
How about a page number for this one too, anyone? Thanks for your help.
Also need page number for this source otherwise the sentence may be challenged and removed.
Explain, in addition to the question above, why these changes without discussion. These can hardly be described as "cleanup".
Its articles of incorporation stated that the Foundation's primary purpose for formation was spiritual, and in Article 11 that "this corporation is a religious one. The educational purpose shall be to give instruction in a simple system of meditation." [12]
In case you didn't see this earlier, I am pasting it here. The actual quote from the source (Price) states: "It was called the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation. A certificate of incorporation, written in 1961, made no bones about the fact that "this corporation is a religious one" (article eleven)." [ [19]] So for accuracy I have noted that there are two reliable sources with conflicting information. Why is there conflicting info? I don't know. Maybe they incorporated in another state in 1961. I have no idea. I am just accurately recording in the article what the sources say.-- Kbob ( talk) 17:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Enrollment in the Transcendental Meditation course in the United States dropped from a peak of 40,000 per month in 1975, to 3,000 to 10,000 per month two years later partly because the Maharishi invited several thousand TM teachers to his headquarters in Switzerland. [14] [15] [16] None of these sources support the "3000 to 10,000". They say 3000. Leyland says below 10,000. That's not 3000 to 10,000.
OK Fladrif here is what the sources say:
So one sources says 4,000 per month and the other says "fewer than 10,000". How would you suggest we represent this range in the sentence?-- Kbob ( talk) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
But this, to me, seems to be cherry picking the source and cherry picking data within the source. You are saying because Bainbridge's is a more valid source than Time Magazine. Bainbridge provides no footnote or indication as to where he obtained his info and I'm sure Time Magazine does its homework. We can't second guess our sources. Maybe we should just say that there was a significant decline in enrollment from its peak of 40,000 in 1975 to significantly lower numbers in 1977. Then the reader can check the sources themselves if they want more detail. Its not our job to assimilate conflicting source info nor should we cherry pick data from within sources. All of that is POV and Original Research and we don't want to do that. -- Kbob ( talk) 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Justify replacing this:
Original version-- Benson acknowledged methodological weaknesses and bias in the study he co-authored with Wallace, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology done in the 1970s had methodological weaknesses, and that early studies using control groups showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest. [18] [19] [20] [21] According to a 1984 article in the New York Times, claims by researchers associated with the Maharishi University of Management that TM has unique effects on body chemistry and blood flow different from other relaxation methods were not shared by the scientific community at large, [22] and TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice. [23] A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research concluded that the interest in meditation as a therapy for health-problems such as hypertension, stress and chronic pain is based on anecdotal evidence and studies of poor quality, and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced". [24] [9]
"He points out that his study is "very biased" because it reported only on people who had learned meditation and continued to practice it; there was no control group of others who tried to end their addiction without the aid of TM. Also, Benson is careful to note, the reports of the 1,862 drug users were subjective—they merely answered Benson and Wallace's questionnaires. Benson feels that better-controlled studies are needed. "What we're looking at is a behavioral type of approach to various disease patterns," he says, "to see whether changing one's behavior by meditation will help. As kooky as this sounds to many people, it has just got to be investigated." Otherwise, Benson says, no one can tell if TM is indeed useful."
OK, got it, didn't see the second page. So on page one Bensons says the study showed dramatic reduction of drug use and then on page 2 he says the study is inconclusive and biased. So how about we put something like this in the article:
David S. Holmes of the University of Kansas, writing in the journal American Psychologist earlier this year, charged that the empirical literature on the physiology of meditation was rife with methodological weaknesses, and that the 20 studies he could find that used proper controls had uniformly showed meditation to be no more effective than rest in reducing somatic arousal - the body traits associated with stress. His conclusion, which has stirred the ire of meditation proponents, was that the personal and professional use of meditation as an antidote for high somatic arousal is not justified by the existing research data.
Over the last several years many scientists have, in fact, retracted the claims made in the early 1970's of meditation's physiological uniqueness. Deane H. Shapiro Jr., director of the Executive Stress Management Center at the University of California at Irvine and co-editor of a new anthology of meditation research, acknowledged that studies to date show no physiological differences between meditation and other self-regulation strategies in use by clinicians, such as progressive muscle relaxation, biofeedback and self-hypnosis, and often, no differences between meditation and 'just sitting.'
At the same time Dr. Shapiro, in a written reply to Dr. Holmes's article, questions whether those identified as resting in many past studies could have served as proper control groups for comparison. He argues that people resting, especially during an experiment, might often be falling into a meditation-like state.
... In a position not supported by most scientists outside the T.M. movement, researchers at the Mahareshi International University in Fairfield, Iowa, maintain that T.M. has subtle effects on body chemistry and blood flow different from those induced by other formal relaxation methods, let alone ordinary rest.
The others don't let me just cut and paste, so I'm going to ask you to just read them more carefully. Fladrif ( talk) 19:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
With this (what Kbob wrote)
Kbob's version now in the article:In her book "Stress Management" author Cotton says: “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” [24]] Cotton, Dorothy H.G., Stress Managemetn: An Integrated Approach to Therapy Psychology Press, 1990
Fladrif ( talk) 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
TM is not science. TM is a technique. Wikipedia does not require us to say, "TM is not a part of either the scientific consensus nor the medical mainstream." What Wikipedia requires is creation of an article that by representing viewpoints according to their importance/weight creates an article that is neutral in tone. I can't see that we can take statements out of context . In doing so we are not citing the information we are creating information, and that is OR. I think what Kbob is saying is that we have to cite what the study said, and what it said goes beyond what you cited. If there is a place in the article to say TM is not in the mainstream I'm not against citing that, but we have to cite what is said, and we have to cite it within context otherwise yes its OR... because we are selectively choosing to leave in or take out material. The issue here is about referencing seems to me not about proving TM to be one thing or another. If TM is considered outside mainstream science and there are good sources that are talking about that why not cite that. The best " so called science" started outside the mainstream so its not a negative or positive view. Einstein was not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not sure I'm making sense here and if not I apologize .... This is about how we interpret a reference, and I'm in favour of watching for context.( olive ( talk) 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
That phrase was: TM is.... "outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice". To correct this I placed Cotton's entire sentence in the article: “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” So the phrase that Fladrif wanted in the article (see italics above) but in its proper context. This gives the reader accurate info so that they can decide for themselves.-- Kbob ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
__________________________________________________________________________
Prior Version: A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research concluded that the interest in meditation as a therapy for health-problems such as hypertension, stress and chronic pain is based on anecdotal evidence and studies of poor quality, and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced".[64][65]
Kbob's version now in the article: A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research was performed on five broad categories of meditation practices including mantra meditation, Mindfulness Meditation, Yoga, Tai Chi and Qi Gong. The report said that "meta-analysis based on low quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM, Qi Gong and Zen Bhuddist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure" and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced". [25] [9]According to a 1984 article in the New York Times, fifteen years of research on multiple kinds of meditation techniques has left the question of meditation's physiological effects more confused than clarified. [26]
To create my version I went directly to the opening remarks of the Ospina/Bond study, entitled "Structured Abstract" which gave a summary of the study as follows:
Because the study examines several kinds of meditation and relaxation techniques I took sentences that specifically mention the article topic ie TM.-- Kbob ( talk) 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is this included? Twice? According to Time Magazine Transcendental Meditation owes something to all major religious traditions—Christianity, Judaism and Islam, as well as the Eastern faiths— because at one time or another they have included both meditation and the repetition of a mantra-like word. [27] Fladrif ( talk) 17:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This study that I just deleted from the Adverse Effects section highly recommends the use of Transcendental Meditation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. There is no mention of adverse effects as an outcome of this study. And certainly there was no mention of suicide attempts. (Do be careful about lifting material from anti-TM websites.) So I've deleted this study for now. Unrelated to the outcomes presented in this study, however, is a nicely nuanced discussion of how TM effects a free interchange of information between the cerebral hemispheres, which allows repressed material to come to conscious awareness. The article stresses the therapeutic value of this while also noting that it can sometimes be uncomfortable. I don't have time to work on this, but it could make a nice addition to the article. And it seems like it should be done in the context of their strong recommendation of TM as a treatment for psychiatric disorders. In any case, the summary of this study that had been put in the Adverse Effects section didn't reflect accurately what it says, and apparently made up the bit about suicide attempts. There are, however, two or three other published reports on this study, so it's possible that suicide attempts were mentioned in one of those. (But given their thorough discussion in this paper, it seems unlikely.) 76.76.232.130 ( talk) 16:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I looked this guy Glueck up on the Internet, his resume is impressive [ [26]] not to be confused with his father, Bernard Sr, who was also a researcher:
Not that any of the "cut and slash" editors here will care, but I worked in Dr. Glueck's lab (as the computer programmer, mostly analyzing brainwave synchronization) in 1973 at the Institute of Living. The experiments were done on resident teenagers, comparing a group using TM with a standard muscle relaxation technique, Alpha wave biofeedback, and a control group. The hospital had a computer system that allowed the nurses to enter clinical notes on their patients wherever the nurses were four times a day. The study was carefully done, run by two Ph.D.s, relied heavily on the MMPI, and concluded that TM was useful in the treatment of a variety of psychiatric disorders.
Frankly, it seemed to me that TM was way more useful than what the other groups did, if only because the TM group loved it and continued it after the study was over. Glueck's son was a TM teacher who sometimes worked with us in the Hartford TM center (a really nice guy, like his father). And no, nobody was harmed by this simple, natural, and relaxing technique, as the five or so people who publish vocal diatribes against TM everywhere probably wish had happened. Those were heady days when we assumed that everyone would adopt TM everywhere, just because we had done high quality research that had a practical recommendation as its conclusion. Boy, were we wrong. Most people are just blasé about anything new. David spector ( talk) 22:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed a short bit of content on cost of TM in the US in an effort to help remedy the concern that the section sounds like an advert. I'm not attached to the edit so if others aren't comfortable with it, please revert. Since Wikipedia isn't American, and since I believe fee structures are different in every country, listing the cost of fees in this country but not others seems a little lopsided.( olive ( talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC))
I have three points for consideration by the group:
I think we need to consider all of these elements in our decision. What do others think?-- Kbob ( talk) 01:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
For everyone's reference and discussion. Here are the fees as listed on the official TM web site: Special Reduced Fees Through September 30th In order to help more people immediately participate in our TM courses, the fees are being reduced by 25% from now through the end of September. Course fees for the United States are now:
-- Kbob ( talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to summarize where we are at in this thread. The section under discussion is Teaching Procedures. Currently it has an Advertisement tag. Olive removed the sentence about price. I have edited the remaining section down to less than 3 sentences and giving it a more straightforward, encyclopedic tone. BWB says he might like to cut it back further. So I want to be clear that, Will, you stand alone as the sole editor who wants to include something in the section about the price. Since we are a group and we function via consensus I am willing to try and accommodate your desire. You have suggested we have a summary of the fees. OK, but it should be an accurate summary such as "current fees range from $375 to $1500" instead of vague phrases like: "thousands of dollars". Also if you want to summarize fees from the past then the summary should also be accurate and should say spomething like "past fees ranged from $35 to $2,500". We should not cherry pick fees from a specific range of years. What do you suggest we do?-- Kbob ( talk) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have seen several news articles that mention in passing that TM is high priced. Sometimes they even state the price, sometimes not. But in my research for this article I do not recall seeing any significant discussion about controversy over the price of TM. By the way Will, I appreciate your interjecting a little humor in your comment. I think a little tasteful, humor on the page is good now and then. Cheers! -- Kbob ( talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed the word "instruction" to "interview" to give the correct sequence to the 7 steps of learning TM -- BwB ( talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Posted question about Beacon Light of the Himalayas here: [27] ( olive ( talk) 03:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC))
Unlike most other articles here at W, this one has become quite a hodgepodge of standard description of TM as originates from the TM Movement itself, the inappropriate revealing of knowledge given to TM teachers for their use in teaching, and legal and other citations meant to show that TM is or fosters a cult mentality and/or is harmful. Largely missing is objective criticism of unsubstantiated claims made in the name of TM (such as the Maharishi Effect and the orientation of buildings) and the high price that keeps most interested people from learning TM (this very important aspect of TM in the real world seems to be treated like The Emperor's New Clothes here; I believe I am the only person to see its importance or to try to get it into the article over a period measured in years).
The article now reads like an amateurish concatenation of random material from the Web, lacking in coherence, continuity, and readability. It is embarrassing, and clearly the result of a handful of people with wildly differing points of view having nothing better to do than to "own" the article and spend their time arguing over it.
If I were someone who came across the term "Transcendental Meditation" and wanted to learn about it from my favorite site, W, I would be quite confused after reading this. I could come away with the opinion that TM is some harmful, weird "thing" that is marketed with hundreds of false studies, or I could come away with the opinion that TM is the best thing, fully supported by science and religion alike, depending on many factors including which parts of the article particularly caught my eye.
What I'd really like to see is two articles: a "TM - Pro" article that gives a complete and readable exposition of TM from the point of view of TM teachers and practitioners (collectively, the TM Movement), and a separate article, "TM - Con", that gives a complete and readable exposition of TM from the point of view of those who think TM is dangerous, or is a cult, or is religious.
Focusing on the improvement of both sides, pro and con, the result might be two very good articles, each standing on its own as helpful to readers. By reading both articles, visitors could come away with a much better understanding of TM as having two descriptions, depending on the polarization of the authors.
If someone were reading the articles to determine the policy of their organization toward TM, having a full, unmixed exposition of each side would be far more helpful than one article that keeps spiking in either direction.
If someone were reading the articles to determine if TM was something they might consider learning, it would similarly be helpful to be able to get a complete view of each side.
Similar analysis applies to many other reasons that people are interested in reading about TM in W. The present editors have done a very poor job (I think even they know it), yet are psychologically unable to go away. I'm sure each one thinks that if they go away, the "other side" will make the article far worse. I'm sure this would not be the case. If everyone truly wanted neutrality, they'd allow neutral editors to take over. Instead, we have the same three or five people lurking here for many months at a time, acting all huffy and authoritative and scaring away people who could actually improve the article.
Okay, well, if you all want to see the article improve, please consider my proposal of breaking it into two individually complete articles, pro and con. Then the present editors could stay and make each article really great without interference from the "other side" editors and potential contributors like me would finally feel safe to contribute again. David spector ( talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't have to be two articles. How about one article written in two parts with a big horizontal line between the two parts? Furthermore, I don't care whether the first part is the pro or the con part. Just so it gets done so the world can find out about the two descriptions of TM in a well-written way and we can get on with it. It's not sensible to keep arguing about this, that, and the other, and leave the article the way it is. Let's just replace the article with an empty space headed "Opposed to TM" and "In Favor of TM" (in either order) and start filling both sections in with beautiful prose (I'm half jesting here, but I've lost my patience and I hope all the current editors join me in losing patience with continuing as we have). David spector ( talk) 22:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The7thdr ( talk) 11:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone like to give an opinion on this section of the talk page? [28] The conversation is not progressing and might benefit from the input of others. Thanks! -- Kbob ( talk) 18:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This section has some very refreshing introspection. Please don't stop! If we all look at ourselves and our behavior honestly, completely, and openly, there is a chance of working together to improve the article instead of reveling in the usual secret Schadenfreude of unending argument over tiny, unimportant, almost manufactured controversies. I think we should all take Kbob's lead and apologize to each other. Maybe over a nice beverage. David spector ( talk) 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I came over here from the discussions at WP:COIN and hesitate to get directly involved in editing this controversial article. But I did want to question the following text found in the "origin" section:
What does the adulation of the Guru contribute to the understanding of Trancendental Meditation? Especially the way it's worded. I would recommend just removing those sentences as not being useful to the article. -- Atama chat 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The quote at the top of the thread that Atama has commented on is taken from the Beacon Light, which is under discussion here [30]. -- Kbob 02:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion regarding the source of the quote being discussed above has been moved to the RS noticeboard. [33]
I made a typo correction changing the words "at" to "and". Is the AFSCI still in existence? If not, we need to change the tense of the verbs in this section (or maybe it should be done anyway since we are talking about the past). -- BwB ( talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
And the reference is to a Time article from 1975, so the tense should be changed? Are folks OK with me editing this section a little without changing content and references? -- BwB ( talk) 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Edits made to reflect that AFSCI's activities were in the past (change tense of verbs mainly). No sources changed. -- BwB ( talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In 1975 the television station KSCI began broadcasting in Los Angeles on Channel 18. It featured prerecorded presentations by the Maharishi and variety shows featuring such famous meditators such as Stevie Wonder, Peggy Lee and the Beach Boys. Station KSCI's goal was to report only good news.[59]
I placed the above info in the History section two days ago. I found it in a 1975 Time Mag article on TM and thought it was interesting history. However, now I am thinking maybe its extraneous to the article and having second thoughts. What do others think?-- Kbob ( talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This may be a fussy detail but there is discussion here right now about whether some studies refer to the TM technique or other forms of meditations. I think we always need to be very clear what we are talking about even if somewhat redundant to prevent misunderstanding and more long dragged out discussion. My opinion of course.( olive ( talk) 12:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
My understanding of the copyright issue is that the two terms, Transcendental Meditation and TM, are properly used as modifiers of technique or program. So either can be used as long as either technique or program follows it. ChemistryProf ( talk) 09:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate everyone’s input (see talk topic 40, Use of Term “Movement”), but I am still bothered by the choice of reference cited, by the use of the word “movement,” and now by the sentence as a whole. Actually, the main reason for my concern goes beyond the sentence itself. If the lede is the place to define the title term of the article and to give an enticing preview of what is to follow, then the first sentence accomplishes the basic definition, but the rest of the lede does nothing to inform us of what is to come, not to mention making it enticing. This is reason enough to consider replacing the current second sentence with one or more others that better fulfill this aim, while maintaining neutrality, balance, and accuracy.
The article now has six main topical subheadings. The Research section is by far the largest, and a word or two about the research would certainly be appropriate in the lede. Then the question becomes, “Do we need to include some reference to each of the other main areas?” These are: Teaching Procedure, Principles, History, and Reception/Lawsuits. I could go either way, that is, either including something about each of the main areas or only mentioning the nature and amount of research as a notable fact about the technique. What do others think? ChemistryProf ( talk) 18:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
What about “Among meditation techniques, it has been the most heavily researched scientifically.(ref)”? This sounds better to me. ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I like your version better, Kbob. Do we have enough editor approvals to go ahead and insert it? The original suggestion was to substitute this one for the current second sentence. By the way, on my computer I still get the Kurt Vonnegut interview for reference 1 and now an article on DNA for reference 2. Reference 2 will now be changed, if we have a quorum, but how did these refs get messed up? Do we have a saboteur at work? ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this sentence from Chem is fine, if others agree, let's put it in.
Here is another quote we could take a few words from:
This looks better to me for a lede since the date is 2008.( olive ( talk) 23:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC))
The lede should be an introduction and summary with good references. Details then follow in the body of the article. With that in mind I would suggest we consider adding just this much:
Then we can discuss NIH, 600 studies etc in the body of the article as needed.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I also like the sentence Chem has suggested and have added it to the article along with the two reliable sources cited earlier in this thread that support the statement that TM is reported to be the most widely practiced and researched form of meditation. Editors are, of course, free to fine tune the new addition as needed and/or continue to discuss this sentence here if necessary.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ospina
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).