This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Alternative Views Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: New religious movements Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Other subpages:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources

- I do not know whether or not the mantras of TM are from a Tantric tradition. The text suggests that they are:

"According to pundits of the mantra tradition and Rig Veda tradition, the sounds used in the Transcendental Meditation technique are taken from the ancient Tantric tradition.^[1][2][3]"

Is it possible to clarify if this reference^[4] is a primary source? Is this a book by Pandit Arya? Where could one find a copy of the text? --BwB (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Can we please have a page number for the Alain Daniélou reference? --BwB (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Could we also have a page number for the Arthur Avalon book? Is there anywhere to see this text online? --BwB (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked up the text by Avalon on Goggle books [1] it has no information on the publisher. Do we know who published this book? --BwB (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, verifiability is important. The reader and editors should have all of the information needed to access any sources in a Wiki article. -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entry for an Arthur Avalon book in Worldcat" [2]. But it's Greek to me. (or something like that...)   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for Usharbudh Arya including bibliography at "Libary Thing" confirms that he is the author http://www.librarything.com/author/aryausharbudh. Publisher was:Himalayan Institute Press, ISBN ISBN: 089389074X http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Mantra-and-Meditation/Pandit-Usharbudh-Arya/e/9780893890742 Tuckerj1976 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Can we please get page numbers for the text in the books that support the wording in the article? --BwB (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have page numbers for the sources mentioned above? --BwB (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are still waiting for the page numbers for the above references. Can they be provided? --BwB (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking at working on some of this section soon. Are you allowed to post with ArbCom thing going on? Thanks for your interest. Were you ever able to find a source in the Vedas like you claimed? There are plenty of copies free on the web. If we are unable to find a Vedic source, we should either remove it or state that it is a false claim made by the Maharishi. I've actually been able to find two sources in tantric mantra dictionaries--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made the new edit with a wonderful collection of mantra and monosyllabic dictionaries which unlike the Arthur Avalon version, is completely translated into English. This is helpful since they reveal the texts true tantric character, some dictionaries beginning with statements which state outright their source in the tantras. Thus it is clear, the TM mantras are not Vedic at all, they are Tantric.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra refs

ME draft #1

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi predicted that the quality of life for an entire population would be affected if one percent of the population practiced Transcendental Meditation. This is known as the "Maharishi Effect" or "super radiance".^[1] With the introduction of the TM-Sidhi program including Yogic Flying, the Maharishi proposed that only the square root of 1% of the population practicing those advanced techniques would be required to created an Extended Maharishi Effect.^[2] Practice of TM and TM-Sidhi has been credited by the movement with the fall of the Berlin Wall, a reduction in global terrorism, a decrease in the rate of inflation in the US, the lowering of crime rates, and other positive effects.^[3] The Maharishi Effect has been endorsed by President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique,^[4] confirmed in 42 consecutive scientific studies,^[5] and described as "pseudoscience" by some scientists.^[6]

ME draft #2

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi predicted that the quality of life for an entire population would be noticeably improved if one percent of the population practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique. This is known as the "Maharishi Effect."^[1] With the introduction of the TM-Sidhi program including Yogic Flying, the Maharishi proposed that only the square root of 1% of the population practicing this advanced program would be required to create benefits in society, and this was referred to as the "Extended Maharishi Effect."^[7] Reportedly, practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs has been credited by some TM practitioners with the fall of the Berlin Wall, a reduction in global terrorism, a decrease in the rate of inflation in the US, the lowering of crime rates, and other positive effects.^[8] The Maharishi Effect has been endorsed by President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique who applied this technology in his country,^[9] and positive results have been reported in 42 independent scientific studies.^[10] Some have described this research as "pseudoscience."^[11] James Randi followed up on some of the claims attributed to the ME. He spoke to the Fairfield Chief of Police who had not experienced any drop in crime rate and the regional Agriculture Department whose statistics on yield showed no difference between Jefferson County and the state average.^[12]

MR References

ME discussion

The article currently contains no mention of the Maharishi Effect. The TM-Sidhi program article has an extensive discussion, mostly concerning what is properly called the "Extended Maharishi Effect", and it's probably best to keep the main discussion of the ME there. But this article should at least have a short section describing it, per WP:SUMMARY. I've posted a draft above, mostly adpated from the text at the TM-Sidhi article, though I can't find the source for the 1976 study. If anyone can think of improvements to the text please edit it directly.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We might find objections from some editors of the primary sources used your draft. --BwB (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've removed the primary-sourced (or unsourced) studies and added some details along with contrasting views.   Will Beback  talk  20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the cart is trying to pull the horse. ;-) The TM-Sidhi is mentioned in the lead (I'm not sure why) and now we want a paragraph on TM-Sidhi. I'm not sure either one is needed as it is just one of several advanced TM courses.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about TM-Sidhi. It's about the Maharishi Effect, which is created by 1% of the population practicing TM. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An a credited university says the following, In 1960, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi predicted that one percent of a population practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique would produce measurable improvements in the quality of life for the whole population. This phenomenon was first noticed in 1974 and reported in a paper published in 1976. Here, the finding was that when 1% of a community practiced the Transcendental Meditation® program, then the crime rate was reduced by 16% on average. At this time, the phenomenon was named Maharishi Effect. The meaning of this term was later extended to cover the influence generated by the group practice of the TM-Sidhi® program. Generally, the Maharishi Effect may be defined as the influence of coherence and positivity in the social and natural environment generated by the practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs. (http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/)

One TM website also states the following, Transcendental Meditation allows the mind to identify itself with the unlimited reservoir of intelligence at the source of thought – the state of Transcendental Consciousness, bringing benefits in all areas of individual life. However, the effects of Transcendental Meditation are yet more far-reaching: the source of human intelligence is also the fountainhead of Nature’s intelligence – the Unified Field described by quantum physics – which underlies and governs everything in the universe. By enlivening this most fundamental level of Nature during Transcendental Meditation, a person automatically creates a powerful influence of harmony and coherence in their environment. Extensive scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that when even a small fraction of the population is practising Transcendental Meditation, improvements can be measured in society as a whole, as indicated by reduction of negative tendencies and growth of positive trends. (http://www.t-m.org.uk/benefits/)

I think that as this is the claim of the organization itself this must be included and any other assumptions should not be made. I am happy with the draft produced by Will Beback above. I do not see this as contentious and do not see why it should be seen as such. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs to look at the whole scope of TM not just the most palatable bits. Thanks Will. Well done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{od}}Yes, I too agree that a mention of both the claims made by Maharishi and the related research on sociological effects of the TM program and of the TM and TM Sidhi program are appropriate for this article. I have been digging into the research papers and will add some discussion here when I have the early research in hand. As for the proposed statement, I will make a few changes that may increase its accuracy after I have read this research. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good to include the ME section in the article. We just need to be a little careful to make sure we do not confuse the ME from 1% TM practice, and the Extended ME for sq. root 1% TM-Sidhi practice. For example, the Berlin wall came down in the late 1980s, more than 10 years after the TM-Sidhi program was introduced. Was this due to ME or Extended ME? --BwB (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful to make sure the sources weren't talking about TM-Sidhi, though we can second guess them.

• [Maharishi] has long claimed that were a sufficient number of people to sit together with their eyes closed and engage in specified forms of his trademark meditation techniques, they would create "vibrations" which have a profoundly positive effect on the wellbeing of society. Proponents of what is dubbed "the Maharishi effect" claim that such interventions have played a pivotal role in reducing global terrorism (1989), decreasing the US inflation rate (1987) and collapsing the Berlin Wall (1989). Every mass meditation is also said to decrease local crime by an average of 16%. "Maharishi mob meditates on Limerick's ills" Liam Fay. Sunday Times. London (UK): Jun 13, 2004. pg. 32

I suppose, on a closer reading, that "specified forms" might be an indirect reference to TM-Sidhi.   Will Beback  talk  10:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This version looks good. --BwB (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I have obtained the first two published papers on the ME. As soon as I have had a chance to read them, I will update the suggested paragraph with the most direct information. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the papers you're referring to? How can other editors obtain copies?   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"confirmed in 42 consecutive scientific studies"? The star tribune as a reference? Come on... Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Please cite better source.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same claim is made in the Merseyside paper written by Hathard in 1996. I assume that there's no dispute over the quantity of studies, or that they all arrived at the same conclusion. Perhaps we can find a better word than "confirmed". Hatchard writes, "The Maharishi Effect has been extensively tested by over 40 studies." Perhaps "tested" is a better word, but by itself it doesn't indicate that every test has had a positive result, which I think is an important fact. Maybe what's missing for the reader's understanding is an indication of who has gotten these 42 positive results. How about something like "confirmed in 42 consecutive scientific studies conducted by movement researchers"? Or maybe as a different sentence: Is there a shorter way of saying it?   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of dispute over the outcomes. We are referring to the ME effect decreasing crime? This ref is good [3] It seems these "studies" do not withstand even a small amount of scrutiny. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tests of the ME by movement researchers have confirmed it in 42 consecutive studies, results that are questioned by skeptics"? Also, I found a solid, though brief, source on the ME: On the Nature of Consciousness. Harry T. Hunt. 1995 Yale University Press ISBN 0300062303. (It's a bit over two pages). Briefly, he faults the studies for failing to randomize the timing and says he thinks they do not prove causality, suggesting that they were in sync with societal rhythms instead of causing them. It's a much better source than The Skeptics Dictionary.   Will Beback  talk  08:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, is there a copy of the Hunt material online? --BwB (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.[4]   Will Beback  talk  07:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be leery about claiming the ME is "confirmed" when in fact the only people "confirming it" are Primary sources. We should not give authority to highly questionable, biased, first hand sources. It's ludicrous to claim such a pseudoscientific claim is "confirmed" when it is not. For example, there is no accepted mechanism for the neurons of the brain, or consciousness for that matter, creating field effects of any kind, period.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Kala here. One needs independent research to confirm something. As this research was not done by a third party and third parties have been unable to confirm these result we should say "TM researches claim in 42 studies that TM decreases crime, increases agriculture, etc. Independent researches however have not confirmed these claims." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have two or three different issues here. "Independent research" in scientific discourse normally means simply different studies, even if by the same authors. The 42 studies mentioned above are all independent studies. Some of the same authors are involved in several of the studies, but the studies involved different measures, times, places etc. and are therefore "independent," as that term is ordinarily used. It is also true, as far as I know, that while some of these studies do involve researchers who are not connected with TM or the TM movement, they all involve one or more researchers from Maharishi University of Management or who is a practitioner of the TM technique. This in itself does not invalidate the study. The majority of these studies is published in peer reviewed journals like any other scientific research and therefore they have been vetted by experts in the field. The fact that "skeptics" exist does not invalidate this or any other peer reviewed research. The question of whether "third parties" have replicated these studies is relevant only if we can verify that "third parties" (whatever that means in this context) have tried and have failed to replicate the results. As far as I know, that has not happened.

Will Beback, the two sources I mentioned above as the first to report ME studies are the following: Borland C, Landrith III G: Improved quality of city life through the Transcendental Meditation program: Decreased crime rate. in Orme-Johnson D, and Farrow JT, Scientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation Program, Collected Papers, Volume 1, 1976, pp. 639-647; Dillbeck MC, Landrith III G, Orme-Johnson, D: The Transcendental Meditation program and crime rate change in forty-eight cities. Journal of Crime and Justice, vol 4, 1981, pp. 25-45. The earlier publication (Borland and Landrith) was not peer reviewed, but was the first report of the Maharishi Effect. The results of this study were, however, incorporated in the later, peer reviewed study published in 1981. It took a while to get these papers. I could not find the whole articles reprinted online. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes to Draft #1 attempting to make it more accurate. It still needs work. I question the use of so many media reports for main points rather than using peer reviewed scientific sources or the claims found in official TM organizational publications. Reporters often get things mixed up. I have not read all the studies, but I am aware of most of them. I don't believe any scientific study ever claimed effects on the Berlin wall. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your draft into slot #2. What is the source for the studies being "independent"? Secondary media reports are better than primary studies. See WP:PSTS.   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't understand the logic behind this phrase: "Reportedly, practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs has been credited by some TM practitioners with ..." Everything in this article is "reported" so what's the point of that? Also, what do we mean by saying that these are only "credited by some TM practitioners"? I'd assume there are few things that TM practitioners agree on unanimously. Unless we're going to go through and add something like that to every sentence I don't see why we'd add it here. Have any TM practitioners given a different view?   Will Beback  talk  07:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the text from the sources says:

• Proponents of what is dubbed "the Maharishi effect" claim that such interventions have played a pivotal role in reducing global terrorism (1989), decreasing the US inflation rate (1987) and collapsing the Berlin Wall (1989). Every mass meditation is also said to decrease local crime by an average of 16%.
  • Maharishi mob meditates on Limerick's ills; Liam Fay. Sunday Times. London (UK): Jun 13, 2004. pg. 32

That's a well known, mainstream newspaper. So rather than "credited by some TM practitioners", how about we simply say "according to proponents..."?   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will, moving the revised version makes it easier to follow the history. Responding to your points, first the use of "independent." Please see the first paragraph of my post. It is common knowledge in scientific research that an independent study is one that does not overlap with any other. In common parlance, referring to a study as "independent" is not a statement about the authors of the study, the funding sources, or anything of that sort. In the context of this article, the word has sometimes been used differently from the common usage. In particular, it has been used to signify research done by authors not affiliated with the Transcendental Meditation techniques or programs. This specialized usage should be explained any time it occurs in the article or discussion.

Second, your point about secondary sources is a curious one. I see nothing in the link you give that says using a mainstream news media secondary source should trump a peer reviewed primary source for presenting non-analytical or non-interpretative material. The following is the relevant statement from WP:PSTS: "Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." We are not talking about analytic or evaluative claims here, but if we were, there still is the requirement for a "reliable secondary source." If we are talking about analysis or interpretation of scientific results, then to be considered reliable, the secondary source would need to be a peer reviewed published review article or something of that caliber. If we are not making analytic or evaluative claims, WP:PSTS says primary sources are acceptable. In that case too, as with the secondary sources, peer reviewed published accounts are the most reliable and would be far preferable to news media secondary sources.

Third, the use of "reportedly" was an attempt to acknowledge the weak source of this statement. It is awkward and probably not the best solution here, but just because some reporter claims that someone (are we even told who?) in the TM movement said the ME was responsible for the fall of the Berlin wall, is it really fair to include that in a summary list along with claims that have come from peer reviewed published reports of scientific studies. I don't think so, but I left the point about the Berlin wall in so we could have this discussion. If you have the source for the (1989) date and/or a primary source for the statement, then that would help.

As for "credited by some TM practitioners," again I was trying to deal with the problem of attributing this claim of bringing down the Berlin wall to the "TM movement." I am not aware of this claim having been made by any official organization or any scientific publication. I'm not sure what the dates in parentheses mean in the sentence you quote. I have heard individuals speculating that maybe the large groups of practitioners that were involved in special creating coherence courses at about that time might have had something to do with the fall of the Berlin wall, but are idle speculations the right material for an encyclopedia article? I don't think so. I think we should stick with the scientific articles on this one. I am aware of at least one peer reviewed article that reviews and summarizes many of the ME studies. If we want to use a more reliable secondary source here, I can find that reference and see what kinds of summary statements are made. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CP, it sounds like you're saying that "indepedent" is your own assessment of the studies rather than a description found in a source. If so, then than that's original research and shouldn't be included. As for the Berlin Wall matter, do you think the reporter made it up? Sure, if more reliable sources than the Sunday Times can be found then let's use those instead.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CP's interpretation of "independence" is a singular interpretation that, far from being "common parlance," I've never seen used before to refer to the independence of studies. I wonder if maybe it's a misapplication of the concept of statistical independence. Yes, when we talk about statistical independence, we mean that elements of the matrix are uncorrelated with each other, but it's an odd leap to go from that to say that the same concept applies to studies: independent studies are studies that don't overlap, in fact independent studies can even be done by the same people, as long as they are different studies. This, as I said, is a singular interpretation. Actually, the word "independent" referring to studies and researchers is widely understood to mean just what we mean by it here; it's a very important distinction. If someone has written a research study, a critique of research, a review of the literature, a analysis, an evaluative comment, it is important for the reader to know whether that critique, comment, review or analysis is done by researchers who are unallied with the movement that the research is about and with the researchers whose work they are commenting on or summarizing, so can be considered dispassionate and objective evaluators of the topic. "Independence" is precisely the word that most accurately describes the non-affiliation that's a prerequisite to detached evaluation; I can't think of a better. Woonpton (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Berlin Wall:

• 1988 Maharishi's Year of Achieving World Peace: Maharishi inaugurates his Master Plan to Create Heaven on Earth for the reconstruction of the whole world—inner and outer. • Warring tendencies are transformed into friendliness—the superpowers shake hands. 1989 Maharishi's Year of Heaven on Earth: Maharishi implements his Master Plan. • The unifying quality characterizes world consciousness as evidenced by the fall of the Berlin wall.
  • Maharishi's Global Accomplishments [5]
• Maharishi brought enlightenment to a quarter of a million Germans, created 2,000 Teachers of Transcendental Meditation and trained 8,000 Sidhas in the Technique of Yogic Flying. National strength grew and soon the Berlin Wall fell overnight under the nourishing influence of growing Sattwa in German National and World Consciousness, the rivaling superpowers became friends and the country was unified.
  • Tribute. Raja Emanuel Schiffgens, Raja of Invincible Germany, Invincible Ukraine, Invincible Iran, Invincible Saudi Arabia, Invincible Bangladesh, Invincible Monaco, Invincible Nauru and Invincible Central African Republic [6]
• Today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. Raja Emanuel explained how the governments at the time, and even now, had no idea what caused such a momentous change. He showed very clearly how it was the rise of coherence in the collective consciousness created by Sidhas and meditators in 60 centres around Germany, plus 7000 Vedic Pandits performing Yagyas in India, that caused the peaceful fall of the wall.
  • "How the Berlin Wall was Caused to Fall" Vermont Vedic Health Thomas Hall [7]
• Raja Emanuel Schiffgens and Lt Col Gunter Chassé continued their recent report* on the fall of the Berlin Wall, recounting developments that led up to the stunning events of November 1989, when the Wall came down. They explained that all of this was a result of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's initiatives to create a powerful influence of coherence in Germany and globally, through groups of Yogic Flyers and a large group of Maharishi Vedic Pandits in India.
  • "Fall of the Berlin Wall 1989: 'The battle was fought on the level of Silence'" 2010/01/19 Deutsche Nachrichten Agentur [8]
• On the TM website, the movement claims that a mass meditation session of 7,000 followers coincided with the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War.
  • Beatles guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi dies (AFP) – Feb 6, 2008 [9]
• Few believed his more extravagant claims – for example, that it was the collective TM that brought the down Berlin Wall by radiating bliss to the world.
  • Leading article: Across the universe... Thursday, 7 February 2008, The Independent [10]

So multiple sources describe this as an official claim, made by the Maharishi himself or a senior official. I suppose that Maharishi and Raja Emmanuel could be described as "some TM practitioners", but it's not the best description.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, with regard to your first point, no it is not my personal evaluation to say these are independent studies. What Woonpton alluded to in his long explanation is correct if the context makes it clear that we are talking about research being independent of any influence of a monetary nature or other source of bias. What is meant by "independent scientific studies" in the sentence I wrote is the more common meaning. This is used in statistical analyses and in publishing. Journals do not want single studies broken up and published as independent studies when they are actually part of one big study. And for statistical meta-analytic reviews, only those data from independent studies (meaning two separate studies) are used in a single analysis. This is what is meant ordinarily when one sees "independent studies" without further modifiers in a sentence. If a person wants to indicate independence from some group or ideology, they would specify that usage using some modifier or it would be made clear in the context.

As for the Berlin wall matter, thanks for pulling up all these references to it. Each of them does indeed mention the possible association of meditation groups and the fall of the wall, with some of the statements at least implying a causal relationship. However, it was not claimed to have been demonstrated in any scientific study. A scientific demonstration of a causal relationship would be difficult or impossible for a single event such as this. So what we have in the summary sentence you wrote for the ME statement is mixing apples and oranges, so to speak. Listing the speculative associations made by several leading figures along with the results of peer reviewed scientific studies is misleading. My suggestion is to separate the associations published in peer reviewed scientific studies such as the reductions in terrorism and other crimes from the speculations about the Berlin wall. If the Berlin wall claims are included, then let's name the person(s) making these claims. And where the results of scientific studies are mentioned, let's reference the scientific studies. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can say that there have been 42 separate studies, then there wont be any confusion about the meaning of "independent".

The fall of the Berlin Wall doesn't need to have been part of a study to occur. We list things that are attributed to the Maharishi Effect. If someone feels it necessary to distinguish those wich occured during studies from those that occurred outside of studies then we could add some text to cover it, but I don't think we're implying it so I dn't see how readers would get the wrong impression. We certainly should not say that these effects are only "reportedly" asserted by "some TM practitioners", as that incorrectly minimizes the assertion. These effects have been asserted by the highest officials in the movement.   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that using the word "separate" will solve the problem of how to describe the studies. Concerning the Berlin wall and other associations, if we rewrite the sentence more accurately so we can reference claims of specific individuals separately from the findings of scientific studies, then I feel that would solve any problems there. I'll spend a little more time on that as soon as I can. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can attribute the Berlin Wall claim to the Maharishi, to Raja Emmanuel, and to movement websites. The sentence is accurate as written, but if you want to devote more space it then we can say more. Otherwise I've combine the versions based on our discussion here and post it.   Will Beback  talk  06:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree that ME Draft #2, after the discussed changes in the wording and sources for the second to last sentence, is nearly ready for posting. I can help with some of the references, but don't have time at this moment. ChemistryProf (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What work is needed for the references?   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending any other input it looks like there's a consensus so I'll go ahead and add material based on our discussion here.   Will Beback  talk  12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. One question though regarding ref 10 "positive results have been reported in 42 independent scientific studies". Is there a copy online? James Randi discusses a great deal of fraud in the TM research literature pertaining to the ME effect so a newspaper report might not be a sufficient source to verify positive claims of ME.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A 2003 review looked at "well-designed studies" and discussed three randomized controlled trials that suggested that TM improves cognitive performance. A study of 154 Chinese high school students found increased practical intelligence, creativity, and speed of information processing. A study of 118 junior high school students replicated the finding, as did a study of 99 vocational school students in Taiwan.^[1]

An editor deleted reference to a review of studies on meditation, describing it as "primary research per WP:MEDRS".http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation&diff=344245529&oldid=344242384] I'm not sure that's correct. I thought that reviews were secondary sources. If so, we should restore this.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes do not have any strong felling either way. This trial PMID 14743579 is a systematic review of randomised controlled trials is of better quality. It came to the opposite conclusion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was I that removed it, this was in error. I think I was a little irritated in the manner in which it had been inserted, hiding criticism in what appeared, rightly or wrongly, to push a certain POV. Sorry, I think I may have grown a little paranoid considering the latest findings here: [[11]] and the history of editing of this article to be seen in the archives. Such an error will not be repeated. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this, so I'll comment here. The Shapiro, Walsh and Britton paper is not a review per WP:MEDRS, "reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." So it is not what WP would consider a review. Furthermore, the quotes in the entry were not from the conclusions of the paper (i.e. from Shapiro, et al) but from a TM paper which was a primary source.

I just got back from vacation, so I'm curious who put this here. Before I left there was rampant editing with questionable sources going on.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am perhaps becoming a little jaded but the more I look into this... It was Timidguy who added it. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any background on the Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research. However the article is described as being previously published in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, which is reputable. Maybe we can track down that version.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro has previously been published (in Mindfulness Meditation) My instincts are to try and find a reliable source for this and re-insert, but with a more accurate edit then was placed originally. I shall look. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research seems to have only every published once in 2002 yet one of these studies authors lists it in her publications as having appeared in 2004? [[12]] Very odd Tuckerj1976 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The journal was published for three years. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology may be the better source for this. Kala, I did not quote from a primary source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem with all these questionable studies, like these from remote countries, is that we are supposed to summarize scientific consensus, not present countervailing studies to confuse matters! The consensus seems to be to me, that TM research is mostly poor and the only thing it really shows, in well done studies, are relaxation effects, except when poor controls are used (or bad methodology). It doesn't make sense to go against the prevailing medical or scientific consensus for one "review". If this contradicts a better review, I'd say go with the better review.

Either way, the tendency to try to countervene scientific consensus by injecting a bunch of "hey look at the good thing this one study said about TM" (when most of the evidence is to the contrary) simply frustrates establishment of neutrality in the article. WP guidelines are clear that summarizing scientific consensus is the way to assure NPOV. "Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus."--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it wasn't the Journal of Humanistic Psychology. It was The Humanistic Psychologist, 2003, 31(2-3) 86–113. Unfortunately, their online archive does not go back that far.[13]   Will Beback  talk  22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This journal is put out by the APA. It's a high-qualitty source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem with that source either. Their table of contents only lists two authors, so I suppose more material was added to the later edition with credit to the third author.   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are only repeats the conclusions of 3 primary research studies from this paper. How did the paper chose which primary studies they looked at? They say simply "a sample" It appears that they just picked a sample at random... No systematic review of the literature. It was published in the Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research rather than something more well known. The three studies mentioned were by Orme-Johnson who is closely associated with the TM movement. So due to this I am against inclusion. Of course if you went further opinions fell free to ask over at WT:MED. We need to use our editorial judgment in deciding what is a reliable source and what is not. This study is no way approaches the quality of the Cochrane or the AHQR report and should not be given equal weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that it does not even come up on a pub med search? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, the Cochrane meditation study only examined one study of TM for effects on anxiety level, and as a result could not make a definitive statement. As the effects of TM on both state and trait anxiety are easy to measure (I've helped perform such a study myself, on the comparable NSR Meditation technique) and has been included in many TM studies, including (if I recall correctly) some using subjects having various anxiety disorders, the Cochrane metastudy can hardly be considered to be of "high quality" as you imply.

Unfortunately, the general lack of knowledge or interest in TM among mainstream researchers (the NIH possibly excluded) means that few, if any, reliable secondary sources are available. Since research on TM is highly relevant to the article, I recommend that we accept all primary sources for properly peer-reviewed TM studies, with some sort of advisory notice pointing out that these are mostly self-conducted studies. As you know, self-conducted studies are ordinarily considered just as acceptable as 'independent' studies, all else being equal (although they are far more acceptable if replicated independently). David Spector 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro, et al

Edited this to clarify exactly what the study says. It does not say "high quality studies". Indeed, it does not comment on the quality of these studies.Tuckerj1976 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see page 72: "We review a sample of recent, well-designed studies on the effects of meditation on variables important in the field of transpersonal psychology." It's immediately above the first TM section. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well designed, does not sound like "good quality" to me Timidguy. Can I also say that we have as yet not found a good reliable place in which it was published. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, "good quality" may imply qualities in addition to "well-designed", since experimental design is only one aspect of a scientific study. For example, a well-designed study may not be statistically significant as a result of having only two subjects (N=2). For this reason, I would suggest replacing "good quality" by "well-designed". David Spector 20:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you maybe aware I mostly interested in the manner in which the science of TM and the state of the research is presented in this article. However, while reviewing this, these pages and comments and links from it I came across the concept above. This can be found referenced in two places: the trial notes of the so called Kropinski trial [[14]] [[15]] and a recent book from a reliable publisher NYU Press (ISBN-10: 0814794505) already cited entitled Transcendent in America: Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion. On pages 99 and 100 [[16]]

To put this briefly, during the trial a video was shown which is shown only to TM teachers (Ordinary TMers would not understand this secret it is claimed). This consists of the TM movements founder revealing the "truth" of the manner in which TM is supposed to bring it's health, wealth and paranormal benefits to those that practice TM meditation. To summerise: 1 While practicing TM the mediator "frees-up channels" which then produces a magical (and one assumes invisible) substance called Soma. 2 This Soma then "collects" in the gut of the meditater. 3 This then produces the feelings of "bliss" so often expressed by the TM movement 4 By producing this soma and repeating their personal mantra the TMer is then asking a particular god to "come down" and drink this soma from the TMers "gut". In this metaphysical parasitic relationship the god then grants the TMer "favors" (better health, longer life, paranormal powers etc. Indeed, all of the things the TM org claims to support with "scientific research"). I do not want to mock by mentioning any of this but surely this should be included in this article in someway, as it would be central to the supposed mechanisms by which TM is supposed to "work" according to its founder? Tuckerj1976 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic publishers like NYU Press are the best available sources. This book apparently has considerable information on various aspects of TM and TM-Sidhi. Something on the soma issue might fit in the "principles" section, or perhaps the "Teaching procedure" section, which could use a paragraph on how the teachers are taught (apparently there was an issue about recertification which might go there as well).   Will Beback  talk  09:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably go best in the TM-Sidhi article, since production of soma, and reading the Soma mandala of the Rig Veda, was once an key part of the TM-Sidhi prgramme, post yogic flying. I feel it would be OK to include it as long as it wasn't done in a way that made it look silly or disparaging. Please keep in mind this is people's religious practice. It is believed by devout Hindus that the descriptions, like those in the 9th mandala of the Rig Veda, are first hand descriptions of humans in higher states of consciousness. One of the most important is that of a rishi called "The Flying One", which describes his experience of not only flying, but of soma.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kala, I would agree that this needs to be handled delicately and would fully support such an edit that was in this light. However, I would have to disagree regarding Soma (a concept of course not unique to Hinduism if with different names) and the Rig Veda. As I am sure you are aware the Rig Veda does not claim that soma is produced in a meditaters gut,where it is then consumed by the gods, a concept unique to TM I believe or am I incorrect?. Or do you mean that this would need to be clarified in the edit? Tuckerj1976 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of cool ambrosia-like substances associated with various brain centers (chakras) and the yogi controlling them from being burnt up by the "fire in the belly" are quite widespread in both Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. While I do know the Maharishi did not teach this level of yogic technique, he did pretend to and his followers believe a certain amount of it. He is part of a large number of Hindu businessmen who imagined a mythical Vedic golden age. This type of real practice in actuality is much more than mentally reciting mantras (TM) and the mentally repeating English translations of the yoga sutras of Patanjali. But it is good to be sensitive to the Maharishi's remaining followers beliefs.

An original Harvard TM researcher (who left any involvement in the TM Org decades ago) Herbert Benson has actually studied yogis who practice these yogas. Their physiological ability to control their bodies is incredible by any medical standard. Some were able to drop their metabolic rates almost 70%.

They're far beyond anything seen in TMers physiologically. He details his first experiments in his Beyond the Relaxation Response.--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Kala, although I feel a bit silly now. As you are aware, the TM movement believes you are talking to yourself when discussing things with me and the same in reverse [[17]]. I guess they may have made their first clinical diagnosis, However, as with much of their research, it is far from accurate ;-) Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit. Or perhaps the TM movement is making a philosophical point. We are all one? Or something like that? Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What did the Buddha say to the hot-dog vendor? Make me one with everything." Fladrif (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really should be doing something else but now that you have started it:

How many Zen buddhists does it take to change a light bulb? : None, they are the light bulb. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This line of bantering seems inappropriate and disrespectful. Maybe consider striking or removing it; at any rate please don't continue it further, thanks. Woonpton (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it had concluded. It was simply the result of silly accusations. Perhaps to lighten the atmosphere. While no doubt inappropriate (and perhaps childish) I don't see to whom it might be disrespectful however. Nevertheless, your comments are appreciated. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Woonpton (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Soma;As someone who practised Transcendental Meditation for many years, and having done the "advanced" course called "Siddhis", the idea of Soma is reinforced after the practice of the "Siddhis" by the reading of the Rig Veda, that talks about soma at length, and makes all kinds of mystical statements.The Rig Veda makes many sexist pleas to the production of "male children" as a blessing and is ,in my humble opinion, an ancient text from primitive and patriarcal (spelling?)Hindu origins.TM wants to emphasise "scientific" notions, but the basis for the organisation is in Hinduism, and the ultimate aims of TM are religious. This dishonesty is well-meant, but delusion is hardly a foundation for improving the human condition.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The decision in Hendel cites similar evidence in that case as one of the reasons supporting its ruling that the practice of TM and TM-Sidhi is a religion:

"...we produced soma in our bodies for the gods to drink when we were doing the sidhis program" (Hendel, p 45) Fladrif (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it also includes comparisons in which there wasn't statistical significance. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it include studies with no statistical significance? I don't understand.   Will Beback  talk  12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem whatsoever with the chart. It accurately reflects the actual results of the hundreds of studies included in the meta-analysis. Many of the studies considered showed no statistically significant result from whatever meditation method was the subject of the studies; the overwhelming majority of the TM studies showed no statistically significantly result. Why would the authors of the meta-analysis want to cherry pick only the studies, for TM or any other meditation method, that had a statistically-significant result? "X study of Y meditation method produced no statistically significant impact on measure of health Z" is a valid and highly-informative conclusion to an impartial and unbiased researcher. The objection is absurd. The drawer effect may be SOP at MUM, but real research doesn't get conducted that way. Fladrif (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A picture truly is worth a thousand words. What's nice is it summarizes scientific knowledge on TM and BP in an easy form, which anyone can understand. In that sense it's a also hallmark for neutral writing on TM and BP, specifically per WP guidelines re: WP:MEDRS. Thanks Doc for taking the trouble to get it online and embedded in the article.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hear Timid out. What is the problem with the chart? Can you explain in more detail?-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the narrative description of the pairwise comparisons presented in the chart you'll see that a number of these are not statistically significant. Generally we don't report results that aren't statistically significant because there is a likelihood that the result is just by chance. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am literally shaking my head in disbelief. Are you serious? When you say "Generally we don't report results that aren't statistically significant..." who is "we"? MUM? Are you admitting that the drawer effect is the standard there? Please tell me that you don't teach statistics or anything else having to do with science to the impressionable young minds at MUM, because what you are saying is so utterly and completely wrongheaded as to beggar belief. Let me repeat: "There was no statistically-significant correlation between Y and Z" is a perfectly valid result for a study. No legitimate, honest, impartial and unbiased researcher would say "don't report that", because (i) that's not how science works and (ii) anyone who actually understands statistics - even someone who is totally and completely biased in favor of the proposition under study - would know that such a result does not, by itself alone, disprove the posited correlation. Fladrif (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. We do not report statistically insignificant results as positive. We report them as negative or no different. Thus we have the conclusion that TM is not different than a lot of other techniques in its effect on SBP. Here we have added a graph that illustrates this point.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I assume you mean "statistically insignificant".Fladrif (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the original objection, I wasn't sure whether TG was objecting because studies that showed insignificant results were entered into the meta-analysis (not including them would be equivalent to, in a single study, eliminating all the subjects who didn't show an improvement in blood pressure) or whether he was objecting to nonsignificant meta-analyses being included in a chart that summarizes the effects of all the different meditation practices on blood pressure, which merits the same criticism (eliminating nonsignificant analyses from a summary of the overall meta-analysis as a whole would be the same as eliminating, from a single study, all the subjects who didn't show improvement in blood pressure.) I gather from the followup he means the latter, although his use of the term "pairwise comparisons" threw me for a bit. "Pairwise comparisons" has a specific meaning in statistics that doesn't obtain in this situation; it took me a minute to grasp that he wasn't actually talking about pairwise comparisons but about the individual meta-analyses and subgroup analyses that comprised the overall meta-analysis. At any rate, while I understand why someone unfamiliar with statistics and meta-analyses might be concerned about this, it's not a concern, as editors above have correctly argued.

This chart isn't claiming significant differences between effectiveness of the different meditation techniques, it's merely showing the average reduction in SBP, with confidence intervals, that was obtained when the data from all the studies included in the meta-analysis were combined for each of the meditation techniques. For the purpose of this exploration, the significance or nonsignificance of the individual analyses is irrelevant; they're not combining the analyses but the data, which remain the data whatever analyses they've been through or whether those analyses were significant or not. The data from the original studies were combined to obtain an overall picture for each of the meditation techniques. As for the concern that some of the results could be due to chance, this concern is taken into account in the confidence intervals. For example, we can be 95% sure on the basis of these combined data that TM's effect on systolic BP falls somewhere between reducing it by 14mm and increasing it by 9mm, and that Tai Chi's effect on SBP falls somewhere between reducing it by 40mm and reducing it by 6mm. But even with that difference, the study isn't claiming that Tai Chi is absolutely better; the farthest they will go is to make probabilistic estimates (Table 29) that the probability that Tai Chi is the best of the lot is around 30% and the probability that TM is the best of the lot is 0%. The chart isn't intended to give a definitive ranking to the practices, but simply to show how the data taken altogether stack up in a relative sense, which is useful to know. But if that isn't clear, perhaps it should be made more explicit in the accompanying text. It makes sense to order the chart in terms of average estimated reduction in BP, but the confidence intervals show how much they overlap with each other and with the control conditions; that's the point of this chart. Hope that's helpful, Woonpton (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might be many charts available from the TM movement, but what is missing from these charts are the many dubious claims that followers are encouraged to believe;that TM can prevent earthquakes,prevent wars,produce "levitation",invisibility,superhuman strength,and change climate for the better(!).The movement likes to have it both ways,making "scientific" charts available to advertise itself, but allowing outrageous pseudo-science and outright mystic bunkum within its membership.The adverse reactions of some to the "Siddhis" course is unreported.I witnessed one poor woman who was hysterical and removed from the proceedings.Claims of being a "cure all" are doctored by the movement so the evidence fits their agenda; Promotion of Hinduism disguised as modern "scientific" self-improvement.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says see talk but there is nothing here? Anyway I assume it is due to the section on self characterizations. This do not deserve greater weight than third party characterizations. Probably deserve less weight. We must remember that Wikipedia is not an advertising platform and often self characterizations are little more than self promotion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand, although would the article not need some description of the mantra? Perhaps from its founder and then briefly from others offering different perspectives? I think the problem as it stood however, is that the discussion regarding it is broken across 3 or four sections. Tuckerj1976 ^talk 21:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, according to Wiki policy articles should be based "primarily" on secondary sources but primary sources are permitted on Wiki and in the right circumtstances serve a useful function. One permitted usage is for a topic to define itself. See WP:PRIMARY for more details.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is deleted just moved the content to Characterization heading Transcendental_Meditation#Themself. This section now lists how different groups view the movement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, Sorry Doc I missed that. Not sure about the heading title though. Perhaps something like Self Characterization or similar? Tuckerj1976 ^talk 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Tucker and done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An approach often taken is to place the self-characterizations first. That is probably most helpful to the reader. Other views should come next according to their prominence, though in this case that's probably a toss-up.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Will and done however I think it should remain with the section on characterizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James... This content is indeed self characterizing and is sourced. In order to create an article that is comprehensive inclusion of content that describes the technique and how it works is critical. I would suggest that if you really feel this content is not Wikipedia compliant you discuss it here.(olive (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You're right you didn't delete, I apologize . However, your reorganization given some of your comments about how you see TM could use discussion. (olive (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Olive this is not how I see TM. Every statement is based on reliable references. This is how many governments, legal systems, scientists, and religious leaders view TM.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy in real life so haven't been keeping up with this article. James, you've made your position abundantly clear in that you consider TM to be a cult. Although some see TM as you do, some do not. Adjusting the placement of content and deletion of balancing information creates a non neutral article. I haven't looked at this article closely enough to know who made these changes but they deserve discussion before implementation since they create a slanted view in the article.(olive (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The refs section here seems to have vanished. Could someone that knows, how put it back please? Tuckerj1976 ^talk 21:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are not any refs on this page anymore. That is why this is empty. Been archived.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, it's perhaps best to use {{reflist|close=1}} after each block of footnoted text instead of the plain {{reflist}} at the bottom of the page. That puts the refs next to the text and avoids the whole problem if keeping the reference section at the bottom of the page.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies, it makes sense now Tucker ^talk 19:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should move this section to the TM Movement article as it has more to do with the TM organizations than the actual TM technique? Especially the 2nd sentence about other entities. And the 3rd sentence could be move to another section. "Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation, the organization which oversees teaching TM in the U.S., is non-profit and tax exempt.[97] Two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[98] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied tax exempt status because they were found not to be educational organizations.[99] The Skeptics Dictionary refers to it as a "spiritual business".[100]" --BwB (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because TM technique is under trademark which is why David Spector must emphasis that he teaches something different.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could merge the "Servicemarks" and "Tax exempt status" sections since they covers some similar ground.   Will Beback  talk  10:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What has this sentence got to do with the TM technique? "Two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[98] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied tax exempt status because they were found not to be educational organizations.[99]" --BwB (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because these are the parts of the TM Movement that teaches the technique/control the trademark? Tucker ^talk 19:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the second case, the entity appears to have asserted that the practice of TM (and TM-Sidhi) was an educational endeavor.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not convinced this sentence should be in this article - it is better suited to the TMM article. This content is not about the TM technique, rather the organizations teaching it or using it, and this, I believe, is why the TMM article was created. --BwB (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This statement added by TimidGuy refers to before and after studies. It is not a controlled study and therefore of little / no significance. "Before-and-after studies on TM for patients with essential hypertension indicated a statistically significant reduction in SBP and DBP after practicing TM" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is a quite from the review. We generally feel free to include material from reliable secondary sources. Why would we exclude this yet retain the table, which reports results that weren't statistically significant? I'd be open to discussion, but for now our battleground standard is to include anything found in a secondary source that meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is done by consensus lets see if any one else has an opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is becoming so littered again with "scientific" evidence I am unsure about what is being discussed (and do not have patience to trawl through the article again). Would someone be kind enough to link to the edit please? Tucker ^talk 00:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the line between the quotation marks you see above which is found here [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, this quote is related to comparing TM with no controls, it compares to "no treatment". Almost anything compared to "no treatment" can be shown to show some change of some kind! I'd like to know who put this here. This might be helpful on an evidence page. I vote for removal once source is ascertained.

It is these types of problems that concern me, when changes using bad science are sneaked into entries.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Littleoliveoil is the most recent editor vandalizing by restoring TM poor-quality research material, uncontrolled studies and unreliable sources [19], but it looks like it was originally added by TimidGuy [20].

I haven't yet been able to look at the lower court judgment, but the appellate court judgment has nothing to do with Malnak. It never once mentions Malnak. According to the appellate court, the issue was statute of limitations, and the court affirmed the summary judgment of the lower court that the statute disallowed Hendel's claim. Why are we saying the in the article that Hendel v WPEC ruled that TM is a religion? The only ruling the court issued was a summary dismissal due to statute of limitations. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Superior Court decision is published and readily available, cite in the article ref. We are saying that the Hendel v WPEC ruled that TM and TM-Sidhi is a religion because that is precisely what the Superior Court ruled. I have already quoted from the decision for you in an earlier thread:

-

"[T]he causes of action must be dismissed for the reason that the practice of Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhis program is a religion, and the trial of the causes of action herein would involve the court in excessive entanglement into matters of religious belief in contravention of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution". Hendel p 49

The discussion of TM and TM-Sidhi as a religion begins on page 30 of the Superior Court opinion, and continues through page 48, with the above-cited passage as part of the overall conclusion on p49, so over 1/3 of the decision was on the TM and TM-Sidhi as a religion issue. The Court of Appeals did not address the issue because it was unnecessary for it to do so, as it affirmed on the SOL issue. It would only have needed to reach the religion issue had it reversed on the SOL issue. Fladrif (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this been discussed again? The history of the talk-pages of this article are littered with this none discussion where it is confirmed the findings were that TM is a religion, and added. Then at some point later (when editors who do not live in fairfield have left) the apparent Fairfield socks remove it again based upon the logic they had previously been forced to coincide was incorrect. And so it goes. It is odd that this never takes place with any references included that argue TM is not a religion. Tucker ^talk 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I might appear suspicious, would this re-interest be something to do with this letter here (edited highlights relavant to this new discussion):

William Goldstein’s accusatory email followed:

Dear Examiner Editor in Chief

I write this letter as General Counsel for Maharishi University of Management and the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness Based Education and World Peace concerning the article in your online publication: examiner Transcendental-Meditation-in-schools-the-David-Lynch-program

I will not comment on the inappropriate statements on the scientific research conducted on the TM program contained in Mr. Mesner’s article. Dr. Orme Johnson’s comments you have received reply more expertly than I could on that subject and I incorporate them [Orme Johnson posted his remarks in the public comments field following the article on Examiner.com]. But there are other false, defamatory and/or misleading statements which need to be identified as such and retracted. The failure to do so continues to damage the reputation of my client organizations which teach and promote these programs, and the individuals involved in those activities.

One court case, over thirty years ago, found a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence which included the TM program to have religious overtones violative of the First Amendment. That “Malnak” case has been mischaracterized and its scope overstated by Mr. Mesner. No court at any time has ever ruled that teaching the TM program alone is impermissible, nor that the student is “assigned the name of a Hindu God to

chant”.

These falsehoods, defamations and omissions compel me to ask you to remove this article from your newspaper to put an end to the continuing damage its publication causes to my client.

Thank you very much for your anticipated co-operation.

William Goldstein General Counsel, Maharishi University of Management and David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness Based Education and World Peace

Telephone 641 472 1183 Fax 641 472 1141 email: bgoldstein@mum.edu

William Goldstein General Counsel Maharishi University of Management Telephone 641 472 1183 Fax 641 472 1141 email: bgoldstein@mum.edu

- [[21]]

Tucker ^talk 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hendel v WPEC was added to the article in recent weeks. It seems important to discuss it and make sure it's accurately represented. Don't you agree? TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the first time it has been added if you trawl the talkpages and it is not the first time you have argued unsuccessfully for it to be removed, then removing it later when it seemed no one was looking. At least that is how it seems although I am sure that is not the case. Thanks Tucker ^talk 18:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to trawl: we can search the archives (see the box at the top of the page). This iwas discussed a couple of weeks ago, at Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_29#Hendel_v_WPEC.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I had alreadly posted a direct quote from the decision which says precisely what the text says, and even offered to substitute the quote in the article, TG cannot have had any legitimate question that it was accurately represented, and the question "Why are we saying this..." does not appear to have been posed in good faith. I cannot believe for a minute, given his repeated consultation with MUM's general counsel, (MIU was the other defendant in the case) that TG cannot readily put his hands on a copy of this decision, even if he doesn't have ready access to the published version. As to Tucker's question, Hendel v WPEC punches a big hole in Mr. Goldstein's arguments about Malnak (an argument, coincidentally, that HickoryBark repeated practically verbatim at ArbCom), so I completely understand that the TM Org is anxious to delete any reference to this more recent decision.Fladrif (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, thank you for that. I did not know that was possible. It seems this is it/isn't it argument has been going on longer then I imagined it was [[22]]. This edit by Olive is very funny [[23]] And look at this wonderful re-write by certain editors (in no way indictive of a COI I am sure) [[24]], and this is quaint [[25]] And here is a wonderful discussion about reducing the religion section to decrease the article size and confirm that the mention of religion should not be in TM but in another TM movement article. It is wonderful to see how 3 editors worked so well and quickly together to get this done (that they have now been confirmed to be sock/meat puppets has nothing to do with it I am sure) [[26]] And on and on it goes Truly this is appalling. Is not the PR department of The TM organization embarrassed about this?Tucker ^talk 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add that evidence to the RfAR case? As for the official view, at least one past editor claimed to participate in an official capacity.[27][28]   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get around to adding it but feel I have spent to much of my time on this already. I really did intend only to add the odd comment on the talk-page here before I was forced into taking a greater part first by being added to RfAR case by Kbob, then his attacks on the other users here (claiming I was him) and then the silliness he and other TM editors started accusing me of. To be honest I am simply not that bothered but anyone else can happy add this if they want. Tucker ^talk 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif, I just don't see how it's accurate to call it a ruling. A ruling means a judgment, right? The judgment was that the case was summarily dismissed. There were apparently at least two reasons given for this judgment: statute of limitations and citing Malkank that TM is a religion. I apologize that I haven't yet gotten hold of a copy of the lower court judgment. But my feeling is that calling it a ruling and making it sound like religion was at issue in the case is a misrepresentation. And it highlights the need for a secondary source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is too frivolous to merit a response.Fladrif (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep in mind, a number of the TM Orgs websites are or were overtly religious, with numerous pictures of Hindoo gods and goddesses-and the TM pooja, required for learning the practice of TM contains common articles of Hindoo worship (the 16-fold offering to the gods). One of the Maharishi's most popular books is his version of part of the Hindu Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita! These are undeniable facts.

I believe the magazine from the separation of the church and state folks actually had a recent cover article on the TM religion question. Since that's a recent reference it may be helpful to include.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's from "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" [29], [30], [31], (cover story) [32], Levitating Over the Church-State Wall? [33].--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif, why is it frivolous? The text is misleading, making it sound like religion was at issue, and also making it sound like this was the only reason for the summary dismissal. Isn't it the case that they were simply citing Malnak? TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

READ THE DECISION. It is not misleading at all; it is practically verbatim from the decision. Religion was an issue because the judge raised it sua sponte. The other rulings in the case are irrelevant here. No, it did not simply cite Malnak, which you would know IF YOU READ THE DECISION!!!!!Your attempt to construct an argument by inventing an uninformed and specious semantic distinction around the word "ruled" is completely frivolous. If, AFTER YOU READ THE DECISION, you have alternative language that you think is better, let's see it, but UNTIL YOU READ THE DECISION there is no point in discussing this with you. Fladrif (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I should read the decision. And I apologize for not yet having it in hand. Is it available online? I'm not attempting to construct an argument. I just want to understand in what sense this is a ruling. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this deletion of sourced material by Doc[34], see p 264: "Meditation practice is a promising new treatment for substance use disorders." See the discussion on p. 263, which outlines some of the physiological effects that suggested to the reviewers that it shows promise. That section is introduced thus: "Despite the paucity of evidence from RCTs, the theoretical basis for meditation’s role in addressing substance use disorders is compelling." TM physiological effects mentioned in this theoretical context include increased cerebral blood flow, hypometabolic state, and specific effects on brain activity. TimidGuy (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the original paper. However in the past, editors on this talk page have discouraged the use of sources that are not specifically referring to Transcendental Meditation. So comments in this source about TM would be on topic, while comments on meditation in general would be better placed in one of the other articles, such as Health applications and clinical studies of meditation.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this section the source talks about specific physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation. It also mentions specific physiological effects of a couple other meditations. Then it draws the conclusion regarding meditation being promising. Would we not mention the conclusion in this case? If so, then we'd also have to drastically rewrite the AHRQ material. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TimidGuy. The myth of TM being a hypometabolic state was shown false by independent scientists way back in the 80's. TM is actually not significantly different from napping it turns out. I really be leery about placing false information on TM research in this entry.

Wow, you sure are interested in that AHRQ section! I thought we had that settled weeks ago.

I'd agree with Will, it's not an appropriate source for TM I'm afraid.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Will says that comments in this source that are about TM are on topic. He didn't say it's not an appropriate source. I do hope to hear from Will regarding how to represent conclusions that are explicitly based in part on specific TM findings. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'd love any excuse to modify the sections of research as you've done in the past TimidGuy. My fear is just because some mention of meditation talks about (often) old, obsolete conclusions re: TM doesn't not make it a good source. Because of this, we have sources quoting TM, with out-of-date physiological info on TM (or meditation in general) in our current entry. I would doubt any reasonable person would consider such cites encyclopedic, that just seems like common sense to me. Vying for ways to insert such refs. into an article seems not only counterproductive, but contrary to the spirit of WP I feel --Kala Bethere (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you could not add that to the article on meditation in general. I think it would not make sense if the review found research on TM to be self funded, conducted, poor quality etc and then said there was a role for it. To conclude from this that the summery is then discussing TM (and not meditation as it does) in a possible positive light would be to much like synthesis and and original research, would it not? I shall read the review later when I have time Tucker ^talk 13:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An entry specific to TM, should be specifically about TM, no? Some composite reviews, papers or studies including multiple meditation methods often contain obsolete, outdated information on TM. We owe it to readers to provide the most up to date, independent reviews. Also, such compostite papers often contain primary sources and can be used deliberately to include outdated or pro-TM research by editors who wish to post such old material. Using such composite studies as an excuse to include primary sources is the problem.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree an exhaustive meta analysis of the literature on TM is a far better source than using comments about primary research pulled from a review that mentions TM in passing. We need to use our judgment. Now I have a feeling some will disagree with these comments. I will once again mention that they can get another opinion over at WP:MED.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a review from 2009. It is up to date. It is compliant with policies and guidelines. It's a secondary source. We don't second guess what the sources say. This review has information specific to TM. Will agreed that that information could be included. It's a mischaracterization to say that this review mentions TM in passing. TM is one of the focal points of the review. TimidGuy (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Tucker accidentally deleted most of the discussion yesterday [35]. Because of the intervening edits, I didn't try to simply revert the change, but cut-and-pasted the old text back in. [36] That created an unholy mess, as all the formatting which threaded the discussion somehow disappeared. I fixed the threading manually, but it looks like the infoboxes at the top are still a mess, and I'm unsure how to fix those.Fladrif (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, I think. Just removed the extra spaces and dashes.Fladrif (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif. Sorry, I did not realize I had done that. I was editing yesterday when my browser "fell over" and this may have been why. Again, sorry and thank you for fixing Tucker ^talk 04:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this section of the article we have the sentence " The New York Times reports that people who leave the movement refer to it as a cult, and the university its training ground.^[1]" I am not disputing the characterization, but wondering if this might be better suited to the TMM article since it speaks about people leaving the movement and does not mention TM? --BwB (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there have been many press articles on TM. I am not quite sure what this section is trying to establish. If I were to find a press article where the author characterized TM as a good thing, could that be added here? What other types for comment could be classified as "press characterizations"? --BwB (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a few other could be added with proper attribution / wording.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been meaning to post this for some time. Statistical significance is usually set at .05 this means that for every 20 comparisons done one will reach this magic number. So if one is doing multiple comparison as is the AHRQ meta analysis it is standard practice to use a much lower number for statistical significance and there is a formal for determining this number based on the number of comparisons being done. ( the formula [37] ). Thus we get the situation were TM is found to beat .05 when compared to PMR and another analysis finding that TM actually raises BP. As .05 is not being used as the cut off we still end up with the conclusion that TM is no better statistically than any of these other techniques.

So to conclude I agree that we should not say that TM increases blood pressure but neither should we say that it is better than PMR as both are a misuse of statistics. The reason I bring this up is that at ARB I am accused of mis use of the literature with the BP quote yet we have had the PMR quote added a number of times and it is still in the article. I added the BP quote without reading the entire paper but only after just searching it. This is why we use the summary of the paper rather than mining it to look for results we agree with.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material you deleted is directly from summaries. For reference, here's the summary of the TM meta-analyses for section IIII that's found on page 148:

Direct meta-analyses showed that compared to HE, TM® did not produce significantly greater benefits on blood pressure (SBP and DBP), heart rate, TC, HDL-C, LDL-C, body weight, dietary intake, physical activity, measures of stress, anger, and self-efficacy. A subgroup analysis by study duration showed short-term significant improvement in SBP with TM®, but not over the long-term. When compared to PMR, TM® produced significantly greater benefits in SBP and DBP.

And here's the summary of the TM meta-analyses for section V that's found on page 187:

Direct meta-analysis showed that compared to NT, TM® did not produce significantly greater benefits on blood pressure (SBP and DBP). However, there was significant improvement in LDL-C levels and verbal creativity with TM®. When compared to WL, TM® produced significantly greater reduction in SBP and DBP. Before-and-after studies on TM® for patients with essential hypertension indicated a statistically significant reduction in SBP and DBP after practicing TM®.

Each of these is from a section titled Summary of the Results at the end of broad sections III and V. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every study ever done on TM and anxiety shows that TM reduces anxiety. The Cochrane review looked a single study from 1980 that found that TM had a highly significant effect on anxiety. The 1989 meta-analysis found that TM not only reduced anxiety but had a greater effect than other relaxation techniques. It has been cited 188 times. A 2009 RCT with over 300 subjects that was deleted from the article found that TM reduces anxiety. Since secondary sources include the 1989 meta-analysis, so can we. And since MEDRS doesn't completely disallow primary sources, we should include the 2009 RCT published in a major medical journal that was earlier deleted from the article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you already gone and inserted a quote? Please give us the quote you're thinking of, so we can examine it and see how relevant it is, and then gain consensus. It makes sense a relaxation method would reduce anxiety, but until we look at what you have specifically in mind, it's hard to determine.

I believe we've already had a consensus to NOT use primary sources, when we have such a load of good independent material that is reputable and recent. Who are ALL of the authors and affiliates of this paper? Do they list financial ties or conflicts of interests? Thanks in advance TimidGuy.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]