Alternative medicine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alternative Views Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The Newsweek article about TM in schools is quite balanced. However, in taking info from the article we only represent one view. Seems like we could add sentence or two representing the other view. Also, seems like we could add a sentence on the research on that Detroit school. Also, this section on schools doesn't give the reasons why educators are introducing TM in the schools. We could add a sentence referencing this New York Times article. [3] This may help the balance in this section. As it is now, it just notes the use of TM in schools and then gives criticism of this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this sentence "Lynn says that the Americans United for Separation of Church is keeping a close legal eye on the TM movement and that there are no imminent cases as of May 2008.^[1]" has made its way back into the article. Wonder why it is here since it is clearly abut the TMM. Should it not be removed and placed in the TMM page? --BwB (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this sentence "Lynn says that the Americans United for Separation of Church is keeping a close legal eye on the TM movement and that there are no imminent cases as of May 2008." --BwB (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While he does use the phrase "TM movement", the comment is clearly about the teaching of the TM technique in schools.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I removed this at one time. It doesn't really say anything in terms of the technique or the article for that manner except by some far reaching implication. Seems like just filler, and I would remove it again for that reason.(olive (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That sentence doesn't really add anything. I agree wtih TG that the Newsweek article has other assertions that might be added.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will. Added a couple points. Should we consider moving the whole section to TM movement article? TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed which article this material was best suited for in #Moving forward, above. My last thought on th matter was that it doesn't seem to concern any particular organizations, except perhaps the Lynch Foundation, so it was better suited for this article.   Will Beback  talk  16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since TM Movement article also includes the educational aspects of the org. I would think that article should content on the schools should be included there as well as here. In some case there will have to be overlapping of content, I would think. (olive (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There's no point in duplicating the same text in both articles. If we add a section on the Lynch Foundation to the TMM article then that would logically include a mention of their funding for TM training in schools.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have to use the same content. There 's a lot of information on the technique in the schools. I am concerned that we are introducing artificial delineations by attempting to decide if content goes in one place or the other when the information is really about both. Is the DLF a TM Movement org? ... I think its independent of the TM org although it does promote teaching of the technique. Maybe someone with more info could comment on that.(olive (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The DLF is using MVED trademarks with permission, or as a sub-licensee.[4] Important figures in the movement, especially Hagelin, are on the board. The DLF's sole activity is the promotion of TM. I don't see how it could be viewed as outside of the TMM. The DLF is included in the template. If it isn't part of the movement then it should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes , but, Hagelin could be on the board of the Methodist Church and maybe he is too, but that doesn't make the Church TMM. I'm fine with its inclusion, but attempting top clarify a point.(olive (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• If a further 1% can be persuaded to take up yogic flying in groups, world peace would follow, according to the Transcendental Meditation Movement, of which Lynch is the public face. [5]

If everyone on the board of a Methodist Church was a TM practitioner or official, and if that Methodist Church's official purpose was to promote TM, then it'd be reasonable to consider it a part of the TMM.   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a short section to the TMM article about the DLF.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this reasoning, actually. Some newspaper may say Lynch is the face of TM... but Lynch is a whole lot more than that... What we are coming up against is who defines what TM Movement means. I am defining it as one of the official programs or organizations which DLF is not. I don 't see it here [6]. You are categorizing and defining what TM Movement means. However. i'm quibbling so i'll back off. Lets see what others have to say. Thanks Will.(olive (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Is this page the definition of the TMM? http://www.mum.edu/disclosures/copyright.html I don't see the Maharishi Foundation, Ltd., on that page either, but it's undoubtedly a part of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Maharishi Foundation is not there since it is the entity which sub licenses to MVEDC rather than itself being a licensed program or organization.(olive (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have a question about that on the TMM talk page. Another entity not on the MUM list is Global Country of World Peace. Overall, I don't think that list is really useful for anything beyond its stated purpose - a list of trademarks licensed to the MVEDC.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added the conference presentation yesterday by Robert Schneider at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association. This is now being widely reported in the media. But is a conference presentation considered a reliable source? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This essay seems suggests that the abstracts of conferences are not reliable sources. [7]

I'm not familiar with the vetting procedure for conference presentations. Perhaps that would be the telling point. If presentations are juried before acceptance then there would be little or no difference than a publication... and the AHA is a reputable association.(olive (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Although news sources are not the best sources for medical studies and or reports, if this content is retained it should probably be worded to say that, the BBC has reported on a study presented at the 2009 AHA conference.(olive (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

With this additional article in Science NOW. [8] I would think this AHA presentation could be included, again, within context of the publication.(olive (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

In answer to the question of olive above, yes, most reputable scientific and medical conferences require peer review of their submitted abstracts. The approved ones are generally of high quality. This is far more scrutiny than most articles in the mainstream media receive. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that TM has been connected to MVAH in the lede. However, we do not much about MVAH in the article. Is the lede not supposed to summarize the main points of the article, not just be a random collections of facts? --BwB (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'll add more about the place of TM in the MVAH to the text of the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a short section to put the MVAH into context vis a vis TM.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will. --BwB (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tags which were at the top of the article for many months. When I asked on this talk page a few weeks ago, "what needs to be done to correct the article and remove the tags?" The only request was for a section on the course fee for TM. We can continue that discussion but in the mean time I don't see why the tags have to remain as all editors said they were open to the idea of including something on the TM fees as long as there were reliable sources and it doesn't give a commercial feel to the article. If we continue that discussion, here is one more ref that we can add to the list we were accumulating. ^[2]-- — Kbob • Talk • 04:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. --BwB (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kbob, clicking on this last reference (2) gives me a newspaper page, but I couldn't find anything relevant to TM. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, it seems that the link has been updated to a different article. I'll see if I can find it. thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"NPOV" tags are perhaps among the most useless bits of text on Wikipedia. I'm less and less inclined to defend their use. That said, this article does not yet include all significant points of view on all issues, and so is technically out of compliance with WP:NPOV. Let's make sure that such tags are unnecessary.   Will Beback  talk  09:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rub is in this word "significant." What is significant to one editor is not necessarily so to another. So the discussion goes on. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, how is it that every mention of literature on adverse effects of the practice of TM has been excised from the article? The paragraph that used to be here is still in Research_studies_on_the_applications_of_Transcendental_Meditation#Studies_on_adverse_effects_of_Meditation but not one word here. Not even a cross-reference. Interesting. Also, all mention of the German study is gone. Even the TM Movement acknowledges that some people suffer adverse effects from TM and TM-Sidhi, and has a name for it "unstressing".Fladrif (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unstressing" is not considered an "adverse effect" of TM, but a natural part of the practice. This is what TM does - it removes stress from the mind and body. This is how health, etc. improves. --BwB (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The TM Movement says that there are no adverse effects from TM, but that if someone experiences adverse effects, it's "unstressing", and a natural part of the process. Claiming that an adverse effect is really a positive effect is an interesting bit of self-deception, but you can call a pork chop a lamb chop all day, but it's still a pork chop. Also, am I not correct in understanding that the cause of "unstressing" is the release of bad karma from past lives?[9][10][11][12][13] [14][15]Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Flad, we know what you think of TM. One can either dig up the most negative material possible on TM while someone else digs up the most positive. Neither is a definitive look at the technique.

I'm fine with the tags being there. NPOV is an overall description on non neutrality, and is not just in reference to either negative or positive weight for or against the technique, If the article is biased against the technique the tags should be there as well as if it is biased for the technique.(olive (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You have no idea whatsoever what I think about TM, and if you think you do you are sadly and grossly mistaken. Now, rather than engage in further personal attacks, are you interested in actually responding to the substance of my comments?Fladrif (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack intended. That someone would not support TM is not in my book a negative, just a matter of choice which I have no interest in judging. You give a pretty good imitation of some one whose view on TM is less than positive since almost all posts include a jab at some aspect of TM, but you're right no one knows really what someone else thinks. I apologize.

As I understand. the words un stressing or normalizing are, in context of the TM organization, a description of a natural process in which the body and nervous system experience "rest". Described as deeper than sleep, but not a replacement for sleep, the kinds of normalizing processes we know go on with any kind of rest can be experienced. However, because the rest is deep, deep kinds of normalizing may occur. When the technique is practiced properly it is simple, natural to the way the mind works, and is a pleasant experience. Once someone learns the technique in the US they may at any time (for life) ask for their meditation to be checked (free of charge ) which helps make sure the effortless, easiness, natural aspect of the technique is continued. Normalizing is not a negative side effect but a natural effect of rest. When we sleep, one kind of rest, the body attempts to normalize itself, to throw off fatigue, to return to its pre fatigue state... and the result of a more rested physiology is generally pleasant no matter the kind of depth of rest we get.

I am not a TM teacher but this is how I understand the technique to work.... and this is the meaning of the word "unstressing" within the TM organization.(olive (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

A fairly good explanation, Olive. One point I would add is that it is due to rest that the body releases stress. As you say, when someone does TM, research shows that the body gets deep rest. When this rest occurs the body naturally starts to release stress. It is a more stress-free body that allows one to enjoy life more and to have better health. So releasing stress is a normal things that happens during TM. So releasing stress is a good thing for health. It is common knowledge in the medical profession that stress can cause ill-health. --BwB (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the article, is there material that's missing that should be included? If sources discuss "unstressing" then let's mention it.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which was my original point. There are reliable sources and studies that some people have adverse effects from meditation, including in particular from TM. All that stuff was removed from the article. After I pointed out that it was removed here but was in the TM Research article and at least should be cross-referenced, TG deleted it from the Research article. The TM Movement says, no, there are no adverse effects, if someone claims to have experienced are adverse effects, it's just "unstressing", a normal part of the process and not adverse at all.Shouldn't this material be part of this article?Fladrif (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources cite studies that show adverse effects of the TM technique specifically they should be included. I assume you didn't mean adverse effects of meditation which isn't the business of this article. I'd prefer to have TG comment on the removal of any studies. Since he is as careful an editor as anyone else here, I think he probably has a reason for whatever he did or didn't do. (olive (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As well, obviously we will need to consider the ratio of the adverse studies affects to the positive effects studies as one way to determine "weight".(olive (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That's problematic in this context because of the sheer numbers of studies authored by MUM researchers. If one person writes ten books on one side of an issue, and three people write three books on another side, then the one person doesn't necessarily deserve three times as much weight. The more neutral way of assigning weight would be according to reviews of the studies and citations by non-MUM scholars.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by the disregard for peer review and reputable publication. I do understand your concern, but this is becoming problematic for me as an editor. If it were a few studies we could possibly question the peer review process per Wikipedia, but its hundreds. And research has been carried on by many other institutions. This comes up time and time again.... so my thought is to see what's out there in terms of adverse effect studies and possibly also ask for input from outside. I understand what you're saying but it just doesn't hold water for me in terms of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is mean to reflect the sources such as they are, not to reflect our opinion on the sources. Per WP:Fringe adverse effects from the technique would seem to be a very minority view. Anyway lets look at the sources.(olive (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

NPOV calls on us to report all significant points of view with weight relative to their prominence. Just because the MUM conducts 100 studies that doesn't necessarily mean their view is substantially more prominent than one study published by uninvolved researchers. For starters, I think we should avoid giving much space to studies that haven't been reviewed, reported on, or directly replicated. As we often hear, the TM movement has conducted over 600 studies. Those studies, and even abstracts of them, are available elsewhere. We don't need to devote a paragraph to each one here. If there have been 12 studies showing that the ME lowers crime, but those studies haven't gotten any attention or review, then all we need to say is that there have been 12 studies on that topic, their general results. We shouldn't give details of how the studies were conducted, etc.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets establish a base line of understanding that we all can agree on. There are about 350 peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals and more coming in all the time. There are about 800 studies total. We are concerned with the 350 peer reviewed studies. 350 peer reviewed studies indicates a strong acceptance by the scientific community . There is no reason to doubt the integrity of the research, and who does the research does not enter into it. That's the job of the peer review panel. As well, many of these studies were co-authored. There are no "involved" editors except as personal opinion here. If there are 100 studies, not carried on by MUM, but buy legitimate researchers, and if they are peer reviewed and published in reputable journals, they are appropriate for inclusion here, and no, one study by a so- called someone else does not create an NPOV to balance these 100 studies. The one or two studies are most likely a fringe view, and either deserves a brief inclusion or no inclusion at all ... Per Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Without looking at the studies individually, I'm not sure how we can say that "There is no reason to doubt the integrity of the research, and who does the research does not enter into it".   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in this discussion comes down, again and again to questioning the studies because the researchers may be TM meditators or because there may a connection to MUM on some level. I've repeated the same points multiple times so I have to assume; I'm not clear, you don't understand; or we disagree. If I'm not clear let me know ... if we still disagree after all of this time , we need outside eyes on this.(olive (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure what your question is. But when it comes to sources, we should evaluate them individually as they're proposed. It's not really productive to have extensive discussion on hypothetical issues.   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a question, and there is no "question" that studies must be evaluated individually....However, weight must be determined, as must NPOV, and fringe. The discussion began with "studies on adverse effects". Lets see where that goes.(olive (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If I understand correctly, Fladrif is saying that sourced material has been removed from this article, the same material that was recently deleted and restored to the research article.[16] Where was the deletion of this material discussed?   Will Beback  talk  06:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]