Talk:TM-Sidhi program/Archive 8

List of Current Refs which Violate WP:FRINGE
A list of current scientific papers which violate the WP:FRINGE in the entry TM-Sidhi Program

Some guidelines in removal and editing from WP: FRINGE (emphases, mine)

"Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising."

Independent sources

"While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. If independent sources only comment on the major points of a fringe theory, an article that devotes the majority of its space to minor points that independent sources do not cover in detail may be unbalanced. "

"Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance."

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas.

"Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable.

Papers are listed by relative appearance in the entry. May not include all non-compliant citations. "Other" non-compliant magazine articles, etc. to be listed separately.

Discussion #1

 * Should I include Conflict of Interest in the "Reasons/Other" column?--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please add new material above the reference section so it does not get lost. --BwB (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of moving it when you so hypervigilantly did so. The article had just be added seconds before. Editing does take time and is not always instantaneous. Please try to exercise patience with new edits.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The following independent journals have been used as sources and do not violate fringe:


 *  International Journal of Neuroscience
 *  Experimental Neurology
 *  Psychosomatic Medicine
 *  Psychology, Crime and Law
 *  Journal of Conflict Resolution
 *  Social Indicators Research
 *  Journal of Mind and Behavior
 *  Psychological Reports

Since the guideline emphasizes independent sources, we should probably add more of the studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Of course, I'd very much like to see some of the self-published sources deleted from the article, such as Global Good News and the press releases. Why were these added? TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the list TG. I agree with you that the references form GGN and the press releases are weak and could be removed, or replaced with stronger ref if they exist. --BwB (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just looking at Google Scholar. There's quite a lot of additional research on the TM-Sidhi program in independent journals that could be added. Most of this has to do with its being a meditative technique — which wouldn't be considered fringe, I would think. I suggest we remove the self-published sources and add more research from independent journals. There's actually more peer-reviwed research on the TM-Sidhi program than on the Maharishi Effect. This article is a bit out of balance. TimidGuy (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are any of those studies conducted by people unaffiliated with the TMM?   Will Beback    talk    23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Is there any policy or guideline that defines independence the way that you are? TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are employed at MUM or another Maharishi University then they aren't independent. Do you need a specific policy to make that clear?   Will Beback    talk    19:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd like you to cite a policy or guideline that uses "independent" in the sense that you are. They are affiliated researchers who have published in independently reviewed, independent third-party journals. Wikipedia doesn't disallow inclusion of these published studies. TimidGuy (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * MUM is a trademarked name owned by MVEDC/MF. What are the authors supposed to be independent of if they all work at MUM?    Will Beback    talk    12:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Timid Guy, I notice you did not list the authors in your above list of alleged "independent" journals. The topic is still a fringe topic, so per WP:FRINGE we need to know the sources are independent. In such a case where where it is unclear whether or not the authors may or may not be affiliated with MIU/TMO/TM teaching/TM practice. etc. or other types of bias, the article should also have a clear declaration of Financial Disclosure and a Funding/Support disclosure that clearly indicates non-involvement, otherwise it wouldn't make it re: WP:FRINGE I'm afraid.
 * Since TM research history has two detailed independent studies framing it's history, in 1983 reviewing early TM attempts and investigation and a more recent one c. 2006, I propose for the sake of conciseness (and brevity, the article is already too long), we simply use these and let it go at that. Trying to pad the article will lots and lots of articles shouldn't be the goal, but to simply use the two major reviews would be sufficient and concise.
 * Since WP policy suggest limiting mention of such Fringe claims, we need to keep it brief. It may be helpful to simply start a Fringe or Pseudoscience sub-section in each TM entry, and move the brief, worthy independent reviews there and delete the mostly non-compliant research sections wholesale.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments to this section
Added comment section to make editing easier here. --BwB (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, article subject (TM-Sidhi program) is a meditation course not a theory. Secondly, WP:Fringe says that the policy in a nutshell is: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." And the TM-Sidhi program has been discussed in scores of major newspapers. So there is absolutely nothing fringe about it. If by chance you are talking about the Maharishi Effect. It is a scientific theory with published research and also been discussed in many major publications. So it also does appear to qualify as fringe in any way.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 18:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect are both theories. Being published in peer-reviewed journals or discussed in lay publications does not mean that the theories have been accepted. I don't see anyone arguing that these theories are within the mainstream scientific consensus.   Will Beback    talk    20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's an error in the chart. Not all of the authors of the 1999 study are affiliated. And you're redefining what the guideline means by "independent sources." The peer-reviewed studies have been published in independent sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If a study is conducted by members of the movement then it is not an independent study, regardless of where it's published.
 * Hagelin, John S.; Maxwell V. Rainforth, Kenneth L. C. Cavanaugh, Charles N. Alexander, Susan F. Shatkin, John L. Davies, Anne O. Hughes, Emanuel Ross, David W. Orme-Johnson
 * The lead author of the 1999 study is the head of the movement in the US. Of the nine authors, I recognize five as being members of the movement, including the first four. Since authors are usually listed in order of the importance of their contributions, it seems to have been conducted chiefly by members of the movement. I recall reading about the participation of a police official, who ended up disputing the study's conclusions.   Will Beback    talk    22:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I was making two different points. The first I've now corrected in the chart. The second point was about the chart's usage of "independent." It doesn't follow the usage of that word in the guidelines. Both MEDRS and FRINGE use it in the sense of third-party source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Papers written by Hagelin, Orme-Johnson, Rainforth, Cavanaugh, Wallace, Alexander, Hatchard, Assimakis, Dillbeck, or Travis are not third-party sources.   Will Beback    talk    19:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The references in question do not violate WP:FRINGE, they do at best violate WP:SPS. It is fair enough to quote self-published sources, as long as
 * 1) they are not used to establish notability
 * 2) they are not used to reference claims made in Wikipedia's voice.
 * This article needs to base its assessment of the "TM-Sidhi program" on independent third-party sources. Once this is done, self-published sources may also be consulted, within WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dbachmann, according to WP:FRINGE sources must be independent for Fringe Ideas, in this case the idea that people hopping is a form of levitation, that can help bring world peace, crime reduction, etc. In the example above, it clearly is authored by TM Org professors, etc. and the topic expresses pseudoscientific, fringe ideas.


 * The first two paragraphs of this entry are based of pseudoscientic assertions:


 * -the source of the mind is "transcendental consciousness" (typically it's believed to come from the brain)
 * -an influence of coherence on society which creates invincibility: a decrease in violence, crime, accidents, and other negative outcomes in the whole population"
 * -the "Maharishi Effect"


 * Also, are you saying self-published sources should be removed until third party sources are in place?


 * What about self-published sources that also contain biased members of the org (i.e blatantly non-independent sources)? Thanks in advance for your advice.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE has a section on independence of sources that would imply that claiming veracity of claims from non-independent sources is a no-no. Are these sources being used to reference what believers believe or are they being used to support a claim that the believers beliefs are correct? Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Lotus position
The lede has been changed to state that Yogic Flying is done in lotus position. I think this is misleading as I do not believe it is necessary to be in the lotus position to practice the technique. Perhaps it could be reworded without changing the meaning of the sentence? --BwB (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen several videos and written descriptions of Yogic Flying. All of them have people in the lotus position. Is there even a single counter-example of anyone flying//hopping from another position?   Will Beback    talk    19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 *  The first of three stages of yogic flying is yogic hopping - sitting in the lotus position and bouncing on springy mats.
 * "I want to teach the world to meditate" Richard Wilson. Sunday Times. London (UK): Mar 16, 2008. pg. 10
 * Though the movement is admired for its finances, many independent critics question its belief that large groups of people meditating or practicing yogic flying -- where people meditate and hop while sitting cross-legged in the lotus position -- can spread peace.
 * "Sites for 'Maharishi Effect' (Welcome to Parma) Spread Across U.S." Sean D. Hamill. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Feb 22, 2008. pg. A.14
 * Over the years, Maharishi also was accused of fraud by former pupils who claim he failed to teach them to fly. "Yogic flying," showcased as the ultimate level of transcendence, was never witnessed as anything more than TM followers sitting in the cross-legged lotus position and bouncing across spongy mats.
 * "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Beatles' guru, dies" MIKE CORDER. Bennington Banner. Bennington, Vt.: Feb 8, 2008.
 * The Maharishi, pictured, set up universities and schools all over the world and his Natural Law Party -- which promotes yogic flying, a practice that involves sitting in the lotus position and bouncing into the air -- has campaigned in dozens of countries.
 * "Followers gather for memorial for the Maharishi at his Dutch home; [National Edition]" National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Feb 8, 2008. pg. A.3
 * Are those sufficient?   Will Beback    talk    19:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From memory there are countless pictures of people practising Yogic Flying not sitting in Lotus Position that have been published in newspapers. I don't have time now...but if no one else can find them I will find sources in the next few days.--Uncreated (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record the lotus position is not simply sitting with your legs crossed either, in case there is some confusion as to what the lotus position is.--Uncreated (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are pictures of people described as practicing Yogic Flying using other positions, but I'm doubtful as to their authenticity.   Will Beback    talk    20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will I was thinking of pictures of Yogic Flying demonstrations that had been published in news papers where the Yogic flyers have not been sitting in lotus position.--Uncreated (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * look, if you have such reports you are welcome to cite them and add "sometimes also other positions" to the article. This doesn't change the obvious, that the hallmark of "Yogic Flying" is people hopping around in the lotus position. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it a tiring aspect of articles under COI attack that even the most straighforward and easily referenced statements are submitted to tedious criticism. This is WP:POINT. As I said earlier, it took me five minutes to figure out these articles suffer from long-term COI, and the further time I spent with them has done nothing to dispel this impression. --dab (𒁳) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally practiced YF is siddhasana, as did many others. I believe it would be more accurate to simply say "cross-legged".--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback just presented four references for "lotus posture". If you have further references citing siddhasana, you are most welcome to add them. Otherwise, "cross-legged" is fine with me, too, as it effectively illustrate the exercise without taking recourse to Yoga terminology. --dab (𒁳) 15:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine Dbachmann, if you want information that is not the way the practice in generally applied, go ahead and state it that way. I'm just trying to improve the article. Few I knew could sustain the lotus position, although a few people would. "Cross-legged" seems more accurate to me, and more easily understood.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Cross-legged" is fine with me. I suspect that most reporters couldn't tell the difference, and once engaged in YF the position changes anyway.   Will Beback    talk    21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a slightly different issue but relates to the same paragraph, so I'm putting it here. I'm still not convince that our sources support assigning the Maharishi Effect to "yogic flying." I know we've had this discussion before, but I don't remember that it was ever resolved: Is the Maharishi Effect an effect of TM, an effect of the TM-Sidhi program,  or an effect of yogic flying, which we've been told is just one aspect of the TM-Sidhi program? I am reading the research literature, not the teaching literature, but in the literature I'm reading, the effect is mostly described as having first been assigned to TM in general, that is, if 1% of a population was practicing TM these improvements in society would be seen. Then later, after the TM-Sidhi program was developed, it was posited by the Maharishi that the same improvements could be effected by the square root of 1% of the population, practicing the TM-Sidhi program together in a group.

In the early research literature (1970s) the threshold for the effect is operationalized in terms of the number of TM meditators; in the later research it is operationalized in terms of the number of participants in group practice of TM-Sidhi, or  a combination of the number of TM meditators plus the square of the number of TM-Sidhi participants,  and described as a property of the two programs together. I clicked on the tm org link that's given as the source for that claim, to see if the TM org assigns the Maharishi Effect to yogic flying, and found that there's nothing at that page that even refers to the Maharishi Effect. Perhaps one could tunnel down a few levels to find something, but it seems to me that if we're going to use a web page as source for a statement, the page we cite should contain material that directly supports the statement. Woonpton (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch Woonpton. In fact I believe the only people who create a link between coherence from TM/TM-SP and coherence "radiating" into society are TM, non-independent sources. Here's what a recent independent source by leading neuroscientists states about the imagined "coherence" coming of TMers and Sidhas:

To summarize, alpha global increases and alpha coherence mostly over frontal electrodes are associated with TM practice when meditating compared to baseline (Morse, Martin, Furst, & Dubin, 1977). This global alpha increase is similar to that produced by other relaxation techniques. (...) Because alpha rhythms are ubiquitous and functionally non-specific, the claim that alpha oscillations and alpha coherence are desirable or are linked to an original and higher state of consciousness seem quite premature.


 * Meditation and the Neuroscience of Consciousness: An Introduction

Antoine Lutz, John D. Dunne, and Richard J. Davidson from The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness (current neuroscience textbook)


 * Also worth noting: there is research from the 80's IIRC that shows alpha actually decreases in TM when appropriate controls are used. --Kala Bethere (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but not relevant to my point. My point was that we are assigning the effect to yogic flying, when the sources attribute the effect to the TM and TM-Sidhi programs together, rather than to "yogic flying" which we have been told here is just one aspect of the TM-Sidhi program.  I commented several weeks ago  that if the Maharishi Effect is not confined to the TM-Sidhi program, I'm not sure what it's doing in the TM-Sidhi program article, and no one ever responded to that comment.  But the question remains. A typical description from the literature:


 * "It was predicted that group practice of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field (the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program)... would reduce stress in the collective consciousness..." [Orme-Johnson et al 1988, CJR 32: 776]


 * doesn't seem to justify our assignment of the effect to one aspect of the TM-Sidhi program. Woonpton (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, here's how I'd answer your (very valid) question. Alpha coherence supposedly is created by TM, as the mind settles and achieves temporarily thought-free states TM people refer to as "pure consciousness", repeatedly. During the TM-Sidhi program, one has just completed the practice of TM and then begins mentally, at the faintest level of mentation, to repeat a sutra (a brief sentence). In this case the sutra is "Relationship of body and akasha - lightness of cotton fiber" (a so-so translation from Patanjali's chapter 3 of his sutras). One has this as a subtle intention, and then "falls back on the transcendent" or the thought-free state. Once one begins to hop, it's assumed it came from the sutra. This is evidence that the thought ("Relationship of body and akasha - lightness of cotton fiber") is maintained simultaneously together with the silence of "pure consciousness". Because of this simultaneity, coherence is integrated with the activity of movement, a key goal in SCI descriptions of higher consciousness. So it's believed this type of coherence is stronger and more integrating. Unfortunately it's impossible to measure since movement creates artifacts during EEG acquisition. Of ourse the other advantage is that transcendence occurs sporadically throughout one's TM meditation sessions, not necessarily all at the same time, if you're with a group of people. But in the "cotton fiber" sutra, everyone does it together. That allegedly magnifies this coherence and it overflows the group performing it, into the surrounding area.


 * Unfortunately, as the quote I shared demonstrated, there is no such coherence in the EEG that's significant. At least according to current mainstream neuroscience.


 * In actuality, hopping comes from a brief "rapid" pranayama (breathing exercise) performed before "flying". It's a kind of post-hypnotic tetany caused by brief hyperventilation and post-hypnotic suggestion IMO. This hopping phenomenon is actually well know in yogic texts, but it isn't considered part of levitation.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to try this one more time. (1) Our statement that the Maharishi Effect results from the practice of yogic flying is effectively unsourced, since it is sourced only to the main page of the TM org site, which has no information about the Maharishi Effect whatever. (2) The sources I have at hand do not assign the Maharishi Effect specifically to yogic flying or to the TM-Sidhi program, but to both TM and the TM-Sidhi program, the only difference being that it takes fewer practicing TM-Sidhi to achieve the same effect. (3) Do we have sources that tie the Maharishi Effect directly to yogic flying, and if so, don't we need to include the other sources that don't make that connection?Woonpton (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * you are right, they do not claim the "ME" only results from "Yogic flying". They say it would arise from TM alone, but that the "TM-Sidhi program", being more "advanced", will presumably result in a larger "effect". Not that this matters in the least, as it's all just dreamed up either way, but since we already have an article on this thing we might as well be accurate. --dab (𒁳) 21:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, Yogic Flying is a necessary and involuntary result of performing TM-Sidhi. In other words, one cannot perform TM-Sidhi completely without also achieving Yogic Flight. So YF isn't causing the "Extended Maharishi Effect" (the term for TM-Sidhi initiated coherence), but rather they are both outcomes of TM-Sidhi. I believe there are many sources in the popular media that connect YF and the ME, though they may be unaware of the fine points.   Will Beback    talk    21:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The TM-SP is "done" after one does TM. In order to do the TM-SP one repeats, at a subtle level, "sutras", actually English translations of Patanjali's chapter 3. The last sutra repeated, together if in a group, is the "Relationship of body and akasha - lightness of cotton fiber", this results in some people hopping. Since it's said to be more powerful than TM alone, esp. since it represents the simultaneous performance of thinking and silence (transcendence), it takes less numbers. For just TM alone, it takes 1 % of the population, with the TM-SP and YF, due to the "extended ME" one only needs the square root of 1%.


 * Interestingly the town of Vlodrop, Holland, where the Maharishi lived, had well over 1% and their crime increased according to a Dutch scientific study of ME claims.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That study would be a valuable source for this article. I'm not aware of any other independent study on the topic.   Will Beback    talk    22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in Dutch supposedly, which I do not read, I just heard about it from an academic email list.--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, no, Yogic Flying is itself a Sidhi, is one of many, and is the one that has been most researched. The practice of Yogic Flying is said to result in a field effect that is being labelled the ME.  It is apparently a more powerful technique than the TM technique and so its  effect is thought  to be greater than that of the TM technique . Therefore, it is  suggested that in terms of TM technique users, and Yogic Flyers, the same effect could be achieved by fewer Yogic Flyers. As I understand it. (olive (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC))
 * We should at least list some of the other siddhis. Is there a source, even a self-published one, that lists them?   Will Beback    talk    23:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From the article and according to the sources:
 * the TM-Sidhi Program consists of formulas or sutras (threads), the practice of which proponents say can lead to development of advanced human abilities, called Sidhis. The essential aspect necessary to gain these powers is called samyama, a synthesis of three methods taught by Patanjali. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's samyama includes the incorporation of Yogic Flying and other sidhis.[5][6][7]


 * The term "siddhi" means "perfection" and refers to the development of a perfected mind body coordination.[7] Early advertisements for the TM-Sidhi program stated that its practice could lead to the development of extra-ordinary abilities such as Yogic Flying, the creation of peace, invisibility, walking through walls, mind-reading, colossal strength, extra sensory perception, empathy, compassion, omniscience, perfect health, and immortality.[8][9][10][11][12]''


 * The Patanjali Yoga Sutras are so fantastic, it almost sounds promotional to list them, and offensive to TM-Sidhas who consider these their private and secret spiritual practices. The WP entry is The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.


 * Chapter three of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, which there a great version of here  lists a classic version of the Hindu yogic siddhis. Link to it, it's a classic text.  Although I do not believe the Maharishi's system is actually from the Yoga Sutras. It's a sort of weird English version.


 * But if you want to you could just take the set from the c. 1983 "Citizen Sidha" version which goes: 1) friendliness 2) compassion 3) happiness 4) Strength of an elephant 5) Hunger and thirst alleviation 6) Inner light 7-9) Sun moon and polestar: the inner sky, inner and outer worlds 10) trachea (steadiness) 11) navel (knowledge of the human body) 12) discrimination between buddhi and purusha 13-19) Intuition 14) psychic hearing, sight, touch, taste, smell 14) relating the body as space, light as cotton (one of Patanjali's levitation formulas).--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that research. Olive said there were many siddhis. Are these the ones she was referring to? Are there any TM sources for the other siddhis?   Will Beback    talk    20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of siddhis or magical powers are quite numerous and differ depending on which text and/or tradition you're following. Most TMers like Little Olive Oil are familiar with the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, which contain quite a few more siddhis than are covered in the TM-SP. The Maharishi did an unpublished (and uncopyrighted) version of the Yoga Sutras, but it was only privately circulated and never published. As far as the other siddhis, some may have been mentioned in various lectures, and of course the original "governors version" of the TM-SP contained quite a few more "sidhis" from Patanjali, like invisibility, etc. This was later pared down to the version "citizen sidhas" receive. The ironic thing is in the Shankaracharya Tradition Maharishi comes from, pursuit of siddhis is consider anathema and opposed to the path to enlightenment.


 * It's interesting the entry contains no origin of the TM-SP. That's an interesting story in and of itself, but I only have it from people who on the course where it was announced (in emails on public lists). It was announced at a time when the TM movement was about to go bankrupt.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen several sources that briefly say Yogic Flying was introduced when enrollments for the TM course dropped, and also that it led to further drops, perhaps due to a reaction against it. We should collect some of those sources and add something about it.   Will Beback    talk    22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen those too, and I think that some mention of it goes both here and in the TM Movement article. A lot of sources say that the mid-70's were the pinnacle of the TM Movement, but that it suffered a precipitious decline in new students as well as significant defenctions in the wake of (i) the Court ruling that it was a religion and couldn't be taught in public schools; and (ii) the introduction of the TM-Sidhi program with its extraordinary and paranormal claims. There are very good sources on this stuff.Fladrif (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV-section tag
The second section of this article was misleadingly titled "Research on physiological effects" and includes only research conducted by Maharishi affiliates. This is clearly not NPOV. In fact, if there has been no outside commentary on this research, it should be removed per our sourcing guidelines including WP:PSTS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:REDFLAG. I have tagged the section with the NPOV tag in hopes that editors here can fix the problems, but if they are intractable I recommend deleting the section.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets see, shall we, what happens on the Fringe Notice Board where this is being discussed. Comments seem to be mixed. As well there are many editors editing on these pages, who should input.

Your suggestion that the section was misleadingly titled seesm a little overstated. Nothing in the title suggests whom or what did the research, but it is published and peer reviewed, and per Wikipedia is compliant per the policy WP:VERIFIABLE and per WP:RS. These cannot be ignored. So I think more input all the way around is necessary. (olive (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC))
 * FWIW, the article has had an NPOV tag on it since March 2008. The problems haven't been solved after almost two years, and new problems have appeared.   Will Beback    talk    23:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles develop overtime. This article like all Wikipedia articles has developed on may fronts. Frankly I don't care of you remove the whole article. That seems to be one agenda, but while its here I will stand by policy to edit it rather than opinion, and I will continue to ask for collaboration.(olive (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC))


 * And for what its worth. Any one can add a tag at any time, and they do, and once there on these pages no matter the efforts made to clean up the article some editor always objects to the tag being removed. So whether a tag is in place on these contentious articles doesn't really point to much.(olive (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Persistent tags are a real sign that something needs to change in the environment. See Tagging. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, despite the huge amount of non-NPOV, non-independent sources that have been unconsciously or consciously added, we are required to sort through it one sentence at a time. This will be very tiring for other related entries like the Transcendental Meditation entry, which will need whole sections slowly, and probably painfully, edited. I wish I could figure out the original posters of all the items listed above. So far the search engine of WP alludes my understanding.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can do a search while you're figuring out the search function. Which terms or phrases are you looking for?   Will Beback    talk    01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to search for the original editors who placed the above-listed non-independent sources in this entries reference section in order to compile a list.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added diffs for each one to show when they were added. A few were added to the material back when it was contained in the TM article, before this article was spun off in 2006, and I only added one of those as they're more time consuming to research and less relevant.
 * This could be deleted just based on the non-compliant sources added. However, this represents a common myth which is perpetuated by TM movement science.
 * It's been known since at least the 80's that alpha coherence in TM practitioners actually decreases when appropriate controls are used. Furthermore, the recent neuroscientific review of meditation research which appears in the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness explains that the level of coherence seen in TMers is actually no different than the variations of coherence seen in normal everyday human functions. So I'd add something like this to replace the non-compliant sites and the obselete comments:


 * At one time alpha coherence was believed to be a significant indicator in people practicing the TM and TM-SP . However, as early as 1977 independent researchers found that when appropriate controls were used, alpha power actually decreased . A recent review by leading neuroscientists in the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness found that in regards to TM and the TM-SP: "Because alpha rhythms are ubiquitous and functionally non-specific, the claim that alpha oscillations and alpha coherence are desirable or are linked to an original and higher state of consciousness seem quite premature." and "...alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3-0.8 over large inter-electrode distance (Nunez et al., 1997)). The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more “ordered” or “integrated” experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature..." . Indeed scientists now consider EEG "coherence" to be an obsolete measurement since it does not separate the effects of amplitude and phase in the interrelations between two EEG signals.--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

TM Sidhi as religion
I don't see this citation in the article. Could you point me in right direction, please.(olive (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

Located. Thanks.(olive (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks to the TM-SIdhi Program...
Haiti is safe from all harm."An upsurge of positivity in Haiti" Global Good News (28 June 2008)Fladrif (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure from reading that article that Haiti ever achieved invincibility. Rajas "spoke about the group of Yogic Flyers in Haiti, who are creating a problem-free, invincible country." That implies they are on their way towards invincibility, but not that they have arrived. Later it says that "one hundred, and soon two hundred, Yogic Flyers have been trained" in TM-Sidhi. Given the population of Haiti is just under 10 million, about 300 Yogic Flyers would be required, less any overflowing coherence from other countries. While the movement seems to keep careful records they don't make them public so it's impossible to know how many Yogic Flyers are active at any time, or where they are located. Curiously, Cuba's Castro has been cited as an example of an invincible leader even though I've never heard of Cuba having any YFs.   Will Beback    talk    22:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the population of the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area is only 2 million, which would suggest that a mere 141 yogic flyers would have been more than sufficient to protect the area from all harm. You raise a good point about Cuba. It's right next door, and Invincible to boot. I might understand how the 2000 or so yogic flyers in the Invincible America Assembly don't have quite enough oomph to protect Haiti, busy as they are making the stock market surge to unprecedented highs, but Cuba's right next door. You'd think that some of those good vibrations would make it across the Windward Passage.Fladrif (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't say that Cuba is an invincible country, just that Castro is an invincible leader. The press release gives no explanation of how he would have achieved this status without making use of TM-related technologies. I haven't come across anything that discusses personal invincibility. Invincibility is tied to coherence, sometimes compared to laser light. Can a single photon be coherent? Good point about the population of the city versus the nation. But we still don't know if the trained Yogic Flyers in Haiti have actually been practicing recently. As for the YFs in Iowa, it's now my understanding that the coherent field flows most freely within political boundaries, and within kinship and friendship groups. Only after a political unit is fully coherent do the waves of coherence flow into the next closest political unit. In this case, the excess coherence is probably being absorbed by Canada, unless they have YFs of their own. Coherence radiating from The Hague is apparently able to jump over the British Isles and across the Atlantic, but I'm not aware of any YFs practicing there currently, and that special ability hasn't been credited to other settings.   Will Beback    talk    22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent statistics I've seen says that there were 50 Yogic Flyers active in Haiti as of June 2009. No indication of where in the country they are located.   Will Beback    talk    01:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yogic Flying as physical exercise
In the lede we have Yogic Flying characterized as follows: "A physical exercise of hopping while cross-legged.." However, there is no reference to support this. Should we remover the text until a source is provided? I have added a citation tag. --BwB (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed that and agree. I also do not believe that physical exercise is part of the intention of the Flying Sutra, but it is done cross-legged. Perhaps "Hopping while seated cross-legged is a very physical piece of the practice dubbed "Yogic Flying",  a central aspect of the TM-Sidhi program." That way you distinguish the external appearance of YF, from the separate but also important internal experience. While I'm sure YF is good exercise, I've never seen a source which described that as it's reason for being performed.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am of two minds on this one. To be honest I do not like the way the sentence reads right now and at first inquiry was not able to find a proper source for it. I also think the process is much more clearly explained in the TM-Sidhi section below. However I like the fact that it clarifies that the technique leads to hopping.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The position is referenced in the section on YF. We discussed this above, and folks thought that it was inaccurate to say "lotus position" despite ample sources. An editor was going to find sources showing that other positions are also used.    Will Beback    talk    22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

what exactly are you asking a reference for? That hopping is a physical activity? Perhaps you want to peruse a dictionary? The lead summarizes the article. What is "yogic flying"? You can certainly brandish a lot of words about that, but it boils down to this. If this is not a group of people hopping with crossed legs, pray tell me what would be. WP:UCS. --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not denying that Yogic Flying is physical. I am not concerned about the cross legged element.  I am referring to YF being characterized as "a physical exercise".  To me, this put it in the same domain as push-ups or jogging, which it is not.  Kala hits some of the points above.  It is more than a physical exercise, and this text misrepresents it, I feel. --BwB (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall reading one source that said the practitioners were breathing heavily after a session of YF. I think we make clear that this is more than a mere form of exercise.   Will Beback    talk    20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "mental-physical excerise" per the source above.  Will Beback   talk    22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Canada study
Why are we adding a whole section devoted to a single study that hasn't received any attention? If we were to add a paragraph for every study we'd overwhelm the article with primary sources. The appropriate weight would be something more like a sentence in "other studies".  Will Beback   talk    20:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wondered the same, and agree with your assessment. Woonpton (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the text could be shortened or could be added to another section, unless I'm missing something.(olive (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Poor Canada! Anyway, it is interesting to have studies from other countries than the US.  We seem to be quite US centric in may of the Wiki articles on TM related topics, so nice to get a little variety of perspective.  I vote to keep the Canada study and then be more critical of further studies, always baring in mind that we can replace the Canada study.  So let's leave this for now, eh!!? --BwB (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about deleting Canada, just giving an obscure study less weight. The reason we devote so much space to the Middle East and Washington DC studies are thoat those received independent attention and responses, and they are frequently cited by the movement. Neither of those is true of the Canada study.
 * I presume that Luke has a copy in hand. Can he or anyone else explain why the threshold for a positive response in Canada was 1625 participants, the square root of the population of Canada and the U.S combined? Since the population of Canada alone is far smaller, I'd have thought the threshold would have been far lower as well.
 * Second question: were the two studies reported in one paper?   Will Beback    talk    18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't know where 1625 came from, but the World Bank says the population of Canada is 33,311,389 (could that be right?) of which the square root of 1% is 577. Woonpton (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1985 population was 25,843,000. List of population of Canada by years. Would the square root of 1% of that be 508? If so, why wasn't the threshold met when that number of participants was achieved? Why were three times that number required?   Will Beback    talk    19:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're asking me? I'm still trying to understand why, if the square root of 1% of the present US population is 1754, the Invincible America daily tallies of yogic flyers in Fairfield gives 2000 as the threshold for creating peace and prosperity and  invincibility for the entire US of A, and since even that number has been exceeded for months at a time during the last couple of years,  why aren't we there yet?   And yes, 508 is correct. Woonpton (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1% sq. rt. of the combined population of US and Canada for the years of the studies, I think. --BwB (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking that the TM-Sidhi group was in FF and the authors of the study looked at the effect of this group on the crime, etc. in Canada for those years assuming that the size of the group (1625) was large enough to create a positive effect in Canada as well as USA. --BwB (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FF? The way Luke wrote it, it sounds like they did not get positive results until 1625 practitioners were active, while theory seems to say that they should have seen positive results anytime they had over 508 participants.    Will Beback    talk    21:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Will. FF = Fairfield, IA.  The group was in Fairfield.  Since the group was larger that the sq. rt. 1% of the combined pops of USA and Canada, then the ME could be measured in Canada as well.  The study looks at the effect of the 1625 Yogic Flyers in FF on the quality of life, crime, etc. in Canada.  If the ME group was in Canada and was 508, then it would have the effect for Canada.  At least, that's the theory.  If we have 8000-ish in one place anywhere in the world (as we had in Dec 1983/Jan 1984) then it can effect the whole world. --BwB (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you send me a copy of the study?
 * If BwB is correct, then similar results should be evident in every city and state of the US. If so, why did they only look at Canada?    Will Beback    talk    21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the study period was 1982-1985, but the study was not published until 1995. That seems like an unusually long delay in presenting a finding. Is there any explanation for why they waited ten years to publish the study results?   Will Beback    talk    21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, BwB the 1625 figure was for the population of the US and Canada combined, perhaps I should have made that clearer. The paper was published in 1995, but it dealt with data gathered in the 1980s, which was analyzed later. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Luke, Do you a copy of have the study? Does it explain why they included the population of Canada but excluded the population of Mexico? Or why they waited ten years to publish the study?   Will Beback    talk    23:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't ask me mate! Maybe they only thought to check at a later date. Have to ask the authors of study, I guess. --BwB (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm asking anyone who has the study in hand.   Will Beback    talk    22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If the threshold for Maharishi Effect is calculated based on the population which falls within a circle centered on the Yogic Flyers, as Hatcherd suggests, then the population of Mexico counts as much as the population of Canada. Nome, Alaska, is about 3,000 miles from Fairfield, Iowa. A 3,000 circle centered on "FF" includes all of Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and much of northern South America. (Hawaii is 4,000 miles away, meaning that to cover the entire U.S the population figure would be yet higher). More modestly, Vancouver and Halifax, on opposite coasts, are about the same distance away as Mexico City, 1600 miles. The population of Mexico in 1985 was more than 70 million people, about half of which least probably resided within 1600 miles of FF. (Plus most of Cuba). Why wouldn't those people count towards the threshold if it's calculated according to Hatcherd's theory?  Will Beback   talk    22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, you're running into one of the issues raised by critics, (which we do actually cover in the article, though we could do a better job with it.) Both Fales & Markovsky and Schrodt raise this issue:  why is the unit of measurement people rather than distance?


 * "The implication is paradoxical" say Fales & Markovsky. "Assume there is a 100-person TM Sidhi group in downtown Chicago and another in rural Fairfield Iowa.  Ignoring for this example the smaller effect of non-TM-Sidhi meditators,  ME=1,000,000 for both groups.  This means that the effect would have a radius of a few miles for the Chicago group, but more than 50 times that distance for the other group."


 * And Schrodt:


 * "...the population figures used to determine whether the effect should be activebear no resemblance to the actual population distribution in the Middle East. Specifically, the research used the populations defined by political boundaries...and the comined populations of Israel and Lebanon to provide the population baseline. This ignores the sizable populations in the metropolitan areas of Amman, Irbid and Damascus.  Amman is closer to Jerusalem than Ashquelon, Irbid is closer than Haifa, Damasscus is closer than Elat, and all are closer than Beirut, and yet the populations of those Israeli cities are included in the calculations; those of Syria and Jordan are not"


 * Orme-Johnson replies, as we report in the article, that the Maharishi Effect research has applied the square root of 1% formula consistently "in terms of political units -- cities, states, nations-- rather than purely on geographical distances which ignore these community boundaries. These political units reflect greater homogeneity, closer personal ties, more frequent interactions, and stronger internal lines of influence...than those across boundaries and hence cannot be ignored in calculating the pattern of 'spread' of predicted coherent effects on collective consciousness and behavior."


 * He goes on to say, "When estimating the population influenced on an international scale, those nations geographically closer to where the group is located have always been predicted to be influenced by a smaller group than those further away..." This is new to me; I haven't seen this anywhere else.  Have you?


 * But this begs the question, then why in this study was only Canada affected and not the US? I don't have the study (does anyone actually have this study?) but one can assume that the original hypothesis must have involved both the US and Canada, or they wouldn't have used the combined populations to figure the threshold. Woonpton (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that. While Canada is closer to Fairfield than Mexico, neither is particularly close. It'd seem to me that Baja California is just as similar to California as Quebec is New York. Further, I recall seeing a "press conference" in which Maharishi was asked about the effect of a group of Yogic Flyers practicing near a border, in which he replied that to get the best results for a country they should be positioned in the center, otherwise the forces of coherency would spill across to the border and benefit the other country. I'll have to re-read the OJ paper and see if he indicates what the theoretical basis is for his views on this.   Will Beback    talk    01:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is what the study says, I hope it helps:

Estimates of the USA and Canadian population were obtained from the US Bureau of the census (1987) and Statistics Canada (1988) of the Canadian Socioeconomic Information System, A fixed threshold was used in the present study, rather than a threshold which could vary in size weekly, according to the square root of one percent formula, because the Canadian population was only available annually, and weekly interpolations might not be accurate.

The square root of one percent of the USA and Canadian population was approximately 1625 at the end of 1985, the most recent year for which data on the endogenous variables were available at the time of the study. This conservative 1625 threshold was adopted, since unlike a threshold adopted on the first year or middle year of the study, exceeding this threshold would mean a predicted influence on whatever year it occurred. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So they include the entire population of the US including Alaska and Hawaii but excludes the entire populations of countries that are the same distance away? Does that make sense to anyone?   Will Beback    talk    23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the hypothesis of this study -do they state it?   Will Beback    talk    00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Studies can and do limit their scopes. I'm  not sure I see the concern. We have the study, its scope, and we determine if it is reliable or not per Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I don't have the study, but I would assume the authors laid out the populations they would include in the study -Canada and US. Hawaii and Alaska would be included but not Mexico. We could hypothesize as to why they decided to not include Mexico, but only the authors know. Possibly population data was not easily available. I don't see the relevance here, though. Am I missing something.(olive (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC))
 * While odd, it's OK to limit the investigation of outcomes to Canada. However in this case the authors seem to be redefining the Maharishi Effect itself. since it's only a hypothesis, they are free to do so but they should make it explicit, by saying something like, "we reject the view of Orme-Johnson and Hatchard that the ME radiates in all directions equally and instead believes that it follows arbitrary boundaries of our own definition." Do they say anything like that or is the discrepancy unexplained?   Will Beback    talk    01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We've been discussing this study for a couple of days now and there's still no evidence of any notability or other reason to give it so much weight. Unless there's anything else I'll go ahead with trimming it down and moving it to "other studies".  Will Beback   talk    22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Will, that will save me a trip. I was going to go to my university library (an hour away) to get a copy of this paper tomorrow, but if we're not going to devote a separate section to it, I won't bother fighting the first-day-of-the-term crowd. I'm still curious, because it seems to illustrate some serious questions, but not so curious that it can't wait til next weekend. At any rate,  the problem it illustrates is treated in Schrodt and Fales & Markovsky.  Woonpton (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, does the study specifically say that the group was in FF, Iowa? We now have thext in the article that reads "..when the number of Yogic Flyers in Fairfield, Iowa,..."  Just want to make sure we are accurately reporting study. --BwB (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TG was kind enough to send me the study. The main group of Yogic Flyers was in FF, but apparently other groups were active in D.C and Vlodrop, and I'm still trying to figure out how they figure into the total. Most of the literature I've seen says that the Maharishi Effect occurs when there are a sufficient number of Yogic Flyers in one place. The way in which YF's in multiple locations have an additive effect does not seem to be discussed as much. Does anyone have an insight into this?    Will Beback    talk   

Why was the material added back? This is a single paper, conducted by people connected to Maharishi University of Management, which hasn't received any attention from independent sources. The entire "other sources" section is from primary sources, but if we keep the coverage of individual studies short it's not a major problem. But if folks are using Wikipedia to promote their studies then that is a problem and I'd ask for the whole section to be deleted. Let's keep our perspective on the importance of these studies. If we can't do that then we shouldn't be editing this article.  Will Beback   talk    22:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll assume Luke was not aware of the discussion on condensing this material. However, you are making a lot of assumptions, Will. Who is using Wikipedia to promote their studies. You would ask a whole section be deleted? What perspective and what importance? Was the Canada study peer reviewed in a reliable journal?


 * The Canada study should in my opinion be reduced and added to other studies. I'l make that change based on the discussion here. (olive (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I see that Luke has condensed the study. Is this acceptable? (olive (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I hadn't seen this discussion and just made corrections to material that did not accurately reflect the source; if someone wants to condense it further I have no objection. Woonpton (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Luke expanded the material without any discussion. He even added back a poorer version of the citation, undoing a positive contribution to the article. The rest of the section is entirely devoted to a single paper, also written by MUM people. That material was also added by Luke. This is excessive weight on primary sources that haven't received any independent attention, and it constitutes non-neutral editing.   Will Beback    talk    23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll give Luke the benefit of the doubt as I said above, and suggest he didn't see the discussion in which the Canada study was being considered. The edits may have created a non neutral aspect to the article given the discussion, but unless we know what Luke was thinking here I'd say lets wait and see if the editor is non neutral. You seem intent on hanging Luke. Any special reason. (olive (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I do assume good faith, but he was aware of this discussion. After I'd posted several questions with no response I went to his talk page to ask him to respond. He posted some text, which partially answered one question, but hasn't participated otherwise. The editing is non-neutral, and it's coming from a single editor. His motivation is not important, but his actions are. Note that there's still no explanation from him about his latest edits.   Will Beback    talk    00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) :I've just gone back and looked at Will's summary that was there before Luke added back material; it's better than what's there now and it's all we need for that study in the "other studies" section. I think we should restore that version.Woonpton (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, I was not aware that you had several questions from me specifically, and though I understood that the study might moved to another section, I absolutely did not realize the editors wanted it reduced to a single sentence. If I missed that, I apologize to everybody.


 * I had no intention of offending you when I added some of the original information to your edits, in a shorter form from the original version. Some of I felt was necessary, because it made things clearer, there were for instance two studies, not one, with different findings. Also, I did not think my version was particularly long, it is now four sentences:


 *  Panayotis Assimakis, University of Crete, and Dillbeck published two studies in 1995 in Psychological Reports. [67]. Using a time series analysis of data from 1982-1985 the authors showed that the quality of life for Canadians improved significantly when the number of yogic flyers in Fairfield, Iowa, exceeded the square root of 1% of the combined populations of Canada and the U.S. [68] Improvement in the quality of life was measured in the first study as a decline of violent fatalities, cigarette consumption, and worker-days lost in strike.[69] The second study showed that when the number of participants reached the required threshold, a corresponding decrease of violence and fatal accidents occurred in Canada. 
 * I made my changes in good faith. I wanted to respect the desire for having the studies displayed less prominently while maintaining the more relevant information. If this is not what the other editors intended I am, of course, open to hearing it.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Luke, that was mostly not accurate to the source; it has been corrected to this:


 * Panayotis Assimakis, University of Crete, and Dillbeck published two studies in 1995 in Psychological Reports. [67]. Using a time series analysis of data the authors concluded that the quality of life for Canadians improved significantly when the number of yogic flyers in Fairfield, Iowa, exceeded the square root of 1% of the combined populations of Canada and the U.S. [68] Improvement in the quality of life was measured in the first study as a decline in a composite index made up of three causes of violent death: motor vehicle fatalities, suicide and homicide, from 1983 to 1985. In the second study the quality of life was measured by a decline in the same three causes of violent death, plus cigarette consumption and worker-days lost in strike, from 1972 to 1986. [69] [70]
 * Panayotis Assimakis, University of Crete, and Dillbeck published two studies in 1995 in Psychological Reports. [67]. Using a time series analysis of data the authors concluded that the quality of life for Canadians improved significantly when the number of yogic flyers in Fairfield, Iowa, exceeded the square root of 1% of the combined populations of Canada and the U.S. [68] Improvement in the quality of life was measured in the first study as a decline in a composite index made up of three causes of violent death: motor vehicle fatalities, suicide and homicide, from 1983 to 1985. In the second study the quality of life was measured by a decline in the same three causes of violent death, plus cigarette consumption and worker-days lost in strike, from 1972 to 1986. [69] [70]


 * I still think one sentence is all this study merits. Woonpton (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Woonpton, your edits are excellent, I really like this version. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Luke, let me ask again the basic question that I asked at the start of this thread: why are we devoting so much space to these studies? Let's broaden the discussion to include the paper by Dillbeck that covers five studies. What makes these two papers significant? Have they been discussed in any independent sources?  Will Beback   talk    01:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure I understand your question. The studies are on the ME and the topic of the section is the ME. They are peer reviewed, which, as we have read in earlier threads, is a generally accepted standard of reputability. For that reason I think they are appropriately placed. Depending on what in your opinion "significant" means, they may or may not be so; however, that will also be true for a lot of information that is found in wikipedia, and whose presence none of us would ever think of questioning. As for the studies being independently verified, I am not aware that this is the standard commonly applied in wikipedia, but I am still learning, so please tell me if I am missing something--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Studies like these are primary sources. Maharishi has probably spoken for many hours on the topic, and those comments are also primary sources. The movement has conducted over 600 studies. Imagine if we devoted this much space to every one? And why bother, if we're just reporting what they say. We could simply provide links to the abstracts. Wikipedia article should be based mainly on secondary sources. The three studies to which we devote space (Middle East, D.C., and Merseyside) have been discussed in secondary sources and therefore have greater significance.    Will Beback    talk    02:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the relevant policy, see WP:PSTS.   Will Beback    talk    02:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a little surprising and smells a little bit like an attack. Why would any editor add the available studies on a topic? Are they peer reviewed? Are they published in reputable journals? Then, would they be added? One would think so. If a study is a concern bring it here. Discuss it. Luke seems to have made good faith edits, that may be more complete than what was there before. What's the concern? And how did his edits on the Canada studies shift to accusations that deal with other studies on the ME. Perplexing state of affairs.(olive (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC))
 * "Why was this added?" That's the question I asked in the first place. Editing in good faith doesn't mean that the edits are consistent with WP policies and guidelines.   Will Beback    talk    02:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, you seemed to be very interested in the ME theory on how it applied to distance, nationality, et. (see discussion on Map below). This is an interesting study because it looks at the effect of a ME group in one country (FF, IA) on a different sovereign nation (Canada).  The ME theory postulates "effects at a distance" and this study give a clear demonstration of this effect.  I think, for this reason it should be kept.  And let's not be too hard on Luke.  Innocent mistake, new version created.  Like what we got. --BwB (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the ME theory is interesting to me. I don't agree that that fact is relevant to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My interest is not a sufficient reason to give non-notable primary studies undue weight.   Will Beback    talk    11:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to add this study and additional studies on the Maharishi Effect, a major topic in this article. The Maharishi Effect has received a lot of media attention. It's important to give the reader a full picture of the extent of the research. WP:V says that scientific studies are the most reliable soures: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science." TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Media attention and scientific reviews are important gauges of the importance of studies. How much attention have the Dillbeck papers received? Any? Primary studies are fine for some purposes, but Wikipedia articles should be built on secondary sources, like reviews, reliable media sources, etc.   Will Beback    talk    11:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, the Reader, The Reader. I had forgotten all about The Reader.  I thought Wiki was all about The Editor!. --BwB (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is some confusion in my opinion that media sources are somehow considered superior or more reliable than scholarly articles. That is not at all what Wikipedia says. In reading what TimidGuy just posted above, it is clear that peer reviewed papers are considered very relevant by Wikipedia. They are definitely in a category of their own. In addition, when Wikipedia gives examples of primary sources it does not anywhere list peer reviewed studies, it mentions  notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted…the experiment, but a published peer reviewed articles is further removed from that.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about reliability, per se. A study is like a memoir: even when it's published by a reliable journal it's still a primary source. Every year thousands of studies are conducted. Most of them are significant only to a field and are lucky to be cited a few times in other, equally obscure, papers. Secondary sources, like scholarly reviews and media attention, establish which sources are significant and put them into context. Once a study has been shown to be significant, then the study itself is an excellent source for its details. Without the "filter" of secondary sources, we're on our own to decide which studies to devote space to. Hatchard says there've been at least forty studies on the ME. Who decided that the Canada study was worth devoting space to, and on what basis? That decision was made solely by a Wikipedia editor, and presumably because he thought was interesting. Now that we have it in the article, are we telling readers anything they wouldn't know by reading the study itself? Without any secondary sources about it there's nothing more we can add. The concept that Wikipedia article should be based mainly on secondary sources is well-established and serves the purpose of writing an encyclopedia.   Will Beback    talk    19:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific studies are secondary sources. WP:V says, "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals...". This is a peer-reviewed journal. It's considered the most reliable source by Wikipedia standards." As Luke points out, WP:V says that the field notes, etc., are considered primary, but the study itself is a secondary source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two separate issues here, and I know they are easy to confuse. Sources may be primary, secondary, or tertiary, and they may be reliable or unreliable. There are reliable and unreliable primary sources, just as there are reliable and unreliable secondary sources. Peer-reviewed studies are reliable primary sources. Reviews are secondary sources.
 * There are many kinds of reliable primary sources. Autobiographies can be reliable primary sources. Court records are reliable primary sources. In the case of studies, they are primary because the same people are creating the experiment and writing about it. The fact that others check the math and publish does not transform studies into secondary sources. Primary sources may be used within limits, but WP articles should be based mainly on secondary sources.    Will Beback    talk   
 * Thanks for the clarification. Let's keep the Canada study.  I'm sure readers will find it educational and illuminating. --BwB (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we making progress in this discussion?   Will Beback    talk    12:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You asked, "Why was this added?" I think we're making progress in answering that. Regarding PSTS, WP:OR says "published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments" is a primary source. The Canada study isn't published notes or observations. I guess my feeling is that it's important to include the studies and their findings well in this article. The Maharishi Effect is a hypothesis, and we need to show that this hypothesis has been studied and what the results are. We need to show that peer reviewers for a variety of journals found that this research met the standard of science. I don't see how the Canada study could be reduced. Just saying the study suggested an improvement in quality of life meaningless. It could mean, for all the reader knows, that there was less air pollution or something. We might be able to condense the last two sentences into one. TimidGuy (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As we discussed before, there has never been a study of TM-Sidhi-related effects with a negative outcome. (The two studies with apparently negative outcomes really had positive outcomes, according to an expert.) How do the findings of this study differ materially from any other study? What new information about the Maharishi Effect have we learned by reading this summary of it? That the Maharishi Effect prefers Canada to Mexico? That the influence of Yogic Flyers in The Hague can skip over Britain, Iceland and the Atlantic Ocean to have the same effect as Yogic Flyers just a few hundred miles away? No, there isn't enough information to learn those parts of the hypothesis. There's nothing new or interesting here, as proven by the fact that no independent author has ever bothered to comment on this study.
 * This material can be condensed to a reasonable level. Of course there's the really short option for the entire section: "Multiple studies have shown similar effects". But we don't need to go that far either. As I proposed above, one sentence seems like the due weight for one paper out of many with unremarkable results.   Will Beback    talk    12:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What we have to do is include content that means something to a reader. The Canada study needs to be succinct but must also have enough information to be accurate and informative. Condensing it is fine. Removing content that distinguishes the study and its results is not.(olive (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Ok. I've made it more succinct. I would think if its reduced any more the entry would become meaningless.(olive (talk)`)


 * Thanks Olive, this looks good. I hope we are feeling fairly comfortable with the current version. It is much shorter than the original, but it still has the most relevant information--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Olive seems to have merely removed one clause. That doesn't address the issues. Let me spell them out again. 1) This is a primary source. 2) It doesn't contain any new findings. 3) It's no more important that any of the t40 other studies on this effect. Let me ask again - what do readers learn from this study?   Will Beback    talk    19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Olive adjusted the syntax to make the paragraph more succinct. (olive (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)_


 * Even though everyone is trying to compromise, many do not agree with your argument that this is a primary source, and wikipedia does not say so. This is the only study that reports findings in relation to the Maharishi Effect in Canada and thus in that sense it is unique, and there is no wikipedia requirement (as far as I know) that something be radically unique before it can be included in an article. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason to think that the results in Canada would be any different from those in other countries? We can summarize these two papers by saying that "studies have shown similar results in several countries." We can even list the countries. Is there anything else this or the other paper shows that's special?
 * A study that's conducted and written by the same person is a primary source. A review or discussion of that study by a writer independent of the study would be a secondary source.   Will Beback    talk    21:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the study in the version it is now and forget about any more discussion on the issue. --BwB (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Re: primary vs secondary sources:

Because this comes from WP:MEDRS, it uses the terminology "medical" rather than "scientific" but the same definitions apply to the broader category of scientific literature, of which medical literature is a subset. Since the Maharishi Effect is being presented as scientific research, we should adhere to the definitions used in scientific sourcing.

P.S. I'm not arguing whether the study should be included or not, I'm just providing these definitions because there seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a primary vs. a secondary source. Woonpton (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This particular study was not published in a medical journal, so Its a stretch to label it per WP:MEDRS.(olive (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Apparently you failed to read my post, where I said that the same definitions apply to scientific literature in general, of which medical literature is only one subset. There isn't an overall Science RS guideline, probably because people editing science articles, by and large, understand the distinctions and standards for citation without needing to be told. But since a lot of people editing alternative medicine articles don't have scientific training, a guideline was developed to help those editors understand how to write articles dealing with scientific literature, hence MEDRS.


 * The argument that the guideline applies only to articles published in medical journals is not a useful argument. The guideline is about how to treat subjects that deal with claims of a scientific nature.  It doesn't matter where the article was published; if it claims a scientific finding, the definitions  of scientific citation apply, and MEDRS is a useful compilation of those definitions.  At any rate, there's a category tag at the top of this page that identifies this article as belonging to category Alternative Medicine, in which case the article is not only generally but specifically covered by the guideline.Woonpton (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems a tempest in a teacup. Why not leave the shortened version in place. Originally Will requested as I understand it,  that the study be moved  in with other studies and that it be reduced  in size. That's been done. I suggest that for now, we leave it in place and then if later the article seems unwieldy, and the study superfluous we take it out.(olive (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Olive, the matter of primary versus secondary sources was explained to you and Kbob just four months ago, and you seemed to agree then. "... a primary source is one not based upon another source, and a secondary source one based on one or more primary sources, and so on down." Studies like this are primary sources.   Will Beback    talk    23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I consider that comment to be patronizing and ignorant. I knew about primary sources long ago, Further, you consistently ignore my comments and instead continue to reframe. I have attempted to compromise between your comments and that of the other editors. You can ignore that and continue on but I don't see a resolution in your methods.(olive (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC))
 * So, do you still argue that this is a secondary source, or do we now agree that it's a primary source? The question is fundamental to solving this dispute, and others like it. Until we agree on what kind of source this is we probably can't agree on how to handle it.     Will Beback    talk    23:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps check the discussion. I didn't argue primary vs secondary sources. I've provided several solutions based on your initial comments. You've reframed and are now on a different track than in the very beginning of this discussion when I came into it. If you want a new discussion start a new thread and open the discussion, but please don't accuse me of contributing in a way I didn't.(olive (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC))
 * The amount of space that we devote to this depends in large part on whether it is a primary or a secondary source. You are arguing to include considerably more material on this study that I have suggested is appropriate for an obscure primary source. This issue also concerns Dillbecks' five-study paper, which takes up even more space. If we can agree that these are primary sources then we come that much closer to deciding the correct weight. Let me ask this: does anyone here think that the Canada study and studies like it are secondary sources?   Will Beback    talk    23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone?   Will Beback    talk    21:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are most definitely NOT secondary sources. They are clearly primary sources.Fladrif (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there any explanation for the inclusion of Yogic Flyers in The Hague in the totals required to meet the threshold? The study is careful to include the population of the U.S., but there's no mention of including the population of Holland, nor of the British Isles which lie between The Hague and Canada. That inclusion also leads to the question of whether other groups practicing Yogic Flying in other countries or continents should have been factored in to the results of every study. For example, some of Dillbeck's studies were also active in the mid-1980s. So if The Hague has an effect on Canada, why wouldn't a group in New Delhi have an effect on Manila? This seems to be among the most significant aspects of the Canada study because it is different than the standard hypothesis.   Will Beback    talk    21:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Verifiable "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals." WP:Verifiability supercedes the guidelines, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. However the point is moot. The Canada study is simply one of the studies in a list of studies describing the state of research on the ME. The Canada study is not a primary source because its not being used as a source in this instance. WP:Verifiability notes that, "Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles". The Canada study is not being used to substantiate information, or to support an opinion. It is the information and since it was published in peer review journal we might consider it significant enough for mention. The issue is how significant and how much mention. Used as a source, is the Canada study primary source, probably, but here it is not being used as a source. (olive (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC))
 * "The Canada study is not being used to substantiate information..."
 * I agree to mentioning it. Right now we do much more than mention it- we devote about 143 words to it. It is certainly being used as a source. To avoid that we can move it down to "further reading".   Will Beback    talk    00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Its not being used as a source. We add content that  says that Randi makes certain claims. Then we have to support that content with a source that substantiates that Randi actually made those claims. We aren't making claims with the Canada study . The authors "speak"within the boundaries of their study, but we are not using the study itself to support a claim. This is why primary sources can be dangerous in medical articles. If a single study is used to support a claim then there is a possibility that the study was inaccurate, poorly carried out, superseded all of that, and more. To make a claim of any kind in an article, a good secondary source is a good idea meaning that the study has been vetted again by an expert in the field so there is another layer of accountability. However, while WP:VERIFIABILITY does not say a peer reviewed study is a secondary source it does support the use of peer reviewed studies as compliant sources,  and the policy trumps. There are  no  simple cut and dried solutions. The interconnectedness of WP:Verifiability, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS is complex.


 * I agree the study can be reduced as long as it has some meaningful content left, but didn't you just add more text to it... Now that's really confusing.(olive (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Now I'm really confused. If the studies are not being used as a source for this article, then the material we have written about them is unsourced and should be removed.   Will Beback    talk    01:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are being used as content and they are defined by themselves. If I want to note the studies done on a topic ... note them and something about them then what does one do. Go to the study itself and if its peer reviewed in a reliable source indicating that it has been vetted by a community of peers then we can add it as indicative of the research in that field. As fascinating as this conversation is, I have been ill with flu today so will continue later. Thanks for you discussion.(olive (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Since there's no evidence that independent secondary sources have paid any attention to these "other studies", I'm going to remove the descriptions and move them to "further reading". Then readers will have them available to read on their won and we won't we in a position of summarizing primary sources. (Get well soon!)   Will Beback    talk    01:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind wishes... Your move is against the spirit of this discussion. At the least the study should be left as a sentence, and as I advocated with enough info to make it meaningful. Too bad.(olive (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC))
 * All that's really meaningful is that these are more studies that support the overall hypothesis that the Maharishi Effect exists. Beyond something like "studies have shown similar results in several countries" there's really more we can say of interest. While they have remarkable implications, such as that ME jumps over the British Isles or prefers Canada to Mexico, we can't make those extrapolations in the text and the authors don't even seem to be aware of their own findings or assumptions. Simply reporting the size of the study or the exact parameters are just details picked out of a primary source. As for the "spirit of the discussion", this discussion has never answered why Luke added these studies, or why were devoting more than a few words to their existence. It's been an interesting discussion, but when we get back to the core Wikipedia policies there's no evident reason to include these papers.      Will Beback    talk    05:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave an answer above. Here it is again. This article has a major section on the Maharishi Effect. The Maharishi Effect is a hypothesis. And it's clearly controversial. It's crucial to this article to make clear the extent of the evidence that supports this hypothesis. It's important to show the variety of journals that have published these studies and what the results were. WP:V says that peer reviewed studies are usually the most reliable source, and I would suggest that in examining this hypothesis these studies are probably a better source than magicians and political columnists and skeptics and Ig Nobel committees and unpublished demonstration projects. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We can make the extent of the evidence clear to readers by summarizing it. "Researchers connected to the movement have conducted over 40 studies in several counties, including X, Y, and Z, that have found positive effects on crime, mortality, and etc." That would cover the ground adequately, wouldn't it? By comparison to most of these studies, the activities listed under "demonstration projects" have been described in independent secondary sources.   Will Beback    talk    20:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If we can include information the sort of sources that we do -- magicians, political columnists, skeptics, anticultists -- then we certainly ought to be able to information from peer-reviewed studies in independent journals. We should show the findings from each study so that the reader knows that peer reviewers of the particular independent journal found that research credible. WP:V says that peer-reviewed research is the most reliable source, and probably more reliable than sarcastic comments by political columnists and claims by anticultists not based on science. TimidGuy (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Timid, you have a way with words, and I agree: it is just not logical to think that wikipedia would have inferred that the comments of a journalist unfamiliar with a topic and unlikely to ever visit it again are more reliable and worthier of publication than a reputable peer reviewed journal who published a study after rigorous review. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We include information and views that have been reported in reliable secondary sources. I don't see any lack of studies in this article already. But studies that have never been mentioned outside of the movement, and are barely even mentioned inside the movement, should not form the basis of this article.   Will Beback    talk    18:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Peer-reviewed studies are considered the most reliable source in Wikipedia, probably much more reliable than a sarcastic comment about bogus statistics by a political columnist. Who peer-reviewed that? What analysis was this comment based on? TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I've lost track of what we're talking about. Which political columnist are you referring to?   Will Beback    talk    21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See the beginning of the second paragraph in the Merseyside section. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the Canada study in this thread, so a comment about the Merseyside study would be better placed in one of the threads related to it. I think that there's a confusion between primary and secondary sources. Hatchard's paper on this study is a primary source. It may be highly reliable, but it's still a primary source. The views of it expressed by a notable political commentator is sufficiently reliable, unless someone is claiming that he didn't make the reported comment. His comment is clearly presented as his opinion.   Will Beback    talk    12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The policies and guidelines uniformly value peer-reviewed studies and say that they are the most reliable. There is absolutely no comparison between a sarcastic comment in an opinion piece in a newspaper and a peer-reviewed study when it comes to presenting scientific analysis. Yet according to your reading, one is a primary source and should be restricted and the other is an acceptable secondary source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has ever commented on the Canada study, sarcastically or otherwise. That's why it isn't seen as notable. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it then do we need to devote any space to it in Wikipedia?   Will Beback    talk    12:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just keep a sentence or 2 on the Canada study and be done with it. it is interesting to the reader, I believe, for 2 reasons: (1) non-US study (article tends to be US centric); and, (2) it shows the effect of a group of yogic flyers can have an effect in a different country (unique in that respect). --BwB (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of the points you've made could be addresses with text covering the two "other studies", something like: "Researchers connected to the movement have conducted over 40 studies in several counties, including X, Y, and Z, that have found positive effects on crime, mortality, and etc." Is there any significant finding that is missing from a sentence like that?     Will Beback    talk    17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How in the world could any studies not done independently on the ME be included? I'm surprised there is such a long discussion. ME relates to Public Health ("collective consciousness") and therefore any primary source would have to be disallowed according to WP:MEDRS. "Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used." Also, with Fringe Theories like the Maharishi Effect, please remember WP:FRINGE warns "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is", yet that's exactly what's going on here. What peer-reviewed, major journal with non-TM Org affiliated reviewers have actually reviewed the ME favorably? I think it should be rather easy to narrow down the acceptable sources re: the ME, as most are filled with MIU, MUM professors, various alumni of the aforementioned, etc. and therefore could easily be removed. Am I missing something here?--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Kala, you are indeed missing something. You've missed the sentences of MEDRS that define what qualifies as independent. Also, all of the studies have been independently and favorably peer reviewed. Otherwise they wouldn't have been published. Will, don't make up rules. Yes, we need to include this study because this article is talking about a hypothesis. What would make more sense than to include studies that have been done that support the hypothesis. This study should be included and the findings briefly mentioned. Will, I invite you to address the question that I raised regarding sources and what makes the sarcastic comment a secondary source and somehow more reliable than a peer-reviewed study. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how these studies can be seen as having been written by independent third-parties. The place of their publication doesn't transform TMM researchers into independent sources. If Barack Obama wrote a paper about his presidency and published it in the New York Times it might be a reliable source for his opinion but it wouldn't be an independent, third-party source.
 * Where do we discuss the hypothesis of the study? How much discussion of it can we have when there's only one sources for it, the study's author? So far as I can tell, the main point of the study is to show that the ME extends to foreign countries, and I've proposed text which would cover that. Nobody's raised any specific objections to that text, so perhaps I should just add it.
 * I don't know what rule I'm accused of making up. Could someone point to it?
 * I don't think anyone has said that Andrew Rawnsley is more or less reliable than Guy Hatchard. However Rawnsley's views are more notable than Hatchard's. Is that in dispute?   Will Beback    talk    12:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will; peer-review doesn't confer independence on a primary source whose author is affiliated with the movement, and independence of the journal from the movement doesn't confer independence on the research. The authors' affiliation must be taken into account in describing the topic encyclopedically, if all the positive research comes from affiliated researchers. Woonpton (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm coming late here, but I've just read through this discussion and there's a set of assertions I simply must respond to, though belatedly: ''We aren't making claims with the Canada study. The authors "speak"within the boundaries of their study, but we are not using the study itself to support a claim. Its not being used as a source.''

Of course it's being used as a source, and we are using it to support the claim that 1625 meditators in Fairfield Iowa were able to reduce traffic fatalities, suicide, homicide, cigarette consumption and work days lost to strikes in Canada. This is an extraordinary claim, and the only source we have to support it is this source. Woonpton (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, you said, "I don't see how these studies can be seen as having been written by independent third-parties." Where is the rule that says that studies must be written by independent third parties? TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we agree on the fact that they are not written by independent third parties? If we were writing about an article that was concerned more mainstream scientific ideas then the lack of independence would be less problematic. Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect are only studied those who believe or practice them. If no independent scientists are interested in replicating the experiments then that's an indication of the relative notability of the hypothesis. As non-notable studies performed by members of the movement they should be given minimal weight. It's perfectly adequate to summarize these sources as I've suggested, something like "Researchers connected to the movement have conducted over 40 studies in several counties, including X, Y, and Z, that have found positive effects on crime, mortality, and etc." Is any significant information from these studies missing from that formulation?   Will Beback    talk    12:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree, as per the list below that all mention FRINGE and Pseudoscientific theories needs to be trimmed to a sentence or two (paragraph or less) and are only refer to the primary sources, but not list them extensively. An important element of scientific review of fringe and pseudoscientific tracts is that, in general, credence is not given to them by mentioning them repeatedly and significantly, except for direct criticism. WP echoes this same sentiment in WP:FRINGE: "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas."--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This article talks about a hypothesis, has extensive criticism of that hypothesis, so it should also mention the results of peer-reviewed studies that support that hypothesis. You can't just arbitrarily decide that a study is non-notable based on the institutional affiliation of the author. Regarding notability, WP:FRINGE says, "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. Kala, you're pretty far off here in regard to NPOV. Of course, my preference would be to completely exclude ME from Wikipedia. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a number of secondary sources that discuss the theory as well as the studies done to support it. A few of the studies have been reported on or mentioned in secondary sources and we give those ample space. There are other studies, apparently over 40, that haven't received any such attention. They do not make any significant assertions about the theory. Their similar findings can be grouped together to avoid giving them undue weight. I've suggested, and haven't heard any specific objection, to using a sentence that would say something like, "Researchers connected to the movement have conducted over 40 studies in several counties, including X, Y, and Z, that have found positive effects on crime, mortality, and etc." I'll fill that out and post it here to see how it looks.   Will Beback    talk    23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You haven't heard any objections? I've objected every time you've suggested that. You're welcome to add a sentence but you're not welcome to remove any material that's there. There's no policy that supports such removal. Regarding the number of studies, there are around 40 or 50 studies total, including conference presentations, Collected Papers articles, multiple studies mentioned in a single article, etc. There are about a dozen peer-reviewed articles. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, I've never heard an objection that raised any specific issues. Let me ask again, what important information isn't included in that proposal? What makes that information, if any, important?    Will Beback    talk    20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a number of secondary sources that we can use. Here's a review that covers the various studies. TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's the author of that review?   Will Beback    talk    20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's about a 5-page discussion of the Maharishi Effect research in this book: On the Nature of Consciousness. Harry T. Hunt. Yale University Press, 1995. TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have secondary sources we should be using those in preference to primary sources. Primary sources, like these studies, should be used sparingly for things like details to provide of cases already discussed in the secondary sources.   Will Beback    talk    20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Maharishi Effect is a hypothesis. The hypothesis is controversial. It's important to the article to show the extent to which independently peer-reviwed studies published in independent journals have published research on this hypothesis. This entails mentioning the publications where these studies have appeared and briefly what the findings were. This way the reader has a good sense for the range of publications that have published this research, the various geographic locations where it's been done, and the various specific effects. As Vassyana said on WP:FTN, reliable sources that document the claims should be used. TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That can be done is few words or a couple of lines. We don't need a whole section to summarize primary sources picked by a Wikipedia editor. I've got the Hunt book on order and once I have it in hand I'll draft text based on it and any other available sources on the topic.   Will Beback    talk    12:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhode Island study coverage, deconstructed
From the article:

The Maharishi Effect connected to Yogic Flying was reportedly observed first at a meeting held in 1978 in Rhode Island. With the involvement of only the square root of one percent of the population, the meeting was purported to have "improved quality of life on an index of eight measures, including crime, deaths, motor-vehicle fatalities, auto accidents, unemployment, and beer and cigarette consumption."[14][15]


 * connected to yogic flying The study does not make a clear connection between the Maharishi Effect and yogic flying, since a combination of yogic flyers and regular meditators is used to make up the threshold rather than just yogic flyers.


 * Observed. As I've said before, I have a problem with this word applied to the Maharishi Effect, even with "reportedly" appended. The Maharishi Effect is not observable and as far as I have been able to determine, has never been observed in real life anywhere; it only emerges as a product of considerable statistical analysis. So the Maharishi Effect was almost certainly not "observed" in Rhode Island in 1978; it was  observed at Maharishi University sometime between 1978 and 1987 when the statistical analysis was conducted, by researchers looking at computer printouts.  So it seems inaccurate to say that the phenomenon was observed in Rhode Island in 1978.  I don't have these two sources, both newspaper articles; if the word "observed" was used by someone in the source, then let's use quotation marks and attribute it to whoever said it; otherwise I'd prefer we not use it at all rather than add the weaselly qualifier "reportedly."


 * meeting The study does not refer to a meeting. Instead, it says "The campaign began on the 12th of June with the arrival of almost 300 teachers of the TM program who also practiced the TM-Sidhi program, who went to cities throughout the state in teams ranging in size from 2 to 46. The visiting teachers left Rhode Island on the 12th of September."


 * With the involvement of only the square root of one percent of the population Again, this phrase is inconsistent with the published research, in which the operational threshold was not defined by the square root of 1% of the population practicing TM-Sidhi, but by the combination formula: "In this case, the square of the number of TM-Sidhi program participants in each small group, added to the number of persons already instructed in the TM technique in the state, was right at threshold for predicting the extended Maharishi Effect." A further note:  as described, this calculation seems to violate the basic threshold rule, which is that the Maharishi Effect can be created wherever 1% of the population is practicing TM, or wherever the square root of 1% of the population are practicing TM-Sidhi together in a group, or wherever 100x the number of TM participants plus 100x the square of the number of TM-Sidhi program participants meditating together in one place equals or exceeds the population in question.  In this case, the threshold is calculated a new way, by adding together the squares of groups as small as two, and then adding the number of TM meditators in the state to that.  Not commenting on the validity of that approach, simply remarking that this method of calculating whether the threshold is reached is different from that used in any of the other studies, and seems inconsistent with the theoretical rationale for the TM-Sidhi threshold, which calls for TM-Sidhi participants to be all together in one place to create the coherence that produces the enhanced effect.


 * That's an interesting aspect of the study, and worth pondering, but less important for our discussion here than the fact that the phrase we're using in the article is not consistent with the research. The square root of 1% of the population of Rhode Island in 1980 was just under 100; there were actually nearly 300 TM-Sidhi meditators visiting the state during the study period, but because of the way they were broken into small groups it took these 300 plus everyone in the state who had ever been trained in TM, to barely reach the threshold for combined TM-Sidhi and TM meditators, according to the study. So the statement is simply inaccurate.


 * an index of eight measures Interesting that we (or the source cited) list only seven of the measures that went into the composite index of "quality of life measures," omitting the pollen count, which was an equal partner in the composite index with crime, fatalities of various sorts, unemployment and cigarette consumption.

This raises a dilemma, I think. If the information in our article is true to the newspaper sources, then the newspapers or their sources misrepresented the study; if not, then we need to correct our article. In either case, I would prefer that we don't misrepresent research studies, even inadvertently, in our encyclopedic coverage of the topic.Woonpton (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You raise a very valid point here Woonpton. We often rely on newspaper sources for text on Wiki articles that misrepresent the material.  This is a problem. In this instance, we are talking about research studies.  On other occasions we have misrepresentation by the press on peoples' motivations for their action, ownership of property, peoples beliefs, goals, etc., or the complete misrepresentation of a subject.  However, we as editors must follow Wiki policies even if we know the source to misrepresent the subject. What to do? --BwB (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea that policy mandates the inclusion of misinformation in an article is absurd. Here, the published research study contradicts the newspaper accounts of that research; guidelines governing citation of research say we should always prefer the study itself to a newspaper account of the study. There is nothing in policy that requires that we keep the misleading account.  I looked at the paragraph again in the context of the whole section, and frankly, I don't see what it's even doing there; it just adds misinformation to the section without providing any useful information,  and I removed it. Newspaper articles are of course acceptable sources for non-scientific information such as some of the things you mention above, and should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If you have reliable sources that contradict the misinformation you claim we are including on other matters, by all means bring it out; otherwise I agree with you that "as editors we must follow policy even if we know the source to misrepresent the subject," since of course personal knowledge or beliefs about the accuracy of a statement aren't relevant here.Woonpton (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit tangential to your analysis, but I'll add this here as it's an active thread. While looking up a dead link I came across some information. I don't know why they mention people practicing individually helping to produce the Global Maharishi Effect, or how that's different from the Extended maharishi Effect. Anyway, more grist for the mill.  Will Beback   talk    23:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Over 80,000 people have learned the TM-Sidhi program. 
 * When the TM-Sidhi program is practiced in groups, it further enhances the benefits to the individual and at the same time benefits society as a whole. 
 * This phenomenon is called the Extended Maharishi Effect in honor of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who predicted it 39 years ago. Throughout the world, people practicing the TM-Sidhi program individually and in groups have produced the Global Maharishi Effect -- coherence in world consciousness -- which has now resulted in the dawn of world peace.


 * It's tangential in the same sense that my side note about how the independent variable is operationalized was tangential to my concern about our inaccurate description of that particular study, but both are directly relevant to a separate concern, the marked inconsistency among sources as to what is required to produce the effect. There are almost as many different operational definitions of the independent variable as there are studies, and the general descriptions seem equally equivocal on the matter. Woonpton (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another tidbit: The "Monthly Digital News Letter of the Maharishi Organizations - India", dated July 2009, reports that "approximately 500,000 people have learnt Maharishi’s TM-Sidhi Programme and are practicing ‘Yogic Flying’." Again, no dates as to when that number was achieved. Apparently they cannot get 8,000 of those 500,000 to practice in the same place (more or less), otherwise the full ME would have already been attained. FWIW, the 80,000 figure above was from 2008, so either they trained 420,000 in a year, or their reporting is imperfect.   Will Beback    talk    20:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've found a relatively up-to-date listing of all Yogic Flying groups in the world. "74 Groups of Yogic Flyers in the World In relation to the requirement for the Maharishi Effect per country– 12th June 2009 ". It indicates that there were 22,886 Yogic Flyers active as of that date. Some of the numbers are interesting - Haiti had more Yogic Flyers than the UK. Latin America is surprisingly strong. None at all listed for China, Japan, or the Koreas. This page deepens the mysteries about the requirement for YFs to practice in one place. Apparently in Rhode Island they didn't need to do so, nor in the Canada study discussed previously. It isn't clear how the Fairfield Iowa YFs, practicing in gender separated domes, qualify. Based on pictures, it appears that the Indian pandits living there conduct their Yogic Flying in small groups rather than joining the main assemblies.  Regarding India, it says that there were 48,000 people trained in TM-Sidhi, leading me to think that the 500,000 figure is a typo that should be 50,000. The nation of India has far more than needed to create invincibility, but apparently it has failed to do so because the YFs are in 44 groups.    Will Beback    talk    01:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's no objection I'll post a short summary of these figures.   Will Beback    talk    12:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a disclaimer near the bottom of the web page. Is this really a reliable source? "  Disclaimer: This is not an official publication of the Global Country of World Peace. It is a private summary of information about the growth of groups of Yogic Flyers worldwide, from private sources, from participants, and mostly from reports of the Rajas in the Global Family Chat. – The real number of “Yogic Flyers in groups” may be less than stated here, because only the founding of these groups is in the news, but not their possible ending, especially in Latin America. All figures are always to the best of my knowledge. – Responsible: Claus Götte, Uedem, Germany." --BwB (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We could add some of the disclaimer language. Something like, "According to unofficial figures compiled by the Maharishi Purusha program in Germany, there were 74 groups of Yogic Flyers in 2009, including 44 groups in India, totaling as many as 22,886 worldwide."   Will Beback    talk    04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we could. However, I know you have argued against self-published web sites in the past and against weak, primary sources.  If you feel this source is strong enough, then we can add the material. --BwB (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. This appears to be a form of secondary source, in that the information is accumulated from other primary sources. I think we should use the best sources available for the number of of Yogic Flyers. If there's a better source then let's use that instead. I have an older and vaguer source with a higher reputation that says 50,000 people have been trained in TM-Sidhi. There's always a trade-off between accuracy and precision. Maybe we should use them both and give enough information so readers can decide.   Will Beback    talk    14:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Shear not Independent
Jonathan Shear is not an independent voice on TM or the TM-SP. He was a founding faculty member of Maharishi International University (now Maharishi University of Management). Therefore his sources would be primary and should be removed.

He may be being used in other TM Org-related entries as well.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Who an author or editor is, is not a criteria for deciding whether something is a  primary source or  not. As well, I  do believe the publication is considered reliable and verifiable. But other comments would be welcome.(olive (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I'd check out WP:INDY for more on this, as it may clarify why he's not good source. The important point is that a good source (and a good editor) should describe a topic from a disinterested perspective. That's often not the case with people who are involved closely with the topic(s) or subject(s) at hand. This helps assure an unbiased POV.


 * I think it would be difficult for a former professor of MIU to be "disinterested" in TM-related topics. So to assure lack of bias, it's a good idea to avoid such conflicts.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The publication is reliable and especially WP: Verifiable (a core policy). WP: INDY is only an essay, but even so nothing in the essay points to a problem with the publication. (olive (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Credentials are relevant. However in the case of Shear they may be complicated. Kela, what's the evidence that he was associated with MIU? The WP article on Grandmaster li liqun says that a Professor Jonathan Shear is a student of that martial arts master. He's apparently helped author or edit several book on spiritual topics. I don't know if these are all the same people or not. Getting back to this article, Shear is only used for one fact, that TM-Sidhi was introduced in 1975. That fact is widely available. In general, we should seek to use the best possible sources, which are generally academic books and mainstream newspapers.   Will Beback    talk    20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He was infamous for his lecture/paper on the TM-Sidhi program and Plato which he gave at MIU years ago (80's IIRC), so I've known about him for years, as would all older, involved TMers. He's used in the TM article as well as here.


 * I'm just bringing up bias when and where I see it. As you already know, my simple, casual search (when I first started editing) for primary sources showed many articles wildly biased and non-neutral. But the more I look, the more I find. It's exhausting. It makes you wonder what the list editors have been up to for so long. Let's just say it looks like a lot was done "on the sly", using the fact that TM Org outsiders just won't know certain things. So I post them as I find them so outsiders will be informed. It's helpful to work towards using more secondary sources.--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info. I assume that paper is "MAHARISHI, PLATO AND THE TM-SIDHI PROGRAM ON INNATE STRUCTURES OF CONSCIOUSNESS", Metaphilosophy Volume 12 Issue 1. the abstract identifies Shear as being affiliated with MIU. The editor includes a note calling it a "very unusual article". It is discussed extensively in The scandal of reason: or shadow of God by David Frederick Haight, Marjorie A. Haight. It should be noted that David F. Haight ran for U.S. Senate on the Natural Law Party ticket. I haven't read the paper or the book yet. Despite the conflicts, those may be worthwhile sources for the article so long as their views are properly attributed.   Will Beback    talk    22:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the guy. He also wrote ""Plato, Piaget, and Maharishi on the Stages of Cognitive Development" and "The Philosopher, the Yogi, and Enlightenment: Plato's Symposium and Patanjali's Yoga Sutras." The unfortunate tendency I'm finding is that wildly Pro-TM/TM-SP editors (some alleged employees of the TM Org) are using such sources to push their POV, which is factually incorrect according to the actual eastern traditions they come from! From that we get blatantly fallacious material added to the WP. As other editors have pointed out, it needs to stop.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this clarification, Will. --BwB (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments are more of an inquiry than a clarification - I still don't know what the background or credentials of Shear are for sure. But I think that the assertion he's used as a source for is trivial and can be found in many sources. If there's an argument about Shear then let's use another one. If we're going to argue about him, then Transcendental Meditation is where he's used as a significant source and we should discuss him on that talk page.   Will Beback    talk    21:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Kala, your comment "It makes you wonder what the list editors have been up to for so long. Let's just say it looks like a lot was done "on the sly", using the fact that TM Org outsiders just won't know certain things." is completely disingenuous. I have been editing on Wiki for about 10 months and there have been many editors, including Will (an administrator) and Fladrif who have been part of the ongoing development of the TM and related articles for a much longer time. Nothing has been done "on the sly". All edits are open to view by any editor on Wiki and a variety of topics have been thoroughly discussed on the talk pages. Investigative tools have been at the disposal of editors, just as you have used. And what and who are "list editors"? --BwB (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I have notice that a number of authors with connections to the TM movement have been added as sources without any effort to reveal those connections to readers (or other editors). I have no way of know if the editors who added them knew of those connections. (Though in the case of Bob Roth it seems unlikely that anyone inside the movement wouldn't know his identity). Moving forward, let's make sure that any sources who have significant connections to the TM movement are clearly identified.   Will Beback    talk    22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Will. I think that would be helpful and bring some integrity to the editing process.


 * Also, BwB, please don't assume I was referring solely to you. I didn't mean to give that impression.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's put these comments in perspective. Until recently sources were added because they were compliant per Verifiability and WP:RS. In no way do I accept suggestions that editors were slyly inserting refs, or do I accept comments that somehow something less than straightforward was going on, and I refuse to allow such statements stand as if they are the truth of the situation. If we want to start looking at authors and their connections we can find multiple instances of strong biases. Our job is to look at the sources in terms of their publication history, and to add what we have noting how much we need of each view per WP:Weight and per prominence in the sources. (olive (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Littleolive, quick, go look in the mirror! Your nose, it's growing! ;-)--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Authors with connections to the TMM" is subjective and questionable label and needs to be discussed on a case by case basis. Oh and Kala, you should also look in the mirror, I think you'll find you have no nose, and that's because your a sock! :-) -- — Kbob • Talk  • 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon Keithbob, what is the inference behind your cryptic statement? All specific examples warmly welcomed. Thanks in advance.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sock puppet investigations belong on another page. Let's stick to discussing Shear in this thread.   Will Beback    talk    00:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

ME and The Haiti Earthquake
Just wondering how many Sidhas were practicing Yogic Flying in Haiti prior to the earthquake. Earthquakes are destructive geophysical events resulting from stress stored in the earth's crust, so clearly they should be prevented or eliminated by a sufficient number of practitioners of the TM-Sidhi program. David Spector 23:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See the prior discussion at Talk:TM-Sidhi_program/Archive_8 There were 50 Yogic Flyers in 2009 somewhere in Haiti, but a number like 141 might have been required for invincibility of Port-au-Prince.   Will Beback    talk    00:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using ME research
It seems to me that the problem with using ME research as WP sources is that independent (mainstream) scientists have no motivation to be interested in ME research, either to review it or to attempt to replicate it. If I were a mainstream researcher reading about the ME (an unlikely event to start with), I would probably then ask myself, "is there a scientific rationale for this hypothesis" and "is this a proposed scalar inverse-square force?". I would not find answers to these basic questions in the existing descriptions of ME or the research. I would promptly lose interest.

I bring this issue up to present just one good reason for why there are no high-quality independent studies or reviews (metastudies) on the ME.

If WP were a science journal, the ME could not be included. But WP is an encyclopedia, providing information of interest to people. If someone wants to understand Maharishi's theories and programs, ME must be included, since it is at the heart of his later work and because it is the basic claim for the TM-Sidhi Program. Therefore, it can only be justified by citing primary studies, which, although perhaps peer-reviewed, are clearly not the best kind of sources to support such radical claims. WP policies are not absolute; their degree of application depends on context. David Spector 23:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All we can do is speculate. I'd add to your assessment the fact that it is, in some respects, a technology backed by a large organization so outsiders would have little motivation to devote their own resources to investigating it. And if there was a study that failed to find the ME, would anyone interested in the effect give it much weight considering that over 42 consecutive studies have proven it exists? But really, unless we can find a source for this topic it's just pointless talk page speculation.   Will Beback    talk    01:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)