Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Global Good News

I have a question about a source that applies to many articles, so I've posted it at the project talk page. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement#Sources: Global Good News. Please reply there.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Non balanced POV about the question whether TM is rooted in Hinduism.

The totality of the following paragraph, including the way it refers to Maharishi's book is a point of view. The point of view presented, the one of Kenneth Boa perhaps, is that TM is rooted in Hinduism.

According to religious scholar Kenneth Boa in his book, Cults, World Religions and the Occult, Transcendental Meditation is rooted in the Vedantic School of Hinduism, "repeatedly confirmed" in the Maharishi's books such as the Science of Being and the Art of Living and his Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.[25] Boa writes that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi "makes it clear" that Transcendental Meditation was delivered to man about 5,000 years ago by the Hindu god Krishna. The technique was then lost, but restored for a time by Buddha. It was lost again, but rediscovered in the 9th century AD by the Hindu philosopher Shankara. Finally, it was revived by Brahmananda Saraswati (Guru Dev) and passed on to the Maharishi.[26]

For NPOV, we need a corresponding paragraph that presents the other point of view. There are plemty of references that explains why TM is not rooted in any religion. Maharishi has never referred to Krishna as an Hindu God because Maharishi sees Hinduism as a modern religion that did not exist at the time of Krisna. Maharishi has been explaining TM to Hindus as much as to Christians. If it is rooted in Hinduism, why it needs to be explained to Hindus?

Better, we should totally change the paragraph so that it uses references that presents a balanced POV from the start, a paragraph that would not need to be contradicted after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.29 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph is part of the description of the origins of the technique. The main discussion of the religious/non-religious issues is covered in the "Religion" section. It cites the Maharishi and others on the topic.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the opinion of a religious scholar that himself uses the opinion of Maharishi to build its thesis without even mentioning the original POV of Maharishi is not at all NPOV. I bet the religious scholar does not even believe that TM was thought at the time of Krisna. He might not even believe that Krisna existed. So, in which ways this is informative about the true origin of TM? Obviously, the whole argument here is not about the true factual origin of TM, but about whether TM comes from modern Hinduism. Therefore, it should be presented in the religion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.38 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to delete this thread two times because, after looking more carefully at the article, I believe it is a deadend in the following sense that the other editors have the definitive intention to present TM as a pseudoscience and an offspring of the Hinduism religion. Since they insist, I will complete my contribution to this thread. TM is not pseudoscience. It is very easy to see it. For example, they cite a 2007 cochrane review to support the claim that research on TM is not reliable ( reference 18: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf ). However, here is the summary of the results in this review for the "Evidence on the Physiological and Neuropsychological Effects of Meditation" specifically for TM:

Direct meta-analysis showed that compared to NT, TM® did not produce significantly greater benefits on blood pressure (SBP and DBP). However, there was significant improvement in LDL-C levels and verbal creativity with TM®. When compared to WL, TM® produced significantly greater reduction in SBP and DBP. Before-and-after studies on TM® for patients with essential hypertension indicated a statistically significant reduction in SBP and DBP after practicing TM®. The heterogeneity present for the comparisons evaluating blood pressure changes and cortisol levels suggests that there were important clinical differences among the studies; however, the small number of studies precluded subgroup analyse.

NT stands for No Therapy. Basically, on many respects, TM had significant positive physiological benefits. If this is not enough, there was a subsequent meta analysis done in 2008 by independent researchers on the effect of TM on blood pressure and cardiovascular desease (also the studied benefits of the previous review) and the significant benefits of TM were confirmed (see http://www.nature.com/ajh/journal/v21/n3/abs/ajh200765a.html ). The authors of this review expressed the fact (in news clips) that the studies on TM were of high quality. In this context, who care what the astronomer Carl Sagan says. He is not a doctor. He does not know much about clinical studies.

I emphasis that this is only an example. I could do the same about so many other parts of the current article. It is totally biased. It is so clear that the current editors (the majority of them anyway) have the fixed agenda to present TM as a pseudo science and an offspring of the Hinduism religion, which it is not. Anyone is going to lose its time trying to reason with them. 67.230.154.70 (talk)

It's not for us to decide whether TM is a panacea, a pseudoscience or anything else. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  03:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is useless to argue with people that have a fixed agenda. 67.230.154.70 (talk)

One of the rules we have here is "assume good faith".   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is useless to argue with people that have a fixed agenda. 67.230.154.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC).

I feel like you've raised some excellent points. And have clearly articulated them. Putting aside the Hinduism issue, I think you make a good point about pseudoscience. You assumed, like most readers would, that the points in that paragraph are intended to support Sagan's view that TM is pseudoscience. The problem is that Sagan never says why he thinks it's pseudoscience. He makes an unsupported assertion, which has no only been placed in the article but also in the lead. And the way that it's juxtaposed in the lead with one-sided points about the research suggests, as it did to you, that Sagan is referring to the research. Of course there are thousands of sources that make the opposite point — scientific studies, research reviews, mainstream media — that the research isn't pseudoscience. The unsupported claim that it's pseudoscience is a minor point of view that should be excluded, per the Wikipedia core policy of WP:NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We could argue from logic over whether there are pseudoscientific or Hindu elements of TM, but that'd be pointless and it isn't how Wikipedia works. Points of view should be presented in a neutral fashion, with weight proportionate to their prominence. The Sagan book, although written over a decade ago, is ranked by Amazon at #2,349 in popularity.[1] By comparison, Science of Being and Art of Living #23,808, an order of magnitude less popular, and Catching the Big Fish has an even lower rank. That's just one metric. Perhaps Google News would reveal that Peter Russell and Bob Roth are more prominent than Carl Sagan. We can't delete important points of view just because someone here thinks they're "wrong".   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sagan is hardly a lone voice in the wilderness in characterizing TM as a pseudoscience. Just put "transcendental meditation" and pseudoscience in a Google Books search[2]. You will see dozens of reliable, secondary sources saying the same thing. We should add these sources. Fladrif (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And not one would meet MEDRS. Science has its own standard in Wikipedia for RS -- peer reviewed research, meta-analyses, research reviews. Not popular debunking books. Why would the AMA publish pseudoscience? There is such a major double standard here. Editors have required that no individual studies be used as a source, even though MEDRS allows it. And at the same time, editors add popular media as sources, which MEDRS explicitly disallows. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The purely medical aspects of TM are perhaps best handled in the MVAH article. The TM movement promotes the technique as offering many benefits beyond the field of medicine. There's no indication that Sagan was addressing the issue of blood pressure, for example.   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The scientific research medical and otherwise done to the TM technique is a prominent aspect of the information surrounding the technique and such information properly belongs in the TM technique article.

Sagan makes a general comment about TM which is fundamentally flawed since a meditation technique cannot be science, pseudo or other wise. Can the underlying theories of the technique be described a science is another question. However Sagan doesn't address anything so specific. We are using some very weak content here. Does it help the article ? Give the reader good information?(olive (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

I would argue the opposite. The contention that TM is a technique, nothing more, nothing less, and that it thus cannot be categorized as religion or pseudoreligion, science or pseudoscience, fish or fowl is logically unsupportable. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Sagan, or with any other source being cited for any other proposition in the article, a technique, a tool, does not exist in a vacuum. A technique or tool for what? To what end? Which is promoted to accomplish what? By what means? Pursuant to what theory is is supposed to work? A hammer is a tool. Look at the article for hammer. It is a simple tool. But the article discusses for what, and the physics by which it does the job. Look at the article for patent medicine, discussing it as a mixture of pharmacology, sympathetic magic and fraud. One would not seriously contend that "it's just a bottle of elixer; you can't call it either pharmacology or sympathetic magic or fraud". One cannot divorce the technique from the purposes to which it is put, the basis on which it is sold to the public, and the underlying theory or theories as to why it is supposed to work. If we were to buy into this argument, the article would be a single paragraph in length. Fladrif (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If editors here want to restrict the article to just the "Transcendental Meditation technique", as I've heard here repeatedly, then we should move the article to that title.

Chiropractic therapy is a technique, Kirlian photography is a technique, dowsing is a technique. Those techniques may not be pseudo-science, but the claims made about them can be. It's not for us to judge. Sagan is a prominent point of view. NPOV requires that we include such views.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@67.230.154.70 One minor correction to "It is so clear that the current editors (the majority of them anyway) have the fixed agenda to present TM as a pseudo science..." I believe only two of the current editors have this POV (judging from this Talk page; the others left months ago). Their relatively uninformed POV, relying as it does on sources (like the otherwise wonderful Carl Sagan) who express authoritative-sounding opinions that are not based on a deep understanding of the subject matter, irritates me as well.

But I strongly believe you're missing an important fact: it is obviously not good to have only the TMM POV represented in TMM articles. There actually are several other POVs that are represented by people who are very familiar with TM/Maharish/the TMM, not to mention the general public (who seem to object to course fees far more often than to perceived religious or pseudoscientific content, judging from inquiry email received by Natural Stress Relief, a competing organization).

It may be true that we do not have a good balance in knowledge about TM. But Will and Fladrif do a conscientious, dedicated. and admirable job (and donate a lot of their time) as editors to ensure that the articles will not represent only one POV. IMO, we owe them thanks for their work and for not leaving when the others did. David Spector (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to make assertions about the POVs of editors here please provide proof. I, for one, don't recall ever expressing an opinion on the matter. That said, thanks for acknowledging the effort it takes to keep these articles from having only one POV.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@David Spector: My judgment was based on the content of the article. If there are editors that sincerely try to present all published viewpoints for what they really are, it simply does not show up. Instead, it seems that the editors are using published statements there and there to support their own personal interests or beliefs. The statement of Carl Sagan is only one example. There is nothing wrong in presenting the viewpoint of Carl Sagan, but it must be done at the right time in the proper section or paragraoh. All the skepticism should be all put together in a section about skepticism (on TM) because this it is what it is about. For example, it makes no sense to use a primary source (the direct research of Carl Sagan) to oppose a secondary source, a meta analysis, which has already compiled and analysed so many primary sources. It would make no sense, even if the primary source was a scientific paper because it is not our job to redo the work of the secondary source. It certainly makes no sense at all when the primary source (the direct research of Carl Sagan) is not even acceptable as a scientific paper. It is terrible that we have to lose time arguing about this. Why? Because meanwhile even worst issues about lack of NPOV are going on and we are losing track of them. For example, consider again the paragraph that I was referring to:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched,[13][14][15][16] while over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals.[17] At the same time, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality.[18] A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety.[19] TM has been called a pseudoscience by astronomer Carl Sagan.[20]

I believe the 2007 review mentioned in the second statement has been criticized by TM researchers because it was not fair toward TM. Nevertheless, if you read the paragraph that I have extracted from this review, it actually points out that TM had many significant physiological benefits. Therefore, it makes no sense to use this review to oppose the first statement. Moreover, if the editors had done a good job, they would have seen that we have a 2008 meta analysis specifically about TM, which confirms the good physiological benefits of TM, which were already seen in this 2007 review.

BTW, the review was not a review on Transcendental Meditation, but a review on meditation in general. Therefore, the "Transcendental" in the second statement is incorrect and this shows how much the editors are biased. However, I insist that taking out the "Transcendental" would not address the issue because it is the whole sentence that is misplaced. The use of a conclusion about all meditations to oppose a statement specifically about TM makes no sense. It is is just another example of what I mean when I say that the editors use published statement to support personal interests or beliefs.

Again, I am not against that we present a published POV, especially not the POV that research on meditation (in general) needs to be improved, not at all. Everybody, especially TM researchers, agree with that conclusion. In fact, there was a subsequent review of research on meditation (in genereal), which draw the same conclusion and one or two of the authors were TM researchers. This statement is not about TM. Still, there may be a way to include it in the article, but not to oppose statements directly about TM, especially not when they are supported by secondary sources. Now, after this misplaced statement, add the statement of Carl Sagan and you obtain a completely biased paragraph. The whole article is like that, but especially the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.154.96 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear anon - could you please register an account if you're going to be discussing this article or making significant edits? Since you have a dynamic IP it's hard to know if we're responding to the same person each time. Registration is free and provides several benefits, including greater privacy.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with request that you use or obtain an account. David Spector (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please get an account. I'm less than impressed with accusations of bias from an anonymous editor posting from a TM-Org affiliated IP Address, touting the research "we" have confirming the beneficial effects of TM. Who is "we"? No bias there, eh? Your mischaracterization and misnterpretattion of the AHRQ meta-analysis is a rehash of arguments that have been made here since it was issued by TM-Org employees in an ultimately unsuccessful effort ot either exclude it from the article, or to twist its conclusions to say exactly the opposite of what it actually concludes. Please read the archives - try AHRQ or Ospina-Bond. Fladrif (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with your analysis. In fact, it's almost self-evident. Writing like this is why I know these editors to be essentially anti-TM in attitude, in spite of their consistent denials.

Furthermore, they use WP policy selectively as a weapon to bully the pro-TM editors. That isn't right. They force the pro-TM editors to engage in the same unproductive wikilawyering and arguing.

Meanwhile, neutral editors (like me) don't stand a chance in the crossfire. I don't try to do more than typos and grammar.

In spite of all this unfortunate environment, I feel that it is much better to have a dialog (no matter how drawn-out and traumatic) rather than none at all (with skepticism about TM barely mentioned), which I believe would happen if the gadflies left. Before they arrived, the pro-TM editors put subtle pressure on me to withdraw my paragraph about disaffected TM teachers who offer alternative instruction in transcending without the high prices and/or mysticism. I could have expanded that paragraph with facts such as the routine intimidation of renegade teachers by MUM lawyers, putting many out of business merely for putting in practice, courageously, what Maharishi asked them to do: bring TM to the world. David Spector (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources on these assertions, then provide them. Whether or not you regard it as bullying or wikilawyering, and whether or not you agree with the policies, those are the core policies of Wikipedia. Personal knowledge and unpublished primary sources are interesting, but aren't useable in Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not they are true and accurate. Fladrif (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect to accusations of bias, (to say nothing of repeated accusatons of ignorance ) I will repeat what I said on your talk page. If you have a problem with anything I or any other editor has posted, or think it violates in any repect the letter or spirit of the ArbCom decision or any policy of Wikipedia, you are free to pursue it in whatever forum you deem appropriabut article talk pages is most assuredly NOT the appropropriate forum. Fladrif (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Fladrif is a fine one for championing WP policy. David Spector (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

David, could you please leave ad hominem remarks somewhere else? Article talk pages are just for discussing improvements to the article. If you need to discuss editors then their talk pages are good places for that. This comment does not seem likely to further this thread towards helpful edits.   Will Beback  talk  11:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, the anonymous editor makes excellent points. Please don't just ignore them. Perhaps lets focus on the paragraph in the lead that supposedly summarizes the scientific research. As I've pointed out before, and as this anonymous editor is pointing out, it violates WP:LEAD. In the past I've proposed different wording. Maybe the anonymous editor could propose some text to replace that paragraph -- text that summarizes the whole research section rather than highlighting two particular reviews. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Timidguy Agree. @Fladrif "I'm less than impressed with accusations of bias from an anonymous editor posting from a TM-Org affiliated IP Address." Please explain. 67.230.154.96 translates to Primus Telecommunications Canada, which, I believe, has not been identified as TMM-related. David Spector (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Primus is a TMM-related company.Fladrif (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Flad, how is Primus [3] a TMM related? --BwB (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the ISP discussion off of the article talk page, please.   Will Beback  talk  13:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? There used to be a lot of such discussion here, about which, I believe, you never objected. Fladrif raised the issue without a source. Just applying your keenness for WP policy. You don't seem to like it. David Spector (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have generally tried to keep off-topic issues off of the talk pages. Editors have talk pages to discuss issues like this. When I had a question for Fladrif about it I went to his page to ask it. Otherwise we get carried away by unproductive tangents like most of this thread.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting, David, that you seem to admire the "courage" of those teachers who followed Maharishi's direction to "bring TM to the world", but are in no way critical of these same teachers NOT following Maharishi direction to charge $2500 for TM instruction in the USA. If I understand correctly, the technique that NSR teaches is not TM,(at least this is a point made on the NSR web pages [4]) so it looks like said "disaffected TM teachers" are not teaching TM and thus not doing "what Maharishi asked them to do: bring TM to the world". Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point you were making above. I know this off Wiki topic, but David's comments intrigued me. --BwB (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, our low price is at the heart of the NSR philosophy. But I agree: off-topic. You are most welcome to learn about our POV by discussing this with me directly via email (use the Contact Us form at www.nsrusa.org). David Spector (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No thanks David. it was just a comment in passing, a spur of the moment thought. Not something I want to discuss at length now. --BwB (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Draft sentences for science summary of lead

Since the current paragraph on the science violates WP:LEAD, as mentioned above and in past discussions, here's a proposed draft intended to be a summary of the science section of the article.

Current version:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. while over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals.[17] At the same time, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality.[18] A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety.[19]

Proposed version:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, with over 300 studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. These studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. Some studies suggest that the physiological changes and health effects are the same as simple relaxation, while others indicate a greater effect. Most of the research is preliminary and therefore inconclusive, though recent research reviews have concluded that TM lowers blood pressure a small but clinically significant amount.

Seems like that pretty much covers it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Starting with the beginning, what is the source for "over 300 studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals"? the phrase "These studies have found specific physiological changes,..." implies that all of the 300 studies have made that finding. Is that true? Is the "clinical research" different from the 300 studies? If most of the research is preliminary then maybe we should say that first, next to the statement that TM is the most widely researched techniques. When we mention the recent reviews, is that a comprehensive summary?   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I much prefer the current version. First of all it summarizes the best available evidence. The group at WP:MED will agree if you ask them. I do not see how it violates WP:LEAD? I think one could say that independent studies have NOT found specific physiological changes compared to relaxation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Here's a new version based on your very good feedback.

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, with over 200 studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. Some studies suggest that the physiological changes and health effects are the same as simple relaxation, while others indicate a greater or different effect. Three research reviews/meta-analyses from 2007-08 said that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount, with two of them finding it to be clinically significant.

I think that addresses your points. Doc it violates WP:LEAD because it doesn't represent the whole research section of the article, it only represents one point of view, and it's not more general than the article itself, which is what WP:LEAD advises. There are research reviews which indicate a greater or different effect from relaxation. TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those revisions, which raise questions of their own. Where are we getting the "200 studies" number from? Is it just a round number we picked out of the air? do we need to give a number at all? If we do should we mention the number that were not published in peer reviewed sources? What is the difference between studies and clinical research? It says that studies have found one thing and clinical research has found another. Aren't they the same thing? We say that there were three reviews in 2007-2008. Why those dates? A clearer way of wording it would be something more like, "two out of three reviews in 20XX found clinically significant..."   Will Beback  talk  11:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I moved some material around in the "Research" section because it was getting repetitious. After moving like material together, I then deleted a some redundant bits and made a few other textual changes.[5]   Will Beback  talk  12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Will that the 300, 600 or 200 numbers are only used in TM promotional material. I think that when we cite material, we should keep in mind the original intention of the authors and this should be considered when we evaluate the prominence that we can give to this material. In this case, it is promotional. One must use the material in promotional site in a careful way and be selective. To support that these numbers are important for any other reason than the promotion of TM, then we would have to find a citation that present these numbers in such a context. For example, if a governmental agency kept this kind of statistics, then it will prove that this kind of information is considered important in general.

BTW, I insist that we cannot go in the opposite direction and include in the article the thesis that these numbers are used for the promotion of TM. We all know that it is true, but this is not the criteria for inclusion in the article. To mention such a thesis, we would have to find a noteworthy publication that makes a case about it and we should do it in a way that respect the original intention of the publication. Moreover, even if we find such a publication, this kind of controversial issue would not be appropriate in a paragraph about the research on TM because it is about the way it is used, not about the research itself.

I still believe that we should have a section on scepticism about TM. This kind of issues will fit there because this is fundamentally what it is about. The fact that TM uses these numbers for promotional purpose is not a big deal. It's normal. An inclusion of this thesis in the article, even if we know it to be true, is a sceptic attitude. I will give you an analogy. A married man visit a woman friend in the evening. His wife is aware of it, etc. There is nothing there. However, if you write this fact in a paper about the man without any explanation, then it can be interpreted differently because people will rightfully think "if it is mentioned in the article, it is something important and there must be something else, perhaps illicit, going on." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.154.243 (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposed language fundamentally mispresents the conclusions of the meta-analyses. Fladrif (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New version:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. The most research rmeta-analyses found that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.

This attempts to meet Will's points, and also addresses Doc James's, whose comment made me realize that we don't currently have any info in the article on the comparisons with simple relaxation. Will, regarding the distinction between studies and clinical research: there are two types of research, one called basic research that looks at physiological changes. Scientists find this interesting and meaningful in and of itself. Any health implications are conjectural and peripheral. Clinical research looks at specific health and cognitive applications. There was a large amount of basic research in the 1970s and 1980s by many different scientists. There was also some clinical research. In the last couple decades or so, there's been much more clinical research than basic research.

I think the IP has a good point. Will, please address it. Per the IP's comment, I've moved the material on promotion to make it less prominent. But it probably should be deleted as a violation of WP:SYNTHl TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(i) You have not answered my objection. The proposed language fundamentally, and in direct violation of WP:MEDRS misrepresents the findings of the meta-analyses. Fladrif (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• The most research rmeta-analyses found that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.

Is there a word missing?   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Yes. I meant "The most recent research meta-analyses." Here it is with correction:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies on the physiological effects have found specific changes, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being. The most research rmeta-analyses found that TM lowers blood pressure a small amount.

I made a slight change in wording to try to distinguish between the basic research and clinical research. It occurs to me that it still doesn't encompass behavioral research, such as criminal rehab, but maybe the word "mind" covers that. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. As a long-term contributor to this ever-changing project, I have a bit of an allergy to the term "recent". Many editors delete that word on sight because it becomes dated so quickly. Further, we're interested in all reviews, not just the most recent.   Will Beback  talk  11:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS says to use the most recent research reviews. But it doesn't really matter, because the three meta-analyses that have been done have all found lower blood pressure. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...the three meta-analyses that have been done... Only three meta-analyses have been done? And they all agree on significant results? Giving the same outcome as mere restfulness isn't quite the same as showing a special outcome. Is this the best approach to summarizing all research on TM?   Will Beback  talk  11:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The three meta-analyses did not find that TM reduces blood pressure. First of all, that misprepresents what a metaanslysis is. Second, it misrepresents what the metaanalyses actually did find. Third, it is cherry picking Fladrif (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We summarize the best available research in the lead. That is what we have done and that is what we should continue to do. I have separated the bit about the number of studies from the actual conclusions of the few good reviews. In sciencentific conclusions we do not care about the number of studies done or how often something is used by the lay public as this has no direct bearing on the conclusion. A lot of bad studies combined together never equals one good study. The null hypothesis is assumed until evidence shows otherwise thus "Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc, if you're quoting a guideline, I'm not familiar with it. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be more general and and summarize, not simply present two specific reviews. Perhaps most problematic, it presents only one point of view. This violates the core Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. The version that we pretty much agreed upon (except for the blood pressure part) does that. Instead of mentioning a particular review, it states the conclusion of that review and many other reviews: that firm conclusions can't be drawn and that more research needs to be done. The studies themselves generally say that. This is a general, all-encompassing statement. In addition, there are scores or perhaps hundreds of research reviews that discuss specific studies and say that the results are suggestive. And some of those reviews are in this article. Plus, there are the 2007 and 2008 meta-analyses published in Current Hypertension Reports and American Journal of Hypertension that do draw a conclusion. Will, I don't know of a meta-analysis that compared TM and simple relaxation. Which one are you referring to? There have been 7 meta-analyses on TM and blood pressure, 5 of those in AHRQ. Of the 7 meta-analyses, 5 have found a reduction. Here's a new version that for now leaves out blood pressure:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but further research is needed.

What do you think? It's more general, represents the entire section, and literally quotes AHRQ's bottom line. And in this revised version ends with an additional qualifying phrase from AHRQ. Please, I'm trying hard to accommodate everyone. TimidGuy (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly objectionable there, but my eyes glaze over every time we start talking about studies so I'm not the best judge. I have a small concern with the last clause: "but further research is needed". That seems to be either a uselessly general statement that might apply to almost any research topic, or an opinion, in which case it should be attributed. Maybe, but reviewers say that further research is needed", or something like that. Or leave it out. Also, I suggest we move the first clause to another paragraph. The popularity of the technique and the amount of research are probably connected to some degree, but not directly. We already say that 4 million people had learned TM by 1998, and the popularity clause is more closely related to that. We could merge them in a different paragraph.   Will Beback  talk  11:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That first clause might also be suitable as part of the lead. Perhaps "Transcendental Meditation, or TM, was introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and is now one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques."   Will Beback  talk  12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that there are too much research that is not preliminary for the second sentence to be used as representative of the various conclusions in the available meta analyses. I would suggest

TM has been reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Some meta analyses with strict standard for clinical research excluded most of the research on meditation and thus could not draw any conclusion. Others, less restrictive, have found specific physiological effects. Clinical studies have suggested a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but the authors added that further research is needed.

Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with what we have now and see no reason to change it. It summarizes the position of the majority of the scientific community. That evidence does not support TM having a positive effect on health. If we add anything we should add "Meta-anlayses of the research found that the effects of TM are no greater than health education regarding blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, or level of physical activity in hypertensive patients." We could also ask over at WP:MED how to best summarize the research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "It summarizes the position of the majority of the scientific community." It may be true. I don't know. In any case, this is not the way we determine what is included in a Wikipedia article. We must refer to the secondary sources on the subject, in this case, the systematic reviews on meditation and TM. All the POV supported in the various secondary sources must be presented in the article, not just one. Each POV should be given a prominence that is proportional to how much it appears in the various systematic reviews. We should not try to focus on one POV because we think we know that it is the POV of the majority of the scientific community. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, back to TimidGuy last proposal, if we can have a consensus on this paragraph as being the complete summary of the research on TM in the Intro, I am willing to accept it with the first clause removed as suggested by Will BeBack. Will Beback further noted that the last clause is not attributed. I can add that the second sentence is also not attributed. Usually, controversial statements should be explicitly attributed such as "A report on one meta-analysis prepared for the AHRQ stated ..." It would be much better to attribute them, if possible. However, here because TimidGuy succeeded to find a wording that is not too controversial, I would tolerate these clauses without attribution. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noted that the 2007 report submitted to the AHRQ, has been the subject of a paper in a peer reviewed journal. The report and the paper are different, even though it is the same meta-analysis. The peer-review process made a difference. In particular, I could not find in the paper the statement that TM has no advantage over health education regarding blood pressure, body weight, etc. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Page 19 of PMID: 17764203 "TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients" This AHRQ report represents the consensus of the majority of the scientific community and thus is give more weight. It is one of the few studies which is independent of the TM organization itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked PMID: 17764203 and PubMed says that the journal is Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). I looked further and the publisher is the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, a US agency. I tried to find information about this journal. Usually, a journal is proud to say who is the chief editor, the editors, what is the peer review process, what are the criteria to respect for submission to the journal, etc., but could not find anything. Journals usually have a web site where all this information is available. Is there another name for this journal? Also, the term "report" is usually used for non reviewed publications. You know when you are a Ph.D. student and you need to have publications before you get your degree, which is the case in some universities, they tell you that a report does not count as a publication. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the argument here that a publication of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an "EPC Evidence Report",[6] is not a reliable source for medical information?   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. I do not like to suppress sources. The point is that when we have two publications for a same meta-analysis, one as a report and the other as a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, then one must ask why a supposedly important statement would be in the report and not in the paper? Maybe the statement was not so important, after all. Note that the university that hosted the research, I guess received the funding for it, is the same for the paper as for the report, totally independent from TM. All the authors of the report with a Ph.D. degree, except one, were also authors of the paper. The paper had four additional authors with a Ph.D. degree. In addition, the paper had a full review process. It seems to me that the paper had only a chance to be less biased than the report. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then, you're not arguing that the AHRQ report is unreliable. Are you arguing that both the versions are biased, and one is less biased then the other? If so then what is the nature of this bias, and what evidence is there for it?   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this input Edith. For a non-scientist, I am finding this discussion very interesting and I am looking forward to you answer to Will's question above. --BwB (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's any more to be said about claims of bias by the AHRQ then we should air them now. Maybe it was just my misreading of ESL's statement?   Will Beback  talk  12:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My statement that "the [peer-reviewed] paper can only be less biased than the AHRQ report" was not hiding anything. It meant exactly what it says. I only wanted to compare the relative weight that we must give to the different reliable sources. It was just a comparison: when you say X is smaller than Y, you don't say anything about the value of Y in itself. The peer review process is fundamental in science, as one can see by searching Google with "peer review in science". In addition, having editors that are independent from governmental agencies and other institutions, such as it is the case in standard journals, can only be a good thing.

With regard to the independence of the authors themselves from specific institutions, we should consider all possible biases. Therefore, it is excellent that a publication has some authors that are pro-TM and others that might have a more sceptic attitude. This balanced situation has been the case for so many studies on TM. There are also a few studies where none of the authors were affiliated with TM, which is significant when the conclusion is pro-TM. Also, let us keep in mind that a peer-reviewed publication includes the indirect contributions of the independent reviewers. The reviewers do not only check the paper for correctness, but also they help in removing partial or unclear statements (i.e. that can easily be misinterpreted) from it. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So, just to make it clear then, you're saying that the AHRQ is not biased. Is that correct? If not, please explain the nature and evidence of this bias.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I would agree with those changes. You and I have agreed on this compromise version, with Doc and Edith holding out for versions that weigh one or the other point of view more heavily. I say we go with this compromise version for now. Doc and Edith, in the spirit of compromise would you go along with making this change? Per NPOV it has to change because there are many points of view that are not now represented in that paragraph. The beauty of the draft version is that it is something that almost everyone would agree with, including the researchers themselves. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I do try to be agreeable. We agree to..? rewrite the lead sentence to incorporate the first clause as proposed above, attribute the last clause per above, and otherwise use the text as last proposed? Sure, sounds good to me.   Will Beback  talk  11:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New version to be included in the article since it appears to be supported by a majority:

TM has been reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being, but the authors say further research is needed.

This might be temporary, until we agree on another version that we feel is more representative of the different POVs found in the available reliable secondary sources. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

These paragraphs were removed:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, with over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals.

A 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for the treatment of anxiety.

Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No consensus for the above change. We should provide the conclusions of the best available independent evidence. Effects of TM have not been reliably found. We should add "TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients" back in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Best" and "independent" are words that rely on opinion per the TM articles. The lead should summarize what is in the article which is a more objective criteria for wording and complies with WP:Lead.(olive (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

The edits made are not to what I agreed with above.   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We could ask for outside opinions. I think those at WP:MED already indicated though that AHRQ was by far the best source available. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Will, please tell me if this accurately represents your suggestions:

TM is among the most widely researched. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects. Clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being.

And relocate the current first clause as you described. Does that do it? Seems like we pretty much have a consensus except for Doc. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is not just me who disagree with changing it. Many of the editors over WP:MED agreed with the current version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Doc James. I do not agree with the proposed changes. The current text is the result of long discussion and consensus on this board and on the WP:MED board, and accurately and appropriately represents the state of the research as assessed by the highest and most reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. It should not be changed in the manner proposed. Fladrif (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd really rather defer to others on most of these study issues. IIRC, James is the only one here who claims any medical and scientific training, and so I'm happy to let him figure this out. In layman's terms, it looks like this issue has to do with giving equal weight to reviews of unequal quality and prestige. I'll agree to whatever you folks work out.   Will Beback  talk  12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What is now in place in the lead now is not acceptable. It does not summarize the content in this article on the research and therefore presents a biased slanted view. Further, I don't see agreement for the change. Finally, editors here carry weight in terms of their opinions and must not be overlooked in favour of views of editors who may not have knowledge of the article. With all respect to Doc James, input from all editors both on the Notice boards and on this article must be considered in order that we have NPOV. If the paragraph in the lead does not move to more neutral wording we should move to mediation.(olive (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

I must agree, especially with regard to research. Right now, what we have about research in the Intro is a statement about the number of studies, journals and institutions followed by statements from two reviews that say that the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality and TM is not better than relaxation therapy. The first statement, supposedly pro-TM, in fact only says something about the number of publications and their quality (indirectly by referring to the number of journals and independent institutions.) Therefore, the intro contains two POVs about the quality of the research, but only one POV about the effectiveness of TM or lack thereof. The effectiveness of TM (or lack thereof) is the central issue. The quality of the research is important, but complementary. We should also have two POVs about the effectiveness of TM, in accordance with WP:NPV.

Currently, some argue that the AHRQ and the Cochrane publications can be the only sources about the effectiveness of TM. This is ridiculous. It is obviously against WP:NPV. How is it possible that we are even arguing about this? These two publications were only about meditations in clinical settings, you know, for people that go to a clinic to treat some health issue. This is not representative of the common settings were TM is used. In addition, the AHRQ report was not even peer reviewed and, again, having editors that are independent from governmental agencies and other institutions is only a good thing. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent)We have many times gotten outside opinions. We have reached the current version based on outside opinion. If you do not like the conclusions here please ask on one of the boards such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or at WT:MED. We have gone over this many times. I have also made this suggestion many times. We know the opinions of everyone here without really even asking. Yes we know the TM organization disagrees with the AHRQ report and Cochrane. They however much more closely represents the opinions of those not related to the TM movement ( as they are published by those not related to the TM movement and are some of the most highly respected publication in the world ). When it comes to health claims the opinion of the majority of experts in the field of health is who we shall summarize.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for further comments here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#AHRQ_and_Transcendental_Meditation Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary for lead

What about the following to summarize the research?

TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Systematic reviews have found that it has specific physiological effects and a range of benefits on health and mental well-being. The TM organisation says that this research includes more than 200 scientific studies published in peer review journals. However, in clinical settings, a 2007 review of meditation reported that the definitive effects of meditation as an healthcare practice cannot be determined as the field of research on meditation techniques and their therapeutic applications has been clouded by a lack of methodological rigour. Similarly, in an systematic analysis of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders, a 2006 Cochrane review found that only two randomised controlled studies were eligible for inclusion. Only one of these two studies involved TM. In this study published in 1980, TM showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy. The review states that no conclusion can be drawn.

It gives a lot of weight to the recent analyses of meditation in healthcare settings, but it was the only way to include the AHRQ and Cochrane reviews while provoding crucial information about them. I wanted to include them in the hope to achieve a consensus, even though this is undue weight toward the clinical settings. In the Cochrane review, the fact that only two studies were eligible is their most important conclusion. It is the first thing mentioned in their conclusion and it is obviously something that must be known. The fact that TM was comparable to relaxion therapy in one of the studies is secondary because, ultimately, the authors conclude at the end that the small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Too wordy in my opinion. How much research has been done is secondary to the actual result and quality of said research. These need to be addressed more directly.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you accept that we do not worry too much about the style at this stage? I agree it is too wordy, but I think we must focus on having an agreement on what is being said, without worry too much about the style, at this stage. Within some limits, I would not worry too much about the length of the paragraph either. If we can agree explicitly on one paragraph that sum up the research, this will be a great accomplishment, a basis for a more condensed version in a different style. If you want, do propose a different wording. I might not agree, but at the least we will see the issues are only at that level.

With regard to the numbers of studies, we attribute it to the TM movement. I agree that it would not be acceptable to say "There are more than 200 ...", not because it is false, but because truth is not a valid criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. The criteria is verifiability, relevancy, etc. What is relevant and verifiable is that "The TM organisation says that there are more than 200 ...". It gives a context for the discussions of the research after. This being said, if we can agree on the remainder of the paragraph, I would not mind that much that we don't include such a statement in the lead.

In general, I believe that most statements that are pro-TM or con-TM should be explicitly attributed to their source in some way. The exceptions are statements which fairly represent the main conclusions in peer-reviewed journals, but then we must be careful to pick statements that are as impartial as possible to present these conclusions. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Further summary

How about this to sum up the research:

Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigour. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to suppress any POV with a reliable source. Provide reliable sources and if they are notable, clearly representative of a large group, we will include them. I am an inclusionist. I love to include POVs. I see no problem there. It is fun. Beside, if they really have a notable and reliable source, the information is already out there. Nobody gains anything to try to discard them. It is more interesting to include them. What I am against is when people feel so strongly that some POVs should not be represented in an article or incorrectly attributed so as to discredit them. This is an article about TM ! Why do want to exclude all the studies that have some authors that are working for the TM organisation? Perhaps you would change your mind and accept to include them, if we attribute them to the TM organisation. This would also not be acceptable. They have been published in peer reviewed journals, with an editor that is not working for the TM organisation and with reviewers that are not working for the TM organisation, not to mention that often they also have authors that are not working for the TM organization. Please consider again the proposals above, including the one of TimidGuy. Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And how about my proposal above... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, if it was not for the Assume Good Faith policy, I would have thought that this paragraph was only sarcasm on your side. Well, we must start somewhere. Since Will Beback ultimately relies on scientists for the final decision for anything that involves research, it is good that you are actively involved in the discussion. So, we can start from where you want. However, I would not start on it without making sure that at the least TimidGuy also thinks it is a good idea. The first step would obviously be that you provide the papers and even the exact paragraphs that you use as sources for each POV you have in this paragraph. We will make sure that they are properly attributed and they respect what was really meant in the sources. We will need to add additional POVs. At the end, we might have something interesting. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph actually summarizes the research very well. All this content is already in the article. I do not see the previous suggestions being referenced.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if we reference the previous suggestion, that will help you. Why didn't you say it before? Should we proceed this way with the previous suggestion? As I said, as far as I am concerned, we can start where you want. You are trying to get a consensus, right? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but a consensus that stretches beyond this talk page to the whole Wikipedia community. We had other weight in to get to where we are now. We cannot change the substance without getting their opinions again.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc, your summary isn't at all accurate. I know of only three RCTs comparing TM with relaxation: Raskin and two by Schneider. Raskin found both TM and relaxation therapy reduced anxiety. And two high-quality (per AHRQ) RCTs by Schneider that found that TM significantly reduced blood pressure compared to progressive muscle relaxation. On what basis do you say that there's no benefit beyond relaxation? TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on Cochrane and AHRQ. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the main conclusion of the Cochrane review: "Only two randomised controlled studies were eligible for inclusion." This is the first sentence in the conclusion. This is also what is the most striking about this review. The author's conclusion is that "no conclusion can be drawn." Clearly, if no conclusion can be drawn, they have no evidence (in accordance with their standard) for the statement that "there's no benefit beyond relaxation." So, it is only in reference to Raskin that they mention something about TM and other approaches. The exact statement in Raskin is "TM showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy." I think you confuse "electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy" with "relaxation". They are not the samething. So, after adjusting the first statement to its correct source, we have this new version:

In a 1980 study, TM showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigour. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.

I do not agree with the paragraph yet, but it is a step ahead. The first sentence is attributed to Raskin, since it makes no sense to attribute it to the Cochrane review, which explicitly says that it cannot draw any conclusion. The second sentence seems to come from the AHRQ meta-analysis. We should perhaps add the main conclusions of the Cochrane review as well since it will give a much required context to the first sentence in accordance with WP:MEDRS. The conclusions of pro-TM recent meta-analyses should also be added as well in accordance with WP:NPV and WP:MEDRS.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In science the null hypothesis is assumed until prove otherwise. Thus we can say evidence does not show a benefit beyond relaxation ( the null hypothesis ) until evidence says it does. What I propose is that we each put together our best summary of the science for the lead with refs than create an RFC and give the wider community a chance to comment.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan sexual orientation

Sexual orientation hardly seems relavent to comments about TM. Although Sullivan openly discusses sprituality and gay orientation does he discuss TM and being gay. This section reads oddly to me as if we are trying to make some kind of point. A person's sexuality isn't our business nor should it be implied that it is. At any rate this is just a comment we might want to consider. I don't see it as critical, just odd.(olive (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

I suppose that, to the extent Sullivan's comments are intended to convey his opinion, as a layman, that the practice of TM is not incompatible with his practice of Roman Catholicism, the editor who added this thought it was fair game to raise the question of whether, as an openly gay man, he is actually practicing Roman Catholicism. I take it that to be the point of whomever added the description of Sullivan. Perhaps I misunderstand. That being said, I find it an odd distraction, and would not have made that addition myself. The question raises for me a more fundamental point. Andrew Sullivan is certainly a notable person, and he frequently writes about issues of religion, but he is at base a political commentator, not an expert on religion and certainly not a spokesman for the Catholic Church. His personal views, expressed in a blog, about the compatibility or lack of compatability between TM and his faith as he understands and practices it, are precisely that - his personal views about his personal views - and nothing more. He says as much, criticizing the Catholic Church for not being quite so catholic as he. Other than that he has a soapbox, are his views about his own religous beliefs, which he admits to being at odds with official doctrine on a number of points, any more relevant than yours or mine I question whether this is relevant or notable within the context of this article. Perhaps the better course is simply to delete the passage entirely. Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan is being used as a source for what is acceptable within the Roman Catholic faith. His homosexuality is not a minor part of his persona. It is major part of his commentary on his blog, much more than his religious affiliation. As Fladrif says, the fact that he also (apparently) considers homosexuality to be compatible with Catholicism is relevant because he does not hold conventionally orthodox views. We could add a sentence on the issue if that's too cryptic, but that might be giving Sullivan too much weight.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Will, you deleted all references to James Randi being a magician. That, too, is an important part of his persona. How are the two situations different? TimidGuy (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The two situations are quite different. Randi's former career was as a magician. So was Doug Henning's. One of them was a believer while the other is a skeptic, which indicates the job does not necessarily affect one's view of TM. Granted, Harry Houdini was also a skeptic when it came to spiritual issues, but we clearly identify Randi as a skeptic so it isn't a hidden POV. Obviously, a sexual orientation is different than a job. Sullivan is being presented as someone with a significant view on the relationship between TM and Catholicism. But his view that his sexuality is compatible with Catholicism is a minority view that is not shared by the vast majority of officials of the church. It is literally "unorthodox". Likewise, we identify the job title of Jaime Sin because that job (unlike Randi's former career) is relevant to the significance of his view. There are other ways in which we could indicate Sullivan's lack of orthodoxy, but all of them would require more verbiage. If you'd like to propose some language to that effect I'd be interested.   Will Beback  talk  11:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just remove the Sullivan POV entirely. I agree with Flads comments above "Perhaps the better course is simply to delete the passage entirely." --BwB (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We are making jumps in logic that constitute OR when we say, "But his view that his sexuality is compatible with Catholicism is a minority view that is not shared by the vast majority of officials of the church. It is literally 'unorthodox'. as an argument for including this information. I guess I would say, so what if his views are un orthodox on Catholicism and homosexuality... We can't then say, lets extend this view by association to TM...If he talks about TM and homosexuality great, include it, if not doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Its not a big deal, but just seems very incorrect per Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

Not really. Sullivan's views on what is and is not compatible with Catholicism are, by his own acknowledgement, unorthodox, unofficial and frequently in direct contradiction of church teaching. He's not claiming that the practice of TM is compatible with orthodox Catholicism; he's claiming that its compatible with his own beliefs. He specifically complains that the church is not as open to things like TM as he thinks it ought to be, acknowledging that his views on TM's compatibility with Catholicism are unorthodox as well. Fladrif (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, Sullivan comment - in or out? --BwB (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the Sullivan content. The concern is whether his sexual orientation is needed and is pertinent contextual information. One wonders if in all instances where we use the opinion of an individual we should add the their sexual orientation. Aren't we getting a little personal. Their orientation may very well influence them, but its always a jump for us to say so unless the sources makes that direct connection. Catholicism isn't the issue here nor is unorthodoxy. What is is TM, and sexual orientation.(olive (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

Is a sexual orientation more personal than a religious affiliation, or a mantra? How relevant to his opinion is the fact that he is "a political commentator for The Atlantic" Does being a political commentator give one expertise in this field? We cite James Wolcott in support of the material, but Wolcott is also notable, and says he practices TM too. He welcomes Sullivan to the "broad-minded, multi-denominational coalition of bliss bubblers", and tells him that he will now have to accept David Lynch as his personal savior, prance to the "rainbow melodies of Donovan", appreciate Moby, and "nod knowingly" at every mention of the unified "field". Does that material belong here or should we put it in the movement article instead?   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to cite Sullivan's sexual orientation than we may also need to cite the sexual preferences of authors mentioned in the article. Or we risk using OR to discriminate against a gay man, create undue weight and POV.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that there is the same kind of relevance with other commentators. As I wrote before, saying he is an openly gay Catholic is a short-hand way of showing that he does not agree with all of the church's teachings. The Sullivan bio says "Sullivan identifies himself as a faithful Catholic while disagreeing with some aspects of the Vatican's position." We could use that as a more verbose way of making the same point, though that particular sentence is unfortunately not sourced directly. What should we do with the Wolcott material?   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Catholic church opposes homosexuality.The Catholic church "teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care."[7] TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the same as Sullivan's position. Not even close.   Will Beback  talk  12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by continued references to Sullivan and Catholicism. Is the article in question about Catholicicsm...Nahhhh. Its about TM.

I completely disagree with using so called short hand which sounds more like jumps in logic and drawing conclusions. Gay priest, is short hand for not agreeing with the church's teachings... No. I don't see that. A gay priest might or might not agree with the RC Church's teaching, unless gay people choose their gayness despite whatever is taught. Is there anybody here uneducated enough or prejudiced enough to believe that. Gayness is not a choice. Choosing to support doctrines is.

If its clearly a pertinent aspect of the context of Sullivan's comment on TM, and I don't see that, we need to spell it out. I don't think the short hand version gives the reader any real or accurate information.(olive (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

Olive, we're discussing a section of the article that mostly addresses the issue of the compatibility of TM with Christianity. I believe you added or wrote a good part of it, and we've discussed it extensively, so I'm not sure why you're expressing disbelief about its contents. The Catholic Church believes that homosexual activity and same-sex marriage are sins. Sullivan does not. He believes that he can engage in activities prohibited by the church and still stay in full communion, if I understand correctly.

We're not citing Sullivan because he's a political commentator or because he's gay. We're citing him because he's written extensively about religion, albeit from an unorthodox perspective. If we can find another way of conveying that he is not a conventional Catholic then I'd be fine with that instead, but I haven't seen any proposals.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase. First, Walcott is not a good source. It is a blog, a self-published sourced. Since Walcott is a notable person published in secondary sources, his blog can be used as a SPS about what he says about himself. He is being cited as a source for what Sullivan - a third person - belives. That is not permitted. The source does not qualify. Second, as to Sullivan, same standard. He can be cited for what he believes. His blog can't be cited as a source for what the Catholic Church teaches or what it thinks. He doesn't claim that it is. My impression is that the sentence was added by one editor to suggest that TM is compatible with Catholicism, and the bit about his sexual orientation by another editor to suggest that whatever he thinks ain't the official line. The source is being misused and the text very misleading. Sullivan can't be cited as a source for what is or isn't compatible with orthodox Catholicism. He explicitly says that his own views aren't the official line, and he wishes that the official line was as open minded as his on things like TM. His other writings are quire direct in describing both his affection for, and alienation from, the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons, it position on homosexuality being only one of them. Are his personal views notable or relevant for purposes of this article? I'm inclined to say, "No". Fladrif (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point about Wolcott - we can't use him as a source for Sullivan. I'm not sure if he's even serious about himself being a TM practitioner, seeing as he is so dismissive of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

how about we just remove the Sullivan text and end the debate? --BwB (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That'd be simplest solution. It's just a blog posting, after all.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Fees in lede?

I am not sure if it is necessary to mention fees in the first paragraph of the lede. Do others have any thought on the matter? --BwB (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Anywhere in the intro is fine with me.   Will Beback  talk  12:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of mentioning the price? It is not very useful to mention it. We do not sale TM. I agree that there is a controversy about whether TM should be more affordable. Mentioning the price anywhere in the lead imply this controversy because it achieves no other purpose. I don't think this controversy has a place in the lead. In any case, to include this controversy, we would have to provide citation and a balanced view. 67.230.154.243 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to cite things in the intro, as they should be already cited in the text. If we say that there is a controversy, what would be the "balanced view" - that there is no controversy? Also, we're not trying to provide "useful" information. We're just trying to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. And this issue has been widely reported. It's already been discussed at great length over the past year. I suggest visiting the talk page archives.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was so clear already, why was it added only recently by you and was not there the last few months before that? Any way, I received an (automatic) request to create an account and since my original intention was only to make a few contributions, not to be a permanent editor, I will have to say bye bye. Sorry, if I do not reply to any further comment about these contributions. 67.230.154.243 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following text for the lede re fees: "Fees are charged to learn Transcendental Meditation, which vary by country." OK? --BwB (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That omits important issues. If we followed that pattern, we might say about the research, "Research has been conducted on TM, and the results have varied." That wouldn't tell the read much, nor does that suggestion, which seems to ignore the past months of discussion. Raising the same issues over and over isn't helpful editing.   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What "important issues" are omitted? We are telling the reader that TM is not free, that one has to pay a fee to learn and that the fee varies by country. Then we give more detail in the appropriate section. I just think it unnecessary to mention the fees in the opening paragraph of the article, but I am not going to fight about it further. --BwB (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't care where in the intro we mention the fees controversy, but we should include it because it's one of the more prominent controversies about the technique. Which we all know because we've discussed this already - remember?   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal of BwB is an improvement. I am not sure that even mentioning the fee at all in the intro is justified. Can someone provide reliable sources to support that we give so much weight to the fee? This info is supposedly important because of an important controversy. If that is the case, we need reliable sources for the controversy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mantra Meditation

Can we replace the statement "The TM technique is a form of mantra meditation" in the first paragraph of the lead by "TM is a trademarked meditation technique"? The same paragraph says that the TM procedure involves a mantra, so "mantra meditation" is repetitive. Moreover, the expression "mantra meditation" is not commonly used to describe TM. I sympathize with the desire to characterize TM in the first sentence, but, unless we agree to use the sentence "a simple, effortless and natural technique" as a way to characterize it, I think the best we can do on this respect is to say that it is trademarked.

Some reviews of research on meditations used the category "mantra meditation", but this has raised controversy. The procedure itself appears more important as a way to characterize a meditation. For example, Lutz, Slagter, Dunne and Davidson define two categories of meditation to help research on meditation, but do not mention even once the word "mantra" (see ref 1 just below). Instead, the categories are based upon whether focused attention or open monitoring is required. Later, Travis and Shear added a third category of meditation, automatic self-transcending, and a way to distinguish these three categories using EEG pattern (see ref 2). Again, the use of a mantra was not used to distinguish these three categories.

ref 1: Lutz A, Slagter HA, Dunne JD and Davidson RJ, "Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation", Trends Cogn Sci. (2008).

ref 2: Travis F and Shear J. "Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending: Categories to organize meditations from Vedic, Buddhist and Chinese traditions", Consciousness and Cognition (2010). 67.230.154.243 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How is being trademarked more important than using a mantra? The trademark is a minor commercial and legal issue that does not affect the meditation itself. Guru Dev did not rediscover a trademarked meditation technique, and MMY did not teach a trademarked technique in the 1950s. The trademark has received relatively little attention, except in the context of the general commercialization of the teaching process. What you've listed above sounds like it might be the basis of a paragraph on the nature or characterization of the technique, but I don't see it as a reason to change the lead. There are countless sources that describe the TM technique as involving a mantra.

PS: Could you please register an account?   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Trademarked is not more important, but we mention the use of a mantra explicitly in the next sentence, so in that context mentioning the use of a trademark is more useful. At the least it adds something. If we do not even agree on this minimal characterisation, which I can respect, then we can say "The TM technique was introduced ..." and skip the "mantra meditation" or any other characterisation. "Mantra meditation" is simply a bad way to characterize TM. It is not commonly characterised in this way. Sorry, I am not replying anymore. These were just a few contributions. I do not intend to become a permanent editor. 67.230.154.243 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You probably have more experience and knowledge in this field than I do. But in the dozens or hundreds of articles I've seen in popular and scholarly publications, "mantra meditation" seems to be a common categorization applied to TM. While I'm sure there are publications that don't use that term, of those that describe what kind of meditation it is, "mantra meditation" looks typical. Even Fred Travis has categorized TM as mantra meditation.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is not finished. Please provide the reference to Travis, so that I can see the context. We have other issues that are going on, so it goes slowly, but this does not mean that the question how to best qualify TM when it appears first in the Intro is not important. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Constructed POV about the use of research

The following sentence is a POV that is built by combining many separate published material. It is a synthesis. In fact much of the cited material is pro-TM. So, clearly this is original research. We need a citation for that constructed POV. Moreover, even if we find a citation, it is not directly about the research, but about how it is used, so it does not fit in the Researh section.

The quantity of studies have been cited to support the political programs of the Natural Law Party,[112][113] the tax status of a TM institution,[114] the use of TM to rehabilitate prisoners,[115] the teaching of TM in schools,[116] the issuance of bonds to finance the movement,[117] as proof that TM is a science rather than a religion,[118] to show the efficacy of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health,[119] and as a reason to practice TM itself.[120]

67.230.154.243 (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a POV, it's facts. The entire article is made up of facts combined from separate publications. How the research is used is just as important as the contents of the research. We have many sources that discuss how frequently cited these sources are in various contexts. This was discussed before - could you please try to read some of the recent discussions, at least, before demanding that we re-write the article?   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No its a POV, an original research, not a very deep research, but yet an original research. The subject of TM is noteworthy. We have plenty of publications specifically on TM to prove it. The subject "The research on TM is used to promote TM" is not. You created it by combining publications that are not at all about it. Most of these publications are pro TM and certainly this subject is not a part of these publications. 67.230.154.243 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the POV? That the movement cites the research to support a variety of endeavors? We have sources who say that directly, and we have numerous instances to illustrate that. SeeTalk:Transcendental Meditation/promotion of studies These are just a few.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't say it explicitly. They might say there are many studies on the benefits of TM, but they don't say the TMM uses these studies to promote TM. This is day and night, completely different intentions, almost opposite. The statement that TMM uses these studies to promote TM is your original research, trivial, but still original research. A trivial original research is not more acceptable than a non trivial one. If it is non trivial, at the least the purpose of the editor was perhaps only to present its own non trivial research for its intrinsic value. If it is trivial, what is the purpose of including this original thesis? In any case, trivial or non trivial is irrelevant. The fact that the editors think it is important is also irrelevant. Original research is simply not allowed. 67.230.154.243 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do say it. Explicitly. The TM Org uses these studies to promote TM in all of the ways enumerated. It is a fact, not an opinion, and more than adequately documented and referenced. This section is neither original research nor pushing a non-neutral POV. As Will suggested earlier, please read the discussion archives if you are unfamiliar with them. Please read the sources, which you have not bothered to address. Read the ArbCom decision, whether or not you were party to it. Please get a user ID. Fladrif (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• MIU officials have hundreds of charts, graphs and scientific studies to validate such claims.
• Although promoters claim 500 studies back up transcendental meditation, no one has committed money.
• Administrators defensively pull out study after study to bolster their claims about meditation's ability to help people transcend normal states of consciousness and even increase their I.Q. scores.
• TM counters with a massive four-volume series of "scientific studies" proving that TM's effects are objectively verifiable...
• The platform is heavily footnoted and notes that more than 500 studies, conducted at more than 200 independent universities and research institutions, have been conducted on the benefits of TM.
• Ask why, and you'll be told about some 500 studies over the last 20 years, all testifying to the efficacy of TM in relieving anxiety, depression, insomnia and a number of other stress-related conditions.
• ...the Maharishi School asserts that more than 500 scientific research studies support the benefits of transcendental meditation and other offerings of the Maharishi School...
• Although the movement quotes the "600 studies" in its favor, some have been criticized for bias and a lack of scientific evidence.
• According to the Maharishi and his researchers - who frequently cite published scientific studies - the number of meditators needed for peace is the square root of 1 percent of a given population.
• In fact, the movement has cited 508 individual scientific studies conducted since the 1970s, measuring psychological and physiological differences between meditators and non-meditators.
• At least 600 "research studies" into TM have been conducted in the last four decades, according to Maharishi's promotional literature... These are offered as proof that TM is valid and its effects measurable.
• Nearly every conversation, whether it concerned elementary-school academic performance or cholesterol or crime-rate reduction, at some point included the phrase "There was this study.... "

And so on.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I do not disagree with all these facts, but, I insist, the corresponding documents are not explicitly saying that the TM organisation uses the studies to promote TM. It would make no sense that they do so because it is a statement that would be pointless for them to make. They are mostly pro-TM documents. I personally conclude from these facts and documents that the TM organisation does use these studies to promote TM. However, the fact that I agree with it or that anyone else agree with it is irrelevant. It remains a conclusion that is draw from these facts. This distinction is very important. It makes a big difference. The criteria for inclusion of a POV in an article is not truth. Your argument is used to convince us about the truth of the statement that TM uses these studies to promote TM, but this is not a criteria for inclusion. You must provide a citation for the statement, not to prove that it is true, but to prove that it is noteworthy. You have absolutely no citation at all to support that this statement is noteworthy. I am not playing with the policy to defy its purpose. To the contrary, the purpose of a citation is to guarantee that any POV included is not only true, but also noteworthy. I understand that you are convinced that it is important to mention it, that it is noteworthy, but I am not and what we must use to determine if it is noteworthy is the existence of a citation for it. There is no statement expressing in any way this POV in the published literature and therefore it should not appear in the article. 67.230.155.10 (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The text currently says, Leading individuals and organizations associated with TM cite the existence of many studies,... to support TM-related concepts. That is amply supported by the excerpts posted on the subpage. The excerpts above show that those citations have been frequently noted in independent sources, which shows the notability of the material.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the unamed IP user how his theories apply to this sentence:

• Research on Transcendental Meditation has been published in medical journals such as Archives of Internal Medicine[121] (a journal of the American Medical Association), Stroke[122] (a journal of the American Heart Association), Hypertension[123] (a journal of the American Heart Association), the American Journal of Hypertension,[124][125][126] the American Journal of Cardiology,[127] and the International Journal of Psychophysiology.[128

It seems pretty similar.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In this sentence, the quality of the research is promoted. The sentence does not say at all that the TM organisation used this research to promote TM. It does not even say that the TM organisation promotes the research on TM. One can conclude from it that the TM organisation does promote the research on TM, but it does not directly say it. Again, this distinction is practical and significant. This is not playing with the policy. In a previous sentence, you say that "[the POV that TNM uses studies to promote TM] is amply supported by the excerpts posted on the subpage", but it is not, not in the way that is requested in the Wikipedia policy. When a person uses "charts, graphs and scientific studies" to promote TM, this person is not saying "the TM organisation uses scientific studies to promote TM products". The purpose of using charts is most likely to promote TM, whereas the purpose of the latter statement can be completely different. Perhaps the purpose is to bring out scepticism by pointing out that the TM organisation has a possible motivation to bias the research. This would mean that we are using pro-TM material to support a con-TM POV, which obviously does not respect Wikipedia policy. We all can guess that your purpose is not pro-TM, which is fine. It does not matter. We are not there to evaluate the intention of the editors. The policy is there to protect against any possible constructed POV of the editors, irrespectively of their intention. To respect this policy, it would be sufficient that you provide a direct citation for the otherwise constructed POV, say a statement by Carl Sagan that says explicitly "The TM organisation uses studies to promote TM products", assuming that such a statement exists and is verifiable. This would be completely different because now we would be able to attach the POV to Carl Sagan, a notable sceptic. As it is now, the statement is a constructed POV that is not attached to a person or an organisation. Some statements do not need to be attached to a person or an organisation. You can find explicit citation for these statements almost everywhere. "Obama is the president of the United State" is an example. Obviously, your statement is not in this category. You don't find the statement "... the use of studies by the TM organisation to promote TM products ... " everywhere. The way I see it, you will have to look carefully to find such a statement, and then we will need to know who or what organisation has this POV. I am not saying that scepticism does not exist and that it is not important to mention its existence, but you must provide valid citation for it, not try to actually create it or suggest that it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.10 (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not there to evaluate the intention of the editors. Yes, that's right. Could you please stop discussing the alleged motives of editors here and assuming bad faith? WP:AGF It makes it unpleasant to engage in discussion.   Will Beback  talk  05:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

IP editor makes interesting and subtle points here, which need to be addressed. Agree with Will, we need to focus on content not the other editors. I think the basic question IP is raising is whether or not the point about TMM using research to promote TM is POV or synthesis. --BwB (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The argument is not subtle, and it ceased being interesting. That the TM Org uses its research to promote its programs is neither POV nor sythesis. It is precisely what the sources say. Explictly. Is there a rational, fact-based POV that the TM Org does not use the research to promote its programs? Of course not. Fladrif (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation does not say it explicitly. Or, using your style: it does not say it. Explicitly. I clearly proved this point. It is not subtle. It is obvious. Regarding your question, indeed we cannot argue to support the POV that "the TM Org does not use the research to promote its programs." However, this is not why we cannot include it in the article. We cannot include this POV in the article because we have no citation for it, but we are not including it, so this is not the issue. The issue is that you include the opposite in the article and do not have a citation for the opposite either. Wikipedia is not about truth. You try to argue that we cannot reject the inclusion of the statement because the opposite is false. An excellent logic by contradiction, but a logic that applies to truth and false statements, which is not the criteria for inclusion. Please stop arguing for the truth of the statement you want to include. We all agree that the facts reasonably support its truth. This is not the issue. 67.230.155.14 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

These [studies] are offered as proof that TM is valid and its effects measurable.

Isn't that what we're saying in the article?   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Health effects

Here we state

TM has been found to produce a set of characteristic responses such as reduced respiration, decreased breath volume, decreased lactate and cortisol (hormones associated with stress), increased basal skin resistance, and slowed heartbeat. The mechanism for the effects of TM has been explained by proponents as being due to greater order in the physiology, decreased stress, and growth of creative intelligence.

however the references are not appropriate for the text. One study states that it is looking at "psychiatric issues, and specifically substance use disorders" and the other concludes "The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials."

Finally these are not actually health outcomes (reduced respiration, decreased breath volume, etc.) but are physiological changes. These two things are different.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For those following along at home:

• Dakwar E, Levin FR (2009). "The emerging role of meditation in addressing psychiatric illness, with a focus on substance use disorders". Harv Rev Psychiatry 17 (4): 254–67. doi:10.1080/10673220903149135. PMID 19637074.
• Canter PH, Ernst E (November 2003). "The cumulative effects of Transcendental Meditation on cognitive function--a systematic review of randomised controlled trials". Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 115 (21-22): 758–66. doi:10.1007/BF03040500. PMID 14743579.

I'd agree that slower breathing does not equate to a change in health.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are physiological effects, and should have been in a separate section. I'd been intending to do that. I think the references are appropriate. These are research reviews. They summarize the physiological effects before looking at clinical research in particular areas. There have been many replications of these physiological effects, and note that these two research reviews simply state them as facts. if we're gong to question sources, I think we should start with the instances where popular media are cited in violation of MEDRS. TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning sources, just how we describe study outcomes. As for critical views, "a cat may look at a king". ;)   Will Beback  talk  11:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Other religions?

We have an addition to the text - "Douglas Cowan, a Professor of Sociology & Religious Studies, gives Transcendental Meditation extensive coverage in Cults and New Religions along with Scientology, Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU), The Children of God, Branch Davidian, Heaven’s Gate, and Wicca.[244]"

Since this is an article on TM, it is sufficient that state that "Douglas Cowan, a Professor of Sociology & Religious Studies, gives Transcendental Meditation extensive coverage in Cults and New Religions". I am not sure what the additional text adds. --BwB (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It gives context to what the author is comparing it too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely the fact that TM is discussed in a book called "Cults and New Religions" is enough to tell the reader that the author considers TM to be in a cult. Is that not why the sentence and source was added in the first place? --BwB (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the POV word "extensive" in the text. --BwB (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a big cans of worms and if we get into this we'll have a hard time limiting the breadth to a single sentence. While not ideal, I suggest we defer this to sometime long in the future. ;)   Will Beback  talk  09:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could remover the recent addition, and then park the discussion for another time? Why would we accept this edit and then put a discussion on hold? --BwB (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Because getting into this means getting into the contentious issue over what we should say about TM being categorized as a cult, for which there is no easy answer. As for deleting it, it's properly sourced and relevant, so I don't think that deleting it is the right answer either.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What if others feel deleting it "is the right answer"? If we are not willing to discuss this now, then better to remove the edit that opened this "big can of worms", sourced or not. --BwB (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If editors agreed to add "Obama is a fascist" to that bio, would it be the right answer? No, it still wouldn't be acceptable. Consensus doesn't trump WP:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Will, the point I am making is that you felt that this is a "big can of worms" and wanted to park the discussion until later. However, it was Doc's edit that prompted me to ask editors if his addition was necessary. While you seem to be asking others to limit the breath of this discussion, you have not addressed Doc's specific edit. The fact that TM is discussed in a book called "Cults and New Religions" is enough to tell the reader that the author considers TM to be in a cult. --BwB (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll let James defend his own edit. He appears to be doing research on the topic and he may end up revising the sentence in the process anyway.   Will Beback  talk  12:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to clarify your position here, Will. You have made the statement "This is a big cans of worms and if we get into this we'll have a hard time limiting the breadth to a single sentence. While not ideal, I suggest we defer this to sometime long in the future." But at the same time you do not seem anyway concerned about James' edit or that he seems to want to do "research on the topic", indicating a desire to open the "big cans of worms". Do you want further developments in this area of not? --BwB (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to spend a bunch of time arguing over small matters. I do want to see the coverage of this topic improved to better reflect all of the significant views and facts.   Will Beback  talk  09:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a major textbook in this field of study. We should probably add more information from it as it represents a independent opinion of the organization. Will work on this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of a old review in an attempt to refute a Cochrane review

In this paragraph:

A 2006 systematic review by the Cochrane collaboration found that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders. The review found that, as of 2006, two randomized controlled trials had been done on this topic, one of which was on TM, and concluded that meditation is equivalent to relaxation therapy.^[19] Other research reviews cite a 1989 meta-analysis of 146 studies that found that relaxation techniques for anxiety had a medium effect size and that Transcendental Meditation had a significantly larger effect.^[123][124]

we have an 1989 review used in an attempt to refute a Cochrane review. The 1989 research is not relevant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The authors of the 1989 review were Kenneth R. Eppley, Allan I. Abrams, and Jonathan Shear.[8] Eppley is a theoretical physicist and a longtime TM practitioner.[9] Abrams has taught in the Department of Education, Maharishi International University.[10] Shear apparently taught at MUM in the 1970s,[11] and was later a Professor of Philosophy in Virginia.[12] It's not clear to me that any of them have expertise in reviewing clinical trials.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The material is cited to research reviews that were published in 2006 and 2008. The Cochrane review looked at a study from 1980. (They apparently missed a 2001 RCT that included anxiety, since it's not in their list of excluded studies.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the issues may be that we're highlighting this 1989 review. Do we do the same to the 1980 study? Can we summarize the recent reviews without getting into decades-old papers?   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "Research has found that Transcendental Meditation reduces anxiety. Some research suggests that the effect is the same as other relaxation techniques, while other research suggests a greater effect." And we would add a further citation to a research review that covers the three 2001 RCTs on anxiety. This also has the advantage of reducing the word count, something that we could do throughout the research section. And it complies with MEDRS because it's exclusively citing research reviews from the past 5 years. TimidGuy (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets go with the wording of the Cochrane review which is the best available evidence on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Will, are you going to respond? I made a good faith attempt to revise according to your comment. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So long as someone with actual scientific training is willing to work on this, I'm delighted to stay on the sidelines. I'll go along with whatever you folks agree on.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Is being discussed further here [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Another good source

There are a bunch of great book we can access through google that discuss TM from an academic perspective such as this one:

Bainbridge, William Sims (1997). The sociology of religious movements. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-91202-4. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bainbridge has been used in the article. Maybe give it a check.(olive (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

As I noted in a long ago discussion, Bainbridge looks like a great source that we should use more extensively.   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another book with interesting coverage of TM is:

• Wallis, Roy (1984-01). The Elementary Forms of the New Religious Life. Routledge & Kegan Paul Books Ltd. ISBN 0710098901. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Wallis was a sociology chair at the University of Belfast. Unfortunately, it's a bit old.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps these books would be better used in the TMM article, especially a book titled "The sociology of religious movements" Is this article not about the TM technique? --BwB (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about TM not just the TM technique. It should give an overview of the subject matter.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc, what do you mean by "TM" then? --BwB (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If folks want to limit the scope of this article then we ought to change the name to "Transcendental Meditation technique". I think that would be a good idea.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition of TM from the EB is "spiritual movement that was founded by the Indian teacher the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917?–2008)."[14], the OED has " e. transcendental meditation: a method of relaxation and meditation based on the theory and practice of yoga popularized in the West by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; abbrev. TM (see T6a); hence transcendental meditator. A proprietary term in the U.S." So it is both a movement and a technique and is used frequently to mean a combination of the two.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Over 200 scientific studies

• Over 200 scientific studies published in peer review journals have examined the effects of the technique.
  • http://www.mum.edu/tm_research/ MUM official web site with bibliography of the 200+ studies

Looking at the linked page, I don't see any mention of "200 scientific studies published in peer review journals". Instead, that page says: "The research studies below were selected from over 350 published studies (see Bibliography) conducted at a wide range of independent research institutions." How do we get 200+ peer-reviewed studies from the 350 published studies mentioned in the source?   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that page had said something to the effect of 200 but is likely in the process of being revised and updated. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It was added just a few weeks ago by Keithbob.[15] The Internet Archive doesn't have anything for that page after 2008 (when the contents were quite different). So, what do we do with it? Maybe KB can explain his edit.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the text in the lede to reflect ref. --BwB (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You changed it to read:

• Many scientific studies published in peer review journals have examined the effects of the technique.

The source says:

• The research studies below were selected from over 350 published studies (see Bibliography) conducted at a wide range of independent research institutions.

The source doesn't mention anything about peer-reviewed journals and doesn't even say that they examined TM. Didn't the ArbCom say something about summarizing sources accurately?   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe continuing updating is taking place on these research pages.. Now it says peer reviewed. TimidGuy (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee, that's awfully convenient. Fixing the source to match the assertion. Maybe we shouldn't be using sources that change so frequently and easily.   Will Beback  talk  09:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

When this first came up a number of days ago, I happened to see the webmaster and suggested that the research pages needed to be updated. He said he would discuss it with Fred Travis, who's dean of the graduate college and who makes these sorts of decisions based on the evidence. They copied me on an email in which they decided on particular changes, including the figure of 350 peer-reviewed studies. So I knew it was their intent to change it. When you mentioned it yesterday, I realized that the webmaster had updated the figure but mistakenly left out peer review. He may not even have realized the difference between peer reviewed and published studies. So I suggested that he look back at the wording of the original email. He did so, and made the fix. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming clean on this. But if we are basing the article on sources that say what editors here tell them to say then we've got a fundamental problem. From now on, I think we need to be much more wary of using TM.orgMUM.edu and its anonymous webmaster as a source and must attribute any material taken from it. I'd suggest that we also archive any pages that we do cite for verifiability.   Will Beback  talk  10:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The outrageousness of this transcends credulity. Editors driving content at self-published sources and then pressing to use those sources in articles. This is completely beyond the pale. We have to very seriously question whether any TMM official site can be used for anything, as the process for inclusion of content on those sites has been fundamentally corrupted. It also re-raises issues addressed, if only obliquely, in the ArbCom decision, but those are for another forum.Fladrif (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to remember how it came to my attention. And I recall now that it was as a result of my work on the science paragraph in the lead. I clicked on the link and saw that the information was outdated. What is so outrageous about finding outdated information on the university's website and mentioning it to the webmaster? What should I have done? What would you have done? Is outdated information supposed to be left in place so it will conform to what Wikipedia says? Yes, this is relevant to Arbcom, specifically their injunction regarding AGF. TimidGuy (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And where did I press to use that source? In fact, the revised version of the lead that we agreed on excluded that information. TimidGuy (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it was me, a pro-TM, that (in the recent history) first suggested to remove it from a given paragraph in the lead! We understand that, with regard to the number of studies, we can only write "The TM organisation says that there are ....", and not "There are ...", that is, such a POV must be attributed to its source because it is not as if it appeared in some governmental statistics. Even if it was found in a governmental web site or some other independent source, one could still argue that it should be attributed because we cannot suggest that Wikipedia considers that this statement is important or that it is universally considered important. However, once the statement is clearly attributed, I don't see where is the problem. In fact, it can be a nice way to introduce a paragraph about the quality of the research. A quality assessment becomes even more relevant in that context. It can be totally impartial. It can also be biased either way depending on the context. In particular, I can easily see a way to use this statement to serve the purpose of the con-TM and that is why I suggested to remove it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the citation entirely. It's obviously not reliable in the conventional sense of the word - it changes too frequently and easily. It's not even clear if it represents the "movement", or is just whatever the anonymous webmaster decides to put in on any given day. This, and other movement sources, should probably only be used with care and attribution.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes as some of those who are editing here have close affiliation with MUM what MUM publishes directly would be self published and thus the text must follow WP:SELFPUB.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of debate whether the MUM site should even be used as a source for the TM article and other non-MUM topics. MUM is not TM, so the exemption for self-publication may not apply. TM.org would be the relevant self-published site.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed one unnecessary citation, and attributed the rest. I also replaced the undependable direct links with permanent web citations. This matter calls into question the integrity of MUM and of editors here. Among other things, it demonstrates why people should avoid editing topics where they have a conflict of interest.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact what should be considered here is the honesty of a single editor. He asked a web master to clarify content on a web site. Is anyone here naive enough to think that universities do not on a day to day basis monitor the accuracy of their web sites. Was including peer review inaccurate. Any one take a look at UCLA and wonder about advertising. A dishonest editor would not have admitted to what TG did. He didn't have to say anything. Per the Arbitration I would suggest that editors AGF and not use the actions of one editor to gang up on a whole group of editors, creating by doing so a toxic environment That looks odd to me, and one wonders about motives.

That said Will makes a good point. The definitive information on any university must be itself. MUM is an accredited university that uses the TM technique as a supplement to the usual courses. TM.org is the official site of the TM organization. For Wikipedia purposes we should probably delineate the two. Content that references the university can be used to describe the university about itself. Content that references the organization should probably come from the TM.org site. Attribution in the text of the article provides context, letting the reader know where the information comes from and allows the reader to make decisions.(olive (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

"...one wonders about motives" Yes, one does wonder about motives. This concerns several editors, starting with the one who won't explain why he added material that didn't appear in the source, and extending to those defending this behavior. I'm not aware of any error in the previous version of the cited webpage, so the argument that it was spontaneously corrected doesn't fly. We have TG's own statement that he initiated the change, and that when the webmaster didn't make the change needed to support the material already in this article TG contacted him a second time to tell him to get it right. TG only admitted what he'd done after days of questioning. Telling a webmaster what to write on a webpage being used as a source so that it supports what an editor wants to add to the article is tantamount to fraud. Please don't ask us to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's hard to trust sources that are so easily manipulated, and editors who feel so comfortable doing whatever is necessary to triumph in an editing dispute.   Will Beback  talk  04:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You must assume good faith when you interpret facts (the actions of another editor). You don't, so you violate Assume Good Faith. Actually, you even admit that you violate this policy when you argue that it is difficult to do otherwise. Please, realize that it is only difficult for those people that do not assume good faith when they interpret facts. If you assumed good faith to begin with, your interpretation of the facts would be different and you would find it easy to continue to assume good faith. You have to break the cycle that brings you to violate the policy. I do not know how to help you to get out of this cycle. As you say, it is not easy, I sympathise with you, but it remains that you are in serious violation of an important policy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Will... I'm going to suggest that you do not fall into a pattern again of accusing all editors when you perceive one editor has made a mistake. I am neither supporting nor condemning TG. Its not my business to do that. I'm stating the obvious. TG did not have to admit to anything, but he did despite days of questioning which sounds outrageous to me. This is not a court and you are not the prosecuting attorney. TG is not a prisoner of war but you sure a heck make it sound that way. Lets move on please.(olive (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Olive I suggest you do not fall into the pattern of accusing me of things I haven't done. I never accused "all editors" of anything. I'm not going to move on until we've resolved the problem of using sources that are influenced by editors here.   Will Beback  talk  18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@Olive, actually I am going to make a judgment on TimidGuy: he did nothing wrong, he seems to be one of the most honest editors I ever seen. Will BeBack had nothing to generalize. Yes, sure we can forget about it and move on.

@Will BeBack, as long as you evaluate the reliability of web sites, not editors, especially not their actions outside Wikipedia, you are within the policy. An editor can include his own research in Wikipedia if it is published in a reliable source, so certainly he can communicate with an editor (the webmaster in this case) for such a source. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether TG acted in good faith or not doesn't matter, so sure, let's assume good faith. For the record, I assume TG acted in good faith. But if a driver accidentally runs over a pedestrian there's still a problem, even if they meant no harm. The process here seems to be that Editor A added material that wasn't in the source. Editor B noticed this and asked about it. Editor C arranged to have the source changed to match the assertion made by Editor A. Editors D & E came to the defense of Editor C and criticized Editor B. I think this is a problematic set of events.   Will Beback  talk  20:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fix, please

We have just made correction to a section of the “Transcendental Meditation Movement Article” regarding an erroneous remark that the Spiritual Center of America had lost its tax exempt status. In fact, as we saw, the SC remains a tax exempt institution, as the court simply ruled that the SC was not entitled to exemption from property taxes but never challenged the SC's non profit status. This was graciously corrected by Will. The same thing needs to be done in this article, in the sections “Transcendental Meditation Movement” and also in the section "Research funding, publication, and promotion".

The Section “Transcendental Meditation Movement” states “Two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[254] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied tax exempt status because they were found not to be educational organizations.[255] In fact a reading of both sources reveals that only exemption from property taxes was at stake, not the tax exempt status of the organizations as a whole. Therefore the sentence should be corrected. Additionally, as in the "Transcendental Meditation Movement" article itself, one of the sources used for reference is a personal blog. This too should be corrected.

Additionally, in the section "Research funding, publication, and promotion", it is stated that the scientific studies on TM have been used to 'assert the tax status of a TM institution,[174] ' Again, the source refers to the case World Plan Executive Council-United States, et al., v. County of Ramsey which dealt exclusively with property tax exemption and not the tax exempt status of the organization as a whole. I think it should be corrected. Thanks to whomever undertakes this.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which source is a personal blog?   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you must have meant the Rick Ross site. I'd have thought that you would know by now the difference between a source and a convenience link. See WP:Convenience link.

I've corrected the text to make it clear that the issues were with property tax exemptions.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the changes and fixing the citations. I'd like to see the sentence a little bit clearer still: Your wrote that WPEC and the SC "were denied property tax exemptions because they were found not to be engaged in educational activities". I don't think that was really the case. with the SC the court found that the educational activities were not sufficient because they did not involve the entire property, while the state of Minnesota seems to have a different standard and will grant tax property exemptions only to a 'purely public charity', which they decided WPEC was not. You might wish to say something like the educational activities of the organizations did not did not reach the threshold of a purely public charity in one case, and did not involve to the entire real estate in the other --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To avoid being too verbose, how about just saying "were denied property tax exemptions because they were found not to be engaged in sufficient educational activities"?   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But this suggested text Will is not correct in both cases. Can we not tell it like it is? --BwB (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How so?   Will Beback  talk  05:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Luke tells us "Minnesota seems to have a different standard and will grant tax property exemptions only to a 'purely public charity', which they decided WPEC was not." So we can say what you propose for SC, but not Minnesota. --BwB (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "because the percentage of their property being used for educational or charitable purposes didn't meet the threshold set by the state"? TimidGuy (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Same thing with fewer words: "because they didn't meet the relevant requirements."   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read everyone's suggestions and, while I admit that my sentence is a bit verbose, as Will said, I think it is more precise and more neutral than Will's. For that reason,, I still would rather see that one than any shorter one suggested so far. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that your version is more precise, though I'm not sure for the need for greater precision. But I don't quite see how the extra words make it more neutral. It seems like adding more words gives this more weight, which might be less neutral.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that your sentence works well enough in regards to the SC ruling, but as for Minnesota, being a public charity and conducting educational activities are not the same thing at all, and the public charity standard is much stricter, limited to property tax exemptions, and would never be used to determine the tax exempt status of any organization (unlike the standard of educational activities, which might apply to both, up to a point). In my mind saying the the organizations were not conducting sufficient educational activities might be extended by the reader the a view of organization in general instead of just applying it the narrow realm of property exemption. So it seems less neutral to me, if you will.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That still sounds to me like they "didn't meet the relevant requirements", which seems broad enough to cover almost anything. But if you can write a short, succinct description then go ahead. The detailed version belongs in the TMM article.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Procedure and process:Clarify

As I remember, per a previous discussion on adding content without first discussing it, I'd like to clarify the process and procedure here for adding content and for making other substantial changes to the TM articles. Discussion and agreement first, or add whatever one wants. I'd like to suggest that no one add further content until a procedure has been agreed on. Thanks.(olive (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

I proposed that but there wasn't much interest. I don't think we should have a moratorium pending the possibility of such an agreement, since I don't think one is likely.   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Olives suggestion is a good idea for content edits. For grammar, punct., and other minor edits, no discussion. --BwB (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If one is adding info from high quality sources I do not think discussion is needed. Otherwise we might need an RfC for everything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Olive that we have a serious problem now because one side waits before including info from reliable secondary sources or to edit info already in the article that do not respect these sources while the other does not. The pro-TM editors appear to wait because they expect an agreement in the talk page. The other editors feel that they have the best understanding and evaluation of the sources and, on that basis, feel that they do not need to wait. As a result, the article is currently totally biased, does not respect the WP:DUE policy, etc. On the other hand, if the pro-TM editors were to adopt the same attitude, we would get into an edit war. This is a serious problem. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We have these edits here [16][17] which does not fit the pattern you elude to :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'd say there's a fair amount of this kind of addition from most everyone. Nothing wrong with it. From my side I want to clarify and record our agreed upon process as we go forward. (olive (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Edit conflict: This was the procedure used in past times on these articles and it was slow but worked with the support of all editors which we had for a fairly long period of time. However, I'm fine with editors adding content they feel is neutral and observes WP:Weight as long as this is a consistently adhered to (by all editors) procedure.(olive (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Oh wait! Isn't that called collaboration.. :o)(olive (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

If you want to use past activities as a precedent then you'll need to provide some diffs and talk page archive links as evidence.   Will Beback  talk  18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

@Olive, I had in mind, for example, the fact that, beside this very recent addition about reduction of blood pressure, we did not add any info about the measured effects of TM in the Intro, which is the most important. We say that there are studies, but we don't mention the conclusions of these studies, except this recent blood pressure addition. The only thing that is said about these studies is that no conclusion can be drawn or that TM has no effect, except this recent blood pressure addition. Research did not only show that TM reduces blood pressure. Obviously, we are waiting on important issues. I was not judging or criticizing. It was just an observation. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

MTV article

• Earlier, Lynch himself had come out onstage to address the crowd — if "address" is the word. Actually, the director had no set speech to give; he only took questions from the audience. This brilliant stratagem allowed him to talk about whatever he wanted, pretty much, and he used his answers to the various inquiries to extol TM's usefulness in relieving stress and unleashing what would probably have to be called positive consciousness. ("Negativity blocks creativity," he said. And "Know everything within and you'll know everything without.") TM has its detractors — killjoys who call it an exploitative cult. (You can Google them.) Lynch, however, has clearly found the practice of meditating for 20 minutes, twice a day, to be valuable in his work, and he would like to see TM taught in schools — as it is, of course, at Maharishi University. [18]

And editor is adding assertions to the effect that Lynch himself said that "TM has its detractors — killjoys who call it an exploitative cult." However I think it's clear that the author places Lynch's comments in quotation marks, and that sentence is not marked that way. I'm not sure that MTV.com is the best available source on this issue, so I recommend deleting it. But if we keep it we should make sure it's correct.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we directly quote a source then we need to place quotation marks around the text otherwise we're plagiarizing it.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no response, but the editor removed the material.

However more new material is being added to the lead that isn't in the article. I suggest we should put the material in the article first and then add it to the lead.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor was me. I was just looking at some statements from high profile TM exponent about the detractors. I thought I had one, but I realize that I was mistaken. I guess I am mistaken from time to time. Apparently, there is none - they are ignored. Besides, the style "killjoy ... " does not fit with Lynch. This being said, I feel the rule of working on the article and keeping the Intro in accordance with WP:LEAD is not enforced amongst us. You right though, I think we should enforce it. So, we will not use the Intro as a template for the article as some suggested and we will maintain this Intro in accordance with WP:LEAD. Thank you Will, to remind us. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the lead shouldn't be used as a template for the rest of the article. When we're revising the article it's natural to work on different parts. But I don't think we should be adding brand new material to the lead that has never been added to the body.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They are two ways of violating WP:LEAD, but I think the use of the Intro as a template is worst. It means that you even organize the Intro in violation of WP:LEAD. You have no problem with it I guess because it pleases you. However, in view of the recent edits, it is clear that the Intro is much more arbitrary at any given time than the article itself and, therefore, we should not use it as a template. Certainly, we should not edit it further as a template and violate WP:LEAD even more. Otherwise, unlike what you suggest, it would just be natural, much less complicated, if we allowed this template to add additional materials. My point was that you indirectly reminded me that we should not do any of this because it violates WP:LEAD. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which template you're talking about. WP:LEAD is a guideline. We can violate if there's a good reason. Very few articles follow it precisely.   Will Beback  talk  04:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)