Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5

• Abtract: Previous research suggested that a phase transition to increased orderliness, evidenced by reduced crime, should occur when group size approaches the square root of 1 percent of the population. In the current research, analysis of Merseyside monthly crime data and coherence group size from 1978 to 1991 showed that a phase transition occurred during March 1988, with a 13.4-percent drop in crime when group size first exceeded the Maharishi Effect threshold. Up to 1992, the Merseyside crime rate remained steady, in contrast to the national crime rate which increased by 45 percent. In 1987, Merseyside had the third highest crime rate of the 11 largest metropolitan areas in England and Wales. By 1992, it had the lowest crime rate, 40 percent below levels predicted by previous behavior of the series. Between 1988 and 1992, 255,000 less crimes in Merseyside occurred than would have been expected had Merseyside continued to follow the national crime trend. Demographic changes, economic variables, police practices, and other factors could not account for the reduced crime rate. 26 references, 4 tables, and 2 figures [2]

In the UK study it states that "saved Merseyside over £1,250 million, or US $850 million" because of the TM group. Is this an accurate translation of GB Pounds to $? At current exchange rates 1250 million GBP = approx $2050 million. --BwB (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your math is incorrect. In 1996, the exchange rate was about 1.66 dollars to the pound.[3] 1,250,000,000*1.66 = 2,075,000,000, or about $2.1 billion. Ajusted for U.S. inflation, that's $2.85 billion in 2008 dollars.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not sure how many digits should be in "£1,250 million". Britains and Americans have had different definitions of some numbers. See Long and short scales.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked, 1,250,000,000 is the correct number.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought but purposefully left the figures as they were at the time of the study, rather than updating the values. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have access to the study? We should double check the figures. For one thing, it is important to include how much of the time the level of practitioners was high enough.   Will Beback  talk  03:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will I am confused by your request for a verification of the Merceyside study cite which says the study was published in 1996 in Psychology, Crime and Law. What exactly are you asking to have verified?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting a quotation of the text that discusses the computed savings.   Will Beback  talk  17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going twice.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A Home office Report (1988) estimates that the average cost of each crime is more than £5,000. If Merseyside had continued to follow the national trend of rising crime from 1988 to 1992, there would have been 255,000 more crimes than actually occurred, a saving of £1,250 million." p. 173. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the study claims that four years of TM-Sidhi in Merseyside resulted in 255,000 fewer crimes? That's an extraordinary claim. Was it reported in any other sources?   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The population of Merseyside is 1.3 million people. 255,000 crimes means that, in a four year period, something like a quarter of all residents would have been the victims of crime. And that's just the claimed reduction - I don't know how many crimes still occurred. This just doesn't seem plausible.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions the study. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article1043763.ece --Uncreated (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC reported in 2001 that the nation had 716,500 crimes. Acording to this study, the number of crimes that didn't occur in Merseyside was, on average, 63,750 per year. If the crime rate was unchanged between 1991 and 2001 (unlikely, since the BBC reported that it had just gone up 8%), then the TM-Sidhi had reduced crime across the entire nation by 11% through the reduction at Merseyside alone. The 2001 census gives the population of England as 49,138,831, meaning that Merseyside accounts for less than 3% of the population. While Merseyside may have a disproportionately high crime rate, this doesn't make sense. If results this dramatic had occurred it would have been reported in other sources. I think this represents a WP:REDFLAG requiring additional sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link works for me. It quotes Huw Dixon, the Professor of Economics at York University: “I have been following research on the Maharishi Effect over the past 20 years. Its conclusions are so strong that it demands action from those responsible for government policy.” --Uncreated (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they block visitors from the U.S. What does it say about this study?   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give the title and date of the article? Perhaps I can find it another way.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found it another way: "Give peace a chance" by John Naish, March 13, 2004. But that's not independent reporting of the crime decrease - it's just a mention of the study. A crime reduction of this magnitude, 60%, would surely have been reported elsewhere, by people unaware of the TM-Sidhi program.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an NLP webs page that includes some graphs from the study: [4]. If I'm not mistaken, the meditation/Sidhi practice was performed in Skelmersdale. I wonder what changes to the crime rate have occurred since the end of the study. Since the meditation continued I'd assume that the benefit would as well.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the paragraph quotes the study rather exhaustively, it seems to me the information is sufficiently verified, therefore, I would like to remove the tag. How do editors feel about this? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can remove the "verify citation" tag, but I'm going to post this on the Fringe noticeboard as I think the assertion is too extraordinary to rely on just one source.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, if you send me an e-mail, I'll send you a return e=mail with the study attached, and you can look at it yourself. TimidGuy (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that'd help. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting.   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give Will a chance to look at the study before removing the cite tag.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed it. The material correctly summarizes the study. However I think the study's conclusions are so extraordinary that they require additional confirmation. I'll post a thread on the Fringe noticeboard about this when I get a chance.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this particular study or the Maharishi Effect hypothesis in general? Would you like to remove the study? Do you feel it's given too much weight? TimidGuy (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I write above, the numbers seem implausible. I can't explain how it could have passed peer review, but no system is perfect. Because the claim is so extraordinary I think that it would require more than one source.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with removing it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) And I agree with you regarding WP:REDFLAG. I've sent your analysis to one of the researchers to see if there's a simple explanation regarding the implausible extrapolation at the end of the study. TimidGuy (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind leaving it in the article until we've agreed on a final disposition.   Will Beback  talk  19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard back from the lead author of the study. There does seem to be a simple explanation:

The UK breaks crime down into a large number of categories and also revises the categories from time to time. Therefore, to complete research accurately and perform time series analysis, you have to ensure that methods police use for reporting and recording are compatible from year to year. This was true for the period of my study. The question you have received covers the time period from 1991 to 2001. My study was completed in 1993 and published in 1996. In order to answer your question I would need to study reporting criteria for the period in question. From memory I believe a number of crime categories were eliminated from the national reporting schedule in the nineties. This may have been part of a public relations effort or for other reasons. In particular, certain categories like minor damage and low value theft became so prevalent nationally that they were excluded from the figures. Your correspondent is quoting from revised reporting procedures which accounts for the apparent lower figures. At the time of the commencement of my study Merseyside had the second highest crime rate in the UK (all categories included), which then fell to among the lowest as I reported. This trend was apparent across all categories of crime. The methods of analysis I followed and the categories of crime studied, were ones used as standard practice and reporting at the time. A few years ago I did look at crime figures subsequent to my study's publication and found that the trends reported were holding up in subsequent years when comparable categories were included year on year. An update on a raft of social and economic data for subsequent years in Merseyside was included in my PhD thesis completed in 2000. This showed dramatic improvements in quality of life.

Does this make sense? TimidGuy (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I'm not sure what you asked him, or where he got the 1991-2001 interval. If the crimes that are no longer countered were "minor damage and low value theft" then that calls into question the £5,000 per crime average cost. ($8,300 with the 1991 exchange rate) I still have to do more analysis of the data to figure out how they got the 255,000 number. I'll see if I can find a source that discusses the change in crime reporting statistics.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at this article and it mentions a new standard for recording crime. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jul/10/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation --Uncreated (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. Unfortunately, it makes the situation even murkier. The Guardian article says that crime statistics reported by police were unreliable and inconsistent. However that's the data which the study uses. Further, the article says there were two different sets of statistics: those reported by police and those reported in a survey of adults. The study compares crimes reported by local police to national statistics provided by the Home Office. However the study doesn't say which method was used for the the Home Office numbers. Because of the different methodologies, and the inherent unreliability of the police reporting, it's quite possible that no meaning correlation between the two numbers can be made. The study makes two separate claims about the Merseyside crime rate: that it dropped, and that it did not share the same increase in crime that other districts experienced. The study doesn't discuss how the crime statistics were prepared.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our job as editors is to report all significant points of view. In the past on this and other related articles one reliable source has been enough even when a source made, what some editors considered, unreasonable or implausible claims. So I'm not sure why this perceived unreasonable and implausible claim is an exception. Having said that I would also say that this one sentence, which puts a dollar figure on how much money was saved by Merseyside due to the Maharishi Effect that supposedly occurred while the study was taking place, is not crucial to the article or even to the paragraph summarizing the study and if Will has a strong objection I am OK with the sentence being taken out.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, regarding what I asked him: I simply copied and pasted your analysis from above. Regarding the interval: His study covered 1988-1991. You came up with info from 2001. I think he's saying that during the period 1991-2001 the categories changed. Also, we don't know that the Home Office used either set of statistics to calculate the cost of a crime. We'd have to find out how they calculated that figure. Not sure what you mean when you say the study doesn't discuss how the crime statistics were prepared. TimidGuy (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the average cost of crimes the Home Office apparently supplied figures for the national crime rate. We don't know how either the national or the Merseyside crime statistics were gathered, or if they used the same method. The Guardian says that the revisions were made because the old methods were inconsistent and unreliable. GIGO.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This study exclusively used publicly available police data. They briefly address the issue of unreliable data, pointing out that the two most reliable categories of data show the same trend as the overall data. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing where they say that the national data comes exclusively from "publicly available police data"? The study also mentions the "British Crime Survey", which presumably follows the survey methodology.   Will Beback  talk  12:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom of page 170 mentions their source for national crime data being the 42 police districts of England and Wales. TimidGuy (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Kbob that, if there is some doubt or confusion as to how the amount of money saved from lower crime rates was computed, that section can easily be removed, it is not fundamental to the study. As for the rest, it seems we are hearing from the horse (researcher)'s mouth that "to complete research accurately and perform time series analysis, you have to ensure that methods police use for reporting and recording are compatible from year to year. This was true for the period of my study." and that "At the time of the commencement of my study Merseyside had the second highest crime rate in the UK (all categories included), which then fell to among the lowest... This trend was apparent across all categories of crime". Since police reporting methods remained consistent during the study period, the results ought to be be reliable. The article, as Will says, passed peer review, the fact that the lowering of the crime rate may seem anomalous given that it rose everywhere else, can be explained by the field effect. We are simply reporting results documented by the study. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is fundamental to the study? The only one I've heard from is TimidGuy, who says he has been in touch with an unidentified person who is making unsourced assertions. We have no evidence that the police reporting methods stayed the same during the studyt period. A number of alternate explanations to the field theory are discounted with no apparent investigation. Peer review is not a magic wand. Let's keep looking into this. The background of the study includes the credentials of the lead author. Where did he get his Ph.D?   Will Beback  talk  07:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received an e-mail from Guy Hatchard, the first author of the study, and quoted his response above. I don't think he had a PhD at the time of the study. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you didn't give his name. What are or were his qualifications?   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, peer review is a kind of magic wand in terms of inclusion in Wikipedia. We aren't in the business of questioning a peer review board or a reputable publication .... If however, the results of the study are extraordinary, and use of the study makes an exceptional claim, and if the study has not been replicated then caution should be used when and if including the study. In addition to the other suggestions above we might just add to the article that this actual study has not been replicated...Although, there have been other studies showing the same kinds of results. The question then becomes can these other studies be considered "replications" supporting the conclusions of the study we are citing, or not.(olive (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding "what is fundamental to the study", I would say that since the study is on the Maharishi effect, as demonstrated by lowering crime rates under certain conditions, crime rate figures are what matters most. The computation of money saved is a sort of nice "corollary" to the main point. As far as having more evidence, we have a peer reviewed published study, as Olive says, and a message from the study's author, why would we need further proof? I can't imagine that Wikipedia policies would require such extreme caution. Furthermore, short of recreating conditions and re-doing the experiment and the study, I do not see how anyone could obtain more evidence.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that there have been other reports and studies on crime in Liverpool. If any of them, conducted independent of the MUM, have verified these results then that would be useful information. As for the evidence, let's keep reviewing the claims made in the study and see if they make sense. As I originally said, the numbers seem implausible.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct, Will. The Home Office reports are available here. [5]. The official crime statistics appear to me, at first glance, to be at very substantial variance with the extraordinary and improbable claims of this study, suggesting that a statistical sleight-of-hand is what is really involved here.Fladrif (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this study peer reviewed? Was it published in a reputable publication? We can assume then, in the context of Wikipedia guidelines, that the reviewers looked at the study, saw the "numbers" and felt the studies results were justified enough for publication.. Again, if the results of the study are extraordinary, then per Wikipedia:RS," Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field..." If it was replicated, however, then we can include this study, and I believe this study was a replication and/or was replicated. Perhaps the study needs to be removed, but if it is, it should be per some clearly defined non compliance with Wikipedia policy/guideline rather than the implied questioning of the legitimacy of the reviewers, the publication, and the researchers. The way to include such a controversial edit would be to include reliably sourced comments that question the study, along with the study itself. In the end I don't mind of the study is removed, but it should be because it doesn't comply, not for personal reasons any of us might have.(olive (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's my view that, on the face of it, this study is making an extraordinary claim that requires further confirmation. That's true even with a peer-reviewed source. While we're here - is this study notable? Has it been cited in other papers, or reported in the mainstream media?   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The study seems to be a replication, in which case by Wikipedia standards could be included. My concern here is not that we exclude or include the study, but that, with respect to you Will, our opinions as to whether something seems plausible or not becomes a criteria for that inclusion or exclusion. I see your point but also feel tied by the guideline. Initially I would have said, just take the study out, but now I can't see why per Wikipedia we would do that. A repetition of the same results over time and in different circumstances-replication-would seem to be a form of confirmation, and the legitimate one in the sciences.

As I understand notability, it refers to a criteria for creation of an article. i'm not sure we can look to mainstream press as a standard for significance. In this case, as one of many replicated studies on the Maharishi Effect, this study might be considered significant.

The study itself, and its results are the replicated factors. Is it possible that the application of these results to monetary savings is that factor that is not replicated as often or at all in the other studies, and so could be excluded. Looking for solutions.(olive (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think I missed something. Was there an earlier study on crime in Liverpool 1988-1992?   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not appear that this is a replication of earlier studies of crime in the Liverpool metropolitan area. What is appears to be is that the author looked at the crime stats and tried to do a statistical analysis vs the number of TM-Sidhi practioners in Skelmersdale, and draw a cause-and-effect conclusion about them. What he attempted to "replicate" was finding the same cause-and-effect relationship claimed in the other Maharishi Effect papers. There are lots of stats to choose from, from many periods, and without being able to actually see the data tables used in the study, it is impossible to know what is actully being analyzed. It is also impossible to assess how things like a major police crackdown in the Liverpool metro area, credited in the mainstream press with halving the crime rate were dismissed by the article. There is no explanation why, in most of the periods cited, other UK communities had comparable or even greater reductions in crime in individual years, with no apparent assistance from Yogic Flyers in those communities. It does not appear that any non-TM-Movement researchers have ever cited this article. Other than reporting claims of TM-Movement representatives touting the study, it does not appear to have been reported at all in the mainstream press, although one Guardian article noted about these specific claims: "Natural Law is no different to any normal political party in its use of bogus statistics." [6]Fladrif (talk)

While we're at it, I think that fairness and balance requires that we address some of the notable and indeed spectacular failures of the Maharishi Effect: the withdrawal of the Maharishi from Washington DC after the failure to affect crime rates there (predating the highly-touted DC study), the failure of the Skelmersdale flyers to affect the Britiish elections (or even to affect the Labour victories all around Merseyside and surrounding areas) leading to the withdrawal from the UK until Blair left office; the failure to affect the US elections on several occasions, and most recently, the "Invincible America" assembly taking credit for the Dow topping 14,000 and unemployment rates falling, promising nirvana in the US and around the world with peace, love and beads, sex, drugs and rock & roll, a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage, just before the market crash and record unemployment levels of the past couple years. I noted that the TM Org was keeping careful track of the Dow, the unemployment rate and other economic indicators on its website, and issuing press releases announcing how swimmingly this was all going, up until the bottom dropped out, at which point the press releases stopped, the ecomonic stats disappeared from the website, and a robots.txt was added to the websites so Google's cache and the Internet Archive wouldn't show the telltale fingerprints of an enterprise gone horribly wrong.Fladrif (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The data the researchers used regarding Merseyside crime levels is publicly available from the police departments. Why not just request it? See for yourself if crime went down. So far there's been no contravening evidence to suggest that the researchers are misrepresenting the data. TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. I can read the Home Office crime statistics. I have read them. But, I have no idea what stats this study actually used. It's clear on the face of the study that they did some picking and choosing about which stats they used. There is a mountain of data, and I'll bet that I can make these stats say anything I want them to, depending on what I want to prove. It is certainly not the case that crime dropped every year in Merseyside during the period of this study. I can even say that the stats are meaningless, because they are comparing reported crimes rather than actual crimes, and ignore the various disclaimers and estimates in the official reports about what they think is happening with unreported crime. There is also no way of knowing how differences in police practices, reporting statistics, and other factors were accounted for (or discounted) in this study. And, as I wrote above, the study would seem to ignore that in virtually every time period, other communities experienced comparable or in some times greater crime reductions, without the apparent assistance of the good folks in the Skelmerdale golden domes. Fladrif (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, is that the study is peer reviewed and published in a reliable publication. This is Wikipedia an encyclopedia whose position is to report what has been published or sourced and is not our business as per many other discussions we've had, to deal with the accuracy of the sources, or to discredit the source itself. If we go this route we open the door to questioning many of the anti TM content because accurate, it is not. I find Fald's comments interesting, but extrapolating reasons for many of these "events" is guess work As I've said before in or out doesn't matter to me, but the reason we remove it should be per Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The researchers used monthly reported crime totals from the Merseyside police department. They converted that to a time series of crimes/1000 population. TimidGuy (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I'm sure the researchers would be happy to provide a spreadsheet of the data. TimidGuy (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Have you looked at the study? TimidGuy (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Olive on this one, it seems to me that arguments are now being made for the sake of arguing. Saying that since there is data, the authors must have fudged with it to get the results they wanted, flies in the face of peer reviewing. It was a legitimate study, published in a reliable journal, we could go in circles forever, or try to change wiki standards (how many peer reviews would we need, how many publications, before something was deemed wiki worthy?), but it makes little sense. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markovsky and Fales point out in their "Evaluating Heterodox Theories" article that the journal in which this was published is new and obscure. It has an extremely low Impact Factor, and it is supposed to be a journal on the legal and criminal psychology, so I have serious doubts of the rigor of the peer review of this study, or how "reliable" this journal is. Even a cursory examination of Home Office data shows that a different cut on the raw data - say, using Violent Crime instead of Notifiable Crime - would completely reverse the conclusions of the study. Perhaps Yogic Flying is most effective when it comes to fighting forgery and credit card fraud, not so much when it comes to murder and mayhem.Fladrif (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to use Wiki policies to determine whether or not this study should be in the TM-Sidhi article. It matters not what the opinion of the Wiki editors are on the merits of the Maharishi Effect theory. If the study was published in a reputable peer-review journal, then the study can appear. As others have stated above, the editors beliefs about the study have no baring. --BwB (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extraordinary claim. There is no known 2nd source that supports its assertions. See WP:FRINGE.   Will Beback  talk  04:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its considered on of 50 studies or so on the Maharishi Effect, its not Fringe. if we compared the results from the other studies we might find that this study is an outlier. We aren't using the study to prove anything, or as a source for anything but itself . We're just saying, there was a study, and this is what happened. I guess i don't see what the concern is. Although, its a form of OR why not just add the study was never replicated. I, on thinking about it, would assume the other ME studies were not really replications. The way I see this, is, if we had multiple studies in some area like HIV and the use of a particular drug on HIV, and if we had high and low outliers, wouldn't we just include those outliers as part of the information on that area of study. Why would we here, make editorial decisions to exclude any of those studies. I can't see that we would. Sure the results of this study are hard to believe, but so what. We're not looking at these studies to fund more research for example, we 're just reporting on what happened. The threshold for inclusion has been met, so I can't see what the issue is. (olive (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There's nothing extraordinary about a study which says that meditating and similar relaxation techniques lower blood pressure. However asserting that a small group of people meditating 12 miles from Liverpool resulted in a 45% crime reduction equaling a savings of over $2 billion is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require more than one source. If this study was famous then we'd report it for its fame, but we shouldn't report every claim made by fringe groups, even if they are reported in reliable sources. We already devote plenty of space to the Maharishi effect using studies that have been reviewed by outsiders, and I'm not suggesting removing those. But this is an unreviewed, uncorroborated paper written by a grad student and published in a new or obscure journal.   Will Beback  talk  05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.Why is this a fringe group .... c'mon Will .... this so called fringe group has over 350 peer reviewed studies, and 50 studies in this area. At the least let's get caught up with the times. I guess we are going around in circles. Is it up to one or two of us to argue and decide on this or should other editors be asked for agreement. I'm OK taking it out, but I can't speak for anyone else. What's next. (olive (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That was a poor choice of words on my part. Statistically, most groups are probably fringe groups. I should have said "fringe views". Every religion has unique beliefs, and if these were framed as such then there wouldn't be an issue. But they are presented as scientific facts. That they were passed by some reviewers at a journal does not mean they they represent the consensus view of science. There are widely held views in science and there are fringe views. Not all of the issues regarding the scientific studies of Maharishi's teachings are the same. If we polled one hundred scientists at random, asking them whether personal meditation is likely to reduce stress, I believe most would regard that as plausible. If we asked the same group whether the meditations of a small group could affect the actions of a million distant people, then I think that only a few would find that plausible. If I'm correct, then it's a fringe view. In his time, Galileo also held a fringe view, as did Darwin (whose views are still not shared by the majority of the American public, though they are now almost universally accepted among scientists). Probably every dramatic scientific development was on the fringe at some point. "Fringe" sounds pejorative, but it's really a shorthand reference to a small statistical group. Wikipedia's NPOV requires that we present all significant views, no matter how few people believe them, with the neutral point of view. However it also requires that we avoid presenting a fringe view as the majority view. It's not an easy task for any of us. It's harder still for those who are firmly inside that statistical group. But we're all making progress and the articles are improving.   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some nicely stated points. Thanks, Will. And it's interesting to hear you say that you think that most scientists would agree that personal meditation is likely to reduce stress. Thirty years ago that notion was every bit as contentious as the Maharishi Effect and was considered fringe. At this point it seems doubtful that the notion of a mind/environment connection will catch on the same way that the mind/body connection has, but things seem to be going in that direction, not just in this research but in other research, too. Anyway, to get back to the point (and if you don't mind, temporarily putting aside the more general issues), you refer to this study as being unreviewed. I believe this is a peer-reviewed journal, isn't it? And I don't know that this journal can be considered obscure. It's the Official Journal of European Association of Psychology and Law. It has a fairly good impact factor. I don't understand why we'd remove this study and not others. The hypotheses of all of the studies are equally implausible. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, Fales and Markovsky pointed out that this Journal is, typically of those in which MUM researchers are able to get their papers published, both new and obscure. Fladrif (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with you Will, but I think you honestly have very real concerns with this study, and I can respect that. Since you are an editor who has done a fair amount of the heavy lifting on some of these articles , and are not just a drive - by, agenda - driven editor , and since the bottom line for me on any article is accuracy along with the collaboration of editors, i will back down on my position and suggest we remove the study . As I've said, I can't speak for anyone else on this issue, but this will be my position

Markovsky and company are certainly welcome to their opinions, but seems like the publication may be more mainstream and less obscure in Europe than is being considered here . (olive (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It is nice to follow the arguments on both sides from very experienced editors. Thanks for that. The authors of these ME studues have run into these same kinds of issues themselves, I believe. The research science and statistics are good and rigorous, but the theory is hard to others to accept. I am not attached to the research study being in the article, but if it is referenced and appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, then perhaps from a Wiki perspective, the study can stay. --BwB (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The research science and statistics are good and rigorous" - according to whom? Peer-reviewed journals put out thousands of articles a month, but we don't need to add a paragraph on each one to Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy Will. I may not have used the right words to classify the stats, but you know what I mean. Lots of published research on the ME, but even if the science were impeccable there are those who cannot swallow the theory of the field effect of consciousness. That's the point I was trying to make. --BwB (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So where are we with this study? Is it such an important study that it deserves an entire section? I think that these various studies could be summarized in a sentence - something like "Similar studies by MUM researchers found evidence of a Maharishi Effect in the U.K., India, Puerto Rico and the Philippines."   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree. All these studies showed different effects from the ME and the reader should have the opportunity to see all the effects that have been researched and published. --BwB (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The readers can read the papers for themselves if they want to see all the effects discussed in them. This should be a summary. If these papers are obscure then it's undue weight to devote so much space to them. Have these papers been included in any reviews? Cited in papers by non-MUM researchers? What criteria are we suing for including discussions of individual studies?   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard that a paper published in a peer review journal would be considered obscure. It is just the sort of thing wikipedia does allow, see WP:SOURCES (The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals;) and also WP:RELIABLE (Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available.) In light of the above, it seems obvious that under wiki policies this is a perfectly valid posting.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All articles printed in in peer reviewed journal are not prominent. If fact, most are obscure. Has this paper been cited or mentioned anywhere else? While this journal may be a reliable source, there's no policy in Wikipedia that requires we devote an entire section to a single obscure paper written by a graduate student.   Will Beback  talk  03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know he was a graduate student? This paragraph takes up about the same amount of space as the James Randi straw man paragraph rebutting research that doesn't exist and less space than a paragraph about an unpublished study. I think my argument would be that a peer-reviewed study published in an academic journal should have as much weight as either of these paragraphs. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC) By the way, I guess I"m confused. Here you say that the section should be reduced, and below you criticize me for deleting two sentences. In my edit summary I gave reducing weight as part of my rationale. TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC[reply]

I deduced he was a graduate student from your answer to my question about where he'd obtained his Ph.D. "I don't think he had a PhD at the time of the study. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)" If he didn't have a Ph.D. do we know what degree he did have? If he wasn't a graduate student then was he working as a faculty member at MUM or elsewhere?

The idea that the Maharishi Effect extends over considerable distances and affects the behavior of people who are not engaged in it is a significant viewpoint. But this is just another voice supporting that view. We don't need to give a paragraph to everyone who shares that view. I've proposed merging this material with other similar findings into a single sentence or paragraph. If that's unacceptable then I'd like to know why it's acceptable to trim off parts of the studies conclusions. This clearly isn't an "all or nothing" matter.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I disagree with your definition of the article as obscure. However, even if I did accept your argument, there would be no reason to remove the section. You write that most articles published in peer review journals are indeed obscure. Still, Wikipedia says that publications found in peer review journals are to be preferred. It does not say only those articles that are defined as "prominent" (by whom, incidentally?), or are repeatedly published, or written by Nobel prize winners, should be posted, there is no such codicil in the policy. I do not see any compelling reason to rewrite the policy.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting deleting all mention of the source, just trimming it down to its proper weight.   Will Beback  talk 

• Using time series analysis, the study showed that beginning in March, 1988, when the number practicing the TM-Sidhi program in a group reached the required threshold percentage, the crime rate fell significantly.

If I read it correctly, the MTI (Maharishi Effect Threshold Index), derived from the number of people trained in TM divided by the population, is added to the MET (Maharishi Effect Threshold), the percentage of the required 138 TM-Sidhi practitioners who attend daily sessions. The MTI provides a coherence factor on top of the ME. Can anyone find any information on how or why this extra factor is added to the calculation? Does it appear in the other studies too?   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ME has 2 elements: square root 1% doing TM-Sidhi program in a group (sometimes called the "extended Maharishi Effect") and 1% of population doing just TM on their own (original Maharishi Effect). So to accurately calculate the effect of TM on the crime in a region you need to consider both the numer of people doing TM in the area, and the number doing TM-Sidhis in a group. I believe that is what this study tries to model. --BwB (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. What's the best source that discusses the Maharishi Effect Threshold Index? If it's part of the ME we should mention it in the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyside crime statistics

Going back to the question of crime statistics in Merseyside, I've been having quite a time finding actual statistics. The Home Office crime statistics for those years breaks the national statistics into police areas, but the Merseyside statistics are blanked out on each of those reports. The Merseyside police department has a very nice statistics web page, but it only goes back to 2004. I found enough news reports to give me the flavor that crime stabilized in Merseyside during those years (1987-1992) while crime increased in other reporting areas. This is not the same as crime going down, and the idea that there were 225,000 crimes that didn't happen in Merseyside is just fanciful thinking.

However, in my searching I did come across a very interesting and well-done study done by a professor and associate at Manchester University and published by the Home Office Police Research Group. It provides convincing evidence to suggest that the stabilization of crime rates in Merseyside from 1987-1992 can be attributed to a large-scale methadone program that treated thousands of drug users, reduced drug use dramatically and as a consequence dramatically reduced the acquisitive crimes of burglary dwelling and theft from vehicles. Woonpton (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding the study. We should certainly add to the coverage here that the policy attribute the crime reduction to a drug treatment program.   Will Beback  talk  07:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be included, but my addition of the study was promptly deleted, apparently because the study doesn't refer explicitly to the topic of the article, "TM-Sidhi." The information is important information for the reader to have in order to fairly evaluate the claim that the reduction in crime was caused by the TM activity. I don't believe the TM claim should be included without also including this other study that offers another explanation for the reduction in crime. How can we address this problem? A different wording for the Home office study? Or just eliminate the Merseyside study altogether?Woonpton (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just carefully scrutinized WP:OR, (which was cited in the edit summary for this deletion) and I see nothing in WP:OR that requires, or even supports, this deletion. Also, it would have been better, if there was an objection to adding this study, to discuss it here after Will suggested that it be included, rather than summarily deleting it once it was added, without discussion. I would like more discussion from other editors on this question.Woonpton (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: I didn't see a post on this until now so that's why I just removed it. I am very sure this is OR... The study you include doesn't mention anything about the topic of this article, unless I missed it, and that's the key factor.

I'm not sure I understand what is being suggested. We can't add content on crime reduction unless it specifically references the topic of the article or that's OR.

If the study does mention the ME then no problem, but unless I missed something in my reading, it doesn't. I don't see the alternative, per any policy, as deleting sourced content.(olive (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with olive that, as stated, this addition is OR. However, its relevance is obvious. We have seen that much of the research on the putative Maharishi Effect is flawed. Pointing out that police research in the UK confirms the effectiveness of their own Methadone program in reducing crime is highly relevant, in spite of the fact that this report of the Great Britain Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, unaccountably omits mention of the TM-Sidhi Program. All we have to do is include this relevant fact, without comment. It is a relevant fact, not OR. Any relevant fact that has a citation that is a reliable source is permitted in WP. It is simply one more confirmation of the allowable (and quite reasonable) point of view that says that the research is flawed and that there is no Maharishi Effect. I have learned that it is not necessary to yield to the temptation to worship everything stated by Maharshi as truth. I believe that he was far too quick to seize on and amplify any information that could support TM and its advanced programs. For MMY, clearly, the ends justified the means. His one goal was to honor his guru by bringing enlightenment to the world; he did everything he could to achieve that goal. IMO, His behavior is understandable, but, ultimately, not justifiable. No true end justifies untrue means. David spector (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the source does not mention the topic of the article, it is OR and we cannot use it per the policy. Sorry, but we can't add information so we can include the source. Use of this source is OR. No can do!(olive (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

While the police report doesn't mention the MUM study, the MUM study does specifically discount the role of the drug clinic in the reduction in crime, along with all other possible causes of the reduction. So it's not original research to give another view of an issue raised in the study.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree per WP:OR: "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."(olive (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The topic of this paragraph is the causes of the crime reduction in Merseyside. The study makes a direct claim that the drug clinic was not a factor. To say that a police study credited the drug clinic, etc, with the reduction instead of the ME is directly relevant to the topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The paragraph is not about crime in Merseyside, it is about a study on the Maharishi Effect In Merseyside that purportedly reduced crime. The article itself, and that is our concern per OR, is about the TM Sidhi program and as a subset , the research on that, or utilizing that program.(olive (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Have to agree with Olive on this one. The article is about the TM-Sidhi program and the research conducted on this program. The source does not mention the TM-Sidhi program or the ME so to put it in the article is OR. --BwB (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is exactly the same argument that was rejected yesterday with regard to the Dow Jones index. There is no policy justification for disallowing the Dow Jones index as a source because it doesn't contain the words "Maharishi Effect" and by the same token the Home Office Police Research Group doesn't have to mention the Maharishi Effect in order to be a reliable source for a alternative explanation for the crime reduction that was purported to be a demonstration of the Maharishi Effect.Woonpton (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is Woonpton. The source must relate directly to the content it is referencing.(olive (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I now have the study and agree that what is in the article right now is appropriate. Home Office content is OR in my opinion.(olive (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've asked above but I'll ask again here to make sure it gets answered: is this the only study in which Maharishi Effect Threshold Index is used? If not, where can we learn more about this component of the Maharishi Effect? this article is missing any mention of it.   Will Beback  talk  02:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Maharishi Effect.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will. I was on the way to the OR Noticeboard myself.(olive (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The drug reports on Page 9 states "Merseyside Police are continuing to explore why their recorded crime rates between 1988 and 1994 stabilized compared with other police force areas" --BwB (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of posting that sentence?   Will Beback  talk  03:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show that the cops still don't know why the crime rate stabilized. So the "mysterious" ME could be the answer? --BwB (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly could be the answer. But it's not for us to decide. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  12:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Will that our purpose is to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view; cherrypicking one isolated statement that seems to support a particular POV, out of a 40+ page paper that provides solid evidence for a relationship between the drug programs and the reduction in crime, would contravene that purpose. The sentence in question is just boilerplate language, a mild caveat that most responsible researchers include in some form; if there is any hidden meaning, it's usually something along the lines of "Keep the funding coming; we want to keep doing research." But the statement in no way discredits or diminishes the evidence in the body of the study, and it should not be used for that purpose. Just describe both studies briefly and neutrally, and let the reader decide.Woonpton (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I pointed out in a post above, more conventional explanations for the drop in crime in Merseyside are found in many reputable sources, like a major police crackdown on street crime, to which a 50% drop in crime is attributed. [7] It seems to me that it is not original research to report reliable sources from the time that said, "the crime drop was the result of successful changes in police practices and policies", even if they make no mention of yogic flyers in Skemersdale.Fladrif (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If consciousness is the primordial stuff of the universe, and if there are technologies that can effect consciousness and create a positive influence in that field, then all things in the universe are effected positively - all police activity, all drug rehab programs, all criminals, deviants, etc. This is the underlying theory of the Maharishi Effect. However, there has to be an instrument for consciousness to work through. If police could not contain crime in 1986, did nothing in 1987 to change their methods, and a TM-Sidhi group was formed in 1987 and crime went down, we could say that the policing methods finally started to work in 1987 and give credit to the cops. However, maybe it was the primordial field of consciousness being enlivened by the TM-Sidhi group that was the ultimate cause of the crime drop, while the police were the physical means through which the result occurred. Just a thought for a Sunday afternoon! --BwB (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pester, but is there more information on the Maharishi Effect Threshold Index? Which other studies was it used in? I don't see it mentioned in Dillbeck 1987. Did Hagelin include it in the D.C. study? Where is is discussed from a conception point of view?   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at NOR/N I have reinstated this source. Woonpton (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That notice board thread was begun last night. Give editors a chance to comment especially that this was a weekend. Further there is nothing definitive on this notice board. Lets not jump the gun here... at least give time for input and we can go from there.(olive (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I agree there's no rush, but I wonder why, if there's no rush, it was necessary to delete the text so quickly.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, Will. How about because I happened to be online. And how about because I consider it a violation of policy. And how about assume good faith. (olive (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I never stopped assuming good faith. But if there's no rush then let's not rush to delete it. Nobody argues that it is poorly-sourced or irrelevant. So far, no uninvolved editor has agreed that it's NOR. So the reasons for keeping it appear to outweigh the reasons for deleting it at this time. It's just a single sentence. If the views on NORN shift we can delete it again. Is that a problem?   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I was under the impression that olive had struck her claim and thanked the noticeboard, per her edit summary there, so I assumed that the issue had been resolved in favor of resinstating the source, and I reinstated it. Is it now deleted again? Is the OR argument still being pursued? I can't keep up. Woonpton (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have today removed the POV tag which I placed in the Maharishi Effect section in October. Since that time Luke and other editors have added additional info and other editors hav e made edits which create more balance in the section. Hence the removal of the tag. -- — Kbob • Talk • 14:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kbob good idea, I think we are a bit awash in tags, in this article --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Most, if not all, of the knowledge and techniques taught by MMY come from ancient tradition (in particular, the Shankaracharya lineages of gurus). Besides the development of consciousness ("moving the silence"), practicing the Yoga sutras may very appropriately be considered as a Samashti Sadhana, a practice meant to help create an atmosphere or influence of Sattva (spiritual purity) in the local population and in the world. MMY's followers call the putative effect of this influence the Maharishi Effect. I propose that a link to Samashti Sadhana be added to the article, perhaps in the section on the Maharishi Effect, since from a spiritual perspective this is a useful way to view the TM-Sidhi Program. David spector (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a source makes the connection between these two neither can we, either in the article or linking in the article. To do so would be considered OR. So if you can find a source great. {olive (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

I concur with Olive, we can't just arbitrarily link articles --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to show a rather obvious and interesting connection between two WP articles. Never mind. David spector (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

In case it hasn't been done before, I'd like to point out that, to help trademark the term, the word "Sidhi" was deliberately misspelled. The correct spelling, of course is "Siddhi", representing the Sanskrit letters/diacriticals s,i,d,dh,i, and meaning (roughly) "one who practices powers related to perfection" (it is closely related to several other common Sanskrit terms, including Siddha, Sadhu, and Sat). While one might contest the trademarking of the word "siddhi", adding the prefix "TM-" and the misspelling "Sidhi" produces enough of a difference to make trademarking reasonable. In case anyone wanted to know. David spector (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a source discussing this then we could add it. But I don't think that we should say so on our own.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info David. If this comes up in future we can look for a reliable secondary source and reference this information.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will wrote the following, which I think deserves discussion:

That was a poor choice of words on my part. Statistically, most groups are probably fringe groups. I should have said "fringe views". Every religion has unique beliefs, and if these were framed as such then there wouldn't be an issue. But they are presented as scientific facts. That they were passed by some reviewers at a journal does not mean they they represent the consensus view of science. There are widely held views in science and there are fringe views. Not all of the issues regarding the scientific studies of Maharishi's teachings are the same. If we polled one hundred scientists at random, asking them whether personal meditation is likely to reduce stress, I believe most would regard that as plausible. If we asked the same group whether the meditations of a small group could affect the actions of a million distant people, then I think that only a few would find that plausible. If I'm correct, then it's a fringe view. In his time, Galileo also held a fringe view, as did Darwin (whose views are still not shared by the majority of the American public, though they are now almost universally accepted among scientists). Probably every dramatic scientific development was on the fringe at some point. "Fringe" sounds pejorative, but it's really a shorthand reference to a small statistical group. Wikipedia's NPOV requires that we present all significant views, no matter how few people believe them, with the neutral point of view. However it also requires that we avoid presenting a fringe view as the majority view. It's not an easy task for any of us. It's harder still for those who are firmly inside that statistical group. But we're all making progress and the articles are improving. Will Beback talk 09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's true that a majority of scientists would say that the Maharishi Effect is implausible. ( Carla Brown actually did her Harvard dissertation on the response of scientists to the Maharishi Effect and used a technique called content analysis to analyze the results. Their responses ranged from, "Hmm, this is interesting, let me take a look at the data," to taking the research from her and throwing it across the room. Her interviewees included Fales and Markovsky.) I guess it doesn't seem obvious to a reader would get the sense from reading this article that the Maharishi Effect is the majority view. Much of the article's content is centered around controversy. The article explicitly says that this research isn't accepted. Olive has agreed that the UK study could be deleted, but unless there's a clear violation of a policy or guideline that solution just doesn't seem satisfying. It's almost like we're sweeping it under the carpet. I've checked the impact factors for three of these journals. Two are among the top five journals in the field. The third was at about the 50th percentile. So I don't think they can be said to be obscure. So the question is, does the article indicate that this is a majority view, and if so, how can we address that? TimidGuy (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above quote from Will Beback as copied by TimidGuy omitted several sentences of Will's post without an ellipsis to indicate that material was omitted. I have restored the omitted sentences (in bold)in the blockquote. I'm not sure I see any useful purpose in copying Will's post to a new section rather than leaving it in the existing (still active) section for response, especially since in the process of copying to the new section, the post was (no doubt inadvertently) edited. If the existing section is getting too long for editing, then make an arbitrary break, but I would prefer for the ease of review and discussion that posts be left in place and be left intact. I will respond to "the larger issue" in the section above. Woonpton (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The practice by some editors of repeatedly breaking off talk-page discussions in midstream and starting over in a new section makes me wonder if there is any good research on whether long-term practice of TM is associated with adverse impacts on attention span.Fladrif (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what was that you said, Flad. My attention wandered for a moment! --BwB (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[8]Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!!! --BwB (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that the majority view of scientists is that the Maharishi Effect is implausible; I take it that you would also agree that it is appropropriate that the article say that this research is not accepted. I take it that you believe that any study of the Maharishi Effect published in an independent peer reviewed journal should not be excluded from the article. Are you arguing that, by including text on such studies, the article is not suggesting that this is mainstream science, so long as there are appropriate disclaimers and descriptions of the controversies surrounding these theories? As an aside, which journals are you referring to, and what field or fields is it that that they have good impact factors? Fladrif (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I thought I was following the refactoring guideline. I thought that I had detected a change in tone and that we could discuss things in a congenial fashion, without the constant hostility and sniping, and was eager to start a new thread. See my post on Will's Talk page. But then my sincere attempt is met with sniping. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought you were following the refactoring guideline, I might suggest paying closer attention to some of its principles, such as that it's not advisable to refactor ongoing discussions, and that in refactoring one must take care not to distort the original meaning of the post you are refactoring, e.g. by keeping the parts that seem to lean in one direction and leaving out the parts that lean another direction. And referring to my concern about refactoring as "sniping" is not a good way to ensure the congenial discussion you say you want. I wouldn't even have come into this discussion except that I was dismayed by how the post was edited in copying to leave out the sentences that expressed concern. Woonpton (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TG. I wonder if you could further explain. You say that most scientists would consider the ME to be implausible. I would take that to be different than a majority view per Wikipedia. Since there are fifty or so studies it would be difficult to consider ME a fringe view "Most scientists viewpoints" must be sourced, and most is of course weasel wording. So I'm assuming you're not advocating putting something like that in the article. I'd be grateful for any further explanations. I was confused by your post, and by what you might be suggesting for the article. Thanks , TG.(olive (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Publishing 50 papers - publishing 500 papers - on a theory that is not accepted by mainstream science, does not remove the theory from the realm of "finge". Getting a paper published does not mean anything other than it got published. No-one outside of the TM Movement ever cites any of these papers. Mainstream science ignores it as unworthy of even being discussed. As for sources, haven't we gone through this before, many times? If someone cites a reliable source that reports that some aspect of SCI is not mainstream, or nonsense, or crackpot or rejected by the majority of scientists, your reaction has pretty consistently been: "That's just one person's opinion; he can't know what other scientists think, and besides, that's a personal attack". What kind of evidence do you need before you agree with TG that the ME research is not accepted by the majority of mainstream scientists?Fladrif (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said, "I think it's true that a majority of scientists would say that the Maharishi Effect is implausible." When I said that, I wasn't suggesting that that somehow go in the article. Rather, I was sharing my personal speculation. I thought we were going to explore an overall solution, in the spirit of collaboration, and had some ideas how we might proceed toward resolution. But instead, the battleground mentality continues. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you nicely (or so I thought) what it was you were proposing here, because I can't tell. You can continue to sulk about Woonpton's post and my intended-to-be-humerous aside (sorry if you took it wrong), or you can tell us what you had in mind.Fladrif (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flad. If there are 50 papers published and they are peer reviewed then as far as Wikipedia is concerned mainstream science is looking pretty seriously at these studies whatever our personal opinions might be, and per Wikipedia 50 studies is substantial and does remove the studies from the realm of fringe in terms of the studies themselves. "No one outside of the TM movement ever cites these papers" .... The issue is peer review and publication for inclusion on Wikipedia.

WP:Fringe theories: [9] "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject." Note that we are not suggesting that there is consensus in the scientific community on the importance of the theory . We are simply saying the theory has been studied and reviewed so the studies should not be considered fringe to science. No one is claiming consensus.

And please don't quote as if I had actually said the above.

My position is completely consistent per Wikipedia and per WP:Reliable Sources...and frankly that's all I care about...

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim.

TG, Thanks I wanted to clarify your position. I assumed you were giving an opinion and not suggesting we add the opinion, but felt the point was worth checking.(olive (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your opinion that the publication of studies on the ME in peer-reviewed journals removes it from the category of fringe science is simply wrong. There are lots of peer-reviewed papers published over the years on ESP, for example, but claims of clairvoyance, telekinesis and the like are still "fringe science" if science at all. Ditto with cold fusion. You quote from the note in Wikipedia on Fringe Science, but not the whole thing. It continues:

Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality (see WP:REDFLAG).

Fladrif (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this guideline applies? Does the article say that this hypothesis is accepted? It says just the opposite. Does the article use a single source? In fact, a number of reputable journals have published studies on the Maharishi Effect. Are the studies published in reputable journals? The journals that have published it include Yale University's Journal of Conflict Resolution, which is a top political science journal. I guess at this point I'm not sure what's being suggested. The sources used in this article meet Wikipedia guidelines. Of course, I'd love to completely delete all Maharishi Effect material from this article. Is that being suggested? TimidGuy (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why anyone would want to delete all the Maharishi Effect material from this article. Why would that be desirable? Also, how are we judging which journals are reputable?   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above to clarify Fladrif's misunderstanding of what I am saying: " Note that we are not suggesting that there is consensus in the scientific community on the importance of the theory We are simply saying the theory has been studied and reviewed so the studies should not be considered fringe to science. No one is claiming consensus."

I didn't quote the rest of the paragraph because its not applicable to this situation, "Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source". We are talking about 50 or so studies not one or two.

ESP, the Maharishi Effect, relativity and so on are not science, science is a process, a procedure, a method.These are theories, ideas, postulations, that have undegone a procedure that may or may not have positive outcomes. (olive (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Have the MUM researchers ever published a study that fails to show a positive outcome?   Will Beback  talk  07:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For example, two studies by Charles Alexander (see the Canter & Ernst review) and a study by John Kesterson based on his Ph.D. dissertation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. However Orme-Johnson argues that Kesterson's study was actually a positive outcome.

• The finding was only "negative" from the perspective of a particular hypothesis about what meditation is supposed to do. From a broader perspective, the study expanded knowledge of the physiological effects of meditation to something that was perhaps even more interesting.[10]

Orme-Johnson also disputes the Canter & Ernst review.[11] Without seeing the papers I can't judge for myself. Do you think Orme-Johnson's analysis is correct?   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any response?   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding how to judge whether a journal is reputable, my feeling is that if it's based at a university or a prominent academic association and is cited in the academic literature, then it's reputable. Impact factor is increasingly used, though it's a bit controversial. Here, for example, is a page ranking the top journals in the area of political science according to their impact factor. You'll see that Yale's Journal of Conflict Resolution is ranked fourth over the period 1981-2007, making it one of the top journals in the field.[12] TimidGuy (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. How do we judge the reputations of journals in the medical field, where I think most of the studies have been published?   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (i) I still have no idea what TimidGuy is proposing with respect to this article. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any proposal in the above discussion points. (ii) Olive, I neither misunderstand nor am I misrepresenting your position. You claim that publication of 50 studies on the ME means it isn't "fringe science". I am simply pointing out that your opinion in that regard is wrong. I am not asserting that all of the research on the ME should be excised from the article because it is fringe science, just as I understand that you are not asserting that anyone should claim in the article that the theory of the ME and the research supporting it is a consensus or majority view. Fladrif (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESP, the Maharishi Effect, relativity and so on are not science, science is a process, a procedure, a method.These are theories, ideas, postulations, that have undegone a procedure that may or may not have positive outcomes. Could you expand or clarify what you mean by this, because it's not making sense to me as phrased. Science is not just a process or method; it's also the body of established findings that has been produced by that method. The process and those engaging in it are characterized by a critical spirit and a deep commitment to the testing of assertions and to revising or discarding assertions that fail the test. Those theories that become established are supported by a web of interlocking evidence coming from a variety of sources. It's not the experiments and their publication but the fact that independent researchers have done the same experiments and got the same results, or expanded the implications to another setting or problem, that slowly over time makes a set of findings part of the knowledge base of science. It's all part of science: the critical attitude toward one's own work as well as others', the commitment to rigorous testing, the experiments, and the replication of the experiments by independent researchers, establishing the results as a solid finding.

Also, TimidGuy keeps saying that the article says that the Maharishi Effect isn't accepted by mainstream scientists. I've read the article twice (the article has gotten much worse IMO in the six months or so since I last looked at it) and don't see where the article says that; could you point me to the actual sentence(s) in the article? Thanks. Woonpton (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Woonpton . A discussion of what is science could be an endless discussion... discussion of Popper alone could go on for months. So for time reasons, I'll pass on making any further comments, with the view that there are multiple ways of understanding the word "science". (olive (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Popper? Popper has nothing whatever to do with this conversation. You made a categorical statement about what science is that made no sense, lumping ESP, the Maharishi Effect and relativity together as "not science" but as theories that have "undergone a process" (a process you call science? That wasn't clear) that "may or not have positive outcomes." The statement was incomprehensible to me and I asked for clarification; in response you say you can't answer because there are many ways of understanding what "science" is and it would take too much time to have that discussion? I suggest in that case not making statements you can't back up, explain or clarify. The only way I can make the sentence make sense is if you are suggesting a very narrow definition in which science means only the conducting of research and publication of the results, a narrow definition I don't believe would find consensus among scientists as an adequate definition of what constitutes their enterprise. At any rate, conducting and publishing research that appears to be scientific but produces no useful or replicable findings is the very definition of pseudoscience, and those who defend pseudoscience often try to narrow the definition of science so that their activities can be legitimized as having gone through the "process" of science. No doubt that's not what you mean to imply here, but without clarification, I can't tell what you do mean. Woonpton (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, are you asking about TM studies, or TM-Sidhi studies? TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the question?   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked if MUM ever published any studies that failed to show a positive outcome. Neither of the two studies TG cited had anything to do with the Maharishi Effect. I would point out that there has been at least one spectacular failure of the Maharisi Effect: The Invincible America Assembly, As Raja of Invincible America, Hagelin organized an Invincible America Assembly in Fairfield, Iowa. Hagelin predicted that when the number of assembly participants reached 2,500 that America would have a major drop in crime, and see the virtual elimination of all major social and political woes in the United States.^[1] Hagelin said that the Assembly was responsible for the Dow Jones Industrial Average reaching a record high of 14,022 in July 2007, and predicted that the Dow would top 17,000 within a year.^[1][2] The Dow did not reach 17,000 as predicted, but instead, within a year, was below the levels when the Invincible America Assembly commenced the prior year, eventually dropping under 6700 at its low, and has yet to recover to the July 2006 levels when the Assembly commenced. The TM Movement website that was tracking the Dow and other economic indicators up until the market collapse removed that information from the website, and added a robots.txt blocking Google Cache and the Internet Archives from retrieving the information.Fladrif (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUM didn't publish any of these studies. The studies we need to continue discuss o this article are related to the Maharishi Effect, are they not? Are we getting sidetracked?

No, not at all. This is a case in point that relates directly to Will's question (this wasn't published as a study, but if the Dow had continued to climb, do you really think some "research" claiming a causal statistical association between the rise in the Dow and the meditators in Fairfield wouldn't have been published? (A rhetorical question, but a reasonable one.) And it also relates directly to the power of the Maharishi Effect and so is directly relevant here. Woonpton (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was published on a TM-Org website that has not been entirely deleted, as I found on looking further, in which Cavanugh, Rainforth, the Goodmans and Hirsch published, and then issued press releases on, their "Research Abstract" on "The Impact of Group Transcendental Meditation Practice on Quality of Life in the U.S.: A Quasi-Experimental Study of the Scientific Demonstration Project" showing overwhelming success of the first 100 days of this experiment/demonstration/whatever. ^[3] So it is most definitely a "published" study on the Maharishi Effect. Fladrif (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: MUM is not the publisher of the peer reviewed, published publications we are using as reliable sources in this article. I see Flad has added a study publication that I would not consider to be reliable since it is not peer reviewed and is published by the TM org as far as I can tell.(olive (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Many sources we use for this article are not peer-reviewed. Are you saying that the only TM sources which are reliable are those published in peer-reviewed journals? If so we'd have to delete quite a bit of information from these articles.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am of course talking about the studies we use. For many sources peer review is not an applicable guideline. I'm striking a word in my initial post that may have created confusion.(olive (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This may be an interesting intersection of WP:MEDRS and WP:SPS. Self-published sources are generally allowed for assertions about the subject of the article. An alternative is to include it and make clear that it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reputations of journals

Will, I was asking for clarification regarding this statement: "Thanks for that. How do we judge the reputations of journals in the medical field, where I think most of the studies have been published?" Are we talking about TM studies here or Maharishi Effect? TimidGuy (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a general question, though I suppose on this page we should focus on TM-Sidhi. Journals cited in this article include: International Journal of Neuroscience , Experimental Neurology, Psychosomatic Medicine, Social Indicators Research, Psychology, Crime and Law, and Journal of Scientific Exploration. You gave some information on Journal of Conflict Resolution (thanks). I see that there is a claim that the paper published in Social Indicators Research was only reviewed by TM-practitioners. If true, that would create questions about their review process. So, to repeat, how do we judge the reputations of these journals?   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true regarding Social Indicators Research. Who made that claim? There's no absolute measure for reputation that I know if. Some people use impact factor, but it's fairly controversial. I've checked the four journals cited regarding the Maharishi Effect, and these are all solid journals. Nothing obscure. JCR is the highest. Psychology, Crime, and Law is about 1, which puts it in the top 8 for journals related to psychology and law.[13] Social Indicators Research is about 1. Journal of Mind and Behavior, put out by the University of Maine, had an impact factor of .54 and ranks at about the 50th percentile in this list from 2001.[14] I guess my feeling, like I said before, is that journals for academic associations, universities, and major publishers are reputable. TimidGuy (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Park makes that claim, though now that I re-read it I'm not exactly sure which journal he's referring to. ([15], p. 30).   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social Indicators Research is .608 in the PDF you sent, not 1.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this discussion is about . Wikipedia has guidelines about sources we adhere to. We can't just decide on some criteria for ourselves here... make up our own rules. I intend to operate by WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. (olive (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Olive, you and others have talk about "reputable publications" on this page. I'm trying to figure out what criteria we're using for determining what qualifies.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy and guideline are relatively clear on that. My intention is to use those as my guides. If we need to look at each individual source and stack it up against the guideline or policy, that's fine, but no discussion here is going to, in my mind, establish some criteria for the use of sources beyond Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm new at judging the reputations of journals. The Wikipedia policies seem to treat scholarly journals with a broad brush, indicating that they are all usable. WP:RS Perhaps I should ask you what you meant by "reputable publications", since you are among the editors using that term.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referencing Wikipedia here: "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

This quote needs to be understood and placed in context of the entire guideline WP: RELIABILITY and in context of parts of the policy WP:VERIFIABILITY for anunderstanding of reputable. As an experienced admin you probably have that understanding, so I won't bore you further. (olive (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

OK, so we're back to deciding which sources are reputable.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. We're back to reading and understanding the guideline and the policy and then, using the sources If a concern comes up regarding a source bring it here for discussion. The guideline and the policy in their entirities (probably not a word) have more than enough information. We can discuss the policy /guideline but this isn't the place probably except in a specific instance, and after that its opinion. and or agreement and consensus . I'm not in the market for an addendum to Wikipedia which is how I would see this.(olive (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying. The policy talks about using reputable sources, but doesn't seem to define that term. So I'm asking how we apply that to the peer-reviewed journals cited in this article. If you don't want to participate in the discussion then that's OK too.   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:RS gives clear guidance for choosing sources; the most important and clearcut of the principles relating to our difficulty here is that Wikipedia articles should be sourced with secondary sources rather than primary sources. Primary sources are individual studies; secondary sources are review articles and meta-analyses. This is not an "addendum" to Wikipedia; this is standard and longstanding Wikipedia guidance and practice. Adhering to this guidance should eliminate a lot of the difficulty and confusion that's going on here. I also recommend a careful reading of WP: MEDRS which is just as much a guideline as RS, and which spells out even more clearly and helpfully how to vet sources for medical articles. This is Wikipedia. This will take us much farther than trying to rank journals on their "reputability;" which strikes me as a dubious task. Woonpton (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too had assumed Park was referring to a journal peer-review process when he said that the reviewers were TM practitioners, but on re-reading this I'm not sure what this review board was that John Hagelin referred to in the press conference, saying that the study had been "carefully scrutinized by an 'independent scientific review board,' several of whose members were at the press conference," and whom Park polled and found that they were "all followers of the Maharishi." Other than the obvious fact that this could in no way be called an independent review board, it's hard to know what to make of it without more information. Woonpton (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I was getting the ranking from the Social Indicators Research web page, which gives .955 as the ranking.[16] But I think Woonpton has a good point. We've probably gotten as much from this discussion of impact factor as we can, though I do think it was interesting and helpful in some ways. And yes, Hagelin's review board that he consulted in designing and conducting and writing up the experiment had nothing to do with the subsequent publication in 1999 in Social Indicators Research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem problematic to you that Hagelin characterized this "review board" at a press conference as an "independent scientific review board," when it was obviously nothing of the sort? It also strikes me as curious that Hagelin, who had eight co-authors, would need to consult TM practitioners outside his research group about how to design and conduct and write up the study, especially when the research consisted entirely of statistical analysis of existing data. He might have done well to consult some independent professional statisticians, but it's unlikely that anyone without those statistical credentials, or even anyone with the credentials who was not independent of the TM organization, could have been any help as far as providing independent review of the process. And that goes for the peer review for the journal as well; does anyone know what the professional qualifications of the reviewers were? If there were no independent statisticians on the review panel, the peer review could not be considered a useful review, since the study is 50 pages of statistical jargon. Only a statistician would be able to review this statistical study on its merits.Woonpton (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently "impact rankings" vary considerably over time. If we're going to use that measure as a gauge of a journal's reputation we should probably find the number for the period closest to the date of publication of whatever study we're looking at.

I see that here and on other articles some editors are deleting studies, or study conclusions, that they think are weak. On what basis is this being done? Is it OK for us to decide that a study, published in a journal that is presumably reputable, is weak and just delete it in whole or in part? For example, our summary of the UK study was trimmed to delete one possibly implausible conclusion, while retaining other conclusions. Is that a fair way of summarizing a study?   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Will. I deleted that because I thought it would please you. It was a gesture of collaboration and compromise. Sorry that I got it wrong. And my rationale was that it's not a finding of the study and that it was a matter of undue weight to highlight a couple sentences of speculation in the discussion at the end of the study. The finding of the study was that there was a correlation between group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi program and reduced crime. TimidGuy (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TG, I appreciate the effort, but if folks are going to complain about the coverage of a study being trimmed then we should make sure that we have a rational basis for doing so. Sorry if I'm a bit dense about this, but how do we determine which conclusions are part of the study, and which aren't? The information about national crime level and the info about the cost of crime were both obtained from the same cabinet department. In a different article, you deleted a study entirely, even though it was also published in a peer-reviewed journal.[17] You wrote "I'm going to remove this study for now; I want to look at it more closely; the design may be too weak to include". I'd agree with your logic, but elsewhere there are arguments that we can't second-guess the peer-reviewers. Is it right to delete a poorly designed study, or is it right to insist that we must devote a full paragraph to all studies published in peer-reviewed journals?   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Scientific Exploration - reputable?[18]   Will Beback  talk  12:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd heard that name before, but couldn't place it; now that I see the toc it all comes clear. I listen to the Coast to Coast radio show while I'm falling asleep; that's where I've heard the name. If this is considered peer-reviewed, then the concept of peer review has lost all useful meaning.Woonpton (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a preliminary check for a reference that contains this information but nothing so far. For now I'll store this here although this is original research. I'm also removing the final sentence in the paragraph which is also unsourced

The Dow did not reach 17,000 within a year as predicted. Within a year, the DJIA was below the levels when the Assembly had commenced, eventually dropping under 6,700 at its low, and, as of December 2009 remained below the July 23, 2006 levels when the Assembly commenced.^{[4] [citation needed]}

The number of assembly participants did not reach 2,500.^{[citation needed]}

You're too impatient. Back, slightly reworded, more sources. If you want to argue that if the market peaked at 14,164 it's "original research" to write that it never got to 17,000, we're going to have a highly entertaining discussion. Fladrif (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing information about the Dow and then connecting it to information about the IA course that creates new information about the course. No can do. Its OR. I did look for a source that makes the same connections, but didn't find anything. So unless we find such a source that little bit of content has to go.(olive (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I strongly disagree. I have done no original research whatsoever. Everything is sourced to reliable, verifiable secondary sources. I have drawn no conclusions whatsoever about the Invincible America Assembly or the Maharishi Effect or the source material. It's not going anywhere.Fladrif (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source must specifically and directly reference the content. We don't have a source that makes the connection the article is making between the Dow and the IA course. Connecting the two as we do here creates information not contained in any source and that is OR.(olive (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

More fundamentally, the problem is a synthesis of content that creates OR, as is often the case with synthesis: WP:SYNTH. In this case we do have two sourced statements but they can't be connected to create a new position or new information unless we have a source that makes that same claim.,

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." (olive (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You misstate, misunderstand and quote out of context. The material you object to is neither original research nor synthesis; it is good editing of an encyclopedia article.

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.WP:SYNTH

Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research.

Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation. Present the material within the context contained in reliable sources, but avoid presenting the information in a way that "begs the question". An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition. 'Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research

Fladrif (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm having trouble making sense of this objection. I don't have any investment in the paragraph as it stands; I think it's too wordy and is bogged down with irrelevant information, and I might take some of it out, but the SYNTH/OR argument for removing it doesn't seem relevant to me. Synthesis is when you have a source that says one thing, and a source that says something else, and you draw an unwarranted connection between them to support a third statement that doesn't follow from either of the sources; that's synthesis. But when the article says that according to Reuters, John Hagelin predicted that the Dow would go over 1700 in a year as a result of the harmony created by the TM activities, it is not synthesis to follow that with market indexes showing that didn't happen. The statement is sourced, and it is not creating a separate fact by drawing an unwarranted connection between the sources.

It's just the same as citing Park's critical remarks about the DC study and then citing Rainesforth's rebuttal. You don't require a third source to say "Park said this but Rainesforth said that;" that fact is already apparent from the sourced statements that have been given..you just report both the sourced statements. By the same token, we have Hagelin predicting that the Dow Jones would go over 1700 in a year, rebutted, if you will, by the Dow Jones index showing that the Dow did not go over 1700. You do not need a separate statement cited to a third source, to say "Hagelin predicted that the Dow would go over 1700 in a year, but the Dow didn't go over 1700 in a year." I don't see either synthesis or OR here; it's just the standard back and forth between sources that characterize most of this page. It's Hagelin who connected the Dow Jones and the Invincible America project, not any editor here, and it is certainly encyclopedic, and not synthesis or OR, to provide sourced information that shows whether that prediction came true or not; in fact it wouldn't make sense to report the prediction without information about how accurate the prediction turned out to be Woonpton (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I resubmitted the text that the IAC numbers have never reached 2500 and used the IAC tallies web page as a reference. --BwB (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:SYNTH refers to summarizing content from a single source not summarizing data from more than one source. Also I agree with others that unless a source directly links it content to the article topic, than placing it in the article is not appropriate.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Flad on this point. We have a prediction by Hagelin that the Dow would reach 17000 with a reference. We also have a reference that shows the Dow did not reach 17000. To put both these facts in one paragraph is not WP:SYNTH. --BwB (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the sentence slightly, removing the words "as predicted" to cancel out any possible WP:SYNTH. If the Dow did not reach 17000, then the fact that the prediction was incorrect is obvious. --BwB (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, but I have a question, which is unrelated to anything that could be put in the article. At what time of day are the afternoon sessions held? The reason I ask is I am wondering about the problem of a reverse causation /self fullfilling prophesy effect here. If the markets are having a great day, and the news is good, are more flyers likely to show up; on days when the markets are plummeting, and the news is bad, are flyers going to stay home? Not deliberately or consciously necessarily, but perhaps unconsciously (pun fully intended)? Things are going great, this Assembly must be working, I need to show up at the dome to keep up the good work versus Everything's going to hell in a handbasket, this isn't working, what's the point, I might as well stay home. Human nature. How does one correct or account for such an effect, if the flying that is supposed to be affecting the market is taking place at or after the market close? The coherent waves of consciousness are theorized to be traveling at the speed of light, so there's no reason to think there is a lag in the ME of more than a few seconds to investors around the world. I'm genuinely curious. Fladrif (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Invincible America web site there is a phone number 472-1212. Perhaps if you call there someone can answer your questions. --BwB (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia this is what we can say. We can say Hagelin made a prediction...if the source says he did. The source does, so we're OK. We can say, that despite Hagelin's prediction concerning the IA course, the Dow dropped. Do we have a source that specifically says that, that specifically references Hagelin or the IA course and the decline of the Dow, connecting the two, and drawing the conclusion that Hagelin's prediction was inaccurate. No, we don't, therefore the connection is a synthesis of two pieces information that advances another position, a third new position that is not sourced. If this were a research paper we might be able to cite Hagelin's original prediction, note the position of the Dow, and conclude by saying Hagelin's prediction was incorrect. This isn't a research paper. Its an encyclopedia and every step of information must be referenced.

"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." WP:SYNTH.

No part of the material you object to concludes "...therefore C". Per my citations above to both Wikipedia policy and its practical application, this is neither synthesis nor original research. It is simply good and responsible editing of an encyclopedia setting forth reliably-sourced, indeed unquestionably and indisputably accurate facts, presenting no opinion or conclusion whatsoever. If the article continued "....therefore, the Invincible America Assembly was a success/failure and the Maharishi Effect is proven/falsified", you might have an objection worth considering. But, the article does no such thing. Your objection is not well-taken, and several editors clearly agree with me on this. Fladrif (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the WP:SYNTH policy again, I an not sure if what we have currently breaks the policy. We have a ref that says Hagelin made a prediction. We have a ref that says that the Dow did not reach 17000. However, we are not tacking these sentences together to make a new sentence, or saying that prediction failed since the Dow did not reach the 17000 mark. We are simply presenting both referenced facts, and letting the reader make the connection. I do not think this is a WP:SYNTH violation. --BwB (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]