Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 22

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.

Sorry, again getting a little messy: Susan Blackmore's article here:

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/new%20scientist%201991.htm

I think we agree it needs to be included and nodoubt along with other arguments about a TM research. Can anyone think of any sensible objections why not? Please, try and use WIKI policies and guidelines sensibly :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Will, or anyone with the know-how - I seem to have moved the references up a line again. Could someone please rectify? And if you could point to instructions on how to stop this happening i would be grateful The7thdr (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

7th, you can't use the New Section tab on the discussion page or it will put the new section below the Ref Section. So what I do is click the Edit This Page tab and scrooooooollllll to the bottom and place the new section manually just before the Ref section. Unless someone much smarter than me knows a better way. And if they do I'm all ears as I get tired of scroooolling! --Kbob (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Kbob! And nice to see you as always. The7thdr (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no further discussion of this so shall begin compiling the section. The7thdr (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed WIKI policy I request that the counter to the cult label by Orm Kohnson be removed form this article. Not only may this be compromised by his close association with the TM movement but the material is self published and fform his personal website. I quote:

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Can I also point out that Orm-Johnson, needs to be excluded based on the following guideline:

Extremist and fringe sources See also: Questionable sources, Fringe theories, and Pseudoscience and related fringe theories

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

While I except that if we excluded all of his research on this basis the article would have no research at at, one would have to throw doubt on using his personal webpage as source considering he believes - and thinks he can provide evidence to support- such paranormal activities as:

Yogic Flying and that people have occult powers which allow them to alter other peoples actions at a distance. These are of course all fringe theories and have been documented as such in all of the mainstream media and academia. http://books.google.com/books?id=xzCK6-Kqs6QC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN01/wn092801.html http://liberator.net/articles/StosselBelief2.html http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radin2002.htm

The7thdr (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is sufficient information about Orme-Johnson to establish his notability we could create an article and include his self-published views there.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A very good idea Will, I am surprised that other notable members of the TM movement are included but not Dr Orm-Johnson. He is certainly notable I would suspect.

OJ is an expert in this field and his expert opinion should be used in this article on Transcendental Meditation. --Uncreated (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Uncreated, but not his self published views. Perhaps you have not read read the guidelines above. But if you will forgive me for saying so, at the moment you requesting academic literature be removed because it is not peer-reviewed - by an expert in the field and published in imany textbooks and cited in peer reviewed research - yet you feel it is ok to included self published material from an admitted personal web page. I am slightly confused. Could you clarify? The7thdr (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we remove the study done by Otis...but that what has been added recently is imbalanced and gives to much weight to his findings which have been contradicted by later more extensive research.

I think we should revert to what we had there before:

A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[59]

The additional text that has been added should be removed because it gives undue weight to this very old and fringe study in its findings when compared to all the other research that by and large has contradicted it.

I think you will find uncreated that no research has countered it because none has been conducted of the same type. However, this is unrleated to removing Orm Johnso's opinions. Lets keep Otis in the relevant section shall we? :) The7thdr (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Otis is also not an expert in Transcendental Meditation and the research conducted on it as compared to OJ who has had hundereds of studies published in peer review journals. OJ's credentials also allow his self published views to be used in the TM article under wiki guidelines.--Uncreated (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The

WP:V may have changed, or perhaps I just misremember it. I thought it said that to qualify as a notable expert a person should have a WP bio. However that does not appear to be the case. I think that Orme Johnson's views are probably notable. Perhaps, to avoid overwhelming this article with all significant views, the scientific studies should be spun off into a separate article, where we can include the background of the researchers, the rebuttals, and other necessary context.   Will Beback  talk

  22:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To help clarify Orm-Johnson directly with the filed of pseudo-science, I thought the following might be helpful^[1] (although i do think the word "fraud maybe a little harsh); I could of course find more. Under wiki policies than i cannot see how is rebuttal can be kept to be honest. Unless, someone can point to some polices that will allow it to be kept I will have no alternative but to remove it. In the interest of co-operation i will of course wait - I may be missing something of course The7thdr (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Um..that didn't work. oh well, a direct link it is than: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gr4snwg7iaEC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=orm+johnson+pseudo+science&source=bl&ots=bCwD7MKBVp&sig=iQRXjf-GVu5Y356LeeU8jyvQtIU&hl=en&ei=6dlsSqLbC-KgjAf74uW2Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist ran a 3600-word article in 1991 questioning the findings of TM researchers. [4] I haven't read the full article, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to pay for a subscription or go to a good library.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a subscription Will but the article can be read in it's entirety on the authors webs page http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/new%20scientist%201991.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This article was published in 1991. Scientific research on TM has come a long way since then, with very many studies on TM and health done at different universities funded by the NIH and others. Bigweeboy (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The age of the article makes no difference to it's core argument regarding Tm research. the majority - nearly all - TM research is done at MUM, by MUM faculty members or is funded by MUM or TM funders. the argument still stands is as justified now as it was than. many studies have not been done at other universities than MUM. Most of the other research in the USA not conducted by MUM has actually taken place at

University of Massachusetts Medical School under Jon Kabat-Zinn and has always excluded TM The7thdr (talk

) 23:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the article was published in 1991 its assertions can only be applied to TM researched done prior to the article being written. --BwB (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I have just visited TM research at MUM: of the 8 recent research papers on TM that full text are easily available - I am to lazy to log into ATHENs, etc - available all of them were conducted and funded at MUM —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 00:08, 27 July 2009e (UTC)

If you look at the web page http://www.tm.org/national-institutes-of-health under the banner title "Universities Conducting NIH-funded research on Transcendental Meditation", you find that there are 7 studies on TM done at different universities. Not all TM research is done at MUM. Bigweeboy (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Two thirds of the studies cited in this article predated 1991. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One would have thought logically nearly 100 percent would have predated the article - but I have not checked :-). It still makes no difference to the the authors argument however. unless of course you can find reliable sources that say otherwise. And no Not Orm Johansons website again please :) The7thdr (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that two-thirds of the studies cited in this Wikipedia article on TM predate 1991. Hence, BWB's objection, claiming that Blackmore's article is irrelevant ancient history, is not well-taken. I'm in agreement with you. And I think Blackmore's article should be added as a ref in an appropriate spot.

Fladrif (talk

) 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Fladrif - that explains why my interpretation of what you said made no sense :-). I now see exactly what you are saying. Thank you for clarifying. In my defense; it has been a long day :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Orme Johnson deletion continued

Sorry, needed a break here - this is getting a bit messy. Anyway, i have cited WIKI guidelines and policey as to why it must be deleted. Counter or supporting guidleines that would keep it? The7thdr (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

From

WP:SPS

: "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Please note Orme Johnson's resume, his publishing record, his education and universities attended, his professional affiliations. Note in reference to cult that he is summarizing studies. He is an acceptable reference in the Cult section because this is an aspect of Psychology and his area of expertise is Psychology. He is not acceptable as a reference in for example religion since this is not his area of expertise.(olive (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

I've reviewed his resume. I see nothing whatsoever in his educational background, professional experience or publications that indicate that he has any qualifications whatsoever to have a professional opinion or expertise on issues relating to cults. Nor has any independent third party published any work by him relating to cults. Based on that, he cannot be considered to be an "established expert" on the subject matter of whether something is a cult or not, and his self-published and hardly disinterested "TM isn't a cult" material should be deleted as contary to WIKI policy.

Fladrif (talk

) 20:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also redirect your attention to other guidelines above I have already cited. I would also have to agree with Fladrif I am afraid - I equally cannot see were he has expertise in cult analysis. I am also greatly concerned that the three studies he cites as rebuttal are not published studies at all but graduate thesis! Please explain to be how - as you have done in the past - made a case for including these yet a moment ago you said, regarding a study perceived as "critical" of TM you said: "I cannot support opening the door on this article to non peer reviewed research" The7thdr (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The research of Orme-Johnson appears to be on the physiologic reactions to Transcendental Meditation. That doesn't appear to related to the sociological categorization of TM, which is what the "cult" discussion involves. If he has published any papers on the presence or absence of cultic aspects of TM then that'd help establish his expertise that area.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, DO-J does not claim to be, and has no qualifications to claim to be, an expert on issues relating to whether something is a cult or not. No one has even attempted to refute me, 7th or Will on this. Thus, I'm deleting this portion of the article.

Fladrif (talk

) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Perhaps a more reliable source - who is an expert in the field - can be found to replace it. The7thdr (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that whatsoever. That is absolutely the appropriate solution.

Fladrif (talk

) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment on a large deletion, but the editor didn't say which so I'm just guessing it's the stuff related to cults. My view, which everyone is probably getting tired of hearing, is that there should be a separate article on the "TM movement". If we move stuff about the organization there then we can keep this article focused on the meditation technique. Allegations of being a cult obviously apply to the movement, not the meditation practice alone. So my specific suggestion is to move the entire section to that article and leave a one or two sentence summary here.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of merit in the TM-Org article concept, which would explore the history of the various organizations over the years, and the current organizational structure, the rajas and governors and peace palaces and TM monks and nuns and I don't know what all else. I agree that a lot of the cult issue would go to that sort of discussion, as the basic charge of those contending that TM is a cult is that it is really an "esoteric religion" like Scientology, where the core doctrines are kept secret and are revealed the deeper you get into the practice, (and the more money you spend). The TM technique is regarded by those critics as a "gateway drug" so to speak, as well as a religious practice, whether or not the practitioner knows it (puja, mantras invoke Hindu deities, theory of consciousness, etc...) So I'm convinced that it does still belong in the TM article, though maybe if we get a TM_org article put togther, it can be a sentence long with an internal cross-reference.

Fladrif (talk

) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page discussion does not indicate there is agreement for removal of this content. Until we have agreement the text should stay in place. Without this content the section violates NPOV. As well the study of cult is a sociological, psychological study. Study of the mind and study of the "culture " out of which cults arise .... Orme Johnson is a professional in the field of Psychology. The content is Wikipedia compliant.(olive (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

What the talk page discussion indicates is that DO-J is not recognized as an expert on classification of organizations as a cult or not. No independent publication has published any article or study by him on the subject. Being a phycholigist does not qualify him for the exception to use of the self-published material by recognized experts in a field. Thus, his self-published opinions on the subject are absolutely not Wikipedia compliant. If you have a reliable source, add it. He isn't one.

Fladrif (talk

) 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. You are making a large deletion of content based on your reading and opinion of this. I count 9 editors on this article. You do not in any way speak for them. There is no agreement for this kind of deletion.(olive (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

I have agreed. The comment section was left in place with no response for sometime. All wiki guidelines and policies have been cited to explain why it should not be in place. Please, however, find a reliable source to replace as already indicated The7thdr (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In summary: The Otis study is not peer reviewed and was not published independent of the researcher. The paper was published in a book published by Otis himself. Wikipedia policy verifiability strongly advises that peer review and independent notable publication be a standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Peer review helps ensure a study is

In this instance the number of peer reviewed studies on the positive effects number in the 350 to 400 range. Peer reviewed studies on the negative effects of TM are significantly lower. This makes the positive TM studies more mainstream or at least in the majority than the negative effect papers. Add to that one non peer reviewed paper, the Otis study. In no way can that study be considered significant since in terms of research papers published it constitutes a tiny minority, and is therefore fringe to the mainstream body of research. Selecting this paper for inclusion requires “cherry picking”- a point of view, and adding it would probably violate

The paper is a tiny minority so its inclusion also violates

I have suggested that other peer reviewed studies indicating negative effects of the TM technique be found and considered and in fact that article already has some.

It would seem we are at an impasse. Since there are other studies in the recent addition made by 7th we should also look at, I would suggest we move on. I suggest a poll to assess consensus and agreement of the different options. Alternately or subsequently we can go to informal mediation and onward if needed.

As an aside: I have a sense of humour as I’m sure other editors here do. I am also have no interest in any of these techniques as regards to my own belief systems, and don’t mind jokes at all. I do mind ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies that derail discussion are

Perhaps an outside eye could help us work through this concerns.(olive (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

I would agree with Olive on some of her points. I do not know all the details of the Otis study but would be happy to research it if a rational and civil discussion could be conducted and concluded before changing topics. Also, I support the Wiki guideline that gives priority to peer reviewed research. This is a standard that is easy to maintain when there are hundreds of studies on a single article topic as is the case with TM. This should be our standard per Wiki guidelines. This principal should be equally applied to all research on TM whether the outcome is pro or con TM doesn't matter. We should just have good solid research as Wiki requires and as our readers desire. We can continue to raise that standard but we shouldn't go backwards to accommodate an editor's individual choice.

There are many, many facets to the discussion on this new section. Firstly, that it was added without consensus or discussion. I'm sure any editor on this page could create a paragraph on a topic related to TM, with reliable sources and add it in the article. It's easy to do. But this would create chaos. We want to create a cohesive and worthwhile article for the Wiki readers and when several writer/editors are involved this requires trust and cooperation. Secondly, there is the validity of each individual study and the reliability of their source in the new section. There are several of these and each one needs to be discussed to its conclusion. This won't be accomplished if we skip from topic to topic and become emotional in our posts. I hope we can proceed from here taking one topic, breaking down its component parts and discussing each one to its resolution. We can do this by forward now by ourselves or with some help from others. It's up to us. Namaste,--Kbob (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, who says it wasn't peer reviewed? DO-J in his self-published blog setting out the official TM Org talking points on how to respond to it? That's not enough to convince me. Let's see some actual, independent verification.

Second it is simply false that the Otis study is self-published. His initial article regarding his research on the subject was published in Psychology Today in 1974. His followup to that article based on additional research was published in the book "Meditation, Classic and Contemporary Perspectives", written and edited by Deane H. Shapiro and Roger N. Walsh. The book was published in 1984 by Aldine Transaction, which is an independent publisher and not a vanity press.

Finally, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your continued insistance that TM orthodoxy constitutes mainstream scientific opinion based on counting studies, Will, 7th and I have all pointed out repeatedly that your argument is a complete non-sequitur. It doesn't merit further response.

Fladrif (talk

) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding being self published - I will give you the benefit of the doubt Olive and assume the Flarif has corrected this claim above.

You keep saying thousands of studies have found different findings. I understand that your area of expertise is in the arts/social sciences (having looked through the history of this talk page) so will give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your lack of understanding of science and scientific research.i will also assume that orm johnson is giving you advise on this as he seems to Make the same mistakes. Thousands of studies have not found different because this study has NEVER been repeated. Never, ever, zero times. If you are suggesting that other studies have found different this would be synthesis - which I am sure you are aware is against wiki policies. If you can please find the study the found the opposite?

It is not a minority view - it is a piece of research. The7thdr (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, there are indeed a number of other studies that have shown adverse effects from meditation in some subjects similar to the results Otis observed. Here's what I found in a minute or two.

Fladrif (talk

) 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

7th... you make outrageous claims... Oj is giving me advice... a little Wikipedia editor...No!

You discount my education of which you know little. A mistake.

Thousands of studies, I have never said that 7th, check the discussion.

And I never say minority view, I say minority...

I don't need to find anything 7th , I've stated my position to the best of my understanding, as I was asked to do.(olive (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

olive, you seem to be becoming more and more hostile -fascinating. OJ, you, little wiki editor? As a MUM faculty member? And OJ as its biggest promoter? Indeed. But again, you seem to not understand the issues. If you state that other studies have found different results - without synthesis - please cite them. This would be the only way you could claim that this study is in the minority? Without doing so your argument fails. The7thdr (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Olive is becoming hostile. I think she feels frustrated by the process and that some of the comments by other editors are attacking her rather than addressing the content of the article. Maybe I'm wrong and should not be speaking for Olive. From past experience, I find her well capable of speaking for herself. Thanks Olive for you continued dedication to making this article as strong as possible, while trying to incorporate many viewpoints. --BwB (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

yes but "strong" for who's viewpoint. i grow bored of hearing how Olive - and other TMers - believe comments are attacking her/them. if you will forgive me for saying it is olive who has in the space of 24 hours dropped "helpful" advise that i might get banned!!. Now, could we please get away from the tactics of distraction and maintain attention on the matter in hand. The7thdr (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BWB.. No I am not hostile.. I do feel it important in a discussion to make sure the points I make are "heard" correctly. In this kind of discussion environment one mistake not corrected can lead to multiple misunderstandings. Since I have been aware of certain ArbCom cases... I left 7th information he may not have been aware of. (olive (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Request for agreement/consensus on inclusion of Otis study: Editors can note their preferences regarding the inclusion of the Otis study underneath the appropriate option.

Please add other options if needed.

The following options have been suggested:

1.Leave text recently added, in place, as is.

1. Fladrif (talk
   ) 19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. --BwB (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

3.Remove the Otis study, and consider other studies that may be more Wikipedia compliant.

1. Support, but would also consider #4.., More detailed scrutiny. Too many problems with the study. Lets find a better and a peer reviewed study. Will check on Fladrif's links above (olive (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC))
2. Kbob (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I am most comfortable with this one. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes I think this is the best option --BwB (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Consider adding reliable, verifiable secondary source that references the Otis study, and begin possible changeover of TM research to secondary sources.

1. This would also be OK with me--Kbob (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Fladrif (talk
   ) 19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I could live with this. --BwB (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
4. This goes against the grain. However, it is my understanding that WIKI prefers secondary research. Therefore, I would consider this option. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

5. Remember what I said above: "THERE ARE LIES, DAMN LIES AND THERE ARE STATISTICS." Therefore, I will repeat my suggestion made above: How about a compromise? Cite the Otis study AND disclose the fact that it is NOT peer-reviewed AND describe the primary flaws in its design and methods of data analysis. Is this discussion about relentlessly pushing the research that supports your point of view or is it about making an attempt to get to the truth of the matter? I have found that much of the time it is not rocket science. A resonably intelligent person with some background can tell if there are major flaws in logic, study design or analysis.--Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Little flower... you make some good points and I think a compromise of some sort is possible. Disclosing that a study is not peer reviewed may border on OR, so that option may not work. Citing a secondary source may be all we could do. Its worth thinking about.(olive (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Little flower - i am sure it is an oversight, but writing a response ALL IN BOLD is considered very bad form :) The7thdr (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Comments

I do not agree in taking part in this vote - when MUMhas managed to bring a bunch of TMers to the page. Sorry, this is a game I will not play. inclusion or exclusion will be based on argument above while refereeing to WIKI guidelines and Policies. This is not an entry on WTBDWK but an article about a product claiming to have health benefits - often very chronic and life threatening disease and illnesses. The7thdr (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought about taking the same position, but I decided that

Fladrif (talk

) 19:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not I am afraid. i had hoped for an adult discussion - this seems to not be the case. Perhaps it is a cultural difference —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that trying to conduct a poll is antithetical to the whole spirit of the process. It's all fun and games until somebody gets their eye put out.

Fladrif (talk

) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No polls, please.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? We have been discussing this for days.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what Luke is saying is that we have been discussing the Otis research for days, not the poll. --BwB (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We have been discussing a poll for days? Something not recomended by WIKI? Could you tell me where Luke? The7thdr (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by building consensus, generally formed on talk pages or central discussion forums. Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. In both cases, consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. Polling, while not forbidden, should be used with care, if at all, and alternatives should be considered. In addition, even in cases that appear to be "votes", few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy

WP:POLLS The7thdr (talk

) 05:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is good. Polls are evil.   Will Beback  talk  05:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has become circular and highly repetitive, and we are at an impasse. A request for consensus or agreement on the different possible solutions to the issue if used correctly and carefully can give us insights into where editors stand on the points raised. No consensus is binding and no poll dictates a change will be made in an article. However, such a poll as this coming at a point of impasse and prior to mediation may give us and the mediator insights into what is going on here. No one has to take part, but doing so with the understanding that nothing this poll indicates is binding can only help clear away the days of sometimes confusing discussion and possibly will shed light on a solution. Once we can see where editors stand as we focus in on the more acceptable solutions, a request for consesus on the article will have more chance of success.(olive (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Its good that these points about polls are clarified. Some editors may not realize that Wiki is not a democracy and guidelines have priority over voting. However, when a discussion ranges over several pages it is one way for us to take a breath and assess the situation. Taken in its proper context I think its a good thing.

I agree with Olive, And yes, 7th I was saying that we have been discussing this for days, so it is a good idea to have a poll, pople are free to take part or not, but I like to get a clear perspective on everyone's position. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Page break: more on Otis

Yes, discussion is good, but it cannot go on endlessly. It seem we are all quite entrenched in our viewpoints. I am not sure at this point if anyone is willing to concede their view. I just want to make the point that I made in another section of the discussion above: When a research study is sent to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal the editors send it out to other scientists for examination to make sure the science is correct, the methodologies employed are correct, the analysis sound, etc. When the journal is satisfied that the research meets these standards, then they publish the paper. When we have many, many TM studies published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, can we not at least agree that these studies have satisfied the established scientific community as to their method, etc? If some scientists submit a study/paper to a peer-review journal, and the article fails to get published, then we must also agree that the the established scientific community does not find it acceptable. It is the scientific community itself that monitors the credibility of scientific research. (Not Wiki editors). It therefore seems reasonable to me that one TM research published in a reputable peer-review journals must carry more weight than when a study is not peer-reviewed. --BwB (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what peer review means. Peer review does not conclude that the science is correct, the methodologies are correct, the science is sound, that the scientific community is satisfied as to the method, that a study rejected for publication is unsound, or that an accepted study is acceptable or credible. It does not mean that an article in a peer-reviewed journal is entitled to more weight. What it means - and the only thing it means, is that the review panel and the editors found that the article was acceptable for publication in their journal. The peer reveiw process is singularly unable to detect or uncover fraud, or to identify flaws in methodology or statistics. It most definitely does not establish that the conclusions of a paper are "right" or even in the scientific mainstream. It does not establish that any other study will be able to replicate the results of the paper. About the only thing it does establish is that a peer reviewed paper is more likely to be cited as a source in somebody else's paper than a non-peer reviewd paper.

Fladrif (talk

) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do our other editor friends agree with Fladrif? What is the point of submitting research to prestigious journals? For a scientific theory, discovery, invention to gain scientific acceptance, what process does it need to go through? --BwB (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions on the Otis study: Was it ever submitted to a peer-review journal for publication? If not, why not? If so, why was it not published? --BwB (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Otis study is "true", "correct" or without fault? --BwB (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What are some of the "thousands of research documents that cite it"?. Can you also please answer my other question above about submitting studies to peer-review journals. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

BB, please use

PUBMED or simply google :-). To your second question, I have created a new section below to help you find answers to this very question :) The7thdr (talk

) 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not been involved in the peer review process. Suppose 2 studies come to you for review - one you approve, the other you do not. What can be said about the approved study: it is "better" than the other? more rigorous? more relevant? more exciting? more ground breaking? more acceptable? what? --BwB (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

BB please read the articles below :-) The7thdr (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid the discussion is not circular at all or indeed that it has reached an impasse. The truth is that certain editors have said that OTIS cannot be used because it does not meet wiki policies regarding referencing. Repeatedly, said editors have mentioned it is not peer reviewed and also in the minority of such research. It has been shown by myself and others that that the first is incorrect and does not exclude it and the second is incorrect. Basically the argument has been "won" by all rational discourse and referring to wiki guidelines and policies (indeed, i have shown that it is the manner in which the"pro" TM literature is presented is in breach of wiki polices) by those who wish to keep otis. Because this is not in the interests of the TM movement and multi billion dollar profit making group of companies and trade marks, accusation are being made the debate is |stalled" It is not stalled but seems to be finished. The7thdr (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Its good that these points about polls are clarified. Some editors may not realize that Wiki is not a democracy and guidelines have priority over voting. However, when a discussion ranges over several pages it is one way for us to take a breath and assess the situation. Taken in its proper context I think its a good thing. --Kbob (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I can't get these dang sections straight! :-) --Kbob (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Iam afraid I disagree - and so does WIKI. It is an excuse for a poor argument. While it is good to summarize a poll does not do so. This is why they are so frowned upon. Equally, people cannot hope to make a contribution to a discussion unless they are ready to read all of it. For example here we have 4 people voting for something based on incorrect assumptions about the study being discusses. This poll is meaningless The7thdr (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All, I have taken the time this morning to carefully read both the Otis study (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w9sv49ZHqWUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0) and Orme Johnson's review of this research (http://www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm#Otis_New). I have tried to do this in a neutral, objective way. Since I am not an experienced research scientist or statistician, I cannot do any analysis from that perspective. However, just from a level of common sense, it does seem that Orme Johnson raises valid questions about the Otis study. Perhaps the Otis study and the OJ critique could be sent to some objective 3rd party experts for review and comment?

If the the critique is valid, for such a well known and cited study, it should be easy to find reliable sources - not Orm Johnson's website - to express them. I am not against this and have never said I was :) The7thdr (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Of all the editors involved in this debate about the merits and weight of Otis, only The7thdr has indicated that he has experience with doing peer review of scientific studies. I don't know what journal The7thdr had reviewed for, or in what fields he has expertise, but perhaps he could put on his "peer-review hat" in a balanced and neutral way, and tell us if he would recommend Otis for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and if any of the criticisms raised by OJ on the Otis study are valid. Or if other have peer review experience, they could do the same. Thanks --BwB (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

BB I could tell you one the internet I was a Martian - me telling you anything would not give it any weight :). OJs criticisms are selective and incorrect If the study was not considered reliable it would not be repeatably cited in so MANY peer-reviewed - as there seems to be such an obsession about peer review here - journals. Do you not think, that perhaps if the study was really as poor as OJ says it is peer review panels would not have suggested all of these others papers should not cite it so authoritatively prior to resubmission?

However, Really, one would have to doubt the opinion of any website which, along with making claims about research also, believes it proves that TMers can "fly", have super powers, cause action at a distance and influence the behavior of individual and groups. Indeed, I set a challenge, why not get a few hundred TMrs to bounce to influence me to agree with everything the TMers here support? Surely any easy matter.

But back to OJ: he says - citing his Phd no less:

The Issues: Are There historical precedents for the idea that individuals influence each other at a distancs?

Is there scientific evidence for the Maharishi Effect: Does the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program improve the quality of life in society?

Rationale for the Maharishi Effect

Summary of Key Studies

The Evidence:

The Maharishi Effect is a phase transition to a more orderly and harmonious state of life, as measured by decreased crime, violence, accidents, and illness, and improvements in economic conditions and other social indicators. The scientists who discovered this effect named in honor of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who predicted 50 years ago that only a small fraction of the population participating in the Transcendental Meditation program would be sufficient to improve the quality of life and the whole society. During the past 31 years, this transformation of society has been documented scientifically, first at the city level, then at state and national levels, and then at the global level-the Global Maharishi Effect.

It has been found that the proportion of members of a society necessary to generate the Maharishi Effect is 1% practicing the Transcendental Meditation program or only the square root or 1% participating in the group practice of the TM-Sidhi program. This proportion is so small that the beneficial effects on society of the Maharishi Effect cannot be accounted for by behavioral interactions of the participants with other members of society. Instead, the results indicate a field effect, in which an influence of coherence produced by the participants radiates throughout the society.

There have been 50 studies showing that the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program (which includes Yogic Flying) improves the quality of life in the larger society; the findings of which have been published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented and published in the proceedings of professional conferences.

Variables assessed in these studies include armed conflict, crime rate, violent fatalities (homicides, suicides, and motor vehicle fatalities), economic indicators, and broad quality of life indices which incorporate the above variables as well as rates of notifiable diseases, hospital admissions, infant mortality, divorce, cigarette and alcohol consumption, and GNP. Effects for each variable or for overall indices are in the direction of improved quality of life.

Download Word document list of 60 research and review papers on 51 studies on the Maharishi Effect. (click here)

Download a PDF of a recently published study on the Maharishi Effect reducing war: Davies, J. L. and C. N. Alexander. “Alleviating political violence through reducing collective tension: Impact Assessment analysis of the Lebanon war.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2005, 17: 285-338. (click here )

Link to new book on the application of the Maharishi Effect to create world peace: "Victory Before War". (click here)

Rationale for the Maharishi Effect in the Perennial Philosophy in the Social Sciences in Physics

Some Conceptual Precedents for a Field Theoretic View of Consciousness from the Perennial Philosophy, Social Sciences, and Quantum Physics

David W. Orme-Johnson, Ph.D. February 4, 200

BWB when you think about whether a "peer reviewed" article should be given greater weight than one that appears in a non-peer-reviewed publication -consider this: In 1971, Time reported on a study published in The American Journal of Physiology, a peer-reviewed publication, by Benson and Wallace on the effects of TM on metabolic rate and and on TM and drug and alcohol use. Of his studies, Benson said:

He points out that his study is "very biased" because it reported only on people who had learned meditation and continued to practice it; there was no control group of others who tried to end their addiction without the aid of TM. Also, Benson is careful to note, the reports of the 1,862 drug users were subjective—they merely answered Benson and Wallace's questionnaires.

Benson feels that better-controlled studies are needed. "What we're looking at is a behavioral type of approach to various disease patterns," he says, "to see whether changing one's behavior by meditation will help. As kooky as this sounds to many people, it has just got to be investigated." Otherwise, Benson says, no one can tell if TM is indeed useful.[5]

So, even one of the researcher/authors says of this particular peer-reviewed study, "Don't trust our conclusions, the study is very biased".

Fladrif (talk

) 14:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Fladrif. However, I would like to keep the discussion focused on the Otis study. And I would like to hear form our experienced "peer-review" editor, 7thdr. However, if you have comments on the Otis study, please go ahead. --BwB (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that many editors here miss-understand the Peer Review process: the following links may help clarify. However, before continuing can I point out that if many editors here had their way, than The Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid ^[16] (the study by Watson and Crick which defined the double helix structure of DNA) would not only not be allowed as a citation in any WIKI article but the very nature of DNA would be considered in doubt!!!! http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/short/42/2/373

Peer Review

Sternberg peer review controversy

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rethinking-peer-review

http://bellanta.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/towards-a-truly-constructive-criticism-or-the-perils-of-peer-review/

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0742514358/the-new-atlantis-20

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/summary/109560922/SUMMARY

http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/2-3_reviewer.cfm

http://cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/pubreviews.html

The7thdr (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Our job is not to investigate the concerns and problems that arise with the peer review process.Our concern is to write an encyclopedia which is not a place for original thought or research. Nor can we rewrite Wikipedia to suit our needs.(olive (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Correct Olive. again, please explain - citing relevant policy - how wiki policy exclude OTIS? The7thdr (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so. The Otis's studies were conducted at a internationally-recognized prestigous independent non-profit research institute,

Fladrif (talk

) 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And while I hate "to go on" can I point out a quick search of

pubmed the otis study immediately presents 46 peer reviewed studies that cite it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs

) 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

--Uncreated (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

While an interesting idea; If a study needs 1 line to summarize it;s findings then it needs 1 line, if it needs 5 it needs 5. The Otis study examined a wide range of variables and returned a large number of findings. It also detailed a large sample population, and a very specific one - taken from tms own mailing list. It is also very unique and the only one of it's type - hence the 4 lines used to summarize it. We need to allocate size realistically. we can also of course exam the study that you cite. it would of course - as inline with references and sources for wiki medical related articles - need to be cited in a reliable secondary source, and any conclusions made coming from that secondary source - not the study itself. the rest of this article will need to be reworked in the same manner. As to otis not being relevant? I would suspect that would be difficult to argue. And as to "better" that would require original research and conclusions on behalf of the editor - something I think we all agree is not acceptable. As we have noted it fulfills all of the requirements for a reliable and relavant source under all WIKI guidelines and policies. i have seen no reasoned argument otherwise The7thdr (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your logic as to why the otis study demands more space could be used with just about all the research.--Uncreated (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I have never argue otherwise The7thdr (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with UnC. I don't feel that we need a paragraph on each of the TM studies in the article. A line for each can suffice. --BwB (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole "Research" section of this article is highly problematic. As I have pointed out before, not only does

WP:WEIGHT

is a problem as well. As presently constituted, over half this article and a third of the footnotes are about medical research,nearly all of it primary sources, and nearly all of it uncritically positive. Out of the hundreds of TM studies that the TM org claims show various benefit, why are the ones being cited here the ones being chosen? Does that not give undue weight to study X over studies Y and Z?

A balanced article with proper weight would have about a single paragraph, maybe two, that summarizes the range of pro-TM studies, their conclusions, the problems if any with those studies, the adverse TM studies, and the problems with those studies, if any. Basically say something like this, with citations to secondary sources, about the medical research:

"Since _____, various studies of TM's effects on a broad range of physiological and phychological functions have been undertaken. (FN) The TM Org claims over 800 such studies have been undertaken, and that they show benefits unique to TM ranging from soup to nuts and everything in-between(FN) The methodology of these studies have been criticized for a variety of reasons such as ________none of them are double-blind, etc. (FN) Metastudies conducted at the University of Alberta and the University of Kentucky in 2007 and 2008 concluded that the vast majority of these studies were insufficently documented ot be subject to meta-analysis, In each metastudy, only 3 of the TM-related studies were classified as "good", and these had little or no statistical significance versus alternative treatments. (FN)

Other studies have concluded that, while there are apparent benefits to practicing TM, the same or similar benefits are achieved with alternative regimes such as ________. Further, while the TM Org claims that there are no adverse effects to practice of TM, several studies have shown that some subjects have problems with meditation, resulting in adverse effects ranging from A to Z (FN). These conclusions, however, have been criticized by _____ because _____. (FN)

I don't mean to suggest that as the actual language, but I do mean to suggest that the wholesale rewrite of this section is needed to comply with

Fladrif (talk

) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me and I don't mean to play dumb...but is the article on Transcendental Meditation a medicine related article?--Uncreated (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The way it's written now, over half of it is a medicine-related article. Whether it should be is another question, and a very good one.

Fladrif (talk

) 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Does siteing Medical journals make an article medicine related?(...Fladrif I finnaly figured out where your name comes from...nice. I am just rereading and Merry and Pippin have just met up with Treebeard)--Uncreated (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Fadrfi , but I can't agree. The research on the TM technique is extensive and such numbers of studies is highly unusual to mediation techniques, and so highly notable. You are summarizing, but in fact the research on the technique needs to be outlined in terms of specific references to specific topics since each topic area is by itself quite notable should be given the weight due its notable feature.(olive (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

You can't, or you won't? There's a difference. Having half this article be about medical research is absurd, particularly when so much if it is bad research. It leads off with a citation to the 1971 Wallace/Benson article that Benson said at that time was basically crap. Why is this article touting research that the researcher says is completely unreliable? All of this content can easily be summarized in a couple of paragraphs at most that give appropriate weight to the studies pro and con.

Fladrif (talk

) 16:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly substitute other peer reviewed articles for those that are weak.(olive (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Good idea Olive. --BwB (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea, I think --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While the teachng of TM may not be relevant to the matter of religion and spirituality, it is relevant to TM, and we should find someplace for the assertion. Popularity? Unfortunately, the history section is divided into themese rather time periods, and the rest of "Populatiry" concerns much old events.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I would completely agree. The introduction of TM into schools is indeed highly noteworthy for a variety of reasons. But where to add it is the problem. It does not belong, as you note, in the spiritually section. It might if Kbob can find a direct source linking it to earlier court rulings or the controversy or teaching TM in schools and the fact that many consider it a religion. But without this where will it fit at the moment? The7thdr (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As Will mentions in section above there are many problems in the article with sub-section titles such as the History section. Often they limit content and create a segmented, boxy, article that is not as cohesive as it could be. I agree that the TM in current schools is important to the article but we should consider where to put it. It has relevance to the court case with better sourcing. I will work on that.--Kbob (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The tags added in the last few days have been added without foundation. This article is not untended and is under close scrutiny and any sources that are seen by the editors here as being weak can be adjusted and changed. In other words please specify the source that is a concern rather than add tags to the article. (Copied comment TM-Sidhi article).(olive (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm guessing the David Orme-Johnson refs - from his website. And to be honest would agree, but have said this before. Would be nice if the person adding the tags clarified however.The7thdr (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm still fairly new to Wiki, can someone briefly explain "Tags" and why there is a concern here? Thanks, Bigweeboy (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.228.104 (talk)

We are talking about the banner at the top of the article.--Kbob (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - it was I who added that tag, I thought (perhaps wrongly) that it would have been self-explanatory really - the Teaching Procedure section probably shouldn't be in there at all, as it is more about the logistics of the course (a commercial activity) rather than TM itself. --PopUpPirate (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That material should be re-worked rather than deleted. There are notable issues concerning the teaching of the practice and the fees.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I've readded the tag which Keith removed (I responded here rather than to his talk page). I'm no expert on the subject otherwise I would happily edit away. On reading this article, I saw this section and it stood out like a sore thumb as being advertorial. --PopUpPirate (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading the "offending" section I would have to agree with you both. However, I am unsure that I am qualified to tackle the job. Perhaps one of the obvious TM devotes might wish to look at this? While on this subject, I notice that all mention of former TM teachers who split from the movement due to ever increasing costs, and who now offer the training "on the cheap," are no longer present. Surely this is important issue and indeed and important part of TM's history? Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to remove this sentence (below) which uses a personal web site [[6]] as a citation:

• Of his experience with TM, Kurt Vonnegut said; "I tried that (TM). It gave me a terrible headache (Laughs)" ^[17]--Kbob (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also this sentence quoting Ozzie Osborne in the article:

• “Ozzy Osbourne thought it was a waste of time, saying "I tried TM but gave it up and smoked a joint instead."

This Ozzy sentence has a valid source however to be fair shouldn’t we also include quotes from the members of the Beatles, Mike Love, Deepak, Andy Kaufman, Shirley Mclain etc., if they can be found and reliably sourced? Or do we just want to remove all these quotes? --Kbob (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should probably avoid adding people who made negative remakrs about their experience, since including their name is an implied endorsement. Or, we can segregate them with a comment like, "People who tried TM but stopped include:"   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think all the fuss about what celeb learned TM and found it good or bad is a waste of time. Perhaps it might to best to focus on the scientific results than what some celeb says? Bigweeboy (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We may not like it, but this is a celebrity-focused world. The involvement of celebrities in TM probably did more to promote it adoption than all of the scientific studies combined. Both deserve space in the article.   Will Beback  talk  18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This what i said before the "popularity section was added - but it was ignored. Now it is in place I think it makes interesting reading. Like it or I do have to sadly agree with WILL. Whether, "we" like it or not, celebrity is important. Indeed, it was the TM authors of this piece that argued this section be added. It is now a little late to complain about something which TM argued to include, when it appears that many of the celebrities (especially the dead ones) its website and promotional material is so keen to suggest endorsed the technique may have actually had a very different view

keithbob: it is a "personal website" from an expert in his field - just as OJ is. (Actually, it's an authors page a much different thing but hey, I'll play along if you want). It was included, so the reader could actually read the full interview. However, if you wish to cite a published source for the same interview - you are obviously unaware of the author - you could cite the following just as easily: Conversations with Kurt Vonnegut: By Kurt Vonnegut, William Rodney Allen. Where the full text is also included. Alas, not all of it is available to GoogleBooks preview. The7thdr (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will and we should remove the recent additions where people are quoted with negative remarks. It just makes the whole popularity section unbalanced.--Uncreated (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what part of WILLs statements you are agreeing to uncreated. Until a balance is archived where it does seem that the people cited are endorsing the produced I do not see how you can remove the recent edits. KV was especially negative; the same as the Beatles - minus one member - about TM. Include all the "good" stuff in poularity must be balanced by what you might consider the "negative" stuff.Plus I like the Ozzy quote :) The7thdr (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"I think that we should probably avoid adding people who made negative remakrs about their experience, since including their name is an implied endorsement"...was the part I was agreeing with. Have I miss understood Wills point?--Uncreated (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant. Rather than adding quotes to shopw how they felt about TM, it might be better to leave them off entirely. I don't think it's correct to leave them on a list of people who've tried TM without indicating their finding. It'd be like listing the scientists who've studied TM, without reporting their results.   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I quite follow all the points in this discussion of the "Celebrity" section. However, it is indisputable that all three of the quotes currently included in that section are negative. To present a balanced viewpoint shouldn't there be three positive comments as well? --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, LFE, that's the point. If we include quotes from all celebrities both pro and con, then the section will expand and become unduly large. Therefore, I think Will's suggestion is a good compromise. We list the celebrities and in two sentences we say which celebrities speak highly of it and the names of the other celebrities that speak poorly of it. Otherwise we have to have quotes from every celebrity both pro and con to have balance in the article section. Is this compromise alright with everyone? --Kbob (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I have added two quotes for McCartney and Seinfeld. However, I am happy to remove all quotes and give a two sentence summary as Will has suggested. I think that would be better than a 'quoting competition'. :-) namaste,--Kbob (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that we should stop the 'quoting competition'. And I endorse the Will and Kbob suggestion to summarizing the pro and con celebrity camps. --BwB (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A quoting war? Not at all. I think they add a little "lightness" to the article. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started a new section an effort to refocus this discussion on the first of the topics that was being dealt with in the last few days, the Otis study.

Wikipedia operates on policies and guidelines not rules and restrictions: The following text from the

I have no problem with neutral editors and admins looking at this study, or at the tenor of discussion on this talk page, on any, and all of; WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard,RfC, Informal mediation, or Mediation.(olive (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC))(

There is absolutely no WIKI policy that says that an article published by a third party is not a reliable source. You are twisting WP guidelines and policies. A peer reviewed article published by a third party is a reliable source; that does not imply that an article published by a third party that is not peer reviewed is not a reliable source. Articles published by third parties are reviewed by editors. I would point out that many of the studies which the TM Org claims were "peer reviewed" were in fact simply reviewed by the publication's editors - that is what "peer reviewed" means to some publications. So, by that standard, the Otis article was a completely peer reviewed as many of the pro-TM studies.

The argument about minority views is a non-starter. The "over 600 studies" mantra that the TM Org insists upon repeating endlessly does not establish a majority view. The mainstream scientific view is that over 90% of those 600 studies were not rigourously conducted, were not properly documented, and do not show any statistically significant results. The handful of TM related studies that pass the smell test show that TM is no more effective than any other meditation method, or a variety of other relaxation methods, for the majority of things that TM claims. The more esoteric claims of the TM Organization about the Maharishi effect, etc... are simply nonsense and reflect self-delusion at best and fraud at worst. The pro-TM studies reflect the "fringe" view, not the scientific mainstream. To argue otherwise based on a raw count of publications is the same kind of misdirection as Haeglin claiming that the worst murder statistics in the history of Washington DC prove that a crowd of Sidhas and Purushas bouncing on their butts reduced crime.

Fladrif (talk

) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fladrid, where are your references to support your breathtakingly sweeping statement that "The mainstream scientific view is that over 90% of those 600 studies were not rigourously conducted, were not properly documented, and do not show any statistically significant results"? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The two meta-studies on meditation and hypertension say exactly that about the hundreds of TM studies that they looked at. Ospina-Bond found that, out of 230 studies of Tm and hypertension, only 3 were of "good" quality, and that no valid conclusions could be reached about the effect of TM on hypertension. See Discussion Archive 18. The UK metastudy reached a similar conclusion about those studies as well - only 9 of them could even be considered in the metastudy because of the lack of documentation for the other hundreds, and of those only three were of "good" quality. Shall I continue?

Fladrif (talk

) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fladrid, do you have a source for the Ospina-Bond report? I would like to read it..--BwB (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do. You have it as well. The link is right in the article. Footnote 55. Also, as I noted above, look at Discussion Archive 18 as well for the prior discussion about this meta-study.

Fladrif (talk

) 14:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Otis study: "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics." (Mark Twain) It is a constant existential dilemma. How about a compromise. Cite the Otis study AND disclose the fact that it is NOT peer-reviewed AND describe the primary flaws in its design and methods of data analysis. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Fladrif... you're wrong....I will not support this study in any way... and a compromise opens the doors for more problems... The study can be cited if its cited as a refernce in a relaible verifiable third party refernce but then all of the TM studies can be refernced the same way....

I am citing policy 7th and I expect policy to be respected here.. If its not, outside neutral parties can help us out, I'm sure.(142.166.17.67 (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Which policy are you citing?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I second that request OLive; could you please confirm which policies you are discussing please? i have cited each that I am referring to, quoting relevant sections and providing links. Can you please explain which policies and how they would exclude Otis? it might be nice if you could answers my points already made point by point also. I do understand however, you are having difficulties logging in that moment. perhaps you could ask a another relevant MUM staff member to answer on your organizations behalf? The7thdr (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry that IP is mine..olive.... having trouble logging in with my password...(142.166.17.67 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Ok. Which policy are you citing?   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Olive but I am sure you know as well as I do how weak your argument is. Please, I am sorry but it so weak I have no intention of countering it any further but will at moderation if you - and you must forgive me - waste everyone time pursuing. However, briefly

1 - The article is already filled with none peer reviewed material. See Orm Johnson's website and the fact that he uses two gradate "essays" to support his argument.

2 - Otis is not a "minority view". It is a piece of research never repeated; valid research from a prominent researcher, published in reliable source is not a minority view - it is simply research not repeated. Interesting however, considering only the TM movement would now have access to the client data, it has not been repeated by MUM?

7th - this exact study may not have been repeated, but a very similar study was done in Japan by the Japanese Government’s National Institute of Health on nearly 800 industrial workers at one of that country’s largest manufacturing plants. It used a questionnaire to measure changes in these subjects over a 5 month period of doing TM. What is different from the Otis study is that there was a control group to compare the changes. What was found was that there was significant improvements in physical and mental health after five months practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique relative to untreated controls over the same time period at the same industrial site. AND this study was published in a pear-reviewed journals - Journal of Clinical Psychology 1989 and Japanese Journal of Public Health 1990. --BwB (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3 - it is not "outdated" it is the only piece of research of its kind on TM You keep saying it outdated/been replaced. by what study? As Your Orm Johnson says on his personal website again - although using it as a criticism:

It is telling that this widely quoted paper has not been replicated in the 35 years since the data were collected or the 23 years since it was published.

That he confuses the fact that HAS NOT BEEN repeated with Lack of replication (a very different in research - although perhaps this is deliberate on his behalf)is telling as to his entire "critique" - but that is another matter.

4 The Otis study is cited in research paper after research paper and academic publication after academic publication.

The above is only a brief response but happy to dicuss in detail if you seek to take to moderation. The7thdr (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally Olive, as i have pointed out elsewhere, TM needs to careful here constantly citing directly from peer-reviewed papers: the guidelines are different for "medical" articles. Indeed, in the entire "research" section the manner in which the Otis study is referenced maybe the only one compliment with the policy below.

In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Olive, I'm not wrong. You completely misinterpret WP:RS and WP:NOR. And, threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue - yet again - doesn't make your argument any more convincing.

Fladrif (talk

) 13:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh... Fladrif. I believe 7th was holding his breath.(olive (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

"His"Italic text breath? It is rampant I see amongst you TM meditators :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how an article on meditation qualifies as a 'medical article' and so using this Wiki guideline is quite out of context in my opinion.--Kbob (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume then Kbob we shall be removing an reference to TM research in the article which suggests it might have medical applications? I can assure you that would be happy to remove all of the below immediately:

I think it would be safe to assume since that is what Kbob said that he offered an opinion, and neither he nor anyone else has agreement to move large sections of this article. Anyone who does without consensus can expect neutral admin intervention.(olive (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

Threats are the last actions of a desperate argument OLIVE - and also do not become you :-) The7thdr (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC) The7thdr (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical research

No threat 7th. Simply, what comes next in the process.(olive (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

In a 1975 study published in the journal Respiration, twenty one patients with bronchial asthma (who were excluded for significant emphysema by single breath diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide) were studied in a six month RCT designed study (with the researchers but not the patients blind to the treatment modality) using the Transcendental Meditation technique. The study employed a crossover trial format, using reading as a crossover control. Based on the marked reduction in asthma symptom-severity duration, a statistically significant improvement of pulmonary function test abnormalities (in raw measured values of cm/H2O/liter/sec determined using spirometry and body plethysmography), and from subject and physician evaluations, the researchers concluded that the practice of the TM technique is a useful adjunct in the treatment of asthma. [37]

In a 1976 study published in The Lancet, seven hypertensive patients learned the Transcendental Meditation technique with six patients showing significant reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) during the first three months of meditation practice. During the second three months of the six month study, three of the patients continued to show reductions of systolic and diastolic blood pressure. [45]

Another study published in the Lancet in 1977 which involved 20 hypertensive patients, found that the Transcendental Meditation technique was associated with a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure and pulse rate in the first 3 months of practice, but that this effect did not continue for most of the patients during the second three months of the six month study, which on average showed no significant change of BP from baseline values during that second three month time period. [46]

In 2005 the American Journal of Cardiology published a review of two studies that looked at stress reduction with the Transcendental Meditation technique and mortality among patients receiving treatment for high blood pressure.[47] This study was a long-term, randomized trial. It evaluated the death rates of 202 men and women, average age 71, who had mildly elevated blood pressure. The study tracked subjects for up to 18 years and found that the group practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique had death rates that were reduced by 23%. Also in 2005, the American Journal of Hypertension published the results of a study that found the Transcendental Meditation technique may be useful as an adjunct in the long-term treatment of hypertension among African-Americans.[48]. However Dr. Peter Fenwick points out that the mean changes were only 10 millimetres Hg systolic and just over 6 mmHg for the diastolic, leaving the study population in high-risk category [49]

In 2006 a study involving 103 subjects published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found that coronary heart disease patients who practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique for 16 weeks showed improvements in blood pressure, insulin resistance, and autonomic nervous system tone, compared with a control group of patients who received health education.[50]

The American Heart Association has published two studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique. In 2000, the association's journal, Stroke, published a study involving 127 subjects that found that, on average, the hypertensive, adult subjects who practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique daily experienced reduced thickening of coronary arteries, thereby decreasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. After six to nine months, carotid intima-media thickness decreased in the group that was practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique as compared with matched control subjects.[51] Also, in 1995 the association's journal Hypertension published the results of a randomized, controlled trial in which a group of older African-Americans practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique demonstrated a significant reduction in blood pressure.[52]

Also in 2006, a functional MRI study of 24 patients conducted at the University of California at Irvine, and published in the journal NeuroReport, found that the long-term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique may reduce the affective/motivational dimension of the brain's response to pain..[53]

In June, 2007 the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine published an independent, peer-reviewed, meta-analysis of the state of meditation research, conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. The report reviewed 813 studies, of which 230 were studies of TM or TM-Sidhi..[54] The report concluded that "[t]he therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature," and "[f]irm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.(p. 6) [55]

In 2008 researchers at the University of Kentucky conducted a meta-analysis of nine qualifying RCT published studies which used Transcendental Meditation to address patients with hypertension, and found that on average across all nine studies the practice of TM was associated with approximate reductions of 4.7 mm (0 in) Hg systolic blood pressure and 3.2 mm (0 in) Hg diastolic blood pressure. The researchers concluded that "...Sustained blood pressure reductions of this magnitude are likely to significantly reduce risk for cardiovascular disease." The study was published in the March 2008 issue of the American Journal of Hypertension.[56] Using the Jadad scale, the researchers found that of the nine studies evaluated, three were of high quality with a score of 75% or greater, three were of acceptable quality, and three were of suboptimal quality.[57]

A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[63]

A 1977 study in the Journal of Clinical Psychology showed reduced anxiety in practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique compared to controls who relaxed passively.[64] A 1989 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology compared 146 independent studies on the effect of different meditation and relaxation techniques in reducing trait anxiety. Transcendental Meditation was found to produce a larger effect than other forms of meditation and relaxation in the reduction of trait anxiety. Additionally, it was concluded that the difference between Transcendental Meditation and the other meditation and relaxation techniques appeared too large to be accounted for by the expectation effect.[65]

A 1990 study published in the Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, conducted at Sumitomo Heavy Industries by the Japanese Ministry of Labour and others, looked at Transcendental Meditation and its effect on mental health in industrial workers. In the study 447 employees learned the Transcendental Meditation technique and 321 employees served as controls. After a 5-month period the researchers found significant decreases in major physical complaints, impulsiveness, emotional instability, and anxiety amongst the meditators compared to controls. The meditators also showed significant decreases in digestive problems, depression, tendency toward psychosomatic disease, insomnia, and smoking.[66]

Studies have suggested a positive correlation between the Transcendental Meditation technique and possible health-related physiological states, including improvement in lung function for patients with asthma, [37] reduction of high blood pressure,[38] an effect the researchers termed "younger biological age,"[39] decreased insomnia,[40] reduction of high cholesterol,[41] reduced illness and medical expenditures,[42] decreased outpatient visits,[42] decreased cigarette smoking,[43] decreased alcohol use,[43] and decreased anxiety.[44]

Research funding from the NIH

As of 2004[update] the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had spent more than $20 million funding research on the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique on heart disease[5]. In 1999 the NIH awarded a grant of nearly $8 million to Maharishi University of Management to establish the first research center specializing in natural preventive medicine for minorities in the U.S.[73] The research institute, called the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention, was inaugurated on October 11, 1999, at the University's Department of Physiology and Health in Fairfield, Iowa.[74]

If no one has any objections? The7thdr (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have previously pointed out

Fladrif (talk

) 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Fladrif Without doubt

WP:MEDRS is in place for a reason due to the peculiar nature of medical research and because such articles will - although they shouldn't - have an impact on the health choices people may make, it is important that we follow them. It is obvious to anyone reading the artcle that it does not adhere to them and it is something that must be addressed if possible and within the sphere of "common sense" The7thdr (talk

) 05:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to set foot in here, given how far I had to scroll down, but I read the RS/N thread and wanted to comment just on one aspect of this. If someone else has already commented on it, please forgive me. It's that the wording that you had here for example, i.e.

A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[61]

misrepresented the Otis study. The Otis study did not give information on the population of "those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique", i.e. the people who have decided to make TM a part of their lives because it holds appeal to them, but a very uncharacteristic group of practitioners: people who had no prior interest in TM, but volunteered to take part in a study. It's not a representative sample. If the material were included in this article, it should be made clear how the sample was drawn, and no statement should be implied on TM practitioners generally.

Another point: Otis reports that the clear majority of those participating in the trial did not report any adverse effects at all (bottom of page 207) and allows that TM is clearly of benefit to many people. The conclusions of the final paragraph too might be worth mentioning, i.e. the author's doubts as to SIMS' assertion that anyone who takes the practice up will experience beneficial effects. For that statement, his unrepresentative sample is valid.

The publisher, Transaction Publishers, is good; if the study is still quoted in recent literature and not widely considered outdated (dunno), I see no reason to argue that it should not be cited here, but it will need four or five sentences to do it justice, as per my suggestions above. Hope that helps. (Taking cover) --JN466 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466: thank you very much for your valuable contribution. however, are you citing the correct study as cited in this article - there is more than one and this might be my fault. the one that I refer to above is the one that "polled" 1900 people on TMs own mailing list? My fault i am afraid. I will need to investigate this to clrify :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 00:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: jaynen: it is the otis study found on page 56 of Classic and Contemporary perspectives on Mediation that you kindly link to. i didn't use the first study you cite for the very reason that the people were volunteers and thus not representative of TM meditators (no matter what some might think i will not cite any old thing :-) ) as a whole. We can of course also use that study if people have no reasonable objections. again, my fault jayen for not being clear. The7thdr (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a further problem here - the authors of that book mis qoute the results of Otis - let me point to a slightly more detailed source> —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, this the problem when you don't have access to your library and are trying to do this from google books. This study can be found begining page 202 - it is the one so despised by Orm Johnson. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w9sv49ZHqWUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0

Thanks Jayen for your input. Outside eyes are always helpful.

The study in fact had serious obvious methodology problems. For example, Otis used a questionnaire that asked only negative questions. This is the worst kind of research design, and in fact can't really be considered a research design. It is well known that the way a question is asked influences the answer. Also, the subjects were self selected, meaning that only those inclined to return the questionnaire were the ones who filled it out. Plus, it's not really written in the style of a research paper; there's no literature review, for example. The questionnaire was conducted in 1971, but the study wasn't published until 1984, possibly indicating the study wasn't publishable in a peer reviewed publication. In fact the study wasn't replicated, but other studies published later show opposite effects as this Japanese study did, as another editor pointed put. (Haratani T, Henmi T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation on health behavior of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of Public Health 1990; 37:729.)

My major concern however isn't with the paper's methodologies but with the fact that it was not peer reviewed nor published in a professional journal. TM research includes over 350 peer reviewed studies and around 450 that are not peer reviewed. Inclusion of a non peer reviewed study into the article opens the door for other non peer reviewed studies and frankly we don't need to go there. Such a move weakens both the article and Wikipedia. Since there are other studies showing adverse or neutral effects to TM although small in number some of those, taking weight in mind, could certainly replace the Otis study. As well, the Otis study could be included referencing it through a secondary source. I'm not sure why these options are objectionable, but I have begun the process of asking for informal mediation to see if other outside views will help aid the situation. Thanks again.(olive (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

I to Olive - as I am sure you are aware, have asked for outside comments. You keep repeating the samething by the way:

1 The study was not peer reviewed> We have repeatedly pointed out this is not important and why. It meets all of the criteria as a reliable source in WIKI (See earlier responses for evidence)

2: There are hundreds of other TM studies. There are indeed Olive, however, none of them look at the same thing as the '82 Otis> None whatsoever and certainly not on the same scale and using TMs own mailing list.

Your arguments are thus invalid I am afraid. Repeating them over and over again - especially after they have been repeated examined and found wanting (to be kind) will not make them anymore so I am afraid :-) The7thdr (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Wikipedia however, does consider peer review important, and in any case, I have suggested including the study using a secondary source. As I said above, I am unclear as to why this is an objectionable route to take. My points were a courtesy, and out of respect to a new editor on the page possibly unfamiliar with the discussion(olive (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Are these secondary sources enough to satisfy you?

Fladrif (talk

) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Boy these are old references! --BwB (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about studies done in the early 1970s after all. What do you expect, an article from this morning's "USA Today"?

Fladrif (talk

) 19:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The7thdr, the study I referred to was the one linked in the article version I indicated, i.e. the one on page 201ff. of Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives. The statement in that article version was cited to p. 207 of the book. So yes, if you meant another study, that may explain the mismatch between the article text and what the study said. I have looked at p. 56, where as you say, an Otis study based on sending out questionnaires to TM practitioners is mentioned, but I can't see any reference on page 56 to those participants reporting negative effects. It says, "The 1095 who responded generally claimed some improvements after learning TM (the actual number claiming improvement was not reported)." Could you point me to the right page please? I note that there are some criticisms of the statistical set-up of Otis' 1974 study (i.e. the one described in detail on pages 201ff.) on page 57. That was the one with the SRI volunteers. (If we use that study, those criticisms should perhaps be borne in mind.) Cheers, JN466 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I get it. The chapter starting on page 201 first describes one study, using SRI volunteers, and then describes another, based on a questionnaire sent out to people on the SIMS mailing list. My mistake; should have read the whole chapter. :( JN466 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No Jayen, it was my fault because I referenced it incorrectly - which has now been resolved I think. It's my age I am afraid :) The7thdr (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, old age. It's the reading glasses that did it for me. Until then I felt young. JN466 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As for peer-reviewed or not peer-reviewed, just because a study is peer-reviewed does not mean it is widely regarded as a definitive study; and if a study appears in a book, rather than a peer-reviewed journal, it does not automatically mean that it is no good. The book in question had editors, who would have looked at the material they were going to include; that is not unlike peer review. We regularly quote chapters in academic books. The publisher is reputable, the author was at the

Stanford Research Institute, the book is well cited, and so is the chapter concerned. Editors may want to look at what those who cited the chapter said about it: [7] A summary of Otis' study can be found on page 132 of this book: [8] I think this gives a good idea of how this study (and other, related studies) might be summarised. It is not hostile to TM, does not try to score a point against it or advertise it, just gives an overview of research, balanced by caveats. Please have a look at it. JN466

18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen for adding these comments. There seem balanced and well considered. What is your opinion about the Otis study specifically, and the analysis of it by david Orme Johnson? --BwB (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia favors peer reviewed studies. Also, the argument that Otis is should be included because there are no other studies like it makes no sense to me. It's as if we were saying we should include all fringe views because they are unique. Again: this is a proportionality issue. Hundreds of studies showing one thing versus a single one, it makes no sense to highlight the love wolf. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, make that "lone" wolf.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the only reason the Otis study gets so much mention, or is referenced so often is that IT IS THE ONLY TM STUDY (even if perhaps not a good study) TO SHOW NEGATIVE RESULTS. If journalists, authors, and scientists are writing reviews on the TM research and feel they have to give a balanced, unbiased view of the TM research, they will include some references to studies that indicate negative results. Since the Otis study is one of the very few published studies on TM that may indicate negative results, it gets quoted alot. If there are 100 good points about something, and only 1 bad point about it, and if an author is trying to give a balanced view of the subject, then she HAS TO include the 1 bad point, but may choose one or several of the good points. When this happens multiple times, the negative points get cited much more than any specific good point. We may see this more in the press when some new TM research on improved memory, for example, gets published. The reporter/journalist reports on the positive new finding about the effects of TM on memory, but feels she has to give a balanced view of the subject, looks for some research that may show TM to have negative effect, and, hey-presto, finds the Otis study and includes it the article, thus giving the Otis study another citation to put in its trophy chest. So over may years the Otis study gets more and more citations as people try to give a balanced reporting of the hundreds of scientific studies of TM. --BwB (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What is it with all you " pro"TMers and block letters and shouting? :-) Only one study? The section already includes more than one. I assume this means you feel that there are not enough cited to balance the weight with the favorable studies? Ok, hang on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the bolding in the comment above. I have learned that it is in bad taste among Wiki editors. Will refrain from this practice in future. --BwB (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think the point about peer review is a significant one and that is why Olive keeps bringing it up. The Otis study is not peer reviewed and WP:RS clearly give priority to peer reviewed research when it is available. Since this topic of TM has such a large body of peer reviewed research I don't see why we want to include studies that don't meet that standard. In any case I think a calm, civil and specific discussion of this point is in order beginning with this copy from the WP:RS page:

• Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. The choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources.
• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.--Kbob (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Where have you been all my life, Kbob??? I think you suggestion is marvelous. If all the active editors on the TM article agree with the WP:RS statement and use this as a benchmark to evaluate all the TM research - good or bad - then I think a fair and balanced outcome can be achieved. What to others think? --BwB (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This boat has sailed. Otis is a reliable source. Period. There is no room to debate about it. The pro-TM editors have turned weight on its head here. You don't count studies to determine weight or scientific concensus. And, even if you did, there are not "hundreds" of studies that show that no-one ever suffers any adverse effect from practicing meditation, including TM. There are a number of studies that show that some people do, including TM. Otis is one of them.

Fladrif (talk

) 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kbob: I hate to sound rude - but unless you can find any new reasons why Otis cannot be cited i think it is time to move on. You, Olive, etc, are more than welcome to take to Rfc or whatever, but the matter is closed and it is pointless bringing up the same argument again. The peer review thing has - to use a colloquialism - "been done to death". I am not wasting any more time on this. I have section about TM research in general that is part complied and needs finishing, and I have a far more interesting addition to make the early Mozart Piano Concertos that really needs my attention. The7thdr (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, I have never read what you quote to privilege peer-reviewed papers over academic books. Look at the wording: it refers to "Academic and peer-reviewed publications", "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". The two types of sources are viewed as equally reliable, and in practice, either type may be superior. Some editors, e.g., view peer-reviewed papers almost like primary sources, arguing that it is only the reviews that establish which peer-reviewed papers are really important. This applies in particular to medical papers. On the other hand, among academic presses, even Oxford University Press will publish the occasional dud. The point here is, Otis' study was published by a "well-regarded academic press". Personally I can see merit in some of the criticisms that Orme Johnson has raised, but even Orme Johnson concedes that the study is often quoted, so per NPOV, we have to cover it. If there is published criticism of the study, by all means let's have that as well. JN466 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen. Do you feel we can use stuff from the OJ web site as criticism to Otis? After all Wiki policy does permit self-published material: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (

WP:SPS). Since OJ is and established expert on TM, and has been published may times in peer-reviewed, third-party journals on the topic of TM. Seems to me that OJ can be cited as a critic of Otis. --BwB (talk

) 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BWB- let's cut through the BS and focus on what Otis concluded and what DO-J's "rebuttal" consisted of. Bottom line, Otis concluded that TM isn't for everybody, because some people experience adverse effects. And, when you get done with all of DO-J's sleight-of-hand, distractions and misdirections, he says, yeah, TM may not be for everybody because some people may experience adverse effects. The knee-jerk reaction of some of the editors here that a single word from someone who doesn't hew to the official approved TM talking points means that the whole article is out of balance, and rebuttal from a TM spokesman is required is frustrating to any non-TM-true-believer because it is virtually impossible to deal rationally with such an unthinking, uncritical and mindless approach.

Fladrif (talk

) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider that I am taking and "unthinking" approach to this article and the debate on its content. I have spent many hours reading both the Otis Study, analysis on the study, the DOJ critique, all the other editorial comments here, Wiki policies and guidelines, and thinking about the pros and cons of the research. Neither do I consider my comments "knee-jerk". I try to consider what the other editor is proposing and arguing, and to come back with reasoned retorts, arguing the points. --BwB (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What I will say is that the length at which Otis is quoted in the "Studies and Scientific/Medical Literature On The Adverse Effects Of TM" section seems somewhat

WP:UNDUE. (I've deleted the reference to the same study in the section prior to that.) It is also, I think, misleading to state "Adverse effects by long-term TM practitioners included: antisocial behavior, 13.5%; anxiety, 9.0%" etc., because there is no reference standard mentioned. If you ask anyone in the street whether their anxiety has increased over the past 3-5 years (say, since their last house move), a certain percentage are bound to say, Yes. TM has nothing to do with that. That is not the point that Otis made: he compared long-term practitioners with more recent pracitioners, and there was a slight difference in the reports of adverse developments. In addition, I believe it does not reflect Otis' study to say that "while those dropping out from TM experienced fewer complaints than the experienced meditators, there was a positive correlation between the number of adverse effects and the length of time in TM". Participants were asked to rate their experience through the time period when they did practise TM. So the dropouts did not rate how they felt after dropping out, they rated how they changed after starting TM. Does what I am saying make sense to anyone here? I think we need to be slightly more careful in how we describe Otis' results. --JN466

17:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

it was I that wrote it jayen. I tried not to assume but to summarize what otis stated - and others - about the study and its results. I might of course be wrong and this certainly needs reviewing and discussion. We will certainly need to review Adverse effects by long-term TM practitioners i felt that this is what he said - but alas by experience on these pages may have biased my views and would welcome someone bringing that section - from the study that is not my precis - and discuss in detail here. And yes, what you say makes sense :-) The7thdr (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Jayen. You have brought a new voice to the Otis discussion which seems very balanced and reasonable. We hope you will will continue to help here. --BwB (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Jayen is right, his reading of the article is accurate, however, this does not address the fact that this study remains a single voice among a se aof studies stating the contrary, so, are we ever going to reach consensus?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There are probably a hundred books that call the TM movement a cult, and we have one self-published website that disputes that assertion. Is the view with the most sources the only view we should present? I think that would be contradictory to the ideals of

WP:NPOV. While we should find a better source for the non-cult view, it's still a significant point of view even if expressed in only a few sources compared to a "sea" of contradictory assertions in reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk

  20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Will I can see what you mean, other points of view should be noted; even if the source is not of the strongest especially in light of NPOV. Hopefully a more reliable source can be found to replace the present one? The7thdr (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise with the Otis report. It's a significant point of view in a reliable source. Even if there are six hundred studies (mostly done by MUM staff) that contradict it. If it were a fringe view, then that'd be different, but I don't think anyone here is suggesting that.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

After watching this ongoing discussion for quite a while, I finally got curious and read the Otis paper. I find olive's objections to it unpersuasive and mostly irrelevant. The peer-review argument has been well discussed and disposed of by others, and I hope we'll hear no more of that. Some of the other objections: yes, the participants are self-selected in the sense that only the people who returned surveys are included, but that is true of *all* survey research, not just this one, so it's not particularly useful as a criticism of this particular study. The idea that the research is flawed because only negative characteristics are listed is a very odd objection and may be a result of an incomplete understanding of the rules of survey design. It's true that in survey design you want to vary the way the questions are asked, some from a positive direction and some from a negative direction, but this wasn't the usual kind of survey that asks questions or makes statements that respondents agree or disagree with; the rule about negative phrasing doesn't apply here, and to invoke it suggests a sort of grasping at straws rather than an honest critique of the research. That the characteristics rated in the checklist are all negative is neither here nor there. The checklist is in the tradition of diagnostic checklists of all kinds; were we to question all checklists containing only negative characteristics, we'd have to throw out the entire DSM. Which actually might not be a bad idea, but that's never going to happen.

Having said all that, I'll say I'm not very impressed by the research, for a number of reasons. I think the way Jayen has written it in the article is good, and neutral. I personally think the research is so flawed that the conclusions can't be taken seriously, for reasons entirely other than those listed above, and if I were writing a review article about TM, this paper would not be mentioned in it. To list my criticisms of the research would be OR and therefore not useful to the article, and as has already been well-established, there is no policy-based reason to exclude this source. But I do think the summary of it should be carefully worded, as Jayen did very nicely. This is not to say anything about the quality of the MUM-related research; I haven't looked at any of the research mentioned in this article, but I have looked at the MUM-related research supporting the Maharishi effect in some detail, which doesn't make me hopeful for any research related to that institution, but I am ready to be pleasantly surprised.

Woonpton (talk

) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good comments Woonpton. Appreciate you taking the time to examine the source and give an informed opinion.--Kbob (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise Woonpton, likewise :)Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed this sentence which was added to the article today because the source link does not verify the source. The chapter on TM is not available for viewing on the link. Also we need additional details such as publisher,date, page number etc. so we can verify the proposed content. Thanks for your help.

• In 1992, Religious Scholar J. Gordon Melton wrote the mantras are to be kept secret and some meditators and TM teachers have published them.[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KRTGzgpDvL4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false</ref>--Kbob (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to be signed in with a Google account to see some contents of some books. I just checked the Google copy by searching on "mantra". The relevant text appears on page 290.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does, thank you Will. Sorry Kbob, my fault, I am watching a TV program at the same time and slightly distracted. I will replace, with correct referencing now of course. Indeed, I am glad you brought that to my attention, looking at things I think it might go much better now I have added the new reference in response to you removing Melton - thank you :) The7thdr (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks gentlemen.--Kbob (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Who on earth said I was a man? The7thdr (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Who in heaven said you were a woman? --Kbob (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchal assumptions and language is something that I encounter everyday in my profession Kbob - it would be nothing new here :-). Your assumption,seeming without question, that I was male might be one to "mediate on" :-) Please see Gender neutrality in English But you are forgiven, you are after all less the result of your genitalia then you are a dominate form of socialization. Anyway, let us stop lest you lead me down to a discussion of assumptions, language, professions and gender roles :-). Perhaps I shall change by avatars name here just for you :-) The7thdr (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hows that? Better? :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So I guess you are telling me that you are a woman and resent being called a gentlemen. OK, I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up. :-)--Kbob (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my edit, see http://www.idetprocedure.com/1000_patient/1040_glossary.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.232.84 (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For your convenience, here's what it says: "randomized study — A comparison study in which patients are assigned randomly (by chance) to separate treatment groups. Randomized studies use a “control group,” a group that does not receive the new treatment being studied. Using chance and control groups helps ensure that the different groups can be compared objectively." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.232.84 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know who posted these comments and what they are about? I'm in the dark :-) --Kbob (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I see from the page history that a random editor has changed the words 'randomized study' to 'random survey' for accuracy. --Kbob (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

IP address :-) - yes I agree - and this was my fault as I it was I who wrote it - very remiss of me to be honest. Thank you

Kbob: Otis The7thdr (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone else made the correction but glad to see you agree it is a good change.--Kbob (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently we have 7 sentences discussing various controversies about the mantras while the actual description of the principles of the technique is relegated only 5 sentences. Recent editions by a single editor have imbalanced the section. Let's discuss how to amend it and create balance. --Kbob (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And which do you think needs removing? The7thdr (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, not sure what "controversies" you are talking about? Could you please explain? The citations - except one - do not mention any controversies in a real sense. As to undue weight to the mantras - having read TM literature on the technique - including its founders - it seems that Mantra is central to the techniques - indeed, it might be described AS the technique. It is certainly true that TM and its founders make much of the way they are assigned and their specificity to TM. many forms of meditation use mantras as i am sure you are aware (although in fairness none of the other methods charge for them) Thus the mantras, the way they are assigned and their uniqueness is central to the technique and, according to TM literature, differentiate it from other forms of mantra meditation. The7thdr (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone once said:"App Dipo Bhav" —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kbob. The discussion of mantras in the Principles section is are being given an undue amount of space, having taken over the entire section, as per Kbob's earlier description. Additionally, these alleged "TM mantras" if that is what they are, are likely proprietary material. Their publication in Wikipedia is a violation of the free content publication policy

WP:CSD.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk

) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed luke a quick search throws up the first search result for Enga as the native language of the Enga people Enga language. TM influenced by the shamen of Papua New Guinea also? Terrence McKenna would be pleased but would the Enga people be happy you TMers have copyrighted their name?

Edit. Sorry, just to clarify they are so called seed-mantras, not "gods" put related to. If you are unfamiliar, from a western

Thelemite? The7thdr (talk

) 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The section is entitled Principles of the Technique and yes the mantra is a key component of the technique and has been self-described in the first part of the section. However, this new copy (above) has doubled the size of the section and weighted it heavily weighted towards one specific aspect of the principles of the technique ie. mantras. It now includes a list of mantras plus detailed commentary on the mantra topic from a variety of authors who are established TM critics. I think this section is currently unbalanced and we should remove some or all of the newly added copy cited above. What do others editors think?--Kbob (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. All well referenced from respectable sources and all relative to the section in hand. The mantra IS central to the technique - if not it's main component. Of course it is weighed towards the mantra - this is in essence the "technique". Add to this the weight that TM gives to the uniqueness of said mantra and a discussion is obviously requiredrequired. One would have thought the TMers here would be happy to see more discussion and clarification of this - how strange.Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussions are fine, however, regardless of what you expect editors should or would be happy to discuss, the issue of undue weight remains. The section is now extremely lopsided, weighted down by a lengthy discussion about "mantras" with a purposefully negative slant. It is POV, unbalanced and changes need to be made.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. LB f/k/a 7th is absolutely correct. The amount of text devoted to the mantras is hardly out of balance. There ain't nothin' else to the technique but mantras as near as I can tell. If there's something else to the technique, go ahead and put it in with citations to a reliable source. One of the huge problems with this article is that it says virtully nothing about the technique. These additions are entirely necessary and appropriate additions to give some semblance of balance and weight to the article. The TM Org might not like having the mantras published, but there is absolutely nothing unbalanced, negative or POV to describing what the mantras are, what they mean, and how they're assigned. And, the copyright/trademark/trade secret argument is simply nonsense. Omni Magazine was never sued over publication of the mantras. You can't simulataneously claim that MMY is passing on the wisdom and techniques of ancient Vedic gurus (who, by the way, gave it away for free instead of charging 2 large) and simultaneously claim that you can copyright, trademark or assert trade secrets protection. The law don't work that way.

Fladrif (talk

) 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section is weighted in the direction of mantras. This section need to be rewritten. --BwB (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The list of purported mantras from what appears to be a reliable source is one thing. But a single editor has added 5 more lines of text about TM instructors and their relationship with the mantras which is inappropriate in a section at the beginning of the article which is entitled "Principles of the Technique". Maharishi has devoted many pages in his book to the mechanics and principles of TM technique but this is not an advertisement so it has which has been condensed to a few sentences. We should likewise respect this concept when it comes to the mantras. So these 5 lines recently added without discussion or consensus by one editor creates undue weight to the section and most or all of them need to be removed. --Kbob (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your objections are a rehash of arguments presented again and again in the Talk archives for this articl by a succession of editors representing the TM Org's POV and trying to protect its cash cow. There is no weaker argument in the Wiki arsenal than that reliably sourced information that editors pushing a POV don't want to have included violates

Fladrif (talk

) 16:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why i am even responding, but to repeat - every "argument you ladies are making has already been made and countered. while you may have lots of time to repeat yourselves i do not. Please put forward a new set of arguments - not already countered and dismissed - as to why the information should be removed. And no, one of you has already - somewhat amusingly - made the argument about them being copyrighted. We could of course add resource that prove the TM did indeed - rather embarrassingly for everyone - attempt to copyright them in the 70's if you want :) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)