![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
I have a question about a source that applies to many articles, so I've posted it at the project talk page. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement#Sources: Global Good News. Please reply there. Will Beback talk 23:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The totality of the following paragraph, including the way it refers to Maharishi's book is a point of view. The point of view presented, the one of Kenneth Boa perhaps, is that TM is rooted in Hinduism.
According to religious scholar Kenneth Boa in his book, Cults, World Religions and the Occult, Transcendental Meditation is rooted in the Vedantic School of Hinduism, "repeatedly confirmed" in the Maharishi's books such as the Science of Being and the Art of Living and his Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.[25] Boa writes that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi "makes it clear" that Transcendental Meditation was delivered to man about 5,000 years ago by the Hindu god Krishna. The technique was then lost, but restored for a time by Buddha. It was lost again, but rediscovered in the 9th century AD by the Hindu philosopher Shankara. Finally, it was revived by Brahmananda Saraswati (Guru Dev) and passed on to the Maharishi.[26]
For NPOV, we need a corresponding paragraph that presents the other point of view. There are plemty of references that explains why TM is not rooted in any religion. Maharishi has never referred to Krishna as an Hindu God because Maharishi sees Hinduism as a modern religion that did not exist at the time of Krisna. Maharishi has been explaining TM to Hindus as much as to Christians. If it is rooted in Hinduism, why it needs to be explained to Hindus?
Better, we should totally change the paragraph so that it uses references that presents a balanced POV from the start, a paragraph that would not need to be contradicted after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.29 ( talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried to delete this thread two times because, after looking more carefully at the article, I believe it is a deadend in the following sense that the other editors have the definitive intention to present TM as a pseudoscience and an offspring of the Hinduism religion. Since they insist, I will complete my contribution to this thread. TM is not pseudoscience. It is very easy to see it. For example, they cite a 2007 cochrane review to support the claim that research on TM is not reliable ( reference 18: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf ). However, here is the summary of the results in this review for the "Evidence on the Physiological and Neuropsychological Effects of Meditation" specifically for TM:
Direct meta-analysis showed that compared to NT, TM® did not produce significantly greater benefits on blood pressure (SBP and DBP). However, there was significant improvement in LDL-C levels and verbal creativity with TM®. When compared to WL, TM® produced significantly greater reduction in SBP and DBP. Before-and-after studies on TM® for patients with essential hypertension indicated a statistically significant reduction in SBP and DBP after practicing TM®. The heterogeneity present for the comparisons evaluating blood pressure changes and cortisol levels suggests that there were important clinical differences among the studies; however, the small number of studies precluded subgroup analyse.
NT stands for No Therapy. Basically, on many respects, TM had significant positive physiological benefits. If this is not enough, there was a subsequent meta analysis done in 2008 by independent researchers on the effect of TM on blood pressure and cardiovascular desease (also the studied benefits of the previous review) and the significant benefits of TM were confirmed (see http://www.nature.com/ajh/journal/v21/n3/abs/ajh200765a.html ). The authors of this review expressed the fact (in news clips) that the studies on TM were of high quality. In this context, who care what the astronomer Carl Sagan says. He is not a doctor. He does not know much about clinical studies.
I emphasis that this is only an example. I could do the same about so many other parts of the current article. It is totally biased. It is so clear that the current editors (the majority of them anyway) have the fixed agenda to present TM as a pseudo science and an offspring of the Hinduism religion, which it is not. Anyone is going to lose its time trying to reason with them. 67.230.154.70 ( talk)
The scientific research medical and otherwise done to the TM technique is a prominent aspect of the information surrounding the technique and such information properly belongs in the TM technique article.
Sagan makes a general comment about TM which is fundamentally flawed since a meditation technique cannot be science, pseudo or other wise. Can the underlying theories of the technique be described a science is another question. However Sagan doesn't address anything so specific. We are using some very weak content here. Does it help the article ? Give the reader good information?( olive ( talk) 16:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC))
- TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched,[13][14][15][16] while over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals.[17] At the same time, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality.[18] A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety.[19] TM has been called a pseudoscience by astronomer Carl Sagan.[20]
Since the current paragraph on the science violates WP:LEAD, as mentioned above and in past discussions, here's a proposed draft intended to be a summary of the science section of the article.
Current version:
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. while over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals.[17] At the same time, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality.[18] A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety.[19]
Proposed version:
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, with over 300 studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. These studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. Some studies suggest that the physiological changes and health effects are the same as simple relaxation, while others indicate a greater effect. Most of the research is preliminary and therefore inconclusive, though recent research reviews have concluded that TM lowers blood pressure a small but clinically significant amount.
Seems like that pretty much covers it. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, with over 200 studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. Some studies suggest that the physiological changes and health effects are the same as simple relaxation, while others indicate a greater or different effect. Three research reviews/meta-analyses from 2007-08 said that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount, with two of them finding it to be clinically significant.
New version:
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. The most research rmeta-analyses found that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.
This attempts to meet Will's points, and also addresses Doc James's, whose comment made me realize that we don't currently have any info in the article on the comparisons with simple relaxation. Will, regarding the distinction between studies and clinical research: there are two types of research, one called basic research that looks at physiological changes. Scientists find this interesting and meaningful in and of itself. Any health implications are conjectural and peripheral. Clinical research looks at specific health and cognitive applications. There was a large amount of basic research in the 1970s and 1980s by many different scientists. There was also some clinical research. In the last couple decades or so, there's been much more clinical research than basic research.
I think the IP has a good point. Will, please address it. Per the IP's comment, I've moved the material on promotion to make it less prominent. But it probably should be deleted as a violation of WP:SYNTHl TimidGuy ( talk) 10:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies on the physiological effects have found specific changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. The most research rmeta-analyses found that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.
Doc, if you're quoting a guideline, I'm not familiar with it. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be more general and and summarize, not simply present two specific reviews. Perhaps most problematic, it presents only one point of view. This violates the core Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. The version that we pretty much agreed upon (except for the blood pressure part) does that. Instead of mentioning a particular review, it states the conclusion of that review and many other reviews: that firm conclusions can't be drawn and that more research needs to be done. The studies themselves generally say that. This is a general, all-encompassing statement. In addition, there are scores or perhaps hundreds of research reviews that discuss specific studies and say that the results are suggestive. And some of those reviews are in this article. Plus, there are the 2007 and 2008 meta-analyses published in Current Hypertension Reports and American Journal of Hypertension that do draw a conclusion. Will, I don't know of a meta-analysis that compared TM and simple relaxation. Which one are you referring to? There have been 7 meta-analyses on TM and blood pressure, 5 of those in AHRQ. Of the 7 meta-analyses, 5 have found a reduction. Here's a new version that for now leaves out blood pressure:
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but further research is needed.
What do you think? It's more general, represents the entire section, and literally quotes AHRQ's bottom line. And in this revised version ends with an additional qualifying phrase from AHRQ. Please, I'm trying hard to accommodate everyone. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
TM has been reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Some meta analyses with strict standard for clinical research excluded most of the research on meditation and thus could not draw any conclusion. Others, less restrictive, have found specific physiological effects. Clinical studies have suggested a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but the authors added that further research is needed.
Thanks, Will. I would agree with those changes. You and I have agreed on this compromise version, with Doc and Edith holding out for versions that weigh one or the other point of view more heavily. I say we go with this compromise version for now. Doc and Edith, in the spirit of compromise would you go along with making this change? Per NPOV it has to change because there are many points of view that are not now represented in that paragraph. The beauty of the draft version is that it is something that almost everyone would agree with, including the researchers themselves. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
New version to be included in the article since it appears to be supported by a majority:
TM has been reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but the authors say further research is needed.
This might be temporary, until we agree on another version that we feel is more representative of the different POVs found in the available reliable secondary sources. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) ( talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
These paragraphs were removed:
Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) ( talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Will, please tell me if this accurately represents your suggestions:
TM is among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being.
And relocate the current first clause as you described. Does that do it? Seems like we pretty much have a consensus except for Doc. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
(undent)We have many times gotten outside opinions. We have reached the current version based on outside opinion. If you do not like the conclusions here please ask on one of the boards such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or at WT:MED. We have gone over this many times. I have also made this suggestion many times. We know the opinions of everyone here without really even asking. Yes we know the TM organization disagrees with the AHRQ report and Cochrane. They however much more closely represents the opinions of those not related to the TM movement ( as they are published by those not related to the TM movement and are some of the most highly respected publication in the world ). When it comes to health claims the opinion of the majority of experts in the field of health is who we shall summarize. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
What about the following to summarize the research?
TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Systematic reviews have found that it has specific physiological effects and a range of benefits on health and mental well-being. The TM organisation says that this research includes more than 200 scientific studies published in peer review journals. However, in clinical settings, a 2007 review of meditation reported that the definitive effects of meditation as an healthcare practice cannot be determined as the field of research on meditation techniques and their therapeutic applications has been clouded by a lack of methodological rigour. Similarly, in an systematic analysis of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders, a 2006 Cochrane review found that only two randomised controlled studies were eligible for inclusion. Only one of these two studies involved TM. In this study published in 1980, TM showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy. The review states that no conclusion can be drawn.
It gives a lot of weight to the recent analyses of meditation in healthcare settings, but it was the only way to include the AHRQ and Cochrane reviews while provoding crucial information about them. I wanted to include them in the hope to achieve a consensus, even though this is undue weight toward the clinical settings. In the Cochrane review, the fact that only two studies were eligible is their most important conclusion. It is the first thing mentioned in their conclusion and it is obviously something that must be known. The fact that TM was comparable to relaxion therapy in one of the studies is secondary because, ultimately, the authors conclude at the end that the small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) ( talk) 22:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
How about this to sum up the research:
Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigour. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Doc, your summary isn't at all accurate. I know of only three RCTs comparing TM with relaxation: Raskin and two by Schneider. Raskin found both TM and relaxation therapy reduced anxiety. And two high-quality (per AHRQ) RCTs by Schneider that found that TM significantly reduced blood pressure compared to progressive muscle relaxation. On what basis do you say that there's no benefit beyond relaxation? TimidGuy ( talk) 11:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
In a 1980 study, TM showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigour. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.
Sexual orientation hardly seems relavent to comments about TM. Although Sullivan openly discusses sprituality and gay orientation does he discuss TM and being gay. This section reads oddly to me as if we are trying to make some kind of point. A person's sexuality isn't our business nor should it be implied that it is. At any rate this is just a comment we might want to consider. I don't see it as critical, just odd.( olive ( talk) 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC))
I don't see a problem with the Sullivan content. The concern is whether his sexual orientation is needed and is pertinent contextual information. One wonders if in all instances where we use the opinion of an individual we should add the their sexual orientation. Aren't we getting a little personal. Their orientation may very well influence them, but its always a jump for us to say so unless the sources makes that direct connection. Catholicism isn't the issue here nor is unorthodoxy. What is is TM, and sexual orientation.( olive ( talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC))
Let's cut to the chase. First, Walcott is not a good source. It is a blog, a self-published sourced. Since Walcott is a notable person published in secondary sources, his blog can be used as a SPS about what he says about himself. He is being cited as a source for what Sullivan - a third person - belives. That is not permitted. The source does not qualify. Second, as to Sullivan, same standard. He can be cited for what he believes. His blog can't be cited as a source for what the Catholic Church teaches or what it thinks. He doesn't claim that it is. My impression is that the sentence was added by one editor to suggest that TM is compatible with Catholicism, and the bit about his sexual orientation by another editor to suggest that whatever he thinks ain't the official line. The source is being misused and the text very misleading. Sullivan can't be cited as a source for what is or isn't compatible with orthodox Catholicism. He explicitly says that his own views aren't the official line, and he wishes that the official line was as open minded as his on things like TM. His other writings are quire direct in describing both his affection for, and alienation from, the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons, it position on homosexuality being only one of them. Are his personal views notable or relevant for purposes of this article? I'm inclined to say, "No". Fladrif ( talk) 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure if it is necessary to mention fees in the first paragraph of the lede. Do others have any thought on the matter? -- BwB ( talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the purpose of mentioning the price? It is not very useful to mention it. We do not sale TM. I agree that there is a controversy about whether TM should be more affordable. Mentioning the price anywhere in the lead imply this controversy because it achieves no other purpose. I don't think this controversy has a place in the lead. In any case, to include this controversy, we would have to provide citation and a balanced view. 67.230.154.243 ( talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we replace the statement "The TM technique is a form of mantra meditation" in the first paragraph of the lead by "TM is a trademarked meditation technique"? The same paragraph says that the TM procedure involves a mantra, so "mantra meditation" is repetitive. Moreover, the expression "mantra meditation" is not commonly used to describe TM. I sympathize with the desire to characterize TM in the first sentence, but, unless we agree to use the sentence "a simple, effortless and natural technique" as a way to characterize it, I think the best we can do on this respect is to say that it is trademarked.
Some reviews of research on meditations used the category "mantra meditation", but this has raised controversy. The procedure itself appears more important as a way to characterize a meditation. For example, Lutz, Slagter, Dunne and Davidson define two categories of meditation to help research on meditation, but do not mention even once the word "mantra" (see ref 1 just below). Instead, the categories are based upon whether focused attention or open monitoring is required. Later, Travis and Shear added a third category of meditation, automatic self-transcending, and a way to distinguish these three categories using EEG pattern (see ref 2). Again, the use of a mantra was not used to distinguish these three categories.
ref 1: Lutz A, Slagter HA, Dunne JD and Davidson RJ, "Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation", Trends Cogn Sci. (2008).
ref 2: Travis F and Shear J. "Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending: Categories to organize meditations from Vedic, Buddhist and Chinese traditions", Consciousness and Cognition (2010). 67.230.154.243 ( talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Trademarked is not more important, but we mention the use of a mantra explicitly in the next sentence, so in that context mentioning the use of a trademark is more useful. At the least it adds something. If we do not even agree on this minimal characterisation, which I can respect, then we can say "The TM technique was introduced ..." and skip the "mantra meditation" or any other characterisation. "Mantra meditation" is simply a bad way to characterize TM. It is not commonly characterised in this way. Sorry, I am not replying anymore. These were just a few contributions. I do not intend to become a permanent editor. 67.230.154.243 ( talk) 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence is a POV that is built by combining many separate published material. It is a synthesis. In fact much of the cited material is pro-TM. So, clearly this is original research. We need a citation for that constructed POV. Moreover, even if we find a citation, it is not directly about the research, but about how it is used, so it does not fit in the Researh section.
The quantity of studies have been cited to support the political programs of the Natural Law Party,[112][113] the tax status of a TM institution,[114] the use of TM to rehabilitate prisoners,[115] the teaching of TM in schools,[116] the issuance of bonds to finance the movement,[117] as proof that TM is a science rather than a religion,[118] to show the efficacy of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health,[119] and as a reason to practice TM itself.[120]
67.230.154.243 ( talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And so on. Will Beback talk 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to ask the unamed IP user how his theories apply to this sentence:
It seems pretty similar. Will Beback talk 02:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Here we state
TM has been found to produce a set of characteristic responses such as reduced respiration, decreased breath volume, decreased lactate and cortisol (hormones associated with stress), increased basal skin resistance, and slowed heartbeat. [11] [12] The mechanism for the effects of TM has been explained by proponents as being due to greater order in the physiology, decreased stress, and growth of creative intelligence. [12]
however the references are not appropriate for the text. One study states that it is looking at "psychiatric issues, and specifically substance use disorders" and the other concludes "The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials."
Finally these are not actually health outcomes (reduced respiration, decreased breath volume, etc.) but are physiological changes. These two things are different. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
We have an addition to the text - "Douglas Cowan, a Professor of Sociology & Religious Studies, gives Transcendental Meditation extensive coverage in Cults and New Religions along with Scientology, Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU), The Children of God, Branch Davidian, Heaven’s Gate, and Wicca.[244]"
Since this is an article on TM, it is sufficient that state that "Douglas Cowan, a Professor of Sociology & Religious Studies, gives Transcendental Meditation extensive coverage in Cults and New Religions". I am not sure what the additional text adds. -- BwB ( talk) 08:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the POV word "extensive" in the text. -- BwB ( talk) 08:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a major textbook in this field of study. We should probably add more information from it as it represents a independent opinion of the organization. Will work on this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In this paragraph:
A 2006 systematic review by the Cochrane collaboration found that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders. The review found that, as of 2006, two randomized controlled trials had been done on this topic, one of which was on TM, and concluded that meditation is equivalent to relaxation therapy. [19 Other research reviews cite a 1989 meta-analysis of 146 studies that found that relaxation techniques for anxiety had a medium effect size and that Transcendental Meditation had a significantly larger effect. [123 [124
we have an 1989 review used in an attempt to refute a Cochrane review. The 1989 research is not relevant. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Is being discussed further here [13] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
There are a bunch of great book we can access through google that discuss TM from an academic perspective such as this one:
Bainbridge, William Sims (1997). The sociology of religious movements. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-91202-4. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Another book with interesting coverage of TM is:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Wallis was a sociology chair at the University of Belfast. Unfortunately, it's a bit old. Will Beback talk 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the linked page, I don't see any mention of "200 scientific studies published in peer review journals". Instead, that page says: "The research studies below were selected from over 350 published studies (see Bibliography) conducted at a wide range of independent research institutions." How do we get 200+ peer-reviewed studies from the 350 published studies mentioned in the source? Will Beback talk 21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact what should be considered here is the honesty of a single editor. He asked a web master to clarify content on a web site. Is anyone here naive enough to think that universities do not on a day to day basis monitor the accuracy of their web sites. Was including peer review inaccurate. Any one take a look at UCLA and wonder about advertising. A dishonest editor would not have admitted to what TG did. He didn't have to say anything. Per the Arbitration I would suggest that editors AGF and not use the actions of one editor to gang up on a whole group of editors, creating by doing so a toxic environment That looks odd to me, and one wonders about motives.
That said Will makes a good point. The definitive information on any university must be itself. MUM is an accredited university that uses the TM technique as a supplement to the usual courses. TM.org is the official site of the TM organization. For Wikipedia purposes we should probably delineate the two. Content that references the university can be used to describe the university about itself. Content that references the organization should probably come from the TM.org site. Attribution in the text of the article provides context, letting the reader know where the information comes from and allows the reader to make decisions.( olive ( talk) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
We have just made correction to a section of the “Transcendental Meditation Movement Article” regarding an erroneous remark that the Spiritual Center of America had lost its tax exempt status. In fact, as we saw, the SC remains a tax exempt institution, as the court simply ruled that the SC was not entitled to exemption from property taxes but never challenged the SC's non profit status. This was graciously corrected by Will. The same thing needs to be done in this article, in the sections “Transcendental Meditation Movement” and also in the section "Research funding, publication, and promotion".
The Section “Transcendental Meditation Movement” states “Two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[254] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied tax exempt status because they were found not to be educational organizations.[255] In fact a reading of both sources reveals that only exemption from property taxes was at stake, not the tax exempt status of the organizations as a whole. Therefore the sentence should be corrected. Additionally, as in the "Transcendental Meditation Movement" article itself, one of the sources used for reference is a personal blog. This too should be corrected.
Additionally, in the section "Research funding, publication, and promotion", it is stated that the scientific studies on TM have been used to 'assert the tax status of a TM institution,[174] ' Again, the source refers to the case World Plan Executive Council-United States, et al., v. County of Ramsey which dealt exclusively with property tax exemption and not the tax exempt status of the organization as a whole. I think it should be corrected. Thanks to whomever undertakes this.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
As I remember, per a previous discussion on adding content without first discussing it, I'd like to clarify the process and procedure here for adding content and for making other substantial changes to the TM articles. Discussion and agreement first, or add whatever one wants. I'd like to suggest that no one add further content until a procedure has been agreed on. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 03:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
And editor is adding assertions to the effect that Lynch himself said that "TM has its detractors — killjoys who call it an exploitative cult." However I think it's clear that the author places Lynch's comments in quotation marks, and that sentence is not marked that way. I'm not sure that MTV.com is the best available source on this issue, so I recommend deleting it. But if we keep it we should make sure it's correct. Will Beback talk 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, if we directly quote a source then we need to place quotation marks around the text otherwise we're plagiarizing it. Will Beback talk 23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Cochrane06
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dakwar09
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wien Klin Wochenschr.
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
I have a question about a source that applies to many articles, so I've posted it at the project talk page. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement#Sources: Global Good News. Please reply there. Will Beback talk 23:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The totality of the following paragraph, including the way it refers to Maharishi's book is a point of view. The point of view presented, the one of Kenneth Boa perhaps, is that TM is rooted in Hinduism.
According to religious scholar Kenneth Boa in his book, Cults, World Religions and the Occult, Transcendental Meditation is rooted in the Vedantic School of Hinduism, "repeatedly confirmed" in the Maharishi's books such as the Science of Being and the Art of Living and his Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.[25] Boa writes that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi "makes it clear" that Transcendental Meditation was delivered to man about 5,000 years ago by the Hindu god Krishna. The technique was then lost, but restored for a time by Buddha. It was lost again, but rediscovered in the 9th century AD by the Hindu philosopher Shankara. Finally, it was revived by Brahmananda Saraswati (Guru Dev) and passed on to the Maharishi.[26]
For NPOV, we need a corresponding paragraph that presents the other point of view. There are plemty of references that explains why TM is not rooted in any religion. Maharishi has never referred to Krishna as an Hindu God because Maharishi sees Hinduism as a modern religion that did not exist at the time of Krisna. Maharishi has been explaining TM to Hindus as much as to Christians. If it is rooted in Hinduism, why it needs to be explained to Hindus?
Better, we should totally change the paragraph so that it uses references that presents a balanced POV from the start, a paragraph that would not need to be contradicted after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.29 ( talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried to delete this thread two times because, after looking more carefully at the article, I believe it is a deadend in the following sense that the other editors have the definitive intention to present TM as a pseudoscience and an offspring of the Hinduism religion. Since they insist, I will complete my contribution to this thread. TM is not pseudoscience. It is very easy to see it. For example, they cite a 2007 cochrane review to support the claim that research on TM is not reliable ( reference 18: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf ). However, here is the summary of the results in this review for the "Evidence on the Physiological and Neuropsychological Effects of Meditation" specifically for TM:
Direct meta-analysis showed that compared to NT, TM® did not produce significantly greater benefits on blood pressure (SBP and DBP). However, there was significant improvement in LDL-C levels and verbal creativity with TM®. When compared to WL, TM® produced significantly greater reduction in SBP and DBP. Before-and-after studies on TM® for patients with essential hypertension indicated a statistically significant reduction in SBP and DBP after practicing TM®. The heterogeneity present for the comparisons evaluating blood pressure changes and cortisol levels suggests that there were important clinical differences among the studies; however, the small number of studies precluded subgroup analyse.
NT stands for No Therapy. Basically, on many respects, TM had significant positive physiological benefits. If this is not enough, there was a subsequent meta analysis done in 2008 by independent researchers on the effect of TM on blood pressure and cardiovascular desease (also the studied benefits of the previous review) and the significant benefits of TM were confirmed (see http://www.nature.com/ajh/journal/v21/n3/abs/ajh200765a.html ). The authors of this review expressed the fact (in news clips) that the studies on TM were of high quality. In this context, who care what the astronomer Carl Sagan says. He is not a doctor. He does not know much about clinical studies.
I emphasis that this is only an example. I could do the same about so many other parts of the current article. It is totally biased. It is so clear that the current editors (the majority of them anyway) have the fixed agenda to present TM as a pseudo science and an offspring of the Hinduism religion, which it is not. Anyone is going to lose its time trying to reason with them. 67.230.154.70 ( talk)
The scientific research medical and otherwise done to the TM technique is a prominent aspect of the information surrounding the technique and such information properly belongs in the TM technique article.
Sagan makes a general comment about TM which is fundamentally flawed since a meditation technique cannot be science, pseudo or other wise. Can the underlying theories of the technique be described a science is another question. However Sagan doesn't address anything so specific. We are using some very weak content here. Does it help the article ? Give the reader good information?( olive ( talk) 16:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC))
- TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched,[13][14][15][16] while over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals.[17] At the same time, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality.[18] A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety.[19] TM has been called a pseudoscience by astronomer Carl Sagan.[20]
Since the current paragraph on the science violates WP:LEAD, as mentioned above and in past discussions, here's a proposed draft intended to be a summary of the science section of the article.
Current version:
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. while over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals.[17] At the same time, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality.[18] A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety.[19]
Proposed version:
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, with over 300 studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. These studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. Some studies suggest that the physiological changes and health effects are the same as simple relaxation, while others indicate a greater effect. Most of the research is preliminary and therefore inconclusive, though recent research reviews have concluded that TM lowers blood pressure a small but clinically significant amount.
Seems like that pretty much covers it. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, with over 200 studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. Some studies suggest that the physiological changes and health effects are the same as simple relaxation, while others indicate a greater or different effect. Three research reviews/meta-analyses from 2007-08 said that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount, with two of them finding it to be clinically significant.
New version:
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. The most research rmeta-analyses found that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.
This attempts to meet Will's points, and also addresses Doc James's, whose comment made me realize that we don't currently have any info in the article on the comparisons with simple relaxation. Will, regarding the distinction between studies and clinical research: there are two types of research, one called basic research that looks at physiological changes. Scientists find this interesting and meaningful in and of itself. Any health implications are conjectural and peripheral. Clinical research looks at specific health and cognitive applications. There was a large amount of basic research in the 1970s and 1980s by many different scientists. There was also some clinical research. In the last couple decades or so, there's been much more clinical research than basic research.
I think the IP has a good point. Will, please address it. Per the IP's comment, I've moved the material on promotion to make it less prominent. But it probably should be deleted as a violation of WP:SYNTHl TimidGuy ( talk) 10:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies on the physiological effects have found specific changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. The most research rmeta-analyses found that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.
Doc, if you're quoting a guideline, I'm not familiar with it. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be more general and and summarize, not simply present two specific reviews. Perhaps most problematic, it presents only one point of view. This violates the core Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. The version that we pretty much agreed upon (except for the blood pressure part) does that. Instead of mentioning a particular review, it states the conclusion of that review and many other reviews: that firm conclusions can't be drawn and that more research needs to be done. The studies themselves generally say that. This is a general, all-encompassing statement. In addition, there are scores or perhaps hundreds of research reviews that discuss specific studies and say that the results are suggestive. And some of those reviews are in this article. Plus, there are the 2007 and 2008 meta-analyses published in Current Hypertension Reports and American Journal of Hypertension that do draw a conclusion. Will, I don't know of a meta-analysis that compared TM and simple relaxation. Which one are you referring to? There have been 7 meta-analyses on TM and blood pressure, 5 of those in AHRQ. Of the 7 meta-analyses, 5 have found a reduction. Here's a new version that for now leaves out blood pressure:
TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but further research is needed.
What do you think? It's more general, represents the entire section, and literally quotes AHRQ's bottom line. And in this revised version ends with an additional qualifying phrase from AHRQ. Please, I'm trying hard to accommodate everyone. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
TM has been reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Some meta analyses with strict standard for clinical research excluded most of the research on meditation and thus could not draw any conclusion. Others, less restrictive, have found specific physiological effects. Clinical studies have suggested a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but the authors added that further research is needed.
Thanks, Will. I would agree with those changes. You and I have agreed on this compromise version, with Doc and Edith holding out for versions that weigh one or the other point of view more heavily. I say we go with this compromise version for now. Doc and Edith, in the spirit of compromise would you go along with making this change? Per NPOV it has to change because there are many points of view that are not now represented in that paragraph. The beauty of the draft version is that it is something that almost everyone would agree with, including the researchers themselves. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
New version to be included in the article since it appears to be supported by a majority:
TM has been reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but the authors say further research is needed.
This might be temporary, until we agree on another version that we feel is more representative of the different POVs found in the available reliable secondary sources. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) ( talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
These paragraphs were removed:
Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) ( talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Will, please tell me if this accurately represents your suggestions:
TM is among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being.
And relocate the current first clause as you described. Does that do it? Seems like we pretty much have a consensus except for Doc. TimidGuy ( talk) 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
(undent)We have many times gotten outside opinions. We have reached the current version based on outside opinion. If you do not like the conclusions here please ask on one of the boards such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or at WT:MED. We have gone over this many times. I have also made this suggestion many times. We know the opinions of everyone here without really even asking. Yes we know the TM organization disagrees with the AHRQ report and Cochrane. They however much more closely represents the opinions of those not related to the TM movement ( as they are published by those not related to the TM movement and are some of the most highly respected publication in the world ). When it comes to health claims the opinion of the majority of experts in the field of health is who we shall summarize. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
What about the following to summarize the research?
TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Systematic reviews have found that it has specific physiological effects and a range of benefits on health and mental well-being. The TM organisation says that this research includes more than 200 scientific studies published in peer review journals. However, in clinical settings, a 2007 review of meditation reported that the definitive effects of meditation as an healthcare practice cannot be determined as the field of research on meditation techniques and their therapeutic applications has been clouded by a lack of methodological rigour. Similarly, in an systematic analysis of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders, a 2006 Cochrane review found that only two randomised controlled studies were eligible for inclusion. Only one of these two studies involved TM. In this study published in 1980, TM showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy. The review states that no conclusion can be drawn.
It gives a lot of weight to the recent analyses of meditation in healthcare settings, but it was the only way to include the AHRQ and Cochrane reviews while provoding crucial information about them. I wanted to include them in the hope to achieve a consensus, even though this is undue weight toward the clinical settings. In the Cochrane review, the fact that only two studies were eligible is their most important conclusion. It is the first thing mentioned in their conclusion and it is obviously something that must be known. The fact that TM was comparable to relaxion therapy in one of the studies is secondary because, ultimately, the authors conclude at the end that the small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) ( talk) 22:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
How about this to sum up the research:
Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigour. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Doc, your summary isn't at all accurate. I know of only three RCTs comparing TM with relaxation: Raskin and two by Schneider. Raskin found both TM and relaxation therapy reduced anxiety. And two high-quality (per AHRQ) RCTs by Schneider that found that TM significantly reduced blood pressure compared to progressive muscle relaxation. On what basis do you say that there's no benefit beyond relaxation? TimidGuy ( talk) 11:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
In a 1980 study, TM showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigour. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.
Sexual orientation hardly seems relavent to comments about TM. Although Sullivan openly discusses sprituality and gay orientation does he discuss TM and being gay. This section reads oddly to me as if we are trying to make some kind of point. A person's sexuality isn't our business nor should it be implied that it is. At any rate this is just a comment we might want to consider. I don't see it as critical, just odd.( olive ( talk) 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC))
I don't see a problem with the Sullivan content. The concern is whether his sexual orientation is needed and is pertinent contextual information. One wonders if in all instances where we use the opinion of an individual we should add the their sexual orientation. Aren't we getting a little personal. Their orientation may very well influence them, but its always a jump for us to say so unless the sources makes that direct connection. Catholicism isn't the issue here nor is unorthodoxy. What is is TM, and sexual orientation.( olive ( talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC))
Let's cut to the chase. First, Walcott is not a good source. It is a blog, a self-published sourced. Since Walcott is a notable person published in secondary sources, his blog can be used as a SPS about what he says about himself. He is being cited as a source for what Sullivan - a third person - belives. That is not permitted. The source does not qualify. Second, as to Sullivan, same standard. He can be cited for what he believes. His blog can't be cited as a source for what the Catholic Church teaches or what it thinks. He doesn't claim that it is. My impression is that the sentence was added by one editor to suggest that TM is compatible with Catholicism, and the bit about his sexual orientation by another editor to suggest that whatever he thinks ain't the official line. The source is being misused and the text very misleading. Sullivan can't be cited as a source for what is or isn't compatible with orthodox Catholicism. He explicitly says that his own views aren't the official line, and he wishes that the official line was as open minded as his on things like TM. His other writings are quire direct in describing both his affection for, and alienation from, the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons, it position on homosexuality being only one of them. Are his personal views notable or relevant for purposes of this article? I'm inclined to say, "No". Fladrif ( talk) 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure if it is necessary to mention fees in the first paragraph of the lede. Do others have any thought on the matter? -- BwB ( talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the purpose of mentioning the price? It is not very useful to mention it. We do not sale TM. I agree that there is a controversy about whether TM should be more affordable. Mentioning the price anywhere in the lead imply this controversy because it achieves no other purpose. I don't think this controversy has a place in the lead. In any case, to include this controversy, we would have to provide citation and a balanced view. 67.230.154.243 ( talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we replace the statement "The TM technique is a form of mantra meditation" in the first paragraph of the lead by "TM is a trademarked meditation technique"? The same paragraph says that the TM procedure involves a mantra, so "mantra meditation" is repetitive. Moreover, the expression "mantra meditation" is not commonly used to describe TM. I sympathize with the desire to characterize TM in the first sentence, but, unless we agree to use the sentence "a simple, effortless and natural technique" as a way to characterize it, I think the best we can do on this respect is to say that it is trademarked.
Some reviews of research on meditations used the category "mantra meditation", but this has raised controversy. The procedure itself appears more important as a way to characterize a meditation. For example, Lutz, Slagter, Dunne and Davidson define two categories of meditation to help research on meditation, but do not mention even once the word "mantra" (see ref 1 just below). Instead, the categories are based upon whether focused attention or open monitoring is required. Later, Travis and Shear added a third category of meditation, automatic self-transcending, and a way to distinguish these three categories using EEG pattern (see ref 2). Again, the use of a mantra was not used to distinguish these three categories.
ref 1: Lutz A, Slagter HA, Dunne JD and Davidson RJ, "Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation", Trends Cogn Sci. (2008).
ref 2: Travis F and Shear J. "Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending: Categories to organize meditations from Vedic, Buddhist and Chinese traditions", Consciousness and Cognition (2010). 67.230.154.243 ( talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Trademarked is not more important, but we mention the use of a mantra explicitly in the next sentence, so in that context mentioning the use of a trademark is more useful. At the least it adds something. If we do not even agree on this minimal characterisation, which I can respect, then we can say "The TM technique was introduced ..." and skip the "mantra meditation" or any other characterisation. "Mantra meditation" is simply a bad way to characterize TM. It is not commonly characterised in this way. Sorry, I am not replying anymore. These were just a few contributions. I do not intend to become a permanent editor. 67.230.154.243 ( talk) 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence is a POV that is built by combining many separate published material. It is a synthesis. In fact much of the cited material is pro-TM. So, clearly this is original research. We need a citation for that constructed POV. Moreover, even if we find a citation, it is not directly about the research, but about how it is used, so it does not fit in the Researh section.
The quantity of studies have been cited to support the political programs of the Natural Law Party,[112][113] the tax status of a TM institution,[114] the use of TM to rehabilitate prisoners,[115] the teaching of TM in schools,[116] the issuance of bonds to finance the movement,[117] as proof that TM is a science rather than a religion,[118] to show the efficacy of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health,[119] and as a reason to practice TM itself.[120]
67.230.154.243 ( talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And so on. Will Beback talk 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to ask the unamed IP user how his theories apply to this sentence:
It seems pretty similar. Will Beback talk 02:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Here we state
TM has been found to produce a set of characteristic responses such as reduced respiration, decreased breath volume, decreased lactate and cortisol (hormones associated with stress), increased basal skin resistance, and slowed heartbeat. [11] [12] The mechanism for the effects of TM has been explained by proponents as being due to greater order in the physiology, decreased stress, and growth of creative intelligence. [12]
however the references are not appropriate for the text. One study states that it is looking at "psychiatric issues, and specifically substance use disorders" and the other concludes "The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials."
Finally these are not actually health outcomes (reduced respiration, decreased breath volume, etc.) but are physiological changes. These two things are different. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
We have an addition to the text - "Douglas Cowan, a Professor of Sociology & Religious Studies, gives Transcendental Meditation extensive coverage in Cults and New Religions along with Scientology, Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU), The Children of God, Branch Davidian, Heaven’s Gate, and Wicca.[244]"
Since this is an article on TM, it is sufficient that state that "Douglas Cowan, a Professor of Sociology & Religious Studies, gives Transcendental Meditation extensive coverage in Cults and New Religions". I am not sure what the additional text adds. -- BwB ( talk) 08:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the POV word "extensive" in the text. -- BwB ( talk) 08:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a major textbook in this field of study. We should probably add more information from it as it represents a independent opinion of the organization. Will work on this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In this paragraph:
A 2006 systematic review by the Cochrane collaboration found that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders. The review found that, as of 2006, two randomized controlled trials had been done on this topic, one of which was on TM, and concluded that meditation is equivalent to relaxation therapy. [19 Other research reviews cite a 1989 meta-analysis of 146 studies that found that relaxation techniques for anxiety had a medium effect size and that Transcendental Meditation had a significantly larger effect. [123 [124
we have an 1989 review used in an attempt to refute a Cochrane review. The 1989 research is not relevant. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Is being discussed further here [13] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
There are a bunch of great book we can access through google that discuss TM from an academic perspective such as this one:
Bainbridge, William Sims (1997). The sociology of religious movements. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-91202-4. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Another book with interesting coverage of TM is:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Wallis was a sociology chair at the University of Belfast. Unfortunately, it's a bit old. Will Beback talk 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the linked page, I don't see any mention of "200 scientific studies published in peer review journals". Instead, that page says: "The research studies below were selected from over 350 published studies (see Bibliography) conducted at a wide range of independent research institutions." How do we get 200+ peer-reviewed studies from the 350 published studies mentioned in the source? Will Beback talk 21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact what should be considered here is the honesty of a single editor. He asked a web master to clarify content on a web site. Is anyone here naive enough to think that universities do not on a day to day basis monitor the accuracy of their web sites. Was including peer review inaccurate. Any one take a look at UCLA and wonder about advertising. A dishonest editor would not have admitted to what TG did. He didn't have to say anything. Per the Arbitration I would suggest that editors AGF and not use the actions of one editor to gang up on a whole group of editors, creating by doing so a toxic environment That looks odd to me, and one wonders about motives.
That said Will makes a good point. The definitive information on any university must be itself. MUM is an accredited university that uses the TM technique as a supplement to the usual courses. TM.org is the official site of the TM organization. For Wikipedia purposes we should probably delineate the two. Content that references the university can be used to describe the university about itself. Content that references the organization should probably come from the TM.org site. Attribution in the text of the article provides context, letting the reader know where the information comes from and allows the reader to make decisions.( olive ( talk) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
We have just made correction to a section of the “Transcendental Meditation Movement Article” regarding an erroneous remark that the Spiritual Center of America had lost its tax exempt status. In fact, as we saw, the SC remains a tax exempt institution, as the court simply ruled that the SC was not entitled to exemption from property taxes but never challenged the SC's non profit status. This was graciously corrected by Will. The same thing needs to be done in this article, in the sections “Transcendental Meditation Movement” and also in the section "Research funding, publication, and promotion".
The Section “Transcendental Meditation Movement” states “Two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[254] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied tax exempt status because they were found not to be educational organizations.[255] In fact a reading of both sources reveals that only exemption from property taxes was at stake, not the tax exempt status of the organizations as a whole. Therefore the sentence should be corrected. Additionally, as in the "Transcendental Meditation Movement" article itself, one of the sources used for reference is a personal blog. This too should be corrected.
Additionally, in the section "Research funding, publication, and promotion", it is stated that the scientific studies on TM have been used to 'assert the tax status of a TM institution,[174] ' Again, the source refers to the case World Plan Executive Council-United States, et al., v. County of Ramsey which dealt exclusively with property tax exemption and not the tax exempt status of the organization as a whole. I think it should be corrected. Thanks to whomever undertakes this.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
As I remember, per a previous discussion on adding content without first discussing it, I'd like to clarify the process and procedure here for adding content and for making other substantial changes to the TM articles. Discussion and agreement first, or add whatever one wants. I'd like to suggest that no one add further content until a procedure has been agreed on. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 03:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
And editor is adding assertions to the effect that Lynch himself said that "TM has its detractors — killjoys who call it an exploitative cult." However I think it's clear that the author places Lynch's comments in quotation marks, and that sentence is not marked that way. I'm not sure that MTV.com is the best available source on this issue, so I recommend deleting it. But if we keep it we should make sure it's correct. Will Beback talk 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, if we directly quote a source then we need to place quotation marks around the text otherwise we're plagiarizing it. Will Beback talk 23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Cochrane06
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dakwar09
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wien Klin Wochenschr.
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).