![]() | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
In the lede we have the sentence that includes "Transcendental Meditation is at the core of the Transcendental Meditation movement, citation needed" This statement is uncited and a citation has been requested since Nov 2009. If a citation is not provided in the next few days, I think it needs to be removed. -- BwB ( talk) 13:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
If a critical view on the subject is not allowed objectivity of the article is questionable. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda. Reliability of external link is not questionable, since it is a document that is validated from German high court. For the external link: http://trancenet.net/research/index.shtml
The TM movement attempted to suppress this report in German courts, but its findings were upheld by the German high court (The Federal Republic of Germany: OVG Muenster: 5 A 1152/84, The Bundesverwaltungsgericht: 23.5.87 7 C 2.87, The Bundesverfassungsgericht: 1 BvR 881/89).
Zofra102 ( talk) 09:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The study by Sarina Grosswold was a pilot study, with a handful of students and no control group. It may not be strong enough to include. I suggest we wait until her current and more rigorous research is published. Also, per MEDRS we shouldn't use popular media as a source for scientifi research. We should find a citation for Rita Benn's research and use that instead or in addition to the New York Times. She seems to have done two studies, one involving 60 students that may have been controlled. But the only one I can find so far is one that is likely too weak to include — 10 students using structured interviews and qualitative analysis. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Kala Bethere, I sense that you are bound by a strong negative opinion of the TM program and are searching for anything you can find to undermine the WP article on Transcendental Meditation. Over the years, I have critically read hundreds of the TM research papers. I have met many of the scientists from Maharishi University of Management and have visited there. Much of the research on this technique is as sound as any in the medical literature, especially any other behavioral medicine research. Doing good studies in behavioral medicine is inherently more complicated than doing research on drugs. Also, we must be clear that much of the research on TM is mainstream research. A lot of it is funded by the US National Institutes of Health and some by well known private foundations. Quite a bit of it is published in top-tier journals. There is no reason to doubt the honesty of the authors who report no conflict of interest. The University is a fully accredited institution of higher learning, just like all the other colleges and universities that publish research with potential medical implications. If you have an "axe to grind" with the technique or the research, then perhaps WP is not the best place to deal with that. What is called for here is, in as much as it's possible, a neutral attitude on the part of editors. ChemistryProf ( talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
...you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased).
and...
As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies...
Sorry, Kala Bethere, I was called away on another project for a few days. In response to your suggestion of a list, if I had kept a list over the years as I was reading these papers, satisfying your request would be easy. Unfortunately, I did not keep a list. However, I can point to a few recent reviews that partially accomplish this task. These are on the blood pressure studies and other studies related to cardiovascular disease. As for "independent" studies, I cannot accept your insinuation that any author of research who happens to be located at Maharishi University of Management or another meditation-related institution is not independent. The reasons you have mentioned do not appear to apply to these faculty members. According to the logic you have used so far, any researcher who happens to be at a technology school, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, should be considered to be in conflict of interest if he or she publishes research on a technology topic that is studied at the Institute. ChemistryProf ( talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Will, don't be fooled. The "Anderson" reviews just have the bias and poor methodology hidden. They've been pushed extensively to media and web sources despite these issues!-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably should change the opening paragraph to read:
"It is was once one of the most widely researched and one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques in the world." Past tense.
A Pub Med search for "Mindfulness" meditation research brought up Two-Thousand One Hundred and Forty-two hits (2142). It is claimed Mindfulness research is growing at a near exponential rate (according to Jon Kabat-Zinn).
A Pub Med search for Transcendental Meditation only brings up One-Hundred and Eighty-one (181).
The claim that TM is both the most widely research and widely practiced appears to no longer be true. I believe there are over 7 million Sri Sri Ravi Shankar initiates.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 13:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=llw470lSDAcC&lpg=PR4&ots=zLF5aWvg_p&dq=Clinical%20Handbook%20of%20Mindfulness&pg=PR27#v=onepage&q=&f=true -- Kala Bethere ( talk) 15:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Today the Art of Living Foundation is the world’s largest volunteer based Non-Governmental Organization, active in over 140 countries. Its service projects, programs on yoga, meditation and stress elimination have benefited over 20 million people representing all walks of life, religions, cultures and traditions with its 5Hs program in the areas of Health, Homes, Hygiene, Human Values and Harmony in Diversity.
"It was, at one time, one of the most widely researched and practiced meditation methods around."
-- Uncreated ( talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed bold per concern... Kala if you use a semicolon to indent instead of a colon the text will show as bold.( olive ( talk) 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
After the peak year of 1975, enrollment in "TM" courses has steadily declined, so much so that in 1977 the organization announced the opening of a whole new series of "advanced" courses, obviously devised in order to regain public interest and enthusiasm. These courses are intended to lead initiates to the "siddhis" or "supernatural powers" of Hinduism: walking through walls, becoming invisible, levitating and flying through the air, and the like. The courses have generally been greeted with cynicism, even though a "TM" brochure features a photograph of a "levitating" meditator (see Time Magazine, August 8, 1977, P. 75). Whether or not the courses (which cost up to $3000) will produce the claimed results -which are in the province of the traditional "fakirs" of India — "TM" itself stands revealed as a passing phase of the occult interest in the second half of the 20th century.
But this quick quote from [3] should just be shown as a quick example.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed WP:OR content from the lede. Neither source says specifically that any other form of meditation has become more popular, and a search is not considered a reliable source. To add content to this article we have several things to consider: The source must use the terms Transcendental Meditation, or TM (technique) and must say what you in someway are trying to add to the article. With an encyclopedia we can't look up different points of research and add them together to get another point then add that final point to the article . We are stuck and bound to the guides that define "encyclopedia" rather than "research paper" . I hope this makes some sense.( olive ( talk) 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
WP:OR has been mentioned a few times in this thread so I thought to post something here as a reference for this discussion.
Please include discussion for List of Current Refs which Violate WP:FRINGE here.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
A list of current scientific papers which violate the WP:FRINGE in the entry Transcendental Meditation.
Some guidelines in removal and editing from WP: FRINGE (emphases, mine)
"Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising."
Independent sources
"While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. If independent sources only comment on the major points of a fringe theory, an article that devotes the majority of its space to minor points that independent sources do not cover in detail may be unbalanced. "
"Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance."
Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas.
"Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable.
Papers are listed by relative appearance in the entry. May not include all non-compliant citations. "Other" non-compliant magazine articles, etc. to be listed separately.
Study or Paper name | Independent? | Reasons/Other |
---|---|---|
Morris, Bevan (1992). "Maharishi’s Vedic Science and Technology: The Only Means to Create World Peace". Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science 5 (1–2): 200. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM president, profs and/or affiliates |
Travis, Frederick; Chawkin, Ken (Sept-Oct, 2003). New Life magazine. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Travis F, Haaga DA, Hagelin JS, Tanner M, Nidich S, Gaylord-King C et al. Effects of Transcendental Meditation practice on brain functioning and stress reactivity in college students. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2009 71(2):170-176 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Travis, Frederick; Chawkin, Ken (Sept-Oct, 2003). "Meditation Can Change The World". New Life magazine. | NOT Independent | |
Schneider, R.H. et al., "A randomized controlled trial of stress reduction for hypertension in older African Americans", Hypertension 26: 820–827, 1995 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Wallace, R.K. et al. "The effects of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on the aging process", International Journal of Neuroscience 16: 53–58, 1982 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Orme-Johnson, D.W. and Herron, R.E., "An innovative approach to reducing medical care utilization and expenditures", The American Journal of Managed Care 3: 135–144, 1997 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Alexander, C.N. et al., "Treating and preventing alcohol, nicotine, and drug abuse through Transcendental Meditation: A review and statistical meta-analysis", Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 11: 13–87, 1994 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Wallace RK. Physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation. Science 1970;167:1751–1754 | NOT Independent | |
Wallace RK, Benson H, Wilson AF. A wakeful hypometabolic physiologic state. American Journal of Physiology 1971;221:795-799 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Wallace RK. The Physiology of Meditation. Scientific American 1972;226:84-90. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Dillbeck, M.C., and D.W. Orme-Johnson: 1987, "Physiological differences between Transcendental Meditation and rest", American Psychologist 42, pp. 879-881 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Travis, F.T. & Wallace, R.K. (1999). EEG and Autonomic Patterns during Eyes-Closed Rest and Transcendental Meditation Practice: The Basis for a Neural Model of TM practice. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 302-318 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Stress Reduction for Hypertension in Older African Americans, Robert H. Schneider et al., Hypertension, 1995, 26: 820-827 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Stroke. 2000 Mar;31(3):568-73. | Author names missing, needs verification | |
David W. Orme-Johnson, Vernon A. Barnes, Alex M. Hankey, and Roger A. Chalmers, "Reply to critics of research on Transcendental Meditation in the prevention and control of hypertension," Journal of Hypertension 2005, 23:1107–1110 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Schneider RH et al.. "Long-Term Effects of Stress Reduction on Mortality in Persons >55 Years of Age With Systemic Hypertension" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-09-12. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Schneider RH et al.. "A randomized controlled trial of stress reduction in African Americans treated for hypertension for over one year". Retrieved 2006-09-12. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Effects of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation on Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Subjects With Coronary Heart Disease, Archives of Internal Medicine, Maura Paul-Labrador et al.,, Vol. 166 No. 11, June 12, 2006 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Orme-Johnson DW, Schneider RH, Son YD, Nidich S, Cho ZH (2006). "Neuroimaging of meditation's effect on brain reactivity to pain.". Neuroreport 17 (12): 1359–63. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000233094.67289.a8. PMID 16951585. PMC PMC2170475. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
VOLUME 21 NUMBER 3 | AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, pp. 310-316 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates; financial ties |
Anderson, p. 313 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates: financial ties |
Integrative Cancer Therapies (Vol. 8, No. 3: September 2009) | Author names missing, needs verification | |
Nidich, S.I. and Nidich, R.J. Increased academic achievement at Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment: A replication study. Education 109: 302–304, 1989. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Intelligence (September/October 2001), Vol. 29/5, pp. 419-440 | Author names missing, needs verification | |
Eppley K, Abrams A, Shear J. Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1989, 45: 957-74 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
SI Nidich, MV Rainforth, DAF Haaga, J Hagelin, JW Salerno, F Travis, M Tanner, C Gaylord-King, S Grosswald, and RH Schneider. A randomized controlled trial on effects of the Transcendental Meditation program on blood pressure, psychological distress, and coping in young adults. American Journal of Hypertension. 2009, Vol 22(12):1326-1331. doi:10.1038/ajh.2009.184. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Mason LI, Alexander CN, Travis FT, Marsh G, Orme-Johnson DW, Gackenbach J, Mason DC, Rainforth M, Walton KG. "Electrophysiological correlates of higher states of consciousness during sleep in long-term practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation program." Sleep. 1997 Feb;20(2):102-10. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Travis, F. T., Tecce, J., Arenander, A., & Wallace, R. K. (2002), Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. Biological Psychology, 61, 293-319 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Travis, F., Arenander, A., & DuBois, D. (2004). Psychological and physiological characteristics of a proposed object-referral/self-referral continuum of self-awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 401-420 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Wallace 1993, pp. 64-66 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Study Name / Authors | Independent Source? | Reasons / Other |
---|---|---|
Paul-Labrador M, Polk D, Dwyer JH, et al. (June 2006). "Effects of a randomized controlled trial of transcendental meditation on components of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with coronary heart disease". Arch. Intern. Med. 166 (11): 1218–24. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.11.1218. PMID 16772250. | Looks OK...or does it? (see below) | Superficial examination of citation makes it only appear Independent. |
Maura Paul-Labrador, MPH; Donna Polk, MD, MPH; James H. Dwyer, PhD; Ivan Velasquez, MD; Sanford Nidich, PhD; Maxwell Rainforth, PhD; Robert Schneider, MD; C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD "Effects of a randomized controlled trial of transcendental meditation on components of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with coronary heart disease". Arch. Intern. Med. 166 (11): 1218–24. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.11.1218. PMID 16772250. | Bold-faced authors were truncated and all have TM Org affiliation, therefore this cite is Non-Independent | Study has TM Org/ MUM.edu conflicts |
Nidich, S, Fields, J, Rainforth, M, Pomerantz, R, Cella, D, Kristeller, J, Salerno, J , Schneider, R, A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effects of Transcendental Meditation on Quality of Life in Older Breast Cancer Patients. Integrated Cancer Therapies 2009, 8(3):228-234 | NOT indepdendent | Numerous MUM.edu and TM-Org affiliates |
This has been raised before. Will Beback put the following text in the history section after I had deleted it per MEDRS: "In 2009, Robert Schneider of Maharishi University of Management presented the results of a nine-year study on African Americans at a conference of the American Heart Association. Schneider reported a nearly 50% decrease in heart attack, stroke, and death among those who practiced TM.[93]". Now that we're applying MEDRS, I'd like to ask again whether it's appropriate to have this in the article, since MEDRS proscribes conference presentations and popular media. TimidGuy ( talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
We have a great review of TM from 2007. Will be rewording much of this section to comply with the most recent research. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Replacing old primary research with recent review articles is not controversial. As the health effects falls under WP:MED the refs should follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is contentious. Making massive changes as is being done is not the norm. However I am one editor so there is very little I can do in the face of such aggressive editing.( olive ( talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
No Fladrfi. I did not see it that way. I saw this discussion as ongoing and whose focus despite the mud throwing to be about the ME effect. I also was aware of this comment by a knowledgable editor who actually looked at the ME studies and seems to be saying they are relaible. [7] I felt that this would be a legitimate discussion on the ME talk page. Sadly prejudice and bias dominate, and incivilities are accepted and condoned. ( olive ( talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
(undent) Which part of the lead do not reflect the article as it now stands? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how we can say the review in the lead summarizes the content below taken from the article. The review in the lede accurately describes itself and one other paragraph but goes no further than that.(
olive (
talk)
12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC))
A 2008 review however found a 4.7 mmHg systolic blood pressure and 3.2 mmHg diastolic blood pressure decrease in those who practiced TM verse a controls group.[53] Using a quality scale, the researchers found that of the nine studies evaluated, three were of high quality with a score of 75% or greater, three were of acceptable quality, and three were of suboptimal quality.[54] In a 2005 done by the Maharishi University of Management which looked at stress reduction with the Transcendental Meditation technique and mortality among patients receiving treatment for high blood pressure found a decrease in mortality of 23%.[55] Another study published the same year by the same group found the Transcendental Meditation technique may be useful as an adjunct in the long-term treatment of hypertension among African-Americans.[56] In 2006, a study involving 103 subjects published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that coronary heart disease patients who practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique for 16 weeks showed improvements in blood pressure, insulin resistance, and autonomic nervous system tone, compared with a control group of patients who received health education.[57] Also in 2006, a functional MRI study of 24 patients conducted at the University of California at Irvine, and published in the journal NeuroReport, found that the long-term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique may reduce the affective/motivational dimension of the brain's response to pain.[58]
Is that the clearest writing we can manage? For a summary, it's pretty convoluted. Will Beback talk 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The overall treatment now seems disproportionately long for the intro, 1/3 of the words. Can't we come up with something more like, "Reviews of studies on the health effects of TM are ambiguous. Some show reductions in blood pressure while others show no significant results." Or something like that? Will Beback talk 22:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledgments: This study was designed by J.W.A. who conducted the literature search. Statistical analyses were done by C.L. under the supervision of R.J.K. The study rating system was developed by J.W.A. with input from R.J.K. Studies were scored independently by three individuals (J.W.A., R.J.K., and Manan Jhaveri), and consensus values were established by conference discussion. J.W.A. drafted the manuscript and R.J.K. and C.L. reviewed and provided input; all authors reviewed the final manuscript and agree with the content. This research was funded, in part, by the HCF Nutrition Foundation and by an unrestricted gift from Howard Settle. During a 1-year study period J.W.A. received partial salary support from Mr Settle. Mr Settle had no input on any aspect of the study and received a draft copy as a courtesy but had no input on the content of this manuscript. J.W.A. has no other connections to groups related to Transcendental Meditation and declares no other financial interests or conflicts related to the subject of this manuscript.
Doc, I have just read the Times article. I wouldn't call it a "great paper"; as a summary of the TM phenomenon it has the usual mix of truth and distortions. Frankly, it leaves me wondering where the extreme polarization in the public attitude has come from. Maybe from MMY himself?
I agree that this whole discussion should be moved to the MMY or Movement talk pages, since it has nothing to do with the TM technique.
The article quotes MMY as saying about all the money coming in, “It goes to support the centres, it does not go on me. I have nothing. But my wants are simple. I do not drink or smoke. I have never been to the theatre or to the cinema.” This clearly supports my contention above that MMY himself was not rich, although I agree with Will's comment that he did indeed have complete control over all that money (as does the council of Rajas today). MMY himself did not live a lavish lifestyle, as he well could have, given the millions of dollars that were flowing in as early as the mid-1960s (as I understand it, the luxury cars he traveled in were a spontaneous donation from a rich appreciative follower; they were not purchased by the Movement). My perception from being associated with him for many years is that his devotion to popularizing and teaching TM was a devotional activity to help the world.
I also see clearly that he sometimes compromised his ethics (asking for large donations from wealthy people) to further his cause; I do not forgive him for this, because in the relative, no matter how noble the end, there is no justification for employing unethical means. But the whole idea of his 'trying to rape Mia Farrow' is ridiculous; neither Ms. Farrow nor the surviving Beatles really believe this now. There was a lot of panic going on, and it came from them, the course attenders, not from MMY.
While quoting Maharishi about his simple wants, the Times article goes on to make the following assertions:
These points makes it clear that MMY was a very good promoter and businessman. Is this a crime? Why were people ridiculing MMY for making money to be used for spreading TM? Is it because previous meditation teachers had not done this? I believe there is nothing in the Vedic traditions of India that lists being poor as one of the requirements for a yogic life or for being a guru (teacher).
Frankly, in my own nonprofit, volunteer business selling meditation learning materials, if I could find some way to generate that kind of money, I would. With many millions of dollars I might accomplish the same level of instruction for the world as MMY. And I assure you, I'd be doing it for the world, not for my ego or for a lavish lifestyle. The only problem is, I'm not the man Maharishi was. I'm an ant compared to his greatness. Am I a fan? Yes. Do I share your criticism that the TM organizations charge too much for instruction? Yes, which is why I run NSR Meditation/USA and provide some competition for them.
I wonder why there is such an extreme polarization among the editors. So what if TG and Olive are on the staff at MUM? So what if I both love TM and hate some of the organization's policies? These are just affiliations and opinions. What I really don't understand is the negativity posed by some of the other active editors such as Fladrif and Kala. Both clearly want to improve the article. Yet they keep attacking many of the basic concepts of TM, particularly as they have played out historically. All the doctors who prescribe TM for their patients find good results, which is why they do it. Why does Doc James, an internist, who I would have expected to favor TM, oppose TM so much that he picks on ad hominem arguments like "this is a commercial venture which made one man very rich"? Why can't MMY be seen as a great man who did his best to help the world? If you compare TM with Scientology, don't you see a great difference? TM actually reduces anxiety and improves self-actualization. It actually refreshes body and mind. It actually works today in 20 or more inner-city high schools to eliminate fighting, weapons, and other distractions to learning. These benefits are IMO the most important facts to reflect in an article on TM, particularly since they are not widely known.
Finally, I would like to raise a plea for peace here on WP. I love WP, even its internally-conflicted policies (Be Bold compared with NOR) and its flawed administration (page deletions followed by reversals of page deletions; inconsistencies in applying policies equally to all articles) do not dim my love for WP. WP is an instant and in-depth source of knowledge. Yes, Doc James, it should never be used as a primary source; it should never be relied on for accuracy. But its value is indisputable.
WP editors should have conflicts, because, like democracy, out of conflicts come eventual solutions. But WP editors should always be peaceful, courteous, and collegial, and in this case that especially includes restraint in making direct edits and reversions (for my part, I am humble enough only to make grammatical changes). I must agree that the case made against TG and Olive gives me pause. These believers in the value of TM, along with all the other editors, should play by the same rules and not require interventions such as WP mediation. Shame on you! Instead of fighting amongst yourselves, you should be structuring fruitful discussions here, crafting the article topic by topic until everyone agrees, not that the article is a true reflection of TM, since the polarization of views means that there can be no such agreement, but only that the article fairly presents a balanced view of TM, including both positive and negative viewpoints. That is what WP demands, and this is what I implore. Banning qualified editors is a failure for the goal of improving the TM article (which still needs lots of improvement). Please don't fail; please work together. David spector ( talk) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Doc James recommended I bring this discussion thread from the Fringe theories/Noticeboard to here. ChemistryProf ( talk) 07:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Woonpton, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Orme-Johnson's ..."critique doesn't contain any telling criticisms of the [AHRQ] meta-analysis...". As a WP editor, you have no legitimate basis for that conclusion unless you can source it to an RS. On the other hand, many editors have pointed to weaknesses of the AHRQ review, and there is an RS with a detailed critique of many of its weaknesses. That critique warrants inclusion in the article. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to relate a little story to all the editors I have met here in this recent discussion and a few others. I belong to several professional societies not associated with meditation research. Recently one of these societies conducted a poll of its membership on their experiences with WP. You might be interested to know that 27% of the respondents answered that they had edited on WP at one time or another, but only 5% of those continued to do so. Of the 95% who had ceased to edit, the majority indicated it was because of the editorial environment. Some of them included specific comments, ranging from "1. Not an accurate source of info, and 2. not interested; wrong venue for respected authority" to "37. It would appear that a select cadre of Wikipedia editors are manipulating the information there to dumb down, discredit, or otherwise impair points of view, paradigms, beliefs, knowledge, and/or information not matching their own. It is effectively an information controlling coup." These were some of the least critical answers. Furthermore, when all respondents were asked whether as a teacher they would allow Wikipedia to be used as a primary research source for students, 61% answered "No, not under any circumstances." This is the kind of reputation WP has gained. We might do well to ponder whether something going on here is not as it should be. In any case, if things continue the way they are going, WP will likely soon be universally rejected as a source of information worth bothering with. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That TM research has been debunked and ignored is an incorrect generalization of rather large proportions as evidenced by 350 studies peer reviewed in reliable publications, repeated support by the NIH (28+ million dollars), collaborative research with multiple, highly respected medical schools and universities, and ongoing research such as this yet to be published study that has received world wide attention [9].
WP:Verifiable cannot be bypassed in favour of any guideline such as WP:MEDRS. Although I thank you for the effort that went in reworking this article, I find the article has major concerns. WP:Verifiable favours peer reviewed studies and peer review carries with it its own editorial oversight and review process. Peer reviewed sources are a reliable source. No editor opinion or notice board comments, no matter how strident and uncivilized, can supersede or override Wikipedia's policies. In stripping the article of the primary sources the article carries a non neutal POV in that it implies that very little research has been done on the technique a blatant inaccuracy, and as well implies that what has been done shows little if any benefits from the technique. That is also an inaccuracy. The article also goes on to describe the NIH grants but given the earlier lack of information on the studies, it is unclear in the article what the grants are for, if not for the multiple studies that are never mentioned.
Further peer review studies are acceptable in an article as long as they are being cited for themselves and are not being used to comment or extend beyond beyond the studies themselves, the editorial voice of the encyclopedia, or to make claims. Studies need to returned to this article. Which ones and how many is open for discussion. ( olive ( talk) 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
(undent) agree with Woons summary. This is a relatively simple point. And really there is not much more to be said here unless other "meta-analysis" can be found. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
MEDRS says to use up-to-date evidence. Since Ospina Bond only goes through 2005, it seems like we could include some of the RCTs published since then, particularly the study by Paul-Labrador (published by the AMA) and the American University study, which had over 200 subjects. Paul-Labrador was included in the reviews by Rainforth and Anderson, but both only considered hypertension, whereas the findings in Paul-Labrador were broader than that. Three papers on the AU study came out in 2009, each looking at a different facet. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this text to the TMM article as the statement is directly about the TM movement, not TM. -- BwB ( talk) 12:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is an interesting article about an ex member support group for TM. [12] The Skeptics Dictionary also has a great overview [13] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Minet.org fails WP:SELFPUB [14]
(The article is not about MIN, so it fails that point and...)
(TM and the TM Movement is, for all intents and purposes, a third party the MIN site makes claims about.)
As for the site itself, it fails WP:V [15]
(The site shows no sign of any editorial oversight, fact-checking or claims of accuracy…) ( olive ( talk) 22:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
Minet has apparently been discussed before. [16] I don't have time now to read what's been said about it in the past. The issue would be whether or not it's self-published. If there's evidence of something like an editorial board then it probably would not count as an SPS. Again, I don't have time now to investigate. It might be easier to find another source rather than conduct these investigations. Space Skeptics does appear to be a blog and the authors don't appear to be recognized experts, so it shouldn't be used. Skeptics Dictionary is widely used as a source on Wikipedia, but its views should be attributed. Will Beback talk 22:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Posted over at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Transcendental_Meditation to clarify how we deal with potential COI. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
A quick look at the sound value section shows a number of conflicts with mantra-shastra and with the talks of the Maharishi. Let's go through this one paragraph at a time and try to improve the errors in a factual and readable way. I'm afraid what's happening here is we're getting a lot of "Maharishi said" type statements and it's clear not everything he is stating is actually factually correct.
This would be a good place to introduce the meanings behind the mantra, perhaps even give an example to demonstrate.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This content [20] was removed per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Its a relatively straight forward comment about mantras and not connected to either guideline, so I have re added it. If there's a good reason to delete it I'm not against it. ( olive ( talk) 16:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC))
I looked at the paper, which is available for free on a TM website. [21] For the assertion about the mantras, Travis cites "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the Bhagavad Gita", 1969. Why don't we just follow his lead and say, "According to the Maharishi..." Will Beback talk 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
At present, this grammatically incorrect sentence in the lead says:
The actual quote form the sources says: "The worldwide TM organization has an estimated valuation of $3 billion." [22] Neither the quote, nor the paragraph in which it is contained, mentions anything about trademarks or the Maharishi Foundation. Can we edit it so that it reflects the source more accurately and avoid the appearance of original research?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The section titled "Seven states of consciousness" is an explanation of the Maharishi's overall view of consciousness, which is outside the scope of this article. Only one sentence connects TM to it. I suggest we move this section to the Maharishi bio, and keep the sentence about TM in the "Views on human development" section. Will Beback talk 23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It is extremely questionable that there is any "higher" or special states of consciousness so these are all unsupported claims of TM promoters. One leading authority on this issue is the Cambridge Handbook on Consciousness where the authors discussed the research on TM and found no evidence of a unique state of consciousness during TM. http://cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521674126. Here is the specific chapter (by leading authors in the field) that talks about the state of TM consciousness research: http://compassion.stanford.edu/pdf/Dunne_Ch%2019%20Lutz%20Dunne%20Davidson-1.pdf
Nothing should be claimed regarding states of consciousness without the balance presented by this work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judyjoejoe ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Unable to find this reference "In 1994, the Transcendental Meditation program became a part of the school day at the Fletcher Johnson Educational Center of Washington, D.C. [4]" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
What's the nature of this source? Is it a book or a journal or what? Will Beback talk 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a magazine. [24]-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This 2004 review is now a bit outdated, since there have been at least four hypertension reviews since then, several of which include highly rated studies that post-date the Canter & Ernst review. Seems like we should exclude it per MEDRS. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
As long as they're Independent, you can post the studies here so we can review them first.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 13:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a complete misunderstanding of the scientific literature. "A 2006 Cochrane review examined a 1980 study that showed a reduction in anxiety" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
As this is the most recent review we should describe it in the present tense not the past tense as there is no indication that things have changed. Also this page is not about physical measures and therefore this does not need mentioning. Little Olive your changes are not an improvement. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Thank you Will that was my point exactly. The limited evidence is for TM they way it was worded may it sound like the review was limited when in fact it was an exhaustive meta analysis of all studies published until Sept 2005. There seems to be some issues with basic interpretation of scientific literature here. I have edited here in line with the consensus at [27] If an editor disagrees and feel they are not being heard / understood they may bring this to a RFC. We still have a range of articles in this topic area which need to be substantially changed to reflect WP:NPOV. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Contesting means I would try and have the word removed... I'm not doing that ... I note my concern which I have a right to do ....Second, I asked about the word before there was a ref... also my right to do .... If you want a fight you'd better find someone else to fight with.( olive ( talk) 14:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
Mainstream health newspaper? Unless I'm missing something. [28]( olive ( talk) 14:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients" That's a direct quote from p4 of Ospina Bond. Fladrif ( talk) 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I am quoting the conclusions from the study, and per the article text, the "overall conclusion". What appears to be the problem is that the "overall conclusions" and the specific conclusions noted in the TM article text are conflated. I'll change the article to reflect the text. My copy of Opsina Bond is not numbered I guess in the way yours is.... since there is no page four, but I'll take your word for the quote.( olive ( talk) 16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
The results from the pediatric review that I added to the article were from randomized controlled trials. I've deleted the material referring to the ADHD study and which was sourced to a blog. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
TimidGuy, you've been told before about adding primary sources and that it is a violation of WP policy.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 13:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Kala you set the lists up. There is no agreement as to their use, and or whether they are Wikipedia compliant. We need to consider peer review per the core policy WP:Verifiable, and guideline WP:RS so lets not get too far off the policy track. If there is disagreement discussion would be most useful.( olive ( talk) 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
Kala's lists were on a Notice Board? My point is that discussion is fine. No need for anyone to get worked up. ( olive ( talk) 22:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)) To make my position clear. My comment was general and simply that our process for discussion be observed and our policies, however they need to be applied. We don't have permission to carte blanche ignore policy, and discussion can clarify many issues. Like Will, I'll stay out of this discussion now since I don't have the time to really look further.( olive ( talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
The Paul-Labrador study was conducted independently. But even if it hadn't been, it could still be included, per the only uninvolved feedback we got on RSN:
"At the very least, there should be clear attribution as to the provenance and authorship of these studies. And if there are 25 peer-reviewed studies by TM followers saying one thing, and no corroboration by neutral researchers, then the weight given these 25 studies should be reduced accordingly. Criticism of the studies' methodology, where available, should be represented in the article. On the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say the studies should not be used at all; if it's a peer-reviewed journal, it's a peer-reviewed journal, if the author is a follower or not. (That's assuming we are talking about reputable peer-reviewed journals.) --JN466 01:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)"
Again, MEDRS says this: "Reliable primary sources can add greatly to an article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources." There is no policy or guideline that would disallow inclusion of the study. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Lede text now reads "A 2007 review of various meditation practices, most notably Transcendental Meditation, concluded that the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality." Is this new version of the text now POV wording? -- BwB ( talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the sentence in question is an adequate summary of the source. Will Beback talk 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the consensus is that it's fine just the way it is. I've never seen such concentrated interest in one paragraph!
Regarding mindfulness meditation, I believe the claim is that while TM was once the most researched meditation method around, that is no longer the case. A meditation researcher at the University of Mass., Jon Kabat-Zinn, has noted MM research is growing at an exponential rate. As with most exponential curves, the growth is near the end of the curve, probably too soon to make the Alberta review. I suspect that much of this has to do with worldwide acceptance of MM in hospitals and now for reimbursement from some insurance companies. I've seen several textbook-level publications as well.
I've heard not any claims as to the number of adherents.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks TimidGuy for your concerns, perhaps you still have not heard: after much consideration, the paragraph looks fine as it is. It also is not a good idea for biased or directly affected parties to be editing these entries. Hopefully you heard me this time! Thanks in advance.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 14:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) The secondary source stands.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
09:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Will Beback, please show me where the WP rules or guidelines say that any and all secondary sources are better than any and all primary sources. A bad, non-peer reviewed, secondary source is infinitely less reliable than a good, peer reviewed article. If WP guidelines say something different, then those guidelines are faulty and must be changed, that is, IF our goal is to have WP be a reliable encyclopedia. ChemistryProf ( talk) 03:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Doc James, the peer reviewed version is the article just before the Orme-Johnson commentary in the journal cited above. And are you telling me that as an experienced WP editor you are hands down ready to accept a politically contrived point of view over an honestly peer reviewed original article? ChemistryProf ( talk) 03:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
On 29 January, Doc James informed us that the AHRQ reports are not peer reviewed but also implied that since AHRQ is a government agency it not only is a reliable source but takes precedence over peer reviewed primary sources. I have not seen any rules or guidelines that would support this position. Furthermore, in the AHRQ WP article, the politicized nature of the agency is alluded to. An illustration is given as to how powerfully the agency is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry and other special interest groups. Of course, we editors have succeeded in making WP an unreliable source, but everyone knows that all government agencies and departments are politicized. Look at what has happened to the Department of Justice, for example. So I am looking for the WP rules that say that government reports are reliable sources. If there are such rules, then we need to modify them to more accurately reflect the situation. ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Doc James, in answer to your question of 31 January, read Orme-Johnson's critique to see the evidence of political contrivance. The consultants that AHRQ referred to as "peer reviewers" submitted their corrections and recommendations to the authors, but rather than the authors directing their responses to the reviewers for consensual approval, they simply submitted their responses to an administrator at AHRQ for her to make the final decision of whether the criticisms had been adequately met. Neither the authors' responses nor the administrator's reasons for accepting or rejecting these responses was made accessible to the reader. This is not an acceptable peer review procedure but is a political contrivance to allow the administrator to unduly influence the final report. ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
TimidGuy, in answer to your suggestion, I agree that the peer reviewed article summarizing the corrected results from the AHRQ report is by far the better choice, but I disagree that it should be in the lede. From my reading of the guidelines for the lede, this is where the overview of the whole article is given, not an emphasis on any one part, such as the research. These reviews and reports should be mentioned under the appropriate headings in the body of the article. ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
As for the credentials of Orme-Johnson, who are we supposed to look for to criticize research on meditation, representatives of the pharmaceutical companies? It is true that Orme-Johnson was an author on several of the studies contained in the AHRQ report. On the other hand, this is his field of expertise, and he was obviously seen as an appropriate expert from whom the journal wanted a critique of the AHRQ summary. This is the way science progresses. The people most knowledgeable in a field are the ones who pave the way forward. It is rare that someone from outside a field adds anything to advance either the frontiers or the knowledge base of the field. If experts in the topic of the article are excluded from WP, as seems to happen, then we get an unreliable encyclopedia that few in academe will allow students to cite. What is the value of that? ChemistryProf ( talk) 05:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(Undent) This PMID 19123875 is not a revision of this PMID 17764203? Please clarify? Also this publication Evid Rep Technol Assess is much more respected than this J Altern Complement Med Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
In the lede we have the sentence that includes "Transcendental Meditation is at the core of the Transcendental Meditation movement, citation needed" This statement is uncited and a citation has been requested since Nov 2009. If a citation is not provided in the next few days, I think it needs to be removed. -- BwB ( talk) 13:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
If a critical view on the subject is not allowed objectivity of the article is questionable. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda. Reliability of external link is not questionable, since it is a document that is validated from German high court. For the external link: http://trancenet.net/research/index.shtml
The TM movement attempted to suppress this report in German courts, but its findings were upheld by the German high court (The Federal Republic of Germany: OVG Muenster: 5 A 1152/84, The Bundesverwaltungsgericht: 23.5.87 7 C 2.87, The Bundesverfassungsgericht: 1 BvR 881/89).
Zofra102 ( talk) 09:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The study by Sarina Grosswold was a pilot study, with a handful of students and no control group. It may not be strong enough to include. I suggest we wait until her current and more rigorous research is published. Also, per MEDRS we shouldn't use popular media as a source for scientifi research. We should find a citation for Rita Benn's research and use that instead or in addition to the New York Times. She seems to have done two studies, one involving 60 students that may have been controlled. But the only one I can find so far is one that is likely too weak to include — 10 students using structured interviews and qualitative analysis. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Kala Bethere, I sense that you are bound by a strong negative opinion of the TM program and are searching for anything you can find to undermine the WP article on Transcendental Meditation. Over the years, I have critically read hundreds of the TM research papers. I have met many of the scientists from Maharishi University of Management and have visited there. Much of the research on this technique is as sound as any in the medical literature, especially any other behavioral medicine research. Doing good studies in behavioral medicine is inherently more complicated than doing research on drugs. Also, we must be clear that much of the research on TM is mainstream research. A lot of it is funded by the US National Institutes of Health and some by well known private foundations. Quite a bit of it is published in top-tier journals. There is no reason to doubt the honesty of the authors who report no conflict of interest. The University is a fully accredited institution of higher learning, just like all the other colleges and universities that publish research with potential medical implications. If you have an "axe to grind" with the technique or the research, then perhaps WP is not the best place to deal with that. What is called for here is, in as much as it's possible, a neutral attitude on the part of editors. ChemistryProf ( talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
...you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased).
and...
As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies...
Sorry, Kala Bethere, I was called away on another project for a few days. In response to your suggestion of a list, if I had kept a list over the years as I was reading these papers, satisfying your request would be easy. Unfortunately, I did not keep a list. However, I can point to a few recent reviews that partially accomplish this task. These are on the blood pressure studies and other studies related to cardiovascular disease. As for "independent" studies, I cannot accept your insinuation that any author of research who happens to be located at Maharishi University of Management or another meditation-related institution is not independent. The reasons you have mentioned do not appear to apply to these faculty members. According to the logic you have used so far, any researcher who happens to be at a technology school, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, should be considered to be in conflict of interest if he or she publishes research on a technology topic that is studied at the Institute. ChemistryProf ( talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Will, don't be fooled. The "Anderson" reviews just have the bias and poor methodology hidden. They've been pushed extensively to media and web sources despite these issues!-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably should change the opening paragraph to read:
"It is was once one of the most widely researched and one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques in the world." Past tense.
A Pub Med search for "Mindfulness" meditation research brought up Two-Thousand One Hundred and Forty-two hits (2142). It is claimed Mindfulness research is growing at a near exponential rate (according to Jon Kabat-Zinn).
A Pub Med search for Transcendental Meditation only brings up One-Hundred and Eighty-one (181).
The claim that TM is both the most widely research and widely practiced appears to no longer be true. I believe there are over 7 million Sri Sri Ravi Shankar initiates.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 13:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=llw470lSDAcC&lpg=PR4&ots=zLF5aWvg_p&dq=Clinical%20Handbook%20of%20Mindfulness&pg=PR27#v=onepage&q=&f=true -- Kala Bethere ( talk) 15:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Today the Art of Living Foundation is the world’s largest volunteer based Non-Governmental Organization, active in over 140 countries. Its service projects, programs on yoga, meditation and stress elimination have benefited over 20 million people representing all walks of life, religions, cultures and traditions with its 5Hs program in the areas of Health, Homes, Hygiene, Human Values and Harmony in Diversity.
"It was, at one time, one of the most widely researched and practiced meditation methods around."
-- Uncreated ( talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed bold per concern... Kala if you use a semicolon to indent instead of a colon the text will show as bold.( olive ( talk) 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
After the peak year of 1975, enrollment in "TM" courses has steadily declined, so much so that in 1977 the organization announced the opening of a whole new series of "advanced" courses, obviously devised in order to regain public interest and enthusiasm. These courses are intended to lead initiates to the "siddhis" or "supernatural powers" of Hinduism: walking through walls, becoming invisible, levitating and flying through the air, and the like. The courses have generally been greeted with cynicism, even though a "TM" brochure features a photograph of a "levitating" meditator (see Time Magazine, August 8, 1977, P. 75). Whether or not the courses (which cost up to $3000) will produce the claimed results -which are in the province of the traditional "fakirs" of India — "TM" itself stands revealed as a passing phase of the occult interest in the second half of the 20th century.
But this quick quote from [3] should just be shown as a quick example.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed WP:OR content from the lede. Neither source says specifically that any other form of meditation has become more popular, and a search is not considered a reliable source. To add content to this article we have several things to consider: The source must use the terms Transcendental Meditation, or TM (technique) and must say what you in someway are trying to add to the article. With an encyclopedia we can't look up different points of research and add them together to get another point then add that final point to the article . We are stuck and bound to the guides that define "encyclopedia" rather than "research paper" . I hope this makes some sense.( olive ( talk) 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
WP:OR has been mentioned a few times in this thread so I thought to post something here as a reference for this discussion.
Please include discussion for List of Current Refs which Violate WP:FRINGE here.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
A list of current scientific papers which violate the WP:FRINGE in the entry Transcendental Meditation.
Some guidelines in removal and editing from WP: FRINGE (emphases, mine)
"Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising."
Independent sources
"While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. If independent sources only comment on the major points of a fringe theory, an article that devotes the majority of its space to minor points that independent sources do not cover in detail may be unbalanced. "
"Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance."
Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas.
"Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable.
Papers are listed by relative appearance in the entry. May not include all non-compliant citations. "Other" non-compliant magazine articles, etc. to be listed separately.
Study or Paper name | Independent? | Reasons/Other |
---|---|---|
Morris, Bevan (1992). "Maharishi’s Vedic Science and Technology: The Only Means to Create World Peace". Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science 5 (1–2): 200. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM president, profs and/or affiliates |
Travis, Frederick; Chawkin, Ken (Sept-Oct, 2003). New Life magazine. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Travis F, Haaga DA, Hagelin JS, Tanner M, Nidich S, Gaylord-King C et al. Effects of Transcendental Meditation practice on brain functioning and stress reactivity in college students. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2009 71(2):170-176 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Travis, Frederick; Chawkin, Ken (Sept-Oct, 2003). "Meditation Can Change The World". New Life magazine. | NOT Independent | |
Schneider, R.H. et al., "A randomized controlled trial of stress reduction for hypertension in older African Americans", Hypertension 26: 820–827, 1995 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Wallace, R.K. et al. "The effects of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on the aging process", International Journal of Neuroscience 16: 53–58, 1982 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Orme-Johnson, D.W. and Herron, R.E., "An innovative approach to reducing medical care utilization and expenditures", The American Journal of Managed Care 3: 135–144, 1997 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Alexander, C.N. et al., "Treating and preventing alcohol, nicotine, and drug abuse through Transcendental Meditation: A review and statistical meta-analysis", Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 11: 13–87, 1994 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Wallace RK. Physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation. Science 1970;167:1751–1754 | NOT Independent | |
Wallace RK, Benson H, Wilson AF. A wakeful hypometabolic physiologic state. American Journal of Physiology 1971;221:795-799 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Wallace RK. The Physiology of Meditation. Scientific American 1972;226:84-90. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Dillbeck, M.C., and D.W. Orme-Johnson: 1987, "Physiological differences between Transcendental Meditation and rest", American Psychologist 42, pp. 879-881 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Travis, F.T. & Wallace, R.K. (1999). EEG and Autonomic Patterns during Eyes-Closed Rest and Transcendental Meditation Practice: The Basis for a Neural Model of TM practice. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 302-318 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Stress Reduction for Hypertension in Older African Americans, Robert H. Schneider et al., Hypertension, 1995, 26: 820-827 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Stroke. 2000 Mar;31(3):568-73. | Author names missing, needs verification | |
David W. Orme-Johnson, Vernon A. Barnes, Alex M. Hankey, and Roger A. Chalmers, "Reply to critics of research on Transcendental Meditation in the prevention and control of hypertension," Journal of Hypertension 2005, 23:1107–1110 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Schneider RH et al.. "Long-Term Effects of Stress Reduction on Mortality in Persons >55 Years of Age With Systemic Hypertension" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-09-12. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Schneider RH et al.. "A randomized controlled trial of stress reduction in African Americans treated for hypertension for over one year". Retrieved 2006-09-12. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Effects of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation on Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Subjects With Coronary Heart Disease, Archives of Internal Medicine, Maura Paul-Labrador et al.,, Vol. 166 No. 11, June 12, 2006 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Orme-Johnson DW, Schneider RH, Son YD, Nidich S, Cho ZH (2006). "Neuroimaging of meditation's effect on brain reactivity to pain.". Neuroreport 17 (12): 1359–63. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000233094.67289.a8. PMID 16951585. PMC PMC2170475. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
VOLUME 21 NUMBER 3 | AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, pp. 310-316 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates; financial ties |
Anderson, p. 313 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates: financial ties |
Integrative Cancer Therapies (Vol. 8, No. 3: September 2009) | Author names missing, needs verification | |
Nidich, S.I. and Nidich, R.J. Increased academic achievement at Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment: A replication study. Education 109: 302–304, 1989. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Intelligence (September/October 2001), Vol. 29/5, pp. 419-440 | Author names missing, needs verification | |
Eppley K, Abrams A, Shear J. Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1989, 45: 957-74 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
SI Nidich, MV Rainforth, DAF Haaga, J Hagelin, JW Salerno, F Travis, M Tanner, C Gaylord-King, S Grosswald, and RH Schneider. A randomized controlled trial on effects of the Transcendental Meditation program on blood pressure, psychological distress, and coping in young adults. American Journal of Hypertension. 2009, Vol 22(12):1326-1331. doi:10.1038/ajh.2009.184. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Mason LI, Alexander CN, Travis FT, Marsh G, Orme-Johnson DW, Gackenbach J, Mason DC, Rainforth M, Walton KG. "Electrophysiological correlates of higher states of consciousness during sleep in long-term practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation program." Sleep. 1997 Feb;20(2):102-10. | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Travis, F. T., Tecce, J., Arenander, A., & Wallace, R. K. (2002), Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states. Biological Psychology, 61, 293-319 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Travis, F., Arenander, A., & DuBois, D. (2004). Psychological and physiological characteristics of a proposed object-referral/self-referral continuum of self-awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 401-420 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Wallace 1993, pp. 64-66 | NOT Independent | MIU/MUM profs and/or affiliates |
Study Name / Authors | Independent Source? | Reasons / Other |
---|---|---|
Paul-Labrador M, Polk D, Dwyer JH, et al. (June 2006). "Effects of a randomized controlled trial of transcendental meditation on components of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with coronary heart disease". Arch. Intern. Med. 166 (11): 1218–24. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.11.1218. PMID 16772250. | Looks OK...or does it? (see below) | Superficial examination of citation makes it only appear Independent. |
Maura Paul-Labrador, MPH; Donna Polk, MD, MPH; James H. Dwyer, PhD; Ivan Velasquez, MD; Sanford Nidich, PhD; Maxwell Rainforth, PhD; Robert Schneider, MD; C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD "Effects of a randomized controlled trial of transcendental meditation on components of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with coronary heart disease". Arch. Intern. Med. 166 (11): 1218–24. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.11.1218. PMID 16772250. | Bold-faced authors were truncated and all have TM Org affiliation, therefore this cite is Non-Independent | Study has TM Org/ MUM.edu conflicts |
Nidich, S, Fields, J, Rainforth, M, Pomerantz, R, Cella, D, Kristeller, J, Salerno, J , Schneider, R, A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effects of Transcendental Meditation on Quality of Life in Older Breast Cancer Patients. Integrated Cancer Therapies 2009, 8(3):228-234 | NOT indepdendent | Numerous MUM.edu and TM-Org affiliates |
This has been raised before. Will Beback put the following text in the history section after I had deleted it per MEDRS: "In 2009, Robert Schneider of Maharishi University of Management presented the results of a nine-year study on African Americans at a conference of the American Heart Association. Schneider reported a nearly 50% decrease in heart attack, stroke, and death among those who practiced TM.[93]". Now that we're applying MEDRS, I'd like to ask again whether it's appropriate to have this in the article, since MEDRS proscribes conference presentations and popular media. TimidGuy ( talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
We have a great review of TM from 2007. Will be rewording much of this section to comply with the most recent research. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Replacing old primary research with recent review articles is not controversial. As the health effects falls under WP:MED the refs should follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is contentious. Making massive changes as is being done is not the norm. However I am one editor so there is very little I can do in the face of such aggressive editing.( olive ( talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
No Fladrfi. I did not see it that way. I saw this discussion as ongoing and whose focus despite the mud throwing to be about the ME effect. I also was aware of this comment by a knowledgable editor who actually looked at the ME studies and seems to be saying they are relaible. [7] I felt that this would be a legitimate discussion on the ME talk page. Sadly prejudice and bias dominate, and incivilities are accepted and condoned. ( olive ( talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
(undent) Which part of the lead do not reflect the article as it now stands? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how we can say the review in the lead summarizes the content below taken from the article. The review in the lede accurately describes itself and one other paragraph but goes no further than that.(
olive (
talk)
12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC))
A 2008 review however found a 4.7 mmHg systolic blood pressure and 3.2 mmHg diastolic blood pressure decrease in those who practiced TM verse a controls group.[53] Using a quality scale, the researchers found that of the nine studies evaluated, three were of high quality with a score of 75% or greater, three were of acceptable quality, and three were of suboptimal quality.[54] In a 2005 done by the Maharishi University of Management which looked at stress reduction with the Transcendental Meditation technique and mortality among patients receiving treatment for high blood pressure found a decrease in mortality of 23%.[55] Another study published the same year by the same group found the Transcendental Meditation technique may be useful as an adjunct in the long-term treatment of hypertension among African-Americans.[56] In 2006, a study involving 103 subjects published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that coronary heart disease patients who practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique for 16 weeks showed improvements in blood pressure, insulin resistance, and autonomic nervous system tone, compared with a control group of patients who received health education.[57] Also in 2006, a functional MRI study of 24 patients conducted at the University of California at Irvine, and published in the journal NeuroReport, found that the long-term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique may reduce the affective/motivational dimension of the brain's response to pain.[58]
Is that the clearest writing we can manage? For a summary, it's pretty convoluted. Will Beback talk 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The overall treatment now seems disproportionately long for the intro, 1/3 of the words. Can't we come up with something more like, "Reviews of studies on the health effects of TM are ambiguous. Some show reductions in blood pressure while others show no significant results." Or something like that? Will Beback talk 22:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledgments: This study was designed by J.W.A. who conducted the literature search. Statistical analyses were done by C.L. under the supervision of R.J.K. The study rating system was developed by J.W.A. with input from R.J.K. Studies were scored independently by three individuals (J.W.A., R.J.K., and Manan Jhaveri), and consensus values were established by conference discussion. J.W.A. drafted the manuscript and R.J.K. and C.L. reviewed and provided input; all authors reviewed the final manuscript and agree with the content. This research was funded, in part, by the HCF Nutrition Foundation and by an unrestricted gift from Howard Settle. During a 1-year study period J.W.A. received partial salary support from Mr Settle. Mr Settle had no input on any aspect of the study and received a draft copy as a courtesy but had no input on the content of this manuscript. J.W.A. has no other connections to groups related to Transcendental Meditation and declares no other financial interests or conflicts related to the subject of this manuscript.
Doc, I have just read the Times article. I wouldn't call it a "great paper"; as a summary of the TM phenomenon it has the usual mix of truth and distortions. Frankly, it leaves me wondering where the extreme polarization in the public attitude has come from. Maybe from MMY himself?
I agree that this whole discussion should be moved to the MMY or Movement talk pages, since it has nothing to do with the TM technique.
The article quotes MMY as saying about all the money coming in, “It goes to support the centres, it does not go on me. I have nothing. But my wants are simple. I do not drink or smoke. I have never been to the theatre or to the cinema.” This clearly supports my contention above that MMY himself was not rich, although I agree with Will's comment that he did indeed have complete control over all that money (as does the council of Rajas today). MMY himself did not live a lavish lifestyle, as he well could have, given the millions of dollars that were flowing in as early as the mid-1960s (as I understand it, the luxury cars he traveled in were a spontaneous donation from a rich appreciative follower; they were not purchased by the Movement). My perception from being associated with him for many years is that his devotion to popularizing and teaching TM was a devotional activity to help the world.
I also see clearly that he sometimes compromised his ethics (asking for large donations from wealthy people) to further his cause; I do not forgive him for this, because in the relative, no matter how noble the end, there is no justification for employing unethical means. But the whole idea of his 'trying to rape Mia Farrow' is ridiculous; neither Ms. Farrow nor the surviving Beatles really believe this now. There was a lot of panic going on, and it came from them, the course attenders, not from MMY.
While quoting Maharishi about his simple wants, the Times article goes on to make the following assertions:
These points makes it clear that MMY was a very good promoter and businessman. Is this a crime? Why were people ridiculing MMY for making money to be used for spreading TM? Is it because previous meditation teachers had not done this? I believe there is nothing in the Vedic traditions of India that lists being poor as one of the requirements for a yogic life or for being a guru (teacher).
Frankly, in my own nonprofit, volunteer business selling meditation learning materials, if I could find some way to generate that kind of money, I would. With many millions of dollars I might accomplish the same level of instruction for the world as MMY. And I assure you, I'd be doing it for the world, not for my ego or for a lavish lifestyle. The only problem is, I'm not the man Maharishi was. I'm an ant compared to his greatness. Am I a fan? Yes. Do I share your criticism that the TM organizations charge too much for instruction? Yes, which is why I run NSR Meditation/USA and provide some competition for them.
I wonder why there is such an extreme polarization among the editors. So what if TG and Olive are on the staff at MUM? So what if I both love TM and hate some of the organization's policies? These are just affiliations and opinions. What I really don't understand is the negativity posed by some of the other active editors such as Fladrif and Kala. Both clearly want to improve the article. Yet they keep attacking many of the basic concepts of TM, particularly as they have played out historically. All the doctors who prescribe TM for their patients find good results, which is why they do it. Why does Doc James, an internist, who I would have expected to favor TM, oppose TM so much that he picks on ad hominem arguments like "this is a commercial venture which made one man very rich"? Why can't MMY be seen as a great man who did his best to help the world? If you compare TM with Scientology, don't you see a great difference? TM actually reduces anxiety and improves self-actualization. It actually refreshes body and mind. It actually works today in 20 or more inner-city high schools to eliminate fighting, weapons, and other distractions to learning. These benefits are IMO the most important facts to reflect in an article on TM, particularly since they are not widely known.
Finally, I would like to raise a plea for peace here on WP. I love WP, even its internally-conflicted policies (Be Bold compared with NOR) and its flawed administration (page deletions followed by reversals of page deletions; inconsistencies in applying policies equally to all articles) do not dim my love for WP. WP is an instant and in-depth source of knowledge. Yes, Doc James, it should never be used as a primary source; it should never be relied on for accuracy. But its value is indisputable.
WP editors should have conflicts, because, like democracy, out of conflicts come eventual solutions. But WP editors should always be peaceful, courteous, and collegial, and in this case that especially includes restraint in making direct edits and reversions (for my part, I am humble enough only to make grammatical changes). I must agree that the case made against TG and Olive gives me pause. These believers in the value of TM, along with all the other editors, should play by the same rules and not require interventions such as WP mediation. Shame on you! Instead of fighting amongst yourselves, you should be structuring fruitful discussions here, crafting the article topic by topic until everyone agrees, not that the article is a true reflection of TM, since the polarization of views means that there can be no such agreement, but only that the article fairly presents a balanced view of TM, including both positive and negative viewpoints. That is what WP demands, and this is what I implore. Banning qualified editors is a failure for the goal of improving the TM article (which still needs lots of improvement). Please don't fail; please work together. David spector ( talk) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Doc James recommended I bring this discussion thread from the Fringe theories/Noticeboard to here. ChemistryProf ( talk) 07:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Woonpton, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Orme-Johnson's ..."critique doesn't contain any telling criticisms of the [AHRQ] meta-analysis...". As a WP editor, you have no legitimate basis for that conclusion unless you can source it to an RS. On the other hand, many editors have pointed to weaknesses of the AHRQ review, and there is an RS with a detailed critique of many of its weaknesses. That critique warrants inclusion in the article. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to relate a little story to all the editors I have met here in this recent discussion and a few others. I belong to several professional societies not associated with meditation research. Recently one of these societies conducted a poll of its membership on their experiences with WP. You might be interested to know that 27% of the respondents answered that they had edited on WP at one time or another, but only 5% of those continued to do so. Of the 95% who had ceased to edit, the majority indicated it was because of the editorial environment. Some of them included specific comments, ranging from "1. Not an accurate source of info, and 2. not interested; wrong venue for respected authority" to "37. It would appear that a select cadre of Wikipedia editors are manipulating the information there to dumb down, discredit, or otherwise impair points of view, paradigms, beliefs, knowledge, and/or information not matching their own. It is effectively an information controlling coup." These were some of the least critical answers. Furthermore, when all respondents were asked whether as a teacher they would allow Wikipedia to be used as a primary research source for students, 61% answered "No, not under any circumstances." This is the kind of reputation WP has gained. We might do well to ponder whether something going on here is not as it should be. In any case, if things continue the way they are going, WP will likely soon be universally rejected as a source of information worth bothering with. ChemistryProf ( talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That TM research has been debunked and ignored is an incorrect generalization of rather large proportions as evidenced by 350 studies peer reviewed in reliable publications, repeated support by the NIH (28+ million dollars), collaborative research with multiple, highly respected medical schools and universities, and ongoing research such as this yet to be published study that has received world wide attention [9].
WP:Verifiable cannot be bypassed in favour of any guideline such as WP:MEDRS. Although I thank you for the effort that went in reworking this article, I find the article has major concerns. WP:Verifiable favours peer reviewed studies and peer review carries with it its own editorial oversight and review process. Peer reviewed sources are a reliable source. No editor opinion or notice board comments, no matter how strident and uncivilized, can supersede or override Wikipedia's policies. In stripping the article of the primary sources the article carries a non neutal POV in that it implies that very little research has been done on the technique a blatant inaccuracy, and as well implies that what has been done shows little if any benefits from the technique. That is also an inaccuracy. The article also goes on to describe the NIH grants but given the earlier lack of information on the studies, it is unclear in the article what the grants are for, if not for the multiple studies that are never mentioned.
Further peer review studies are acceptable in an article as long as they are being cited for themselves and are not being used to comment or extend beyond beyond the studies themselves, the editorial voice of the encyclopedia, or to make claims. Studies need to returned to this article. Which ones and how many is open for discussion. ( olive ( talk) 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
(undent) agree with Woons summary. This is a relatively simple point. And really there is not much more to be said here unless other "meta-analysis" can be found. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
MEDRS says to use up-to-date evidence. Since Ospina Bond only goes through 2005, it seems like we could include some of the RCTs published since then, particularly the study by Paul-Labrador (published by the AMA) and the American University study, which had over 200 subjects. Paul-Labrador was included in the reviews by Rainforth and Anderson, but both only considered hypertension, whereas the findings in Paul-Labrador were broader than that. Three papers on the AU study came out in 2009, each looking at a different facet. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this text to the TMM article as the statement is directly about the TM movement, not TM. -- BwB ( talk) 12:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is an interesting article about an ex member support group for TM. [12] The Skeptics Dictionary also has a great overview [13] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Minet.org fails WP:SELFPUB [14]
(The article is not about MIN, so it fails that point and...)
(TM and the TM Movement is, for all intents and purposes, a third party the MIN site makes claims about.)
As for the site itself, it fails WP:V [15]
(The site shows no sign of any editorial oversight, fact-checking or claims of accuracy…) ( olive ( talk) 22:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
Minet has apparently been discussed before. [16] I don't have time now to read what's been said about it in the past. The issue would be whether or not it's self-published. If there's evidence of something like an editorial board then it probably would not count as an SPS. Again, I don't have time now to investigate. It might be easier to find another source rather than conduct these investigations. Space Skeptics does appear to be a blog and the authors don't appear to be recognized experts, so it shouldn't be used. Skeptics Dictionary is widely used as a source on Wikipedia, but its views should be attributed. Will Beback talk 22:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Posted over at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Transcendental_Meditation to clarify how we deal with potential COI. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
A quick look at the sound value section shows a number of conflicts with mantra-shastra and with the talks of the Maharishi. Let's go through this one paragraph at a time and try to improve the errors in a factual and readable way. I'm afraid what's happening here is we're getting a lot of "Maharishi said" type statements and it's clear not everything he is stating is actually factually correct.
This would be a good place to introduce the meanings behind the mantra, perhaps even give an example to demonstrate.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This content [20] was removed per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Its a relatively straight forward comment about mantras and not connected to either guideline, so I have re added it. If there's a good reason to delete it I'm not against it. ( olive ( talk) 16:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC))
I looked at the paper, which is available for free on a TM website. [21] For the assertion about the mantras, Travis cites "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the Bhagavad Gita", 1969. Why don't we just follow his lead and say, "According to the Maharishi..." Will Beback talk 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
At present, this grammatically incorrect sentence in the lead says:
The actual quote form the sources says: "The worldwide TM organization has an estimated valuation of $3 billion." [22] Neither the quote, nor the paragraph in which it is contained, mentions anything about trademarks or the Maharishi Foundation. Can we edit it so that it reflects the source more accurately and avoid the appearance of original research?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The section titled "Seven states of consciousness" is an explanation of the Maharishi's overall view of consciousness, which is outside the scope of this article. Only one sentence connects TM to it. I suggest we move this section to the Maharishi bio, and keep the sentence about TM in the "Views on human development" section. Will Beback talk 23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It is extremely questionable that there is any "higher" or special states of consciousness so these are all unsupported claims of TM promoters. One leading authority on this issue is the Cambridge Handbook on Consciousness where the authors discussed the research on TM and found no evidence of a unique state of consciousness during TM. http://cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521674126. Here is the specific chapter (by leading authors in the field) that talks about the state of TM consciousness research: http://compassion.stanford.edu/pdf/Dunne_Ch%2019%20Lutz%20Dunne%20Davidson-1.pdf
Nothing should be claimed regarding states of consciousness without the balance presented by this work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judyjoejoe ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Unable to find this reference "In 1994, the Transcendental Meditation program became a part of the school day at the Fletcher Johnson Educational Center of Washington, D.C. [4]" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
What's the nature of this source? Is it a book or a journal or what? Will Beback talk 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a magazine. [24]-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This 2004 review is now a bit outdated, since there have been at least four hypertension reviews since then, several of which include highly rated studies that post-date the Canter & Ernst review. Seems like we should exclude it per MEDRS. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
As long as they're Independent, you can post the studies here so we can review them first.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 13:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a complete misunderstanding of the scientific literature. "A 2006 Cochrane review examined a 1980 study that showed a reduction in anxiety" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
As this is the most recent review we should describe it in the present tense not the past tense as there is no indication that things have changed. Also this page is not about physical measures and therefore this does not need mentioning. Little Olive your changes are not an improvement. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Thank you Will that was my point exactly. The limited evidence is for TM they way it was worded may it sound like the review was limited when in fact it was an exhaustive meta analysis of all studies published until Sept 2005. There seems to be some issues with basic interpretation of scientific literature here. I have edited here in line with the consensus at [27] If an editor disagrees and feel they are not being heard / understood they may bring this to a RFC. We still have a range of articles in this topic area which need to be substantially changed to reflect WP:NPOV. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Contesting means I would try and have the word removed... I'm not doing that ... I note my concern which I have a right to do ....Second, I asked about the word before there was a ref... also my right to do .... If you want a fight you'd better find someone else to fight with.( olive ( talk) 14:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
Mainstream health newspaper? Unless I'm missing something. [28]( olive ( talk) 14:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients" That's a direct quote from p4 of Ospina Bond. Fladrif ( talk) 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I am quoting the conclusions from the study, and per the article text, the "overall conclusion". What appears to be the problem is that the "overall conclusions" and the specific conclusions noted in the TM article text are conflated. I'll change the article to reflect the text. My copy of Opsina Bond is not numbered I guess in the way yours is.... since there is no page four, but I'll take your word for the quote.( olive ( talk) 16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
The results from the pediatric review that I added to the article were from randomized controlled trials. I've deleted the material referring to the ADHD study and which was sourced to a blog. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
TimidGuy, you've been told before about adding primary sources and that it is a violation of WP policy.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 13:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Kala you set the lists up. There is no agreement as to their use, and or whether they are Wikipedia compliant. We need to consider peer review per the core policy WP:Verifiable, and guideline WP:RS so lets not get too far off the policy track. If there is disagreement discussion would be most useful.( olive ( talk) 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
Kala's lists were on a Notice Board? My point is that discussion is fine. No need for anyone to get worked up. ( olive ( talk) 22:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)) To make my position clear. My comment was general and simply that our process for discussion be observed and our policies, however they need to be applied. We don't have permission to carte blanche ignore policy, and discussion can clarify many issues. Like Will, I'll stay out of this discussion now since I don't have the time to really look further.( olive ( talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
The Paul-Labrador study was conducted independently. But even if it hadn't been, it could still be included, per the only uninvolved feedback we got on RSN:
"At the very least, there should be clear attribution as to the provenance and authorship of these studies. And if there are 25 peer-reviewed studies by TM followers saying one thing, and no corroboration by neutral researchers, then the weight given these 25 studies should be reduced accordingly. Criticism of the studies' methodology, where available, should be represented in the article. On the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say the studies should not be used at all; if it's a peer-reviewed journal, it's a peer-reviewed journal, if the author is a follower or not. (That's assuming we are talking about reputable peer-reviewed journals.) --JN466 01:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)"
Again, MEDRS says this: "Reliable primary sources can add greatly to an article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources." There is no policy or guideline that would disallow inclusion of the study. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Lede text now reads "A 2007 review of various meditation practices, most notably Transcendental Meditation, concluded that the definitive health effects of TM cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence was of poor quality." Is this new version of the text now POV wording? -- BwB ( talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the sentence in question is an adequate summary of the source. Will Beback talk 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the consensus is that it's fine just the way it is. I've never seen such concentrated interest in one paragraph!
Regarding mindfulness meditation, I believe the claim is that while TM was once the most researched meditation method around, that is no longer the case. A meditation researcher at the University of Mass., Jon Kabat-Zinn, has noted MM research is growing at an exponential rate. As with most exponential curves, the growth is near the end of the curve, probably too soon to make the Alberta review. I suspect that much of this has to do with worldwide acceptance of MM in hospitals and now for reimbursement from some insurance companies. I've seen several textbook-level publications as well.
I've heard not any claims as to the number of adherents.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks TimidGuy for your concerns, perhaps you still have not heard: after much consideration, the paragraph looks fine as it is. It also is not a good idea for biased or directly affected parties to be editing these entries. Hopefully you heard me this time! Thanks in advance.-- Kala Bethere ( talk) 14:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) The secondary source stands.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
09:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Will Beback, please show me where the WP rules or guidelines say that any and all secondary sources are better than any and all primary sources. A bad, non-peer reviewed, secondary source is infinitely less reliable than a good, peer reviewed article. If WP guidelines say something different, then those guidelines are faulty and must be changed, that is, IF our goal is to have WP be a reliable encyclopedia. ChemistryProf ( talk) 03:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Doc James, the peer reviewed version is the article just before the Orme-Johnson commentary in the journal cited above. And are you telling me that as an experienced WP editor you are hands down ready to accept a politically contrived point of view over an honestly peer reviewed original article? ChemistryProf ( talk) 03:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
On 29 January, Doc James informed us that the AHRQ reports are not peer reviewed but also implied that since AHRQ is a government agency it not only is a reliable source but takes precedence over peer reviewed primary sources. I have not seen any rules or guidelines that would support this position. Furthermore, in the AHRQ WP article, the politicized nature of the agency is alluded to. An illustration is given as to how powerfully the agency is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry and other special interest groups. Of course, we editors have succeeded in making WP an unreliable source, but everyone knows that all government agencies and departments are politicized. Look at what has happened to the Department of Justice, for example. So I am looking for the WP rules that say that government reports are reliable sources. If there are such rules, then we need to modify them to more accurately reflect the situation. ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Doc James, in answer to your question of 31 January, read Orme-Johnson's critique to see the evidence of political contrivance. The consultants that AHRQ referred to as "peer reviewers" submitted their corrections and recommendations to the authors, but rather than the authors directing their responses to the reviewers for consensual approval, they simply submitted their responses to an administrator at AHRQ for her to make the final decision of whether the criticisms had been adequately met. Neither the authors' responses nor the administrator's reasons for accepting or rejecting these responses was made accessible to the reader. This is not an acceptable peer review procedure but is a political contrivance to allow the administrator to unduly influence the final report. ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
TimidGuy, in answer to your suggestion, I agree that the peer reviewed article summarizing the corrected results from the AHRQ report is by far the better choice, but I disagree that it should be in the lede. From my reading of the guidelines for the lede, this is where the overview of the whole article is given, not an emphasis on any one part, such as the research. These reviews and reports should be mentioned under the appropriate headings in the body of the article. ChemistryProf ( talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
As for the credentials of Orme-Johnson, who are we supposed to look for to criticize research on meditation, representatives of the pharmaceutical companies? It is true that Orme-Johnson was an author on several of the studies contained in the AHRQ report. On the other hand, this is his field of expertise, and he was obviously seen as an appropriate expert from whom the journal wanted a critique of the AHRQ summary. This is the way science progresses. The people most knowledgeable in a field are the ones who pave the way forward. It is rare that someone from outside a field adds anything to advance either the frontiers or the knowledge base of the field. If experts in the topic of the article are excluded from WP, as seems to happen, then we get an unreliable encyclopedia that few in academe will allow students to cite. What is the value of that? ChemistryProf ( talk) 05:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(Undent) This PMID 19123875 is not a revision of this PMID 17764203? Please clarify? Also this publication Evid Rep Technol Assess is much more respected than this J Altern Complement Med Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)