Transcendental Meditation movement B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Transcendental Meditation technique's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Williamson":

• From Transcendental Meditation: Williamson, Lola Transcendent in America:Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New ReligionNYU Press, 2010 ISBN 0-8147-9450-5, 9780814794500
• From TM-Sidhi program: Williamson, Lola, Transcendent in America: Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion", NYU Press, 2010 ISBN 0-8147-9450-5, 9780814794500, pp. 97-99

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the extra reference in the first sentence to "Transcendental Meditation". The header states that the article is about TM technique and refers the reader to the TMM article. There is further reference to TMM in the lead and is linked, so the extra reference to TM is not needed. --BwB (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TM is not the same as TMM, so both links are needed. I'm not sure why you're removing links to that article, but I don't think it's helpful to readers.   Will Beback  talk  15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Will. Linking to the main article is useful and the usual practice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the article on the TM technique, so let's keep the focus on that topic. The header states that the article is about TM technique and also refers the reader to the TMM article. There is further reference to TMM in the lead and is also linked. --BwB (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about MMY either but it wouldn't make sense to delete those links just to keep the article better focused. You seem to be removing links to the TM article from other articles, even using misleading edit summaries.[1] That's unhelpful.   Will Beback  talk  16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you felt "mislead" by my edit summary. I did combine 2 sentences to make one sentence, hence the summary, and I did feel it was more clear and direct for the reader. I do not see the need to direct the reader to the TM article since this article is about the TM technique. Again, if others see a rational for this beyond my reasoning, then so be it. --BwB (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The TM article covers more than just the technique, obviously. SCI, for example. I'll go ahead and restore it.   Will Beback  talk  18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers SCI also. --BwB (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's only a short summary of the main coverage at TM.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material in the "TM in schools and universities 1990s–present" section is increasingly related to, and sourced from, the David Lynch Foundation. It seems like this material is more relevant to that topic than to the general topic of the TM technique. I suggest we move the DLF-funded programs to the DLF article or, less ideally, merge the DLF article here. Any other suggestions?   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely against a merge of DLF and TMT. --BwB (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merger. Some of the TM programs in schools etc. have been funded by DLF. If you feel the mentioning of funding by DLF is off topic we can consider and adjustment for those specific phrases or sentences. For example this sentence could be moved to the DLF article. "Its principal, George H. Rutherford, is a member of the David Lynch Foundation's Board of Advisors." However, moving other text is not appropriate as it they are clearly relevant to this article. From a quick scan of the section I see there are about 20 references and only 3-4 citations are sourced to the DLF web site.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't seem directly related to the technique. Instead, this material is about a limited number of training programs in a limited number of US schools. In all, it covers at most a couple of thousand people, out of the reported six million who've learned the technique. It's more about the movement, or the DLF, than about the technique. So if folks don't want to merge the DLF material here then let's move the DLF material from this article to that article. I don't see any benefit to splitting it between two articles.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just noticed that Keithbob deleted relevant material about the DLF from this article. If we're going to write about the DLF here then we need to say so, not hide the association. I'm going to restore those deletions.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was remove redundant mentioning of DLF. I left plenty of references to DLF behind and DLF's role as a foundation that provides scholarships for TM programs in schools was clear. Here is how the section stood after the last time I edited this article on Oct 5 2010. [2] The DLF is mentioned or referred to twice in the section's opening paragraph and then four more times in the 6 sub sections that follow. Please stop mis-characterizing my edits and good faith efforts to improve the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did I mis-characterize your edits? I said you deleted the material, which you did.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article identifies Chalmers as an Ayurveda practitioner. Is there a source for this? According to this 2003 full-disclosure bio in BMJ, he hasn't practiced Ayurveda since 1991. He's been with the National Health Service since 1996.

Competing interests: Roger Chalmers is a full-time locum general practitioner and has derived more than 99% of his income from NHS clinical work over the past 7 years. He became a teacher of Transcendental Meditation in 1975, and has lectured widely on research and medical applications of this and related techniques over the past 27 years. From 1982-1996 he was directly involved with institutions publicly advocating TM<holding a number of non-salaried academic positions (including co-editing of collected papers on TM research). From 1987-1991, he worked in full-time private medical practice utilizing the complementary system known as Maharishi's Vedic Approach to Health, which includes TM, alongside modern medicine.

TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. The text you quote says he has practiced MVAH. Is the issue simply that he's a former Ayurveda practitioner rather than a current one? If that's an important distinction we can add "former". We can add "TM teacher" while we're at it.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Chalmers who lost his licence to practice medicine in 1991 for serious professional misconduct over his failed attempt to treat HIV with MAV, is it not? How he can work as a locum GP and do NHS clinical work while stricken from the Register is a mystery to me. It leads me to question the accuracy and forthrightness of the BMJ disclosure bio. Further, nothing in the disclosure bio directly states that he no longer practices MAV; it is merely an inference that TG is drawing that is not contained in the source. Perhaps 1% of his income is derived from MAV. For all we know, he is using MAV in his clinical work as a locum. Perhaps he does it gratis while moonlighting. We can't tell from the source. Fladrif (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is difficult to tell from the source Chalmers current connection to TM and Maharishi Ayurveda. --BwB (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chalmers disclosure statement for a 1999 LTE in the BMJ has a slightly different flavor than the 2003 [3] as does a blurb for a 2000 NLP-UK Annual Conference. [4] The current MVI-UK website lists him as a TM teacher. [5] It appears that he was not reinstated to the Medical Register until 2006 [6] [7], so I continue to be at a loss as to how he could have worked as a locum GP or done NHS clinical work in the 1992-2007 timeframe. Fladrif (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click on "GP Register entry date":

"If a doctor is on the GP Register, the GP Register entry date shows the date they were entered on the GP Register. To work as a general practitioner (GP) in the NHS, other than as a trainee, a doctor must have their name on the GP Register and be fully registered with a licence to practise. For many doctors the date of entry will be 1 April 2006 as this is when the GP Register was established."

TimidGuy (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the point of this thread? Is there a proposed edit?   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Former Maharishi Ayurveda practitioner Roger A. Chalmers, a TM promoter and National Health Service physician

What is the source for him being an NHS physician and a "former" MVAH practitioner?   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" is a self-serving statement by Chalmers in an addendum to a letter to the editor to the BMJ which is inconsistent with an earlier self-serving letter to the editor by Chalmers, as parsed by TG. I note that Chalmer is a regular LTE contributor to the BMJ, and his concept of COI as reflected in his disclosure statements proceeds from the premise that whatever he does as a volunteer without compensation doesn't need to be disclosed. What we do have a RS for is that Chalmers is "Dean of Medicine of the unrecognized Maharishi University of Natural Law - Mentmore" who was stricken from the Medical Register for "serious professional misconduct" directly related to his practice of MVAH [8] We have no reliable source - just his say-so - that he is a NHS practitioner, and no reliable source that he is a "former" MVAH practitioner. I regard this edit by TG, claimed to be "per discussion" as a violation of the TM ArbCom. Fladrif (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the usual public source to determine if someone is an NHS physician? I admit that I do not know much about that, I don't need to see physicians so much, but there must be one official source for that. How comes this is complicated? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make if he's an NHS physician or not? How is it relevant to the fact the he assembled a list of TM studies? If we want to say he has expertise in evaluating scientific studies, then the mere fact he went to medical school is probably sufficient. I suggest we go with something short and relevant, like "physician and TM teacher".   Will Beback  talk  03:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"physician and TM teacher" OK with me. --BwB (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good choice. Why go after me for using "former"? Will was the one who suggested it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• According to a medical textbook on integrative cardiology, double blinding isn't usually possible in mind/body studies, but it is important to blind assessors and study coordinators. The textbook examined two studies that involved TM and found them to be carefully blinded, in that the technicians and physicians involved in assessing the outcome didn't know whether the subjects were in the TM group or control group. The textbook said the studies had many other essential design features, including contact time with instructors, structure of the intervention, level of expectation for positive results, and assessment of adherence.
  • John H. K. Vogel, Mitchell W. Krucoff (2007). Integrative Cardiology: Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Heart (1st ed.). McGraw Hill. p. 81.

This doesn't seem like an accurate summary of the source.[9] What does the source say about double blinding?   Will Beback  talk  13:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text which TG added is fundamentally inconsistent with the source. The misrepresentation is so eggregious as to be a violation of the TM ArbCom. Fladrif (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page 73 mentions that "double blinding isn't usually possible in mind/body studies". --Uncreated (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus one compares it to an appropriate control like health education to which TM has found to be similar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on? Page 73 says double blinding usually isn't possible. The content on TM says though, that, researchers used blinding where possible then describes the study protocol.(olive (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

James that sounds like a bit of WP: OR to me.(olive (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

So, let me get this straight. The material is not on page 81, as the citation indicates, but is actually on page 73? And instead of being written by Vogel and Krucoff it's actually written by Nahin, Berman, et al.? And this was added by a university professor?

Are we now adding comments about mind/body research in general? Maybe it'd be better to sticking to material that's directly about TM instead of general comments that cover myriad other relaxation and meditation techniques.   Will Beback  talk  09:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will your personal pejorative comments aren't acceptable. Please deal with the edits not the editor. We can delete the first sentence which although sourced does not reference TM directly, but as part of the textbook provides context. If that context isn't necessary it can be removed as far as I'm concerned, but I would prefer to wait for input from the editor who added the content.(olive (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What pejorative comments?   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This text and the issue it is addressing is getting more than a little coatrackish. This is going back to the asides about the merits and shortcomings of the Jadad scale, and is being presented essentially as an argument against criticisms of the rigor of TM research. And, calling this book a textbook is a gross mischaracterization. Fladrif (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition that Timid has made should be put back in to the article with the appropriate citations. Its reliably sourced and the argument whether we are adding comments about mind/body research in general is a separate issue. --Uncreated (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mind/body issue is directly concerned with this content addition. The assertion in question is not about TM in particular. In the past, a set of editors here have been quite clear that we only include references to TM, not to any other form of meditation. I propose deleting the first sentence of the posted text. I'm also not sure why we're describing the source as a "textbook", rather than just as a "book".   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book does not count as a reliable source. It is not written from a scientific POV but an alt med one. I doubt it would pass at the WP:RS notice board. Thus should not be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could be a little more specific. Vogel an MD seems to be well published and an authority in cardiac area. How is it that this is not a reliable source. An individual editor who assumes something will not pass the RS Notice board is not reason to say the source shouldn't be used. That'a an opinion, and opinions just don't carry weight when investigating sources.(olive (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Vogel isn't the author, just one of the editors.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Vogel's credentials and his other publications. This is a secondary source. Is this a reliable source or not?(olive (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm also concerned that this source may be referring to studies already discussed in the article. If so, it's be better to have a full discussion of each paper. Further, since there have been well over 300 studies, finding just two that meet standards is in itself remarkable. Rather than leaving them anonymous, we should be discussing these two acceptable papers in more detail, if we're not already.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on here. I just realized this text was actually removed from the article. Why? Per the TM arbItration you do not remove reliably sourced content. Will since you removed it do you want to replace it? Or of course someone else can readd it. (olive (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What was removed? The only change I see was to replace "textbook" with "book".   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yes, I see. You reverted yourself. Great.(olive (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, a minute after I mistakenly deleted it, two days ago.   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not putting in the correct page numbers. Also, Will, I'm still learning the new ref style used on MVAH and I wasn't sure how to integrate the chapter title. I've now gone back to the old style and have put in all the information. Sorry about that. I think if anyone reads the chapter, the concerns expressed above will be met. This book is an evidence-based examination of alternative and complementary approaches to cardiology. This chapter discusses proper research design for non-pharmacological approaches to medicine. It looks at the NIH-funded randomized controlled trials in process and a few high-quality studies recently completed. It outlines the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews of CAM modalities in cardiology. We shouldn't remove the general statement regarding mind/body studies, since it clearly includes TM in the context of this chapter. Note that none of the statements in Ospina about quality specifically mention TM. TimidGuy (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text still fundamentally misrepresented the conclusions of the source. I've fixed it. Fladrif (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to use this source for a discussion of study design issues on mind/body therapies then we need to properly summarize what they have to say. The line about double blinding is taken out of context, and omits their assertion that if double blinding is not done then other aspects of study design have to be stronger to compensate. It also discusses several other design topics, some of which have been issues with TM research: control group, preference trials, attrition and adherence, and therapeutic allegiance. So just picking one statement out of a several-page overview is incomplete and misleading.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says, "These studies had in place many of the design features and implementation strategies outlined in our discussion of CAM clinical trial design." And then it enumerates them. Why can't we just summarize what they say? We don't need to juxtapose the double blinding point and their point about careful blinding. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These issues seem like generic research issues not directly connected to TM. Yes, we should summarize what they say, if that's what we're going to do. But we shouldn't pick a single item out of a list and only summarize it. If their double-blinding point applies to TM then so do the others.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the book specifically discusses how these two studies address these generic issues. If you feel that what I wrote doesn't adequately represent the text, perhaps you could draft a different version and we'll discuss it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, again, that we split off the research into a standalone article. Then these issues could be given full expression. We could include a broad range of sources that discuss TM and other mind/body research. Bringing in a comprehensive set of sources, I'm thinking at least 1,000 words, and maybe twice that. I don't see any way around splitting off the research, as the text seems to keep growing, as may be expected.   Will Beback  talk  12:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This source is being used to try to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK about study design. TG has been quite candid that what he is trying to do is to use this source to refute criticisms of the conclusions of TM research studies which were not double-blinded. And, as I noted above, and as other editors have noted at WP:RSN, the text TG wrote misrepresents and mischaracterizes what the source actually says. That being said, I agree with Will - the "research" material should be moved to its own article. Every time this material is trimmed to a managable and appropriate size, it soon resprouts more vigorously than before, and essentially overwhelms this article. Fladrif (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extent of the discussions on the research in the TM article pointing to more and more information on the research, I'd also agree to a split off of the research while leaving in place a summary of the research on the technique here.(olive (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Have removed this text:

According to a chapter in a book on complementary and alternative medicine for cardiology, double blinding isn't usually possible in mind/body studies, but it is important to blind assessors and study coordinators. The chapter examined two studies that involved TM and found them to be carefully blinded where possible, in that the technicians and physicians involved in assessing the outcome didn't know whether the subjects were in the TM group or control group. The authors said the studies had many other essential design features, including contact time with instructors, structure of the intervention, level of expectation for positive results, and assessment of adherence. They said that the greater adherence level in the TM group in one study called into question the results of previous studies on TM that showed the TM group was superior to control groups because the results may have been due to greater adherence compared to the control group. They also said that although studies of dosage are uncommon in mind-body research, TM research should study the most effective doses. One of the studies they looked at examined not just TM but was multimodal, including diet, yoga, and an herbal formula. The authors said that decisions made about which aspects of intervention to control in this study made it impossible to discern the impacts of any single component of the intervention on the cardiovascular risk factors. Richard Nahin, Josh Berman, Catherine Stoney, and Shan Wong, "Approaches to Clinical Trials of Complementary and Alternative Medicine," in Integrative Cardiology: Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Heart, eds., John Vogel and Mitchell Krucoff, McGraw Hill Medical, 2007, pp 63-86, "Double blinding is not usually possible in mind-body and procedure-based intervention trials, as well as trials of special diets." (p 73) "These studies [Schneider 2005, Fields 2002] had in place many of the design features and implementation strategies outlined in our discussion of CAM clinical trial design. For example, these researchers implemented careful blinding strategies where possible, particularly in regard to key outcome variables." (p. 81)

Alt med textbooks are not reliable sources when it comes to research methods. Please get approval at the reliable notice board first. The opinions are alt med books are also not WP:DUE. Opinions of other edits here are clear in this matter [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We have some sources in this article that do not meet the supposed standard of the editors who showed up at the Notice board. They'll have to be removed since they fall way below the standard of even this last deleted source.(olive (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Alternative medicine textbooks are as reliable as any other if WP standards are met. And what WP policy are you citing which says an editor has to check at a notice board before they add content? We can't make up rules. Its a mistake to take the opinions of three editors at a notice board and create a set of rules from them. (olive (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• As an aside. I wonder why the same editors always show up to debunk TM. I can pretty much guarantee who they 'll be. Just an observation.(olive (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • We can make more observations like that if you think they are appropriate and helpful. Do you?   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you explain what you mean by this "the opinions are alt med books are also not WP:DUE." please, for future reference. I'm unclear as to what this means.(olive (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

James. You removed content while the topic of whether its reliably sourced is still under discussion. That's not particularly good protocol. Because you happen to agree with the uninvolved editors doesn't make it right or true. What it looks like is that you waited for comments that suited you then used that as a reason to remove content. I'm going to assume that's not what you mean to do, but unfortunately that's what it looks like. You might wait next time before removing content that some editors feel is reliably sourced.(olive (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It appears, since you've so often done the same thing, that you're speaking based on the ArbCom decision. "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." Remember also another admonition: " Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable."   Will Beback  talk  23:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No actually I suggested Doc wait for more input before he acts based on the notice board...There is still discussion over there. Do you have a problem with including all comments and editors in a decision? (olive (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I was responding to this remark: "What it looks like is that you waited for comments that suited you then used that as a reason to remove content. I'm going to assume that's not what you mean to do, but unfortunately that's what it looks like." That seems to be commenting on a motive. If I wrote "it appears that you are a lying, cheating fraud. I assume good faith, but that's what it looks like," then I bet there'd be complaints. If you are simply asking someone to wait then implying that there was a subversive motive for not waiting is unhelpful and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Just ask them to wait.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've asked for further input here [11].(olive (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Three comments are fairly good turnout. The concern is the misrepresentation of this source as something which it was not ( a medical textbook ). Editors get block for this sort of thing. Alt med textbooks are not reliable sources for scientific ideas ( such as research methods ). If we where comments on religious or social content that would be a different matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read information on the book and it could very well be a textbook. Further, editors are not blocked for good faith edits, and especially where the edit is controversial. As I said, a source is reliable if compliant per WP: RS.

You need to wait for the discussion to slow down and with enough time for editors to come in and comment... you didn't even wait 24 hours. Deciding three editors is enough is arbitrary.(olive (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes but it was claimed to be a "medical textbook". The WP:RS notice board is clear. Thus no need to draw this out further.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Its a notice board and editors are still commenting. The issue wasn't the wording textbook/ book it was whether the source was reliable or not. If you wait long enough you might really have a case against this source since possible MEDRS people might comment. Why cut this off? (olive (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Clarification This discussion was brought to the Reliable Notices noticeboard to bring in outside input on whether the source (above) is reliable... and not.... on whether this is a text book or a book. That isn't the concern raised here, and isn't the question raised at the RS Noticeboard.(olive (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I asked about the source for calling it a "textbook" in my comment of 00:05, 9 November 2010. See above.   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that discussion progressed on as to whether the source was reliable, and so went to RS Noticeboard as: "Is this a reliable source for the Transcendental Meditation technique article"(olive (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure why you rasied the issue of designating the source as a textbook here, but I don't see where that's been resolved.   Will Beback  talk  02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't raise the issue. Maybe Flad did originally. Doesn't matter. James said editors would be blocked for misnaming a book a textbook. I would hope no admin would do such a thing. James seems to be implying that whether the source is a book or a text book is the issue and that the RSN is clear on that. I'm simply saying that the issue is the source not whether we're dealing with a textbook or not. I may have misunderstood his syntax.(olive (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I raised the issue initially, and you raised it again, in your "clarification". TimidGuy asserted, apparently without evidence, that this is a textbook. I've asked how that determination was made. I'm sorry that TimidGuy isn't avaiable to explain his editing. That'd simplify this discussion.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to it as a textbook because McGraw-Hill Medical is known as a leading publisher of textbooks. It's sold as a textbook in the University of Minnesota bookstore.[12] This review says that the book is useful to educators and clinicians.[13] But I'm fine if we don't refer to it as a medical textbook. The feedback we got at RSN is that sources should be peer reviewed. In particular, when I asked whether it was appropriate to use newspapers and the Encyclopedia of Occultism and the Paranormal as a source, Cirt said, "When dealing with a science subject, and a medicine subject within science, yes, they should be peer reviewed sources." So if we delete the Integrative Cardiology material, we should also delete this other material that uses sources not peer reviewed. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for those sources.   Will Beback  talk  13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the publisher, the book's market is "cardiologists, cardiology residents, and internists". So it's not a textbook in the sense of a book used to teach university courses; it's addressed to practising professionals. An academic publisher's editorial oversight is fully analogous to peer review in journals, and McGraw-Hill is one of the most reputable academic publishers around. There is no question that the book meets both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS#Books. --JN466 15:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timid, are there many sources in this article that are not peer reviewed? --BwB (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JN. And it looks like this is the consensus at RSN. Even ScienceApologist has relented and has agreed that this can be used to briefly report on study design. (For some reason he didn't realize that it wasn't being used to report outcomes.) BwB, yes, the research section cites The Guardian, The Canadian, The Jerusalem Post, Newsweek, and the 2001 edition of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Also, WP:MEDRS says "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles." TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what adjustments do you recommend Timid with respect to the material sourced by the popular press you mentioned above? --BwB (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would seem to be appropriate if we are to follow MEDRS and the suggestion at RSN. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring any potential deletions to talk first.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material I specified at RSN was this:

According to The Jerusalem Post, The Canadian, and the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, some of the research has been "criticized for bias and a lack of scientific evidence",[102] for "methodological flaws, vague definitions, and loose statistical controls",[103] and for "failing to conduct double-blind experiments" and for "influencing test results with the prejudice of the tester".[104] According to Newsweek, early research was "not of high caliber", failing to adequately address self-selection and the placebo effect, but later research has been "much more rigorous".[105]

There's also this:

Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, was quoted in The Guardian newspaper as saying that "there is no good evidence that TM has positive effects on children. The data that exist are all deeply flawed."[94]

It seems important that we adhere to the guideline, especially since there was support on RSN for not using sources such as these that aren't peer reviewed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the material should be removed as it does not meet the guidelines. --BwB (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to WP:RS it depends on what the source is being used to say. To take a book that is NOT a medical textbook and call it one is not appropriate. This book could potentially be used for other stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material TG is referring to does not make medical claims, so MEDRS would not seem to apply.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is taking a position on research that comes under MEDRS. As such it is making a medical claim. --Uncreated (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote the language in MEDRS that you think applies most closely to this situation?   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits,[6] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[7]"--Uncreated (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The news articles are commenting on medical research and rightly or wrongly potentially conveying wrong or misleading information about that research. Seems pretty straight forward to me.--Uncreated (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've quoted material from WP:MEDRS#Popular press. That material is a general description of issues with articles in the popular press. After laying out those issues, it reaches a conclusion:

• A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure.

That's not what we're doing here. We are not using the popular press for any medical facts or figures.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:MEDRS#Popular press. Popular news is being used to comment on medical research. We should be using higher quality sources to comment on medical research not popular news. Perhaps the confusion here is that I think Popular news is being used to comment on medical research and you do not?--Uncreated (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS does not prohibit using popular press to comment on medical research. The section you quoted prohibits using popular press to report medical facts or figures. They are different things.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are able to get an outside opinion at the talk page associated with WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to extrapolate a fictional example: imagine the author of a peer-reviewed paper admitted to the mainstream press that he had falsified data. By Uncreated's logic, we would not be able to report that fact. That seems absurd to me. While we might not withdraw reporting the paper's conclusions, we should certainly add the non-peer-reviewed information about it as context necessary for the reader to judge that conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  09:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We got an outside opinion at RSN. Why are we ignoring it? An uninvolved editor said that these sources weren't compliant because they're not peer reviewed. I asked if the consensus was that they should be removed, and no one objected. And the consensus was that the medical book was compliant. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're having two separate discussions in this thread, so this is getting confused. Which sources and RSN thread are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  11:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with that posting on RSN.[14] Here's the particular exchange:

We don't know that it's not peer reviewed. I have some medical textbooks that list the peer reviewers. My impression is that it's common for textbooks to be peer reviewed. Note that this section of the article that discusses quality cites many sources that aren't peer reviewed, including newspapers, a magazine, a debunking book from a popular press, and the Encyclopedia of Occultism and the Paranormal. Should all these be deleted? TimidGuy (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

When dealing with a science subject, and a medicine subject within science, yes, they should be peer reviewed sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And the consensus was that the book published by McGraw Hill is a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We got an outside opinion at RSN. Why are we ignoring it? An uninvolved editor said that these sources weren't compliant because they're not peer reviewed. I asked if the consensus was that they should be removed, and no one objected. And the consensus was that the medical book was compliant. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're having two separate discussions in this thread, so this is getting confused. Which sources and RSN thread are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  11:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with that posting on RSN.[15] Here's the particular exchange:

We don't know that it's not peer reviewed. I have some medical textbooks that list the peer reviewers. My impression is that it's common for textbooks to be peer reviewed. Note that this section of the article that discusses quality cites many sources that aren't peer reviewed, including newspapers, a magazine, a debunking book from a popular press, and the Encyclopedia of Occultism and the Paranormal. Should all these be deleted? TimidGuy (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

When dealing with a science subject, and a medicine subject within science, yes, they should be peer reviewed sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And the consensus was that the book published by McGraw Hill is a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the threads to separate two different topics, and renamed one to "Integrative Cardiology II", since that's the topic.  Will Beback  talk  12:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Cirt's response, I don't think the question was put correctly. The language in MEDRS is fairly clear that exclusion of popular sources is limited to providing medical facts and figures. If this is an issue we can put a question about this point in particular. Meanwhile, can you address the example I've provided, which I believe shows why it's illogical to exclude criticism of peer-reviewed material from othewise reliable sources? To repeat: should we exclude an admission of academic fraud if it only appears in the mainstream media?   Will Beback  talk  12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That entire thread at RSN had nothing to do with medical facts and figures. The context was very clearly the quality and design of research. And the unanimous response was that the sources should be peer reviewed. Why aren't we following the feedback that we got? TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Readers might be interested in learning about who practises TM; has the article ever listed some prominent practitioners? --JN466 15:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the movement, four to six million people have been trained in the TM technique since 1959. Notable practitioners include The Beatles, David Lynch, John Hagelin, Deepak Chopra, and Mia Farrow. For more names, see List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners.

How's that?   Will Beback  talk  19:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for Clint Eastwood. :) We should perhaps say "past or present" practitioners if we're listing people who don't practise any more. --JN466 02:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "actor" and "director" slots are already filled. I think adding "past or present" would improve it.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per earlier discussions, we felt The Humanistic Psychologist was the stronger source, since it's put out by APA. I finally got a copy of the article and substituted it for Journal of Meditation and Meditation research. Fine if you feel the latter should also be included, but please restore the citation to The Humanistic Psychologist. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not mischaracterize what I did as deleting a source. I did no such thing. I corrected your misidentification of the linked article. The linked URL is to the later version of the article in the Journal of Meditation & Meditation Research, not to the article in The Humanistic Psychologist, published by Division 32 of the APA. I have no idea what differences there may be between the two, but if the authors calls them different "versions" they are not the same article, and it is improper to link to article A while calling it article B. Fladrif (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could modify almost every assertion with this phrase.

• According to a 2009 source, the meditation practice involved at that time the use of a sound or mantra...

And so on. I don't think the article would be improved by adding that phrase in every possible situation. If we have actual sources which contradict the first source then the neutral POV would be to provide both views. "A 2008 source says X, while a 2009 source says Y."   Will Beback  talk  12:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just very odd to use present tense when nothing has come from MERU since the 1970s. The sentence as it now reads is saying that MERU is a significant source of the research. It should be "was," TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen sources that mention ill-effects from practicing TM. But I don't see a specific mention of TM and contraindications in the cited source.[16] Is the page correct?   Will Beback  talk  18:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page is correct. Are you looking at the most recent edition? And yes, it specifically mentions TM. TimidGuy (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the Google Books version, which is the 2004 edition.[17] I see you've cited the 2009 edition. Thanks for pointing that out.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]