Talk:Research studies on the applications of Transcendental Meditation

LEDE
The lede needs work. Since Blossom is no longer with us on Wiki, we will need other to edit this article. --BwB (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Text
Studies conducted by Maharishi University of Management or by present, past or future members of its faculty, suggest possible positive correlations between the Transcendental Meditation technique and health-related physiological states, including improvement in lung function for patients with asthma, reduction of high blood pressure, an effect the researchers termed "younger biological age," decreased insomnia, reduction of high cholesterol, reduced illness and medical expenditures, decreased outpatient visits, decreased cigarette smoking, decreased alcohol use, and decreased anxiety.

Discussion
Have any of these studies been conducted that don't involve MUM staff? I recognize some names.  Will Beback   talk    21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article characterizes the TM technique research in general and these studies are examples. Attributing studies on TM only to MUM faculty is misleading and inaccurate in the context of the article. It may be that more examples are needed but there's no problem finding studies done by researchers not affiliated with MUM. Attributing studies to MUM faculty also creates a kind of POV and implies the studies are biased. Studies are studies if they have been peer reviewed. Since there  are well over 300 peer reviewed studies on TM we could expand this article considerably to include those studies and to create an article more inline with the title and topic. Since the TM technique page probably has enough info at this point on the studies, this page could certainly expand beyond the size of the original article. Wasn't that what the split was for anyway? (olive (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, this article should contain all reasonable content on the topic, with a summary at the TM article, per WP:SUMMARY. As for the MUM staff, we should be sure to identify them when we cite them as they are not impartial researchers.    Will Beback    talk    21:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree to a summary on the TM page nor did I agree to this split. Since there are those who want to have an article just for research, fine and expand it, but reducing the reseacrh on the TM article page leaves the article highly POV in a negative to TM slant, and that violates NPOV and Weight. I'm not sure how many times we have to go round and round discussing peer review and what that means in terms of any researcher. Gosh do we really have to go there again.(olive (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Scientific research is just one aspect of TM - having too much is undue weight in another direction. If you think that the research is non-notable you could nominate this article for deletion, but that seems contrary to your implied assertion that it is important. As for the partiality of MUM staff, is there any real debate about that? Is there any MUM instructor who is not a TM practitioner, for example?   Will Beback    talk    22:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What's too much? Is it significant that a meditation technique is the most highly researched in history and has this number of studies. Probably yes. Where did anyone say the research was non notable ... Nope! Nobody said that. This article was created if I remember correctly in an attempt to move the research off the TM research page, and then to leave a summary on the TM page. There was no agreement to make this split, it was done, lets say, politely, quietly. Now that the article is here , fine, but having this article does not as a fait accompli mean we move content on the TM page. Any debate? No there isn't, because peer review undercuts any such discussion and makes such points as religion, sexual orientation, spiritual practice and, gender, etc., moot. I would suggest that if  we have real concern on this to  take it back to the TM page and we can once again open such a discussion. I guess I don't have anything else to add to this discussion. (olive (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC))
 * When you speak of peer review are you talking about Wikipedia's peer review process or that of the papers? REgarding the weight of the research matter, I don't think anyone has suggested deleting all reference to it from the TM article. Moving the research to this article does the opposite- it allows an entire article to be devoted to the topic, where the only weight concern would be about different viewpoints. TM is not just one article on Wikipedia, it's an entire category encompassing about 37 articles. Clinical research is an aspect of TM, but not the only one.   Will Beback    talk    23:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article was created without consensus by the editors on the TM article. In fact it was created in spite of the objection of several editors. But anyone can create an article and so here it is, fine. However, there never was consensus to summarize or minimize or reduce the research sections on the TM article as a result of this article. Research is the first or second most highly cited aspect of TM and it deserves significant coverage in the TM article to reflect that. I don't see the need to duplicate the current summaries here (which is generally what I see, so far). There are several hundred studies on TM. If some editors would like to list them all and discuss those hundreds of studies in detail here in this article, then that is fine. But I see no need or benefit to the reader in reducing the coverage of the research topic on the current TM article. -- — Kbob • Talk  • 04:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) We have a review that summaries all the research nicely. All the poor quality primary studies done my TM teachers are not notable. Deletion of this page with a redirect would be a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Redundant
This page seems redundant since the TM article contains a large amount of text on the research on TM. --BwB (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Adverse Effects
I see no basis for removal of this material. I have looked at the TM talk page archives, and I see no consensus for it having been removed from that article.Fladrif (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you've looked at the archives, perhaps you can explain why, for example, you reinserted the falsehood regarding the Glueck study. TimidGuy (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could someone please point to the discussion in question?   Will Beback    talk    20:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What?
This article is relatively nonsensical. The article is on the research studies, yet does not in any way represent in a comprehensive manner the studies that have been done. One wonders given the information collected here, what repeated funding from the NIH, that totals about 29 million dollars was for. This article needs to outline the studies done on the TM technique the topic of the article. As well, as is, the article fails NPOV miserably.(olive (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Yes one does wonder what all the money from the NIH was for. The Netherlands wondered the same thing and no longer funds TM research.  Poor quality primary research done by people with conflicts of interest is not notable.  Expecially when we have an excellent 3rd party review that looked exhaustively at nearly all the research. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirected to TM
As this is currently little more than a cotract redirected to TM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Refined the redirect to the subheading in the TM Article.Fladrif (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)