![]() | 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 43 |
This section seems too long and detailed for this article to function as an overview. On a diagonal reading, the section appears to be mostly about the technique, so some of its contents should probably be moved to one the sub-articles. Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an WP:AE proposal to ban several of the long-term editors of this page. I'm noting this here because the list of proposed bans exceeds the initial report (which was against User:Littleolive oil). Tijfo098 ( talk) 11:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Varma and his school have contributed nearly nothing of importance to the science. Their main concern is using science, no matter how questionable or controversial, to support the view that TM is good for your health. For some people, that's probably true. But even if true, it doesn't seem to be earth shattering. For the record, I have never maintained that meditation isn't good for you. My position is that TM is not unique.
This is an interesting quote. WRT previous discussion regarding the use of this source at WP:RS we have this [3] and [4] which consider it a RS. Not that this is different than the AHRQ conclusion just that it is simply put. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This section is almost completely pejorative. Is this NPOV?( olive ( talk) 07:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC))
I think most of the last paragraph in that section can be removed without much loss of information in article, specifically:
“ | Yale University architecture professor Keller Easterling compares TM to "Arnold Palmer Golf Management", a developer of golf courses, saying that both are "ideologies and practices" that are regarded as "commercial products".[9] According to Easterling, TM maintains a partial story which allows it to keep the "brand amnesiacally refreshed" and alter plans without explanation. | ” |
The previous paragraphs in that section are more to the point, and cover the same material. I don't see what this rather convoluted exercise in metaphors adds. The (architecture) book is also cited without page numbers. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I also have at hand a four-page article titled "The Secular Selling of a Religion" in a 1975 issue of The Christian Century. Obviously, it concerns marketing too. Since it's a prominent partisan source, it's a significant point of view to be includd with attribution. Will Beback talk 13:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Unless we move back the Rfc tag (which would be pointless), the RFC is now closed. We should now take action. I propose
Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
(undent) It was stated that an independent admin had summarized the RfC regarding the layout of the article. Where is this summary please... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I asked in the TMT article talk page if it would be fine to move the Marketing section in there as well (in addition to the Theorerical concepts and Characterization sections). I feel it must be discussed in the TMT article context because it was not a part of the recent consensus. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 16:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of option #5 was simpler, just simple ordinary summaries of the three detail articles. People could get the essential from these summaries and go to the detail articles for more details. However, I will be happy to join a consensus on a different interpretation. We just need to make sure that we have a common understanding of this interpretation and indeed a consensus around it. If we include the Intro, the Theoretical concepts, Characterization and Marketing sections, the TMT article would contain 11 sections. The Research section would be excluded from the summary of this TMT detail article. Which sections among the 11 sections would be included? Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
That's what was agreed on. Start your engines. Start editing.( olive ( talk) 05:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
I suggest that the simplest way to summarize articles would be to use their introductions, which are already supposed to be good summaries. They'd require a little copyediting to reduce redundancy, but otherwise it wouldn't be much work. Will Beback talk 20:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that Will Beback asked a very important question. Some have suggested that we remove the isolated statement about Research in the Intro and that we have nothing about Research (and other topics) in the TM article. Others, consider that we must normally include Research in the summary. Among those that want to include Research, there is a disagreement on the notion of independent sources. Because we need to work together, we need to discuss all of that and achieve a consensus. That is why there is so much discussion about research on this page. It is crucial for the resolution of the current dispute. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 00:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Tijfo suggests that we include a summary of the most reputable reviews from the TMT article. This seems the logical thing to do. This should be a general principle that we maintain over time. Perhaps, the situation will change in the TMT article, reviews will be added, some will be considered obsolete and removed, etc. We would simply keep adjusting the TM article to the situation in the TMT article. One might disapprove the current situation about Research in the TMT article or disapprove the way the general principle is going to be applied, but I cannot see why one would disapprove the general principle itself. (I have not yet looked at the current situation concerning research in the TMT article, but it does not matter - I think we should apply this general principle.)
Edith Sirius Lee (
talk)
14:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
As the previous thread implies, I believe that "discussion on Research is important" but, I propose that we move along with Will BeBack's last advice "we can resolve disputes as they come up." I disagree though with "no one disagrees with moving those sections". Doc James expressed a clear "oppose" to suggestion #5, explaining why he moved back these sections. SJ asked him what he suggests. I wrote "Let see what Doc James proposes", but he must be busy with other things - we did not hear from him about that. I also asked in the TMT article itself about moving these three sections, but all discussions stopped in the TMT article since Dec 3. So, I would not be comfortable with moving these three sections at this stage before we hear from others. I only meant that we should do it and don't see how someone can disagree. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 10:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears that hidden behind an apparent consensus around suggestion #5, there were different viewpoints on what should be the summaries. This can easily be documented with diffs. So, I suggest that we confirm or obtain a consensus around the following: we move the three sections Theoretical concepts, Characterizations and Marketing in the TMT article, but then avoid any turmoil, do not include Research, Characterizations, Theoretical concepts, Marketing and any similar topic "without their own detail article" back into the summaries. At the same time that I propose this, I am aware that a completely different understanding of suggestion #5 emerged later on:
I will be happy to join a consensus around that too. I can also accept a proposal that we do not try to get a consensus on what should be the summaries, that is, we do not fix any specific constraint, just move on and resolve specific disputes as they come up. We just need to agree on one direction, the latter proposal being the default. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
@Fladrif, I think it is useful to acknowledge the different viewpoints on what should be the summaries. Looking back at the discussions in the last Rfc, I realize that, indeed, there was most likely a consensus around the "no turmoil" approach, the "keep it as it is" approach of suggestion #1, but only after having moved out the Characterizations, Theoretic concepts and Marketing sections. Is that the case? Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The following sentences violate WP:Lead. How do we proceed to respect it?
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, not-for-profit, research organisation
A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Did I understand you to say we should use the intros to create the summaries? Is there a difference between using those very same intros, and combining them with the content now in the summaries. Same intros. Different use. Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying. And sorry, but I don't think your reason holds water. Articles are always being changed. I'll draft a version and of it changes the summary can be changed. We could be waiting around a long time for an article on Wikipedia in this area to remain unchanged.( olive ( talk) 00:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
This is newly added material. I'm still tracking down some of these papers, which have incomplete citations, but the first one listed, is certainly not independently done. The authors are Robert H. Schneider, Charles N. Alexander, Frank Staggers, Maxwell Rainforth, John W. Salerno, Arthur Hartz, Stephen Arndt, Vernon A. Barnes, and Sanford I. Nidich. Most or all of those people are closely connected with TM. I am going to revert this addition on the assumption that the editor didn't know what is meant by "independently done systematic reviews". The material may be worth adding to the new TMR article if it complies with MEDRS. Will Beback talk 22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There are many reviews on TM.
The Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, not-for-profit, research organisation
A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This text has been a bone of contention. With the reorganization of the article we no longer devote as much space to research, so this is more detail than we need here. I've moved it to the intro of the TMR. That's the logical place to thrash it out further. I've replaced with text based on the compromise language proposed by TimidGuy:
The whole intro will need to be re-written soon, so this is just a stopgap. Will Beback talk 06:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
(undent) if we think it is too long we could remove "and among the most widely researched meditation techniques" The volume of research does not matter as much as the conclusions of said research. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree. If that were the case, then any time no matter the discussion another editor can come in ignore the discussion and whatever progress has been made towards collaboration and compromise and undo the time and efforts of other editors. How does that respect both those editors and that process. I won't revert Doc but I would ask him to consider what I'm saying.( olive ( talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
(undent)If people wish to suggest changes to the medical aspect of the article we should return back to a structured RfC similar to what we went through to generate the current summary of the literature. If someone does this they should also alert all the previous people who commented. I do not wish to read through everything here on an ongoing basis as much of it is unpleasant. Content is not to be decided by "the last person standing" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
@James: I really don't understand what you're saying in some ways, but this I know. If you want to make substantial edits to a contentious article please take part in the discussion before you make those edits. Nobody likes to hash through each sentence word by word trying to find agreement. Sure its easier to just write your own version, insert it and walk away. We all would like to do that. But that's just not the way collaboration works. I really think that we can come to agreements/compromises on this material as long as no one short circuits the process of discussion. I realize that as an emergency doc you make unilateral decisions all of the time in order to save lives, and with little or no time to discuss things. This has to be more collaborative, and there is no rush or urgency. Anyway. I respect your background and the way you have to operate in your profession. Maybe give this a thought. I've suggested mediations recently as a way to work though this sentence and the research . We've already had an RfC on it which was cut short.( olive ( talk) 05:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
What I'll do is copy some of the text editing you did to the middle section over to the research article, then copy back that entire intro. If you'd like to suggest changes to that text, the research talk page would be the best place. Will Beback talk 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No, James the text isn't accurate and your above comment and a history of removing sourced content on the research and to even edit warring to keep in a misrepresentation of the sources, indicates efforts to control aspects of these articles and how the research is represented no matter what. That's ownership and a concern.( olive ( talk) 20:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC))
The Transcendental Meditation movement (also referred to as Transcendental Meditation (TM), "Maharishi's worldwide movement", and previously as "World Government")[1] is a world-wide organization founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the 1950s. It includes programs and organizations connected to the Transcendental Meditation technique, developed and or introduced by the founder.[2][3] Besides the TM technique proper, the TM movement also advocates the "advanced" TM-Sidhi program including "Yogic flying", Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi Vedic Medicine, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, and other "technologies" and products.
Estimated to have tens of thousands of participants, with high estimates citing as many as several million,[4] the global organization also consists of close to 1,000 TM centers, and controls property assets of the order of USD 3.5 billion (1998 estimate).[5] Most Movement organizations have tax exempt status; others have operated for-profit.[6][7]
The movement has made unsuccessful attempts to attain political influence during the early 2000s, by means of its Natural Law Party in elections in various democracies, and by means of trying to attain sovereignty as a microstate for its Global Country of World Peace.
The TM movement has been described as a spiritual movement, as a new religious movement, and a "Neo-Hindu" sect.[8] It has been characterized as a religion, a cult, a charismatic movement, a "sect", "plastic export Hinduism", a progressive millennialism organization and a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion" in books and the mainstream press,[8][9] with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.[10]
Other sources assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, and not a religion or a cult.[11][12][13]Participation in TM programs at any level does not require one to hold or deny any specific religious beliefs; TM is practiced by people of many diverse religious affiliations, as well as atheists and agnostics.[14][15][16][17]
The Transcendental meditation movement came out of the Spiritual Regeneration Movement (SRM) founded by the Maharishi in 1958. The SRM was incorporated as a religious organization, however, this wording was removed from the articles of incorporation in the 1970s in an effort to appeal to a more secular west.[4]
The Transcendental Meditation movement encompasses initiatives by Marishi Mahesh Yogi spanning multiple fields and across several continents. Sociologist J.R. Coplin says that TM is both a "private technique" and a "public ideology".[52]
The terms "Transcendental Meditation", "TM", and "Science of Creative Intelligence" are servicemarks owned by Maharishi Foundation Ltd., a UK non-profit organization.[53] These servicemarks have been sub-licensed to the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation (MVED), an American non-profit, tax exempt organization which oversees teaching the Transcendental Meditation technique and related courses in the U.S.A.[54][55]
Two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[56] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied property tax exemptions as the educational activities of the organizations did not reach the ‘purely public charity’ threshold in one case, and did not involve the entire real estate in the other.[57]
Transcendental Meditation is taught in the United Kingdom by the Maharishi Foundation, a registered educational charity (number 270157).[58] TM is taught in South Africa by teachers registered with Maharishi Vedic Institute — a non-profit organisation, registration number 025-663-NPO.[59] In Australia TM is taught through the Maharishi's Global Administration through Natural Law Limited, which is registered as a non-profit educational institution.[60]
The Skeptics Dictionary refers to TM as a "spiritual business".[61] Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh note in their book Trick or Treatment that TM is part of a larger system of beliefs than other types of meditation, with strong religious associations.[62]
In 1992, a political party, the Natural Law Party (NLP) was founded based on the principles of TM.[4] Most of the party was disbanded by 2004.[4] NLP ran candidates in at least ten countries, including the United States, Canada, UK, several European countries, Israel and India, but rarely received more than a few percent of the vote. Candidates in Croatia and India did win seats for regional councils.
As we can see, these are totally different. Both could be improved by combining them into one good summary. My suggestion is to take good material from the current summary and integrate it into the TMM intro, then copy that integrated summary back here. That means we have one summary of the TMM, instead of two different ones. the same for the other child articles. Doing so minimizes the editing of the most contentious sections of articles on a contentious topic. If we have two separate summaries, then we need to have two separate discussions, doubling the effort for no reason. Is there a good reason why the summary here should be substantially different from the intro of the artuicle itself, other than a little redundant context info? Will Beback talk 09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a version: Kind of bare bones. How is this? Too short, too long, not enough information. I'm not attached in anyway. Just seeing what everyone has in mind by posting something. I feel this is approachable for anyone wanting a little information. All of the trademark/tax stuff seems like too much detail and what the casual reader who only goes as far as the lead or a summary will get bogged down in. Comments needed and welcome.( olive ( talk) 20:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
First draft intro/summary Transcendental Meditation movement:
I did take out "Neoplastic ... " whatever that was... if one source makes a comment I don't think it belongs in a lead...but again open to comments/suggestions.( olive ( talk) 20:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)) |
The Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, not-for-profit, research organisation
A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I don't see any obvious inaccuracies in this text. It appears to be a correct, neutral summary of relevant sources. Will Beback talk 21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually there is a point where ongoing circular discussion is no longer a useful way to deal with some issues, and outside assistance is useful. This discussion started before the RfC on this same sentence months ago. There is no good reason to now not ask for help in dealing with this dispute. I'm out of the energy required to argue this further with the same arguments, and points. lets seeif we can have an outside make this easier for all of us. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
I will be requesting formal mediation to deal with the above sentence, and have left notices on the talk pages of the most active editors on the TM articles. There is no intention to leave out anyone who might wish to join the discussions. Just add your name to the list of involved editors once I post the request. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
I've moved content from the intro of the history article per discussion here. Also as per summary style I've moved a little content that was very specific. The section though is still long. I will shorten the section with some syntax changes while not removing sources.( olive ( talk) 17:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC))
This history section applies to both the TMM and TMT thus for this reason should go first. The movement should probably be second and the technique after that. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The intro lays out information summarized of, first the technique, then the movement, then the history, and finally the research. That is one way to order the content in the article proper. I am discussing an organizational point. Sure I'm happy to discuss this further here although outside help might be helpful. By the way I never suggested the history section should be last( olive ( talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
It would seem to me to be logical and in the best interests of the reader to have the subject described and identified first and then the history could come later. I also think it makes sense to have the lead be a summary of the article and to proceed in the same order as the body of the article. Thereby providing the reader with a sense of continuity and flow.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This needs a ref "Research reviews and medical textbooks say that the
Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) is the most studied form of meditation, and that it has specific effects on human physiology. These reviews and textbooks differ with regard to their assessment of research quality and on the results of practicing
TM. {{
citation}}
: Empty citation (
help) Research reviews say that more research is needed to firmly establish the effects on mental and physical health. {{
citation}}
: Empty citation (
help)" Especially since research review that are independent say it does not have a significant effect beyond other health measures.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
22:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Beginning in the 1990s, a focus of research has been the effects of Transcendental Meditation on cardiovascular disease, with over $20 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health. [1]
It also goes on to say
"Will family doctors really feel comfortable referring patients with high blood pressure to the nearest Transcendental Meditation clinic - where they will be asked to write a $2,500 check?".
The cost should be somewhere in the article...
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
08:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This is mostly an aesthetics issue, and I understand the restrictions on non-free logos, but would it be possible to get a somewhat larger low-res image here? I unconsciously expect the main image on a page to be 2 to 3 times as large as this one, and it looks funny to me as is.
If someone can point me to the original source, I'm happy to make a larger (but still low-res) image and replace this one. -- Ludwigs2 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought to reorder the text in the "research" section, putting the earlier dated material first, but then thought maybe better the way it was. What do people think? -- BwB ( talk) 05:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
We should adhere to WP:LEAD: "the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences." Why is TM research notable? Because one meta-analysis of 5 studies found no difference compared to health education, and one review that looked at 1980 study found no difference compared to relaxation? No, it's notable because there has been 40 years of research, with findings in many different areas of research, findings that have been widely reported in the mainstream media, in research reviews, and in medical books. The consensus among all of these is that TM has beneficial effects. Even Ospina said that it lowers blood pressure, and even Cochrance 2006 found that it reduces anxiety. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
DJ is naturally concerned, as an MD, with finding and bringing to the fore the highest quality and most relevant research findings. He has contributed some very useful information on these pages. However, the beginning section of this article is in clear violation of the Wiki policies and guidelines on writing articles and should be adjusted immediately. In addition to WP:LEAD, Wiki “Writing Better Articles” and “Article Development” both state that articles must begin with an intro or lead that gives an overview of the topic. As is stated in the latter, “Remember that, although you will be familiar with the subject you are writing about, readers of Wikipedia may not be, so it is important to establish the context of your article’s subject early on.” Let’s get a little more reader-friendly here. Early morning person ( talk) 16:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The lead needs to be rewritten entirely. Will Beback talk 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a big new article on TM in the New York Times: "Look Who’s Meditating Now", IRINA ALEKSANDER March 18, 2011. I'm sure we can add material from it to more than one article. Will Beback talk 11:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Nova Religio, a peer-reviewed journal, has published a lengthy article on the philosophical underpinnings of TM. Material in that article is relevant to many TM-related articles, including the MMY biography. I've only scanned it so far, but I'll start to read it more closely and to add appropriate text sourced to it. Will Beback talk 11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added a sentence to the first paragraph of the Research section. It summarizes in brief the substantial number of reliably-sources that report health benefits in Transcendental Meditation practitioners. This sentence is supported by 10 independent research reviews (three of them systematic), an independent meta-analysis and two medical textbooks, all of which are currently in the Transcendental Meditation Research article. I have cited 5 of these 13 sources to avoid cluttering the page, but I would be happy to cite the remaining 8 sources if needed. Here is a list of the 13 refs I refer to: Early morning person ( talk) 18:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Source Summary
Related to the above two threads (also being discussed in the TM research article) and other issues in the lead, I've added an NPOV tag to the article. Here's a summary of the issues that need to be resolved:
The previous content was NOT supported by the references added. Thus was removed. We specifically state "systematic review" "literature reviews" are of lower quality as they frequently just parrot the conclusions of primary research. We use them if systematic review or meta analysis are not available. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
::And of course to be completely accurate TM is a meditation technique and a religion which claims to have a scientific basis when it does not making aspects of it a pseudoscience.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
17:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Will, my proposal was that we deal with the first point first, and once that's resolved move on to the next two. Of course, if you wanted to go ahead and revise the lead to address the other issues, feel free. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
repost/copy from above:(Jmh649/Doc James)
The previous content was NOT supported by the references added. Thus was removed. We specifically state "systematic review" "literature reviews" are of lower quality as they frequently just parrot the conclusions of primary research. We use them if systematic review or meta analysis are not available. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits resulting from TM practice. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
A meta-analysis of 31 studies . . . indicated that those subjects who had been practicing TM for a long time exhibited significantly lower baseline levels of spontaneous skin resistance responses, respiration rate, heart rate, and plasma lactate prior to meditation than comparison subjects did prior to rest. . . . subjects in the TM group exhibited significantly decreased TPR (total peripheral resistance) and SBP (systolic blood pressure)
What we currently have does not say TM does not have a measurable benefit just that it is no greater than health education. Thus removed this addition. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding to this. Please note that the four refs that I was citing includes not only two systematic reviews, but also a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and a medical textbook. All of these rank as “high-quality evidence” according to WP: MEDRS (see 2nd para of “Assessing Evidence Quality” here [12]). Therefore, I trust there will be no objection to my adding a sentence in this article, in the 3rd para of the opening section, following the 2nd sentence, “Independent systematic reviews . . . “
Proposed sentence: “Other studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) have reported that the technique has a range of health benefits.”
My refs:
1) Medical textbook: John Vogel, Rebecca Costello, and Mitchell Krucoff, Chapter 47 in Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, Peter Libbie, et al, eds, Saunders Elsevier, 2007, p. 1157. Quotation: “TM has been shown not only to improve blood pressure but also the insulin resistance components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiac autonomic nervous system tone.”
2)Systematic review: Black DS, Milam J, Sussman S (August 2009). "Sitting-Meditation Interventions Among Youth: A Review of Treatment Efficacy". Pediatrics/American Academy of Pediatrics 124 (3): e536. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-3434. PMID 19706568 Quotation: “TM group decreased from before to after test in SBP (systolic blood pressure), HR (heart rate) and CO (cardiac output) during acute stress simulation, and in SBP to a social stressor compared to controls . . . . “ “Study design: RCT: TM (n=17) vs health education control (n=18)” ; “TM group increased EDAD compared to controls, indicating improved endothelial function.” “Study design: RCT: TM (n=57) vs health education control (n=54)”
3) Systematic review: Paradies, Yin. "A Review of Psychosocial Stress and Chronic Disease for 4th World Indigenous Peoples and African Americans": Ethnicity and Disease 16: 295, 302, 305. (Winter 2006) Retrieved March 31, 2011. Quotation: “In general, TM was more effective that PMR (progressive muscle relaxation) in an eight-year follow-up of 530 African American participants which found a 63% reduction in all-cause mortality and an 82% reduction in heart disease mortality in the intervention group compared to the control groups.”
4) Meta-analysis of RCT's: Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, et al. (June 2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 148. PMID 17764203. Quotation: "When compared to PMR (progressive muscle relaxation), TM® produced significantly greater benefits in SBP (systolic blood pressure) and DBP (diastolic blood pressure)."
Re: the quotation in the Black et al systematic review: you must actually go the page e536 to see this quotation. You cannot get it by performing an automated search, because it is on a page of condensed information which is apparently not searchable. Nevertheless, it is obviously an integral part of this article, as indicated by the fact that it assigned a page number! Early morning person ( talk) 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a " pseudoscience". [1] [2] [3]
I am not sure this warrants being in the lead. We don't mention skeptics or pseudoscience anywhere else on the page...On the TM technique, Movement, research and history pages...it is barely discussed at all. In light of this we should delete it from the lead due to its lack of presence in the article and subordinate articles.-- Uncreated ( talk) 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: previous section: Although the Paradies review does not explicitly ID itself as a syst review, it has the main characteristic features of one. However, even if one doubts that it is systematic , it is certainly a high-quality general or literature review ( also referred to as a narrative review).
MEDRS does not relegate literature reviews to the status of “lesser quality evidence.” In fact, the opening statement in WP:MEDRS (the “This page in a nutshell” summary) states: “Ideal sources for biomedical material include general (literature) or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks . . . ”
Later, under “Assessing Evidence Quality,” here [15] MEDRS adds: “The best evidence comes from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation. Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs; other controlled studies . . .”
Again, the literature or narrative review is ranked at the highest level, and is considered helpful in establishing evidence quality. Early morning person ( talk) 17:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
[16] This reflects the salient points from Ospina's structured abstract on page v: [17]. The abstract mentions TM exactly once, saying "Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure." The abstract also presents, as its overall conclusion, that no firm conclusions can be drawn due to the studies' poor methodological quality. The summary of the anxiety review [18] follows much the same line: "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety" (for further detail see the "Main results" and "Conclusions" in the structured abstract). -- J N 466 11:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
and yet this is not discussed in more than a passing somewhat cynical remark. Many people who jave left TM describe in detail the ways in which the TM organization takes over the lives and assets of its members. My whole family is trapped in this thing and have spent large amounts of money on all their services and products, despite being quite poor. They would for instance prefer to pay for a yogic flying course than pay for a college education, or even help out with rent. I think this issue, which is very widespread and is in fact the basis of the TM movement, should be discussed more in depth in the article. 132.66.235.247 ( talk) 11:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
According to the German documentary "David wants to fly" ( videoportal.sf.tv), the sentence "is a version of a technique passed down from the Maharishi's teacher, Brahmananda Saraswati" is wrong. The narrator (David) travels to the monastery where Brahmananda Saraswati taught and met his successor(1h24min in the video), who said this:
"Maharishi served Guru Dev as accountant (or clerk?)." [Maharishi diente Guru Dev als Buchhalter.] ... "Guru Dev has not trained him as a Yogi or spiritual teacher." [Guru Dev hat ihn nicht als Yogi oder spirituellen Lehrer ausgebildet.] ... "Maharishi belonged to the clerk caste. He had no right to give mantras or teach meditation." [Maharishi kam aus der Schreiberkaste. Er hatte kein Recht, Mantren zu vergeben oder Meditation zu lehren.]
Should I include it in the article? I don't have an English source though. But I thought it's relevant.
Kind regards, Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilchimy ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This article (and indeed most of its associated family of articles) is written in a way that emphasizes controversy in such an extreme way that it is difficult to discover the facts behind TM (such as: what is it, what does it do, are there any bad effects?, etc.) without becoming, against one's will, embroiled in every single polarizing issue that has ever been published.
I'm not saying that only one POV should be represented. I'm saying that, since controversy has been over-represented, the article needs to be refactored into completely separate pro- and anti- sections or articles. I am aware that WP encourages mixing issues together in a single narrative. But this idea has not been achieved here in a neutral way, and, given the history of editing here, this is not likely to be achieved.
Rather than holding on to this unreadable structure, I propose that we embark on a major project to rewrite one or all of these articles to eliminate the constant jerking from pro- to anti- points of view. Let's structure this so it's readable first in a pro- position, then in an anti- position. We could even conclude with a Controversy section that allows in-depth discussion of the issues that are of particular interest in terms of controversy.
WP policies do not rule out the creation of readable articles on controversial subjects. There is even one policy that encourages the disregard of policies if it results in a better article.
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree, and let me know your thoughts on this idea. David Spector ( user/ talk) 22:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Waiting for responses. Something like this seems to have been done at Chronic fatigue syndrome and Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome. David Spector ( user/ talk) 14:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't limit this proposal to just this article. I posted it here precisely because this is the lead article for the entire topic area.
The problems I list apply to all of the articles, because they were all written and rewritten using the same flawed process making use of editors with heavy, biased, point-of-view agendas, either in favor of or opposed to TM. Those editors who have survived have done so because of their ability to compromise their agendas through wikilawyering and finding sources that support their POV or at least do the least damage to it. This flawed process is aggravated by "ownership", which means that the same small band of editors have worked on these related articles for years, without balance or relief from new blood. Particularly absent are neutral editors, who quickly get scared off. WP is not about scaring editors and keeping a set of editors in charge of articles. WP is about creating a truly informative and helpful encyclopedia. That goal is not being satisfied here.
Your reply is just another example of the pervasive habit of wikilawyering. You point out that this lead article should coordinate with the lead paragraphs of all the other articles (which is true), but fail to consider even one of the issues I have raised. I'm not blaming you. I'm blaming the habits required to make an impossible editing situation work. But the problem is, it's not working well. All you (plural) have gained is the ability to reach formal compromise. You have not gained the ability to write coherent, consistent, readable articles.
Let me try a different approach: I will now directly address both types of editors. Just read the subsection addressed to you.
You're not really happy with these articles, are you? The Ospina study, which uses many words to state that there isn't any good research on meditation (which actually isn't true), doesn't belong here. It's biased in favor of a conservative medical establishment that is scared of anything outside of itself. The talk of TM being a religion is ridiculous, and you know it. It only survives because of ignorant rulings and statements that would evaporate if the facts were fairly considered. The talk of TM being pseudoscientific or a cult is even worse: it's downright defamatory and has no real basis. And where is the inspiration? Where are the words that describe how it feels to practice TM and gain the energy to take on even extreme challenges in life? Where is the explanation of TM as the basis of accomplishment and happiness in life? Where is a really good description of transcending, with its inward and outward strokes? Don't you want the WP article to inspire people to learn TM? You see how crummy the article is, with its constant bickering, don't you? So, why not agree with me and change course? Rewrite the articles according to the facts as you know them. Allow the anti-TM people to have their own sections or articles to present their points of view, but keep them separated for the sake of readability.
You're not really happy with these articles, are you? The Ospina study, which is the first truly objective and independent metastudy on meditation, belongs here, and needs to be emphasized. The triviality of the practice of TM, and its allied techniques, needs to be stated more clearly. And the direction clearly taken in the legal system toward applying common sense to TM (some of its aspects are clearly religious) needs better documentation. The pseudoscience spouted by the "Maharishi approaches to health" and the "Maharishi Effect" needs to be exposed, and the claims for curing illnesses revealed for the danger that they pose in keeping patients from getting proven health care. So, why not agree with me and change course? Rewrite the articles according to the facts as you know them. Allow the pro-TM people to have their own main sections or articles to present their points of view, and keep all the critical material together for the sake of readability. David Spector ( user/ talk) 16:52, 15 March 2012 (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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 43 |
This section seems too long and detailed for this article to function as an overview. On a diagonal reading, the section appears to be mostly about the technique, so some of its contents should probably be moved to one the sub-articles. Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an WP:AE proposal to ban several of the long-term editors of this page. I'm noting this here because the list of proposed bans exceeds the initial report (which was against User:Littleolive oil). Tijfo098 ( talk) 11:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Varma and his school have contributed nearly nothing of importance to the science. Their main concern is using science, no matter how questionable or controversial, to support the view that TM is good for your health. For some people, that's probably true. But even if true, it doesn't seem to be earth shattering. For the record, I have never maintained that meditation isn't good for you. My position is that TM is not unique.
This is an interesting quote. WRT previous discussion regarding the use of this source at WP:RS we have this [3] and [4] which consider it a RS. Not that this is different than the AHRQ conclusion just that it is simply put. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This section is almost completely pejorative. Is this NPOV?( olive ( talk) 07:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC))
I think most of the last paragraph in that section can be removed without much loss of information in article, specifically:
“ | Yale University architecture professor Keller Easterling compares TM to "Arnold Palmer Golf Management", a developer of golf courses, saying that both are "ideologies and practices" that are regarded as "commercial products".[9] According to Easterling, TM maintains a partial story which allows it to keep the "brand amnesiacally refreshed" and alter plans without explanation. | ” |
The previous paragraphs in that section are more to the point, and cover the same material. I don't see what this rather convoluted exercise in metaphors adds. The (architecture) book is also cited without page numbers. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I also have at hand a four-page article titled "The Secular Selling of a Religion" in a 1975 issue of The Christian Century. Obviously, it concerns marketing too. Since it's a prominent partisan source, it's a significant point of view to be includd with attribution. Will Beback talk 13:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Unless we move back the Rfc tag (which would be pointless), the RFC is now closed. We should now take action. I propose
Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
(undent) It was stated that an independent admin had summarized the RfC regarding the layout of the article. Where is this summary please... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I asked in the TMT article talk page if it would be fine to move the Marketing section in there as well (in addition to the Theorerical concepts and Characterization sections). I feel it must be discussed in the TMT article context because it was not a part of the recent consensus. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 16:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of option #5 was simpler, just simple ordinary summaries of the three detail articles. People could get the essential from these summaries and go to the detail articles for more details. However, I will be happy to join a consensus on a different interpretation. We just need to make sure that we have a common understanding of this interpretation and indeed a consensus around it. If we include the Intro, the Theoretical concepts, Characterization and Marketing sections, the TMT article would contain 11 sections. The Research section would be excluded from the summary of this TMT detail article. Which sections among the 11 sections would be included? Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
That's what was agreed on. Start your engines. Start editing.( olive ( talk) 05:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
I suggest that the simplest way to summarize articles would be to use their introductions, which are already supposed to be good summaries. They'd require a little copyediting to reduce redundancy, but otherwise it wouldn't be much work. Will Beback talk 20:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that Will Beback asked a very important question. Some have suggested that we remove the isolated statement about Research in the Intro and that we have nothing about Research (and other topics) in the TM article. Others, consider that we must normally include Research in the summary. Among those that want to include Research, there is a disagreement on the notion of independent sources. Because we need to work together, we need to discuss all of that and achieve a consensus. That is why there is so much discussion about research on this page. It is crucial for the resolution of the current dispute. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 00:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Tijfo suggests that we include a summary of the most reputable reviews from the TMT article. This seems the logical thing to do. This should be a general principle that we maintain over time. Perhaps, the situation will change in the TMT article, reviews will be added, some will be considered obsolete and removed, etc. We would simply keep adjusting the TM article to the situation in the TMT article. One might disapprove the current situation about Research in the TMT article or disapprove the way the general principle is going to be applied, but I cannot see why one would disapprove the general principle itself. (I have not yet looked at the current situation concerning research in the TMT article, but it does not matter - I think we should apply this general principle.)
Edith Sirius Lee (
talk)
14:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
As the previous thread implies, I believe that "discussion on Research is important" but, I propose that we move along with Will BeBack's last advice "we can resolve disputes as they come up." I disagree though with "no one disagrees with moving those sections". Doc James expressed a clear "oppose" to suggestion #5, explaining why he moved back these sections. SJ asked him what he suggests. I wrote "Let see what Doc James proposes", but he must be busy with other things - we did not hear from him about that. I also asked in the TMT article itself about moving these three sections, but all discussions stopped in the TMT article since Dec 3. So, I would not be comfortable with moving these three sections at this stage before we hear from others. I only meant that we should do it and don't see how someone can disagree. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 10:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears that hidden behind an apparent consensus around suggestion #5, there were different viewpoints on what should be the summaries. This can easily be documented with diffs. So, I suggest that we confirm or obtain a consensus around the following: we move the three sections Theoretical concepts, Characterizations and Marketing in the TMT article, but then avoid any turmoil, do not include Research, Characterizations, Theoretical concepts, Marketing and any similar topic "without their own detail article" back into the summaries. At the same time that I propose this, I am aware that a completely different understanding of suggestion #5 emerged later on:
I will be happy to join a consensus around that too. I can also accept a proposal that we do not try to get a consensus on what should be the summaries, that is, we do not fix any specific constraint, just move on and resolve specific disputes as they come up. We just need to agree on one direction, the latter proposal being the default. Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
@Fladrif, I think it is useful to acknowledge the different viewpoints on what should be the summaries. Looking back at the discussions in the last Rfc, I realize that, indeed, there was most likely a consensus around the "no turmoil" approach, the "keep it as it is" approach of suggestion #1, but only after having moved out the Characterizations, Theoretic concepts and Marketing sections. Is that the case? Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The following sentences violate WP:Lead. How do we proceed to respect it?
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, not-for-profit, research organisation
A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Edith Sirius Lee ( talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Did I understand you to say we should use the intros to create the summaries? Is there a difference between using those very same intros, and combining them with the content now in the summaries. Same intros. Different use. Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying. And sorry, but I don't think your reason holds water. Articles are always being changed. I'll draft a version and of it changes the summary can be changed. We could be waiting around a long time for an article on Wikipedia in this area to remain unchanged.( olive ( talk) 00:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
This is newly added material. I'm still tracking down some of these papers, which have incomplete citations, but the first one listed, is certainly not independently done. The authors are Robert H. Schneider, Charles N. Alexander, Frank Staggers, Maxwell Rainforth, John W. Salerno, Arthur Hartz, Stephen Arndt, Vernon A. Barnes, and Sanford I. Nidich. Most or all of those people are closely connected with TM. I am going to revert this addition on the assumption that the editor didn't know what is meant by "independently done systematic reviews". The material may be worth adding to the new TMR article if it complies with MEDRS. Will Beback talk 22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There are many reviews on TM.
The Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, not-for-profit, research organisation
A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This text has been a bone of contention. With the reorganization of the article we no longer devote as much space to research, so this is more detail than we need here. I've moved it to the intro of the TMR. That's the logical place to thrash it out further. I've replaced with text based on the compromise language proposed by TimidGuy:
The whole intro will need to be re-written soon, so this is just a stopgap. Will Beback talk 06:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
(undent) if we think it is too long we could remove "and among the most widely researched meditation techniques" The volume of research does not matter as much as the conclusions of said research. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree. If that were the case, then any time no matter the discussion another editor can come in ignore the discussion and whatever progress has been made towards collaboration and compromise and undo the time and efforts of other editors. How does that respect both those editors and that process. I won't revert Doc but I would ask him to consider what I'm saying.( olive ( talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
(undent)If people wish to suggest changes to the medical aspect of the article we should return back to a structured RfC similar to what we went through to generate the current summary of the literature. If someone does this they should also alert all the previous people who commented. I do not wish to read through everything here on an ongoing basis as much of it is unpleasant. Content is not to be decided by "the last person standing" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
@James: I really don't understand what you're saying in some ways, but this I know. If you want to make substantial edits to a contentious article please take part in the discussion before you make those edits. Nobody likes to hash through each sentence word by word trying to find agreement. Sure its easier to just write your own version, insert it and walk away. We all would like to do that. But that's just not the way collaboration works. I really think that we can come to agreements/compromises on this material as long as no one short circuits the process of discussion. I realize that as an emergency doc you make unilateral decisions all of the time in order to save lives, and with little or no time to discuss things. This has to be more collaborative, and there is no rush or urgency. Anyway. I respect your background and the way you have to operate in your profession. Maybe give this a thought. I've suggested mediations recently as a way to work though this sentence and the research . We've already had an RfC on it which was cut short.( olive ( talk) 05:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
What I'll do is copy some of the text editing you did to the middle section over to the research article, then copy back that entire intro. If you'd like to suggest changes to that text, the research talk page would be the best place. Will Beback talk 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No, James the text isn't accurate and your above comment and a history of removing sourced content on the research and to even edit warring to keep in a misrepresentation of the sources, indicates efforts to control aspects of these articles and how the research is represented no matter what. That's ownership and a concern.( olive ( talk) 20:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC))
The Transcendental Meditation movement (also referred to as Transcendental Meditation (TM), "Maharishi's worldwide movement", and previously as "World Government")[1] is a world-wide organization founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the 1950s. It includes programs and organizations connected to the Transcendental Meditation technique, developed and or introduced by the founder.[2][3] Besides the TM technique proper, the TM movement also advocates the "advanced" TM-Sidhi program including "Yogic flying", Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi Vedic Medicine, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, and other "technologies" and products.
Estimated to have tens of thousands of participants, with high estimates citing as many as several million,[4] the global organization also consists of close to 1,000 TM centers, and controls property assets of the order of USD 3.5 billion (1998 estimate).[5] Most Movement organizations have tax exempt status; others have operated for-profit.[6][7]
The movement has made unsuccessful attempts to attain political influence during the early 2000s, by means of its Natural Law Party in elections in various democracies, and by means of trying to attain sovereignty as a microstate for its Global Country of World Peace.
The TM movement has been described as a spiritual movement, as a new religious movement, and a "Neo-Hindu" sect.[8] It has been characterized as a religion, a cult, a charismatic movement, a "sect", "plastic export Hinduism", a progressive millennialism organization and a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion" in books and the mainstream press,[8][9] with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.[10]
Other sources assert that TM is not a religion, but a meditation technique; and they hold that the TM movement is a spiritual organization, and not a religion or a cult.[11][12][13]Participation in TM programs at any level does not require one to hold or deny any specific religious beliefs; TM is practiced by people of many diverse religious affiliations, as well as atheists and agnostics.[14][15][16][17]
The Transcendental meditation movement came out of the Spiritual Regeneration Movement (SRM) founded by the Maharishi in 1958. The SRM was incorporated as a religious organization, however, this wording was removed from the articles of incorporation in the 1970s in an effort to appeal to a more secular west.[4]
The Transcendental Meditation movement encompasses initiatives by Marishi Mahesh Yogi spanning multiple fields and across several continents. Sociologist J.R. Coplin says that TM is both a "private technique" and a "public ideology".[52]
The terms "Transcendental Meditation", "TM", and "Science of Creative Intelligence" are servicemarks owned by Maharishi Foundation Ltd., a UK non-profit organization.[53] These servicemarks have been sub-licensed to the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation (MVED), an American non-profit, tax exempt organization which oversees teaching the Transcendental Meditation technique and related courses in the U.S.A.[54][55]
Two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[56] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied property tax exemptions as the educational activities of the organizations did not reach the ‘purely public charity’ threshold in one case, and did not involve the entire real estate in the other.[57]
Transcendental Meditation is taught in the United Kingdom by the Maharishi Foundation, a registered educational charity (number 270157).[58] TM is taught in South Africa by teachers registered with Maharishi Vedic Institute — a non-profit organisation, registration number 025-663-NPO.[59] In Australia TM is taught through the Maharishi's Global Administration through Natural Law Limited, which is registered as a non-profit educational institution.[60]
The Skeptics Dictionary refers to TM as a "spiritual business".[61] Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh note in their book Trick or Treatment that TM is part of a larger system of beliefs than other types of meditation, with strong religious associations.[62]
In 1992, a political party, the Natural Law Party (NLP) was founded based on the principles of TM.[4] Most of the party was disbanded by 2004.[4] NLP ran candidates in at least ten countries, including the United States, Canada, UK, several European countries, Israel and India, but rarely received more than a few percent of the vote. Candidates in Croatia and India did win seats for regional councils.
As we can see, these are totally different. Both could be improved by combining them into one good summary. My suggestion is to take good material from the current summary and integrate it into the TMM intro, then copy that integrated summary back here. That means we have one summary of the TMM, instead of two different ones. the same for the other child articles. Doing so minimizes the editing of the most contentious sections of articles on a contentious topic. If we have two separate summaries, then we need to have two separate discussions, doubling the effort for no reason. Is there a good reason why the summary here should be substantially different from the intro of the artuicle itself, other than a little redundant context info? Will Beback talk 09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a version: Kind of bare bones. How is this? Too short, too long, not enough information. I'm not attached in anyway. Just seeing what everyone has in mind by posting something. I feel this is approachable for anyone wanting a little information. All of the trademark/tax stuff seems like too much detail and what the casual reader who only goes as far as the lead or a summary will get bogged down in. Comments needed and welcome.( olive ( talk) 20:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
First draft intro/summary Transcendental Meditation movement:
I did take out "Neoplastic ... " whatever that was... if one source makes a comment I don't think it belongs in a lead...but again open to comments/suggestions.( olive ( talk) 20:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)) |
The Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, not-for-profit, research organisation
A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I don't see any obvious inaccuracies in this text. It appears to be a correct, neutral summary of relevant sources. Will Beback talk 21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually there is a point where ongoing circular discussion is no longer a useful way to deal with some issues, and outside assistance is useful. This discussion started before the RfC on this same sentence months ago. There is no good reason to now not ask for help in dealing with this dispute. I'm out of the energy required to argue this further with the same arguments, and points. lets seeif we can have an outside make this easier for all of us. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
I will be requesting formal mediation to deal with the above sentence, and have left notices on the talk pages of the most active editors on the TM articles. There is no intention to leave out anyone who might wish to join the discussions. Just add your name to the list of involved editors once I post the request. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
I've moved content from the intro of the history article per discussion here. Also as per summary style I've moved a little content that was very specific. The section though is still long. I will shorten the section with some syntax changes while not removing sources.( olive ( talk) 17:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC))
This history section applies to both the TMM and TMT thus for this reason should go first. The movement should probably be second and the technique after that. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The intro lays out information summarized of, first the technique, then the movement, then the history, and finally the research. That is one way to order the content in the article proper. I am discussing an organizational point. Sure I'm happy to discuss this further here although outside help might be helpful. By the way I never suggested the history section should be last( olive ( talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
It would seem to me to be logical and in the best interests of the reader to have the subject described and identified first and then the history could come later. I also think it makes sense to have the lead be a summary of the article and to proceed in the same order as the body of the article. Thereby providing the reader with a sense of continuity and flow.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This needs a ref "Research reviews and medical textbooks say that the
Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) is the most studied form of meditation, and that it has specific effects on human physiology. These reviews and textbooks differ with regard to their assessment of research quality and on the results of practicing
TM. {{
citation}}
: Empty citation (
help) Research reviews say that more research is needed to firmly establish the effects on mental and physical health. {{
citation}}
: Empty citation (
help)" Especially since research review that are independent say it does not have a significant effect beyond other health measures.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
22:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Beginning in the 1990s, a focus of research has been the effects of Transcendental Meditation on cardiovascular disease, with over $20 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health. [1]
It also goes on to say
"Will family doctors really feel comfortable referring patients with high blood pressure to the nearest Transcendental Meditation clinic - where they will be asked to write a $2,500 check?".
The cost should be somewhere in the article...
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
08:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This is mostly an aesthetics issue, and I understand the restrictions on non-free logos, but would it be possible to get a somewhat larger low-res image here? I unconsciously expect the main image on a page to be 2 to 3 times as large as this one, and it looks funny to me as is.
If someone can point me to the original source, I'm happy to make a larger (but still low-res) image and replace this one. -- Ludwigs2 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought to reorder the text in the "research" section, putting the earlier dated material first, but then thought maybe better the way it was. What do people think? -- BwB ( talk) 05:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
We should adhere to WP:LEAD: "the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences." Why is TM research notable? Because one meta-analysis of 5 studies found no difference compared to health education, and one review that looked at 1980 study found no difference compared to relaxation? No, it's notable because there has been 40 years of research, with findings in many different areas of research, findings that have been widely reported in the mainstream media, in research reviews, and in medical books. The consensus among all of these is that TM has beneficial effects. Even Ospina said that it lowers blood pressure, and even Cochrance 2006 found that it reduces anxiety. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
DJ is naturally concerned, as an MD, with finding and bringing to the fore the highest quality and most relevant research findings. He has contributed some very useful information on these pages. However, the beginning section of this article is in clear violation of the Wiki policies and guidelines on writing articles and should be adjusted immediately. In addition to WP:LEAD, Wiki “Writing Better Articles” and “Article Development” both state that articles must begin with an intro or lead that gives an overview of the topic. As is stated in the latter, “Remember that, although you will be familiar with the subject you are writing about, readers of Wikipedia may not be, so it is important to establish the context of your article’s subject early on.” Let’s get a little more reader-friendly here. Early morning person ( talk) 16:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The lead needs to be rewritten entirely. Will Beback talk 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a big new article on TM in the New York Times: "Look Who’s Meditating Now", IRINA ALEKSANDER March 18, 2011. I'm sure we can add material from it to more than one article. Will Beback talk 11:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Nova Religio, a peer-reviewed journal, has published a lengthy article on the philosophical underpinnings of TM. Material in that article is relevant to many TM-related articles, including the MMY biography. I've only scanned it so far, but I'll start to read it more closely and to add appropriate text sourced to it. Will Beback talk 11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added a sentence to the first paragraph of the Research section. It summarizes in brief the substantial number of reliably-sources that report health benefits in Transcendental Meditation practitioners. This sentence is supported by 10 independent research reviews (three of them systematic), an independent meta-analysis and two medical textbooks, all of which are currently in the Transcendental Meditation Research article. I have cited 5 of these 13 sources to avoid cluttering the page, but I would be happy to cite the remaining 8 sources if needed. Here is a list of the 13 refs I refer to: Early morning person ( talk) 18:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Source Summary
Related to the above two threads (also being discussed in the TM research article) and other issues in the lead, I've added an NPOV tag to the article. Here's a summary of the issues that need to be resolved:
The previous content was NOT supported by the references added. Thus was removed. We specifically state "systematic review" "literature reviews" are of lower quality as they frequently just parrot the conclusions of primary research. We use them if systematic review or meta analysis are not available. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
::And of course to be completely accurate TM is a meditation technique and a religion which claims to have a scientific basis when it does not making aspects of it a pseudoscience.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
17:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Will, my proposal was that we deal with the first point first, and once that's resolved move on to the next two. Of course, if you wanted to go ahead and revise the lead to address the other issues, feel free. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
repost/copy from above:(Jmh649/Doc James)
The previous content was NOT supported by the references added. Thus was removed. We specifically state "systematic review" "literature reviews" are of lower quality as they frequently just parrot the conclusions of primary research. We use them if systematic review or meta analysis are not available. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits resulting from TM practice. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
A meta-analysis of 31 studies . . . indicated that those subjects who had been practicing TM for a long time exhibited significantly lower baseline levels of spontaneous skin resistance responses, respiration rate, heart rate, and plasma lactate prior to meditation than comparison subjects did prior to rest. . . . subjects in the TM group exhibited significantly decreased TPR (total peripheral resistance) and SBP (systolic blood pressure)
What we currently have does not say TM does not have a measurable benefit just that it is no greater than health education. Thus removed this addition. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding to this. Please note that the four refs that I was citing includes not only two systematic reviews, but also a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and a medical textbook. All of these rank as “high-quality evidence” according to WP: MEDRS (see 2nd para of “Assessing Evidence Quality” here [12]). Therefore, I trust there will be no objection to my adding a sentence in this article, in the 3rd para of the opening section, following the 2nd sentence, “Independent systematic reviews . . . “
Proposed sentence: “Other studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) have reported that the technique has a range of health benefits.”
My refs:
1) Medical textbook: John Vogel, Rebecca Costello, and Mitchell Krucoff, Chapter 47 in Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, Peter Libbie, et al, eds, Saunders Elsevier, 2007, p. 1157. Quotation: “TM has been shown not only to improve blood pressure but also the insulin resistance components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiac autonomic nervous system tone.”
2)Systematic review: Black DS, Milam J, Sussman S (August 2009). "Sitting-Meditation Interventions Among Youth: A Review of Treatment Efficacy". Pediatrics/American Academy of Pediatrics 124 (3): e536. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-3434. PMID 19706568 Quotation: “TM group decreased from before to after test in SBP (systolic blood pressure), HR (heart rate) and CO (cardiac output) during acute stress simulation, and in SBP to a social stressor compared to controls . . . . “ “Study design: RCT: TM (n=17) vs health education control (n=18)” ; “TM group increased EDAD compared to controls, indicating improved endothelial function.” “Study design: RCT: TM (n=57) vs health education control (n=54)”
3) Systematic review: Paradies, Yin. "A Review of Psychosocial Stress and Chronic Disease for 4th World Indigenous Peoples and African Americans": Ethnicity and Disease 16: 295, 302, 305. (Winter 2006) Retrieved March 31, 2011. Quotation: “In general, TM was more effective that PMR (progressive muscle relaxation) in an eight-year follow-up of 530 African American participants which found a 63% reduction in all-cause mortality and an 82% reduction in heart disease mortality in the intervention group compared to the control groups.”
4) Meta-analysis of RCT's: Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, et al. (June 2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 148. PMID 17764203. Quotation: "When compared to PMR (progressive muscle relaxation), TM® produced significantly greater benefits in SBP (systolic blood pressure) and DBP (diastolic blood pressure)."
Re: the quotation in the Black et al systematic review: you must actually go the page e536 to see this quotation. You cannot get it by performing an automated search, because it is on a page of condensed information which is apparently not searchable. Nevertheless, it is obviously an integral part of this article, as indicated by the fact that it assigned a page number! Early morning person ( talk) 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a " pseudoscience". [1] [2] [3]
I am not sure this warrants being in the lead. We don't mention skeptics or pseudoscience anywhere else on the page...On the TM technique, Movement, research and history pages...it is barely discussed at all. In light of this we should delete it from the lead due to its lack of presence in the article and subordinate articles.-- Uncreated ( talk) 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: previous section: Although the Paradies review does not explicitly ID itself as a syst review, it has the main characteristic features of one. However, even if one doubts that it is systematic , it is certainly a high-quality general or literature review ( also referred to as a narrative review).
MEDRS does not relegate literature reviews to the status of “lesser quality evidence.” In fact, the opening statement in WP:MEDRS (the “This page in a nutshell” summary) states: “Ideal sources for biomedical material include general (literature) or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks . . . ”
Later, under “Assessing Evidence Quality,” here [15] MEDRS adds: “The best evidence comes from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation. Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs; other controlled studies . . .”
Again, the literature or narrative review is ranked at the highest level, and is considered helpful in establishing evidence quality. Early morning person ( talk) 17:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
[16] This reflects the salient points from Ospina's structured abstract on page v: [17]. The abstract mentions TM exactly once, saying "Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure." The abstract also presents, as its overall conclusion, that no firm conclusions can be drawn due to the studies' poor methodological quality. The summary of the anxiety review [18] follows much the same line: "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety" (for further detail see the "Main results" and "Conclusions" in the structured abstract). -- J N 466 11:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
and yet this is not discussed in more than a passing somewhat cynical remark. Many people who jave left TM describe in detail the ways in which the TM organization takes over the lives and assets of its members. My whole family is trapped in this thing and have spent large amounts of money on all their services and products, despite being quite poor. They would for instance prefer to pay for a yogic flying course than pay for a college education, or even help out with rent. I think this issue, which is very widespread and is in fact the basis of the TM movement, should be discussed more in depth in the article. 132.66.235.247 ( talk) 11:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
According to the German documentary "David wants to fly" ( videoportal.sf.tv), the sentence "is a version of a technique passed down from the Maharishi's teacher, Brahmananda Saraswati" is wrong. The narrator (David) travels to the monastery where Brahmananda Saraswati taught and met his successor(1h24min in the video), who said this:
"Maharishi served Guru Dev as accountant (or clerk?)." [Maharishi diente Guru Dev als Buchhalter.] ... "Guru Dev has not trained him as a Yogi or spiritual teacher." [Guru Dev hat ihn nicht als Yogi oder spirituellen Lehrer ausgebildet.] ... "Maharishi belonged to the clerk caste. He had no right to give mantras or teach meditation." [Maharishi kam aus der Schreiberkaste. Er hatte kein Recht, Mantren zu vergeben oder Meditation zu lehren.]
Should I include it in the article? I don't have an English source though. But I thought it's relevant.
Kind regards, Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilchimy ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This article (and indeed most of its associated family of articles) is written in a way that emphasizes controversy in such an extreme way that it is difficult to discover the facts behind TM (such as: what is it, what does it do, are there any bad effects?, etc.) without becoming, against one's will, embroiled in every single polarizing issue that has ever been published.
I'm not saying that only one POV should be represented. I'm saying that, since controversy has been over-represented, the article needs to be refactored into completely separate pro- and anti- sections or articles. I am aware that WP encourages mixing issues together in a single narrative. But this idea has not been achieved here in a neutral way, and, given the history of editing here, this is not likely to be achieved.
Rather than holding on to this unreadable structure, I propose that we embark on a major project to rewrite one or all of these articles to eliminate the constant jerking from pro- to anti- points of view. Let's structure this so it's readable first in a pro- position, then in an anti- position. We could even conclude with a Controversy section that allows in-depth discussion of the issues that are of particular interest in terms of controversy.
WP policies do not rule out the creation of readable articles on controversial subjects. There is even one policy that encourages the disregard of policies if it results in a better article.
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree, and let me know your thoughts on this idea. David Spector ( user/ talk) 22:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Waiting for responses. Something like this seems to have been done at Chronic fatigue syndrome and Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome. David Spector ( user/ talk) 14:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't limit this proposal to just this article. I posted it here precisely because this is the lead article for the entire topic area.
The problems I list apply to all of the articles, because they were all written and rewritten using the same flawed process making use of editors with heavy, biased, point-of-view agendas, either in favor of or opposed to TM. Those editors who have survived have done so because of their ability to compromise their agendas through wikilawyering and finding sources that support their POV or at least do the least damage to it. This flawed process is aggravated by "ownership", which means that the same small band of editors have worked on these related articles for years, without balance or relief from new blood. Particularly absent are neutral editors, who quickly get scared off. WP is not about scaring editors and keeping a set of editors in charge of articles. WP is about creating a truly informative and helpful encyclopedia. That goal is not being satisfied here.
Your reply is just another example of the pervasive habit of wikilawyering. You point out that this lead article should coordinate with the lead paragraphs of all the other articles (which is true), but fail to consider even one of the issues I have raised. I'm not blaming you. I'm blaming the habits required to make an impossible editing situation work. But the problem is, it's not working well. All you (plural) have gained is the ability to reach formal compromise. You have not gained the ability to write coherent, consistent, readable articles.
Let me try a different approach: I will now directly address both types of editors. Just read the subsection addressed to you.
You're not really happy with these articles, are you? The Ospina study, which uses many words to state that there isn't any good research on meditation (which actually isn't true), doesn't belong here. It's biased in favor of a conservative medical establishment that is scared of anything outside of itself. The talk of TM being a religion is ridiculous, and you know it. It only survives because of ignorant rulings and statements that would evaporate if the facts were fairly considered. The talk of TM being pseudoscientific or a cult is even worse: it's downright defamatory and has no real basis. And where is the inspiration? Where are the words that describe how it feels to practice TM and gain the energy to take on even extreme challenges in life? Where is the explanation of TM as the basis of accomplishment and happiness in life? Where is a really good description of transcending, with its inward and outward strokes? Don't you want the WP article to inspire people to learn TM? You see how crummy the article is, with its constant bickering, don't you? So, why not agree with me and change course? Rewrite the articles according to the facts as you know them. Allow the anti-TM people to have their own sections or articles to present their points of view, but keep them separated for the sake of readability.
You're not really happy with these articles, are you? The Ospina study, which is the first truly objective and independent metastudy on meditation, belongs here, and needs to be emphasized. The triviality of the practice of TM, and its allied techniques, needs to be stated more clearly. And the direction clearly taken in the legal system toward applying common sense to TM (some of its aspects are clearly religious) needs better documentation. The pseudoscience spouted by the "Maharishi approaches to health" and the "Maharishi Effect" needs to be exposed, and the claims for curing illnesses revealed for the danger that they pose in keeping patients from getting proven health care. So, why not agree with me and change course? Rewrite the articles according to the facts as you know them. Allow the pro-TM people to have their own main sections or articles to present their points of view, and keep all the critical material together for the sake of readability. David Spector ( user/ talk) 16:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)