Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 33

Rearrangement of lead
I appreciate Doc's efforts to rearrange the lead so we have four paragraphs. I've attempted to do more in that direction. I'll continue tomorrow.(olive (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Problems with Research quality
We have this line starting the section on Research quality:

"Various research reviews have identified some studies as being well-designed, rigorous, or high quality."

The first ref looks at a limited amount of research. The second ref is not completed and older. They contradicts the AHRQ review which covered all of the research. Therefore the AHRQ's conclusions should come first per WP:DUE. Attempted to change this but was reverted.

Here is more info for the second ref "An Analysis of Recent Meditation Research and Suggestions for Future Directions Shauna L. Shapiro and Roger Walsh 86 url=http://www.brittonlab.com/publications/Shapiro,%20Walsh,%20Britton%2003.pdf "It is not indexed in pubmed. The paper does not actual say the research is rigorous but "The results of past research are qualified by their limitations in methodology. We suggest the following criteria to insure future rigorous designs:" So it says the research is infact not rigorous.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That review was published in two different publications, including The Humanistic Psychologist, an APA publication. It characterizes one of the studies as being rigorous and all of them, other than those included in the introductory, historical section, as being well designed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to provide the exact text from the ref. Which review was published in two sources?  Can you give a PMID.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we add a few sentences on the best practice standard used in Cochrane and AHRQ?
I feel that this will provide a context for a discussion on the quality of the research. Many readers might naively think that this standard consist only of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) or know even less about it. Of course, it's more than RCT. The need for RCTs was known much before, even in the 1980's. This best practice requires that the controlled conditions are as close as possible to the evaluated conditions, much closer than in RCT only. For example, the subjects should not be able to find out in which of the two conditions they are. The person who makes the measurements also should not know in which of the two conditions a subject is. This is double blinded RCT. The best practice requires even more than that. Anyway, we would have to take this directly from a reliable source. I think the reviews themselves explain it. We might not need other sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We have the section on "Research quality" already were this is discussed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with this 2008 meta-analysis?
Besides the fact it is not published in Cochrane or AHRQ and that it conflicts with their conclusions, what is wrong with http://www.tmcentrum.cz/image/metaanalysis_anderson.pdf. The authors work for independent organizations. The journal was American Journal of Hypertension. Here is the summary of the results from the paper: Nine randomized, controlled trials met eligibility criteria. Study-quality scores ranged from low (score, 7) to high (16) with three studies of high quality (15 or 16) and three of acceptable quality (11 or 12). The random-effects meta-analysis model for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively, indicated that Transcendental Meditation, compared to control, was associated with the following changes: −4.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), −7.4 to −1.9 mm Hg) and −3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, −5.4 to −1.3 mm Hg). Subgroup analyses of hypertensive groups and high-quality studies showed similar reductions. It is interesting to note that 7 out of the 9 eligible studies controlled for Health Education. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Was funded by a well known proponent of TM "This research was funded, in part, by the HCF Nutrition Foundation and by an unrestricted gift from Howard Settle. During a 1-year study period J.W.A. received partial salary support from Mr Settle." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, I looked up the HCF Foundation. It's the lead author's own small foundation. The initials refer to its purpose, which has something to do with studying dietary fiber and diabetes if I recall correctly. As for who funds the foundation, that's harder to tell.   Will Beback    talk    00:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Doc James, this meta-analysis provides a second opinion different than the one that was funded by the AHRQ. I guess that you saw the connection with Howard Settle and the HCF in the paper itself. So, the editors and the referees were aware of this and must have been very diligent about it. The point is that this meta-analysis has the advantage that Howard Settle and the HCF were not the editors. On the other hand, the AHRQ acted as the editor and provided the funding, both. The editorial process, the choice of the referees, the peer-review process itself, etc. is much more important than the funding. A declared funding from interested organisations is one element to consider, but are you saying that the three authors, the referees and the editor of a prestigious independent journal were all corrupted?  I would say that the AHRQ situation is more problematic.  We have at the least a case to include both with equal weight, especially when discussing blood pressure.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We will once again have to agree to disagree and wait and see what the community of Wikipedians have to say on the matter. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking that both sides must try to get as much votes as possible to support its POV, no matter how much the voters know about the sources, how much they can understand them? Even though I could win it, I am not playing that game because it is a terrible POV pushing.  I assume that as an experienced Wikipedia editor, you understand now that it does not work that way. Both sides will have to agree enough to create a nice, informative, neutral article on TM. The outside opinions are just there to help us in this process. I welcome them, but I feel that you know very much the current sources, you are a MD, so you know how to read papers, etc. whereas an external editor might not be as knowledgeable and familiar with the sources as you are.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be loathe to completely exclude a journal article from any wikipedia article based solely on its funding source; if the journal article is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal and the authors are otherwise independent and there is no evidence of undue influence on the authors, then it probably should be included in the research section. Am I missing something? Yobol (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is already included in the research section and no one here is discussing removing it. However due one of the a researcher s being funded by Howard Stern and the fact that the study was funded by this well known proponent of TM its conclusions do not belong in the lead. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, I was confused about whether this discussion was about removal from the article or was about the lead. I would agree that studies where the authors are actively employed by TM groups as longstanding practice should probably be avoided in the lead, especially given independent analysis showing possible bias in results in research from this group and doubleblinding is already difficult to obtain; but in this case only part of the salary of one of the researchers is paid (and that researcher appears to be an otherwise active member in good standing in the academic community), so it seems more of a judgment call here.  I have no strong feelings either way. Yobol (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) If the community supports one version over another with the only people disagreeing with the changes being a group with ties either financially or personal to the topic at hand than yes we will go with the version supported by the wider community. One does not need consensus of all editors involved. Reading some of the comments here I think this might be a situation in which a consensus may not be possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A further interesting thing is that the paper you present is copyrighted yet displaced on a TM website. tmcentrum AHRQ of course is under an open license. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Independent source that gives the number of studies done
For mantra meditation 141 RCTs and CCTs were found during a systematic review. This is much less than the questionable claims of the TM literature. TM is a subgroup of mantra meditation so the numbers for TM might be slightly less. 111 of these were RCTs. PMID: 19123875 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these numbers ! They do not contradict the numbers in the TM websites because peer-reviewed journals will publish NRCT, even non controlled trials, if the findings provide useful indications for further research. Still, I feel these numbers are  interesting. Can you find the exact numbers for TM? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like 60 trials total on TM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean RCTs and CCTs. It's possible, but I am not so much informed about these kind of statistics to make a judgment. I know that there are nine RCTs on blood pressure and it is one of the most studied health effect. Do you have the source, the page? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just a summary of the appendices in their 2007 review. Which covered the period through September 2005, excluded studies not done on adults, and missed 90 relevant studies on TM. And of course we have Canter & Ernst's independent tally of over 700 studies. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Temporary summary of research in the Intro
I am proposing that for now we use the following as a summary and focus on the research section itself. In the 1950s, the Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) had presented itself as a religious organization. By 1970, the organization had shifted its focus on scientific research. Today, TM is reported to be among the most widely researched meditation techniques. However, a 2006 Cochrane review on the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders found that only two studies were eligible for analysis. It further noted that in one of the two studies TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy, but said that no conclusion can be drawn. A 2007 review reported that meta-analyses show transcendental meditation and other techniques significantly reduce blood pressure, but following its own meta-analysis concluded that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. It contains only Cochrane and AHRQ, but it is temporary. We will make sure that WP:LEAD is respected, but first let us make sure that we agree on the research section. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only problem is that that is not exactly the conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As Doc says, this is an inaccurate and incorrect summary which misrepresents the results of these studies, and attempts to cherry pick positive things out of the text rather than accurately summarizing the conclusions of the researchers themselves, in direct violation of WP:MEDRS. That is not, to my view, the only problem, but it is more than enough to reject this outright. It is unacceptable, even as a "temporary" proposal. I know of no acceptable editing practice in Wikipedia to propose "temporary" text that is fundamentally inaccurate and misleading. The current text in the article is accurate and appropriate. Fladrif (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When I say "the current text", I guess I have to revisit that, because ESL has been furiously rewriting the article, without discussion or consensus, and in ways which seriously misrepresent the research. So, when I wrote "the current text" I had in mind the stable version before this tendatious rehashing of arguments long settled. Fladrif (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an impartial account of Cochrane and AHRQ which can be found in their summary of results and conclusion. It's not cherry picking at all. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal seems to have the problems that the formal proposals above seek to avoid.   Will Beback    talk    23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need to return to the RfC started above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The research section in the lead isn't accurate. More discussion needed.(olive (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Disagree everything in the lead if referenced to the best quality sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My proposal above is referenced to the same sources and uses their main conclusions and results as stated in the abstracts. The exception is TM vs relaxion therapy, but we could take it out. Moreoever, there are other POVs in highly respectable peer-reviewed journals, which are also among the best sources and therefore should also be added in accordance with NPOV. This proposal is much better than what is currently in the lead, but it is still missing other important POVs.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. One needs an appropriate comparator.  Health education is reasonable.  No control is not reasonable.  The number for PMR were much smaller than for HE.  If you still disagree with me you may request a third party opinion at the one of the notice boards or at WP:MED. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Best quality sources" is a judgement call and not agreed upon here. As well, the lead and how it is written is a technical writing concern. It must summarize what is in the article. Then, it must do so to comply with WP:NPOV, without bias. Discussion of the sources needs to take place, but per what is added to the article. Although WP:IAR, we might as a group decide to do something unusual in the lead, good writing style anywhere dictates a lead or intro to a paper or article summarize clearly what is to come in the article, and is an aspect of writing style and not a negotiable point of we want a good article. So yes, the lead needs work., and the research aspect of it is not acceptable at this point.(olive (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC))


 * You will need to convince Wikipedia editors who are not practitioners of TM the validity of your argument. So far you have not done so per discussion at the reliable source notice board, the RfC above, and the Wikipedia Med talk page.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the lead doesn't need to be a summary and that it can be be biased?... And how in heaven's name does a technical point lead you to attach a comment to the tired pro TM argument. I will be looking closely at the Notice Board comments in the next few days, but a quick look does not lead me to believe that any definitive position was stated or reached. Per the arbitration so called TM editors were no more guilty of anything than anyone else  so  please just based on that point alone could we all deal with the discussion   and leave out comments about the editors. Many thanks to all for helping to  make this a congenial, collaborative situation even when its difficult and frustrating as it can be for all of us. (olive (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC))


 * To sum up my view: Reliable sources should be discussed, but in relation with material added in the article. We should follow WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV for the Intro. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Question - TM in schools
I wonder if what we are saying about TM being taught in some public and charter schools in recent years is really accurate. A superficial review of the sources seems to indicate that TM is being offered as an option - one of many - during "Quiet Time", but I get the impression that TM is actually being taught outside the schools, and outside of regular school time, and that a big deal is made out of the fact that the puja ceremony - which is the center of much of the controversy - at which the student is given his or her mantra, is never conducted on school property or during school time. Have I missed something in the sources saying that TM is actually being taught in these schools, or do we need to tweak the text a bit to say that it is being practiced in public and charter schools, rather than taught? Fladrif (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted a citation request tag on a related issue. In the lead there's this sentence:
 * In recent years, TM but not SCI has been taught in schools.
 * Yet we don't mention anything about SCI being taught (or not) in schools in recent years.   Will Beback    talk    07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole Intro, which reliable sources should be used, etc. needs to be revised. It's not the time to consider the details of a particular sentence. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Olive has fixed the part that I was concerned about so I'm satisfied. (Thanks!)   Will Beback    talk    11:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are concerns with the lead, and it would be helpful to focus on one part at a time. Flad makes a very good point, though. I'm not in a position to check all of the sources but I think using "practice" instead of teaching would cover both practicing in the schools and teaching the technique in the schools, so I would be happy to have it changed.


 * As an aside in most schools SCI is not taught only the technique is, and the sources don't say SCI was taught,  but proving a negative is not an easy task and I doubt at this point trying to source "no SCI" is a waste of time and energy . As Edith S L says there are larger issues(olive (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Just wanted to avoid that we lose sight of the larger issues. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no question, I suppose, that TM is taught in movement-sponsored schools and colleges, so we'd need to qualify the statement to indicate the information that it's being taught (or practiced) in independent private and public schools. The Newsweek article implies that TM is taught to students in schools, but it never seems to say so directly.    Will Beback    talk    22:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration
What happened in the arbitration case that was going last spring? How do you find about about the decision? Things seem to be the same around here. It would be helpful for occasional editors like me, who gave up some time ago, to see what happened and whether it makes sense to ever work on this article. Judyjoejoe (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The AHRQ report is in fact peer reviewed
We have heard over and over that the AHRQ is not peer reviewed. This is a claim that is pushed by the TM movement in an effort to discredit this major scientific report. It is however wrong as on page 25 of the report it states:

Peer Review Process

During the course of the study, the UAEPC created a list of 18 potential peer reviewers and sent it to the AHRQ TOO and NCCAM representatives for approval. In May and June 2006, the individuals on the list were approached by the UAEPC and asked if they would act as peer reviewers for this evidence report. Seven experts agreed to act as peer reviewers (Appendix A)* and were sent a copy of the draft report and guidelines for review (Appendix D6).* Reviewers had one month in which to provide critical feedback. Replies were requested in a word processing document, though comments were also accepted by email and telephone. The reviewers’ comments were placed in a table and common criticisms were identified by the authors. All comments and authors’ replies were submitted to the AHRQ for assessment and approval. As appropriate, the draft report was amended based on reviewer comments and a final report was produced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. And, while I am not, at the moment, inclined to go througn the archives to check this and provide a diff, my recollection is that Timid Guy acknowledged that the AHRQ meta-analysis was peer reviewed, but complained that the comments from TMM-associated members of the peer-review panel were not accorded sufficient weight prior to publication - arguing that, IIRC, (and, quite frankly I am 110% certain that I do recall correctly) those two reviewers should have had what amounted to veto power over release of the meta-analysis. Fladrif (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There've been so many discussions of this review... But this might be the one you're thinking of: Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 18, et seq.   Will Beback    talk    01:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Memory....All alone in the moonlight...... Yeah, that is exactly what I had in mind. Sadly, I recall that there is more, in other tendatious threads, to the same effect, but that will suffice. Fladrif (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The AHRQ/Ospina papers have been discussed on at least a dozen archived talk pages. I'm afraid that whatever consensus is achieved here in this current discussion won't last, and within a couple of months there will be changes to it and a fresh set of discussions. It's hopeless.   Will Beback    talk    00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The supression and gross misrepresentation of the AHRQ meta-analysis is what first attracted my attention to these articles in early 2009. But, as I documented at ArbCom, this pattern began back long before Wikipedia ever darkened my door (or I darkened its door, depending on one's perspective) - from the moment the analysis was issued. In over a year and and half since I have been looking at these articles, nothing has changed. Not discussion of MEDRS, not Project Medicine, not COIN, not even ArbCom has slowed downed the effort to completely misrepresent what it found. I agree. It is utterly hopeless in the face of determined and relentless POV pushing. Fladrif (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake. It's me that wrote in the Notice Board that AHRQ was not peer-reviewed. I guess that I did not register this info when I looked at the report. However, this mistake was doomed to be rebutted. If it can be used for any propaganda, it is only against the TM organisation. This being said, it does not change much the main issue. If I am not mistaken this time, a report on the meta-analysis has been prepared for the AHRQ which also acted as the journal that takes the final decision.  It seems to me that it is only for the better that this meta-analysis has also been the object of a paper, which has been sent for review to an independent journal. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Huh? The journal this was published in is the journal of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHRQ) ] Were are you getting the claim of another journal from? This is an independent organization. They have not republished it in a separate journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know why ESL is using words like "propaganda" to refer to a peer-reviewed meta-analysis. I asked before if there wa any reason to think there was bias on the part of the AHRQ, but didn't get a response. Can we settle this once and for all?   Will Beback    talk    05:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Will, the term propaganda was used to refer to my mistake, not to the meta-analysis. I said that it can hardly be used against the AHRQ because it was so easy to rebut. Also, it's not me that first used this term. Yes, please let's move on with the current issue, which is the meta-analysis that has been prepared for the AHRQ and its main conclusion. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Doc James, the reference was provided in Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where the same issue is discussed. Here is the PubMed number PMID: 19123875 . When you say that the AHRQ is an independent organisation, what do you mean? Even the big corporations are independent organisations. Independent from what? To say that it is an "independent organisation" means nothing in itself. In my case, I meant that the other journal (see the reference) and the AHRQ are independent organizations, independent from each other. I also meant the other journal is not connected in anyway with the host university or the authors through governmental funding or any funding. Therefore an additional peer-review through this journal is significant.


 * @Will, don't accuse me to say that the AHRQ, which acted as the editor, or a related agency has funded the research at the university. I don't know that. I am just saying that we know that the other journal is only a journal: it does not have other functions. Don't accuse me to say that the AHRQ editors are indirectly funded by big corporations. I don't know that. I heard in popular media, as every one else I guess, that these corporations give a lot of money in different ways to people and agencies in the government, but I have no idea about what is going on personally. The only thing I say is that an additional review in an independent journal can only be a good thing. Please do not take it as an accusation against the AHRQ.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a different paper published by the same people looking at characteristics and quality. It is not the same paper published in an independent journal. Thus it is not an independent peer review. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it is a different paper, but I assume that it is the same meta-analysis, the same quality assessment and thus the same results. Only, the wordings, the way they discuss the results, things like that are different. This allows us to see what is fundamental to this meta-analysis and what is not. Are you saying that they did  a different meta-analysis with different quality assessments immediately after? It is very unlikely, but even if that was the case, the argument would not change much. It is still a systematic review of meditation. The conclusions that depend on the details of the quality assessment criteria are less fundamental and cannot be stated out of context, the context being the quality assessment criteria.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While it is the same data set it asked different questions of this data set. It is NOT the same meta analysis but is rather systematic review.


 * "This study is based on a comprehensive evidence-based report available online at www.ahrq.gov: Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, et al. Meditation practices for health: State of the research. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2007;155:1–263."
 * "This study was a systematic and comprehensive review of clinical trials indexed in the scientific literature that have evaluated the effects of meditation techniques." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It had 7 reviewers. Usually the peer reviewers have the opportunity to evaluate whether the study authors appropriately implemented their suggestions. That step didn't happen with AHRQ. Instead, there was an internal review. It was a woman with a master's degree in public health, no training in the sort of analysis used in this review, and no experience with clinical research. In every case where the study authors didn't implement the suggested change, she didn't ask for further revision. She basically rubber stamped it. Notably, at least 4 of the 7 peer reviewers said that the authors shouldn't use double blinding as a standard of assessment. Even Canter & Ernst say "It's not feasible to blind participants" and didn't require that studies be double blinded when assigning Jadad scores. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And you have a ref to support this? There are more problems with the research than the lack of double blinded studies. This is BTW all the mantra meditation research not just the TM stuff.  Only 2 double blind studies.  Only half reported funding.  Only 3 had appropriate concealment.  And these are the randomized ones.  It is obvious to a 10 year old that the research base is poor.  Well it seems that TM publishes a huge amount which they like to brag about little of the work has any real scientific substance to it.

Pg 65 Table 11. Methodological quality of RCTs of Mantra meditation Randomization; n (%) All Double blinding; n (%) 2 (1.2) Appropriate randomization; n (%) 15 (13.3) Inappropriate randomization; n (%) 3 (2.7) Description withdrawals; n (%) 50 (45.0) Total Jadad score (max 5); Median (IQR) 1 (1, 2) Number of high quality RCTs (Jadad scores ≥3); n (%) 13 (11.6) Appropriate concealment of allocation; n (%) 3 (2.7) Funding reported; n (%) 49 (44.1)


 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Doc James, using only the problem with the double blind requirement, TimidGuy made a strong point that the AHRQ did not adhere to standard peer-review practices. Clearly, other issues in the methodology used in this meta-analysis have escaped attention. All these issues have culminated in the evaluation that you presented above. This alone would require that we do another meta-analysis, but this time under standard peer-review practices. It is certainly a good thing that, as a minimum, a different review (even though based on the same report and meta-analysis) has been published in a journal that uses standard peer-review practices.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The review you mention only deals with the quality of the research not the results of the research. Same data different questions being asked.  TimidGuy has not provided sufficient sources for his conclusion to be accepted as valid.  We do know that peoples who lively-hood and identity depend on TM disagree with a major report that found it either ineffective by and large for improving health outcomes or that there is insufficient evidence to support the claims of improvement.
 * I have asked TimidGuy for references to support his opinion...  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * TimidGuy mentioned that four reviewers had comments about double blinding, but I only see two reviewers and a technical expert mentioned in OJ's rebuttal. What are the names of the reviewers and where are there complaints recorded?   Will Beback    talk    08:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Doc James, you are right when you say that, in the paper, they decided not to review the efficacy of the different techniques shown in previous meta-analyses and studies, but to focus on the characteristics and the quality of these studies instead. To rephrase my argument accordingly, they focused on characteristics and quality only because, in the context of the AHRQ report, they found that this was the most important. I must say though that I realize that this was not the strongest of my arguments to show that the sentences you pick have a low weight. The strongest and more direct argument is that, in the AHRQ report, when they summarize the efficacy of the different techniques, they only say that meta-analyses show TM and other techniques significantly reduce blood pressure. They had nothing else to say about the efficacy of TM in this summary. I know, you don't care. Instead, you just want to look for your POV in the report because pushing this POV is your objective. You find it somewhere in some section of the report and you feel this is the important thing that must be said in the Intro.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An abstract is not a summary. Please read the paper and read the summary section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

False statement in science paragraph in the lead
Here's what it says: "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." This is a false statement. AFRQ found that TM reduced blood pressure compared to progressive muscle relaxation based on their meta-anlaysis of two high-quality studies. TimidGuy (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said before the lead on the research does not correctly summarize what is in the article, in addition it falsely represents and presents the research.  This is a serious issue. I would hope we can address these issues with out any further comments that draw away the discussion from this topic.(olive (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Agreed, it is important that we always go back to the actual content, how it needs to be improved. A consideration of the talk page arguments, as done in the previous section, is only complementary. It is complementary, but can help avoiding that, after we will have addressed one specific content that was based on talk page arguments in the categories above, a few more edits using the same type of talk page arguments reverse any progress accomplished. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the three of you agree but you also all practice TM. Now please get some outside input.  I have in the RfC above.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doc, let's by pass the personal comment and cut to the chase. Is the statement above false or or not? If it is, it has to go. Please clarify your position on this? Arbitration clearly advises accurate representation of the sources. (olive (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, please Doc, do not violate DR. Remember, this previous Rfc was not a survey. Even if it was, the participation was way too small to be significant.  This Rfc was there to help us understand the policy and respect it. If it helped you, please go ahead, explain why we should include the statement above. Where is it sourced? Was the source prominent for an article on TM? Was the statement prominent in the source?  Just for the record, your last argument belongs in category seven. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) I have attempted to get outside input to resolve these disputes. I have violated nothing. The statements source are very clear and has some support from the community at large. If you disagree please attempt to get community consensus for changes. This consensus however must include more people than just those who practice TM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What we need to make sure of here is that the source is accurately represented. No consensus ( and I don't see that anyway) can  make an agreement to misrepresent a source. Please don't see this as a TM based question. What we as a group, not a split group of editors, but a group, need to do is carefully and accurately use the source. If you feel you have done this fine,  but others do  not. What is needed is dialogue on this until we as a group can come to agreement on what the source says.(olive (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC))


 * Yes agree. I feel that what we have currently accurately represents the sources.  My point is that further dialogue here does not seem to be accomplishing much as a number of us simple disagree on the use of sources.  The same arguements are brought up over and over without resolution.  I have attempted to bring outside editors to weight in on this issue by going to a few different notice boards and filling a RfC.  I will give others more time to comment. We must keep in mind that a consensus need not incorporate everyone's opinion and some editors may end up unhappy no matter what. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Source review discussion
The key point is that these outside contributions should be used as a way to enrich our discussion for the application of the policy, not to replace such a discussion. Some comments in the Rfc only repeated the main position of one side. These tools should not be used as a vote system. Simple support statements are not useful, not to me anyway. Other outside contributions were attempting to reconsider the job of secondary sources. Here is an example: Personally I do have serious issues with any health related meta-analysis which does not exclude (or at least controls for) studies without a decent control condition or any other control for the placebo effect; which is often shown to be huge. The outside contributions should not be used as expert opinions to critic complex aspects in the content of secondary sources, especially not to evaluate their weight. They can be used to help us understand them. In some special cases, we might refer to the content of a source as an evidence that it is not reliable, but the quality assessment criteria used in a meta-analysis is much too complicated and subtle to be used in this way. I expanded on this point here User_talk:Edith_Sirius_Lee/About_Rfc_NoticeBoard. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Outside opinions are very useful. There's no particular reason to think that people who do not hang around this topic are incapable of evaluating research issues that are common to many other topics and science in general. Given that most of us here appear to be non-scientists, there's no particular reason to think that those of us who do hang around this topic have special capabilities of evaluating scientific research. In short, let's draw upon the resources of the community, using RfCs and noticeboards, especially when it comes to resolving conflicts between the polarized views. See WP:DR for more on the use of community involvement to resolve disputes.   Will Beback    talk    21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you said. I also think that outside contributions can be very useful. I did mention that they can be useful to understand secondary sources. In turn, may I ask if you agree with my points? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you restate the points that your asking about? I'm not sure what you're referring to.   Will Beback    talk    22:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on this particular point (paste and cut):


 * The outside contributions should not be used as expert opinions to critic complex aspects in the content of secondary sources, especially not to evaluate their weight. They can be used to help us understand them.


 * The remainder of the text together with User_talk:Edith_Sirius_Lee/About_Rfc_NoticeBoard is just an expansion on this point. Please read this expansion. I have no idea how I should rephrase it. Perhaps you could help me by being more specific about what is not clear to you. I can add that by "understand them", I do not mean "agree with them". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your point. Maybe it's too abstract. What does this have to do with improving this article? Are you proposing an edit?   Will Beback    talk    22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, I would like to add that TM significantly reduces blood pressure in the Intro and source this with the Anderson review.  We both agree that Rfc and NoticeBoard can be very useful, but if we do not agree on how to use these tools, we will not use them optimally to discuss this edit. Still, let us try again. BTW, I just read DR and this is very close to the first point I made, which is that we should not use these tools as vote system.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't need to agree on how to use RfC and noticeboards. The community has given fairly clear guidance. The idea that one editor can dismiss all outside input is not helpful to resolving a dispute. Usually, it's better to go in the opposite direction and request more outside input.   Will Beback    talk    23:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I think I made clear that I do not plan to dismiss the outside contributions. I found a simple way to express my points: except perhaps in special cases, these outside contributions cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policy. So, I would not dismiss any of them as such. I only dismiss them when presented to violate a Wikipedia policy. For example, the outside contribution above (the first quote in this section) would lead to a violation of WP:RS and WP:SOURCE if we were to use it to give less weight (in comparison to AHRQ) to the peer-reviewed journal that published the Anderson review. Nowhere in the policy it is said that the expert opinions of editors about the content that is published in a source can be used to evaluate its reliability. Instead, the policy is that we must consider the peer-review process of this source, how systematic it is, etc. It also says that we can look at how the material in the source is cited by other sources. In our case, it means that we can look at how the papers published in the peer reviewed journal are cited in other sources (i.e. other peer-reviewed publications.) The more often these papers are contradicted in other sources, the less reliable is the peer-reviewed journal. I suspect that the papers published in this peer reviewed journal are less often contradicted than the reports prepared for the AHRQ. I did not check that, but until we check that, they both have equal weight. The outside contribution above is irrelevant as far as giving a higher or lower weight to the AHRQ. For the purpose of evaluating the reliability of the sources, it must be dismissed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe this thread should be merged back into the main discussion of the lead.   Will Beback    talk    02:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think it is an important issue by itself. We cannot use Rfc and Notice Board to violate Wikipedia policy. This is a misuse of these outside contributions. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently the lead is not really violating any policy. If you think this is the case seek some outside opinion for support.  Yes TM decreases BP in health people compared to NO control.  But that is not how medical science is done.  We need controlled trials.  Thus we present the evidence with respect to health education in the lead ( a bit of a control ).  Once again please seek outside opinions.  We on this talk page have heard all the arguements.  A group of us strongly disagree.  Repeating the same arguements here accomplishes nothing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We certainly can't violate policies, but we can use outside input to help us decide how to best follow policies and guidelines.   Will Beback    talk    05:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been following this discussion for several days. It seems to me that Will and ESL are in agreement and I concur - we use outside help so we can reach consensus, and decide how to follow the policies and guidelines. --BwB (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, to phrase it simply, we can use outside help to decide how to follow policies and guidelines. However, the last Rfc and Notice Board were done by con-TM. This time it should be done by pro-TM. How the issue is presented to outsiders does matters. The con-TM used various styles of arguments in this talk page to support the current Intro and dismiss pro-TM arguments to change it. We need to get a description in which the various arguments are covered.  Signature added: Edith Sirius Lee (talk)
 * Yes that is exactly what I have been suggesting you do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have created the categories below to help determine what are the most important talk page arguments about which we need help. This is because I believe that Rfc or NoticeBoard can help us find better arguments, more based on the policy. As I said before (somewhere in this talk page), I will also need external impartial help to determine how to best use Rfc or NoticeBoard. It will take some time. My feeling at this point, is that we will need help to address your difficulty in trusting that pro-TMs can honestly discuss to apply the policy. In particular, you need to explain what you mean with the sentence


 * We must keep in mind that a consensus need not incorporate everyone's opinion and some editors may end up unhappy no matter what.


 * in this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&action=historysubmit&diff=377593163&oldid=377590364 . Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories of arguments
The main styles of arguments that I have seen used to violate policy are:
 * Giving more weight to points out of the main scope of a source rather than to its main conclusions and findings. Using this to include the details in the Intro instead of including the main conclusions and findings. (violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:LEAD)
 * Evaluation of the content of a source to give to the source a lower or higher weight. (misinterpreation of WP:SOURCE to violate WP:NPOV)
 * Using the personal opinions of editors (involved or external) about a source to give to this source a lower or higher weight. (misinterpreation of WP:SOURCE to violate WP:NPOV)
 * Giving low weight to a paper because of some authors affiliation, despite the fact that it has been published in an independent respectable peer-reviewed journal. This ignores the fact that other papers also have authors with the opposite inclination. (violation of WP:DUE and WP:SOURCE)
 * Incorrect description of the results and conclusions in some meta-analyses. (violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE)
 * Misinterpretation of a sub-policy or guideline to contradict the main policy. Especially, misinterpretation of WP:MEDRS and indirectly of WP:SOURCE to contradict WP:NPOV. (violate WP:NPOV )
 * Refusal to discuss an argument of the other party, saying that we must rely on outside help or that a consensus with the larger community exists already. (violation of DR )
 * I can easily find diffs for each of these six categories. For example, the last argument of Doc James is an example in the first category. He suggests that the Intro should only compare TM with Health Education (HE). If this was so important, why the AHRQ report does not do it in its abstract. Instead, its abstract only says that meta-analyses show TM significantly reduces blood pressure. If this was so important, why the Anderson meta-analysis, which included nine studies (seven controlling for HE, one for relaxation and one for no therapy), did not focus on HE, but instead simply concluded that TM significantly reduced blood pressure? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you want to ask people to comment on something you've written, that's fine. But please don't keep changing it after those comments have been made. See WP:REDACT.   Will Beback    talk    03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * After I added the last category, I only did minor edits, rewording, same meaning, perhaps more precise. The biggest edits were used to remove reference to editors or to one of the party, but this is not only OK, but recommended by the Wikipedia guidelines. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to take seriously policy interpretations from an editor who consistently violates a core policy, WP:AGF. Please remove the characterizations of other editors' supposed motivations.   Will Beback    talk    20:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove a category. It would interfere with the remainder of the section. I don't see that I violated AGF. I am just discussing categories of talk page arguments about edits. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As recommended by Wikipedia guidelines, I removed reference to editors or to one of the party whenever possible. Thank you for your suggestion. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Anderson report is interesting as it did not find significant reduction in those with hypertension. That would be figure 2 of this pdf  Reducing blood pressure in someone with normal blood pressure thus potentially making them hypotensive does not seem like the best idea. WRT your point above I am attempting to follow WP:DUE, WP:SOURCE, and WP:VERIFIABILITY.  I have not conducted a survey just asked for outside opinion.  No one who is not a member of TM seems to however be agreeing with your position. I am not incorrectly described anything and provide direct quotes from all the sources I use to support every line of text. The rest of the article could us sourcing like this.  I have discussed all your arguements.  Bring them up repeatedly with no knew evidence is not going to change my mind.  The arguements presented are false and remain false no matter being repeated.  Thus I recommend that if you disagree you ask for independent advice.  I have and other have asked for outside input.  I became involved in this topic when Will and other asked for outside input at WT:MED.  Many others have also commented if you wish to look back.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please tell me what purpose in terms of content you intended to achieve. Using your last argument about the details of Anderson paper to give a lower weight to this paper would enter in the second category. Presenting this point in the Intro would enter in the first category. The reduction of BP in normo-tensive subjects is discussed in the analysis, but it is not in its conclusion. What should go in the Intro are the main POVs of the different sources. A misinterpretation of Anderson meta-analysis to make it say that TM can have adverse effects enters in category five. The meta-analysis found that little information is provided in the studies regarding adverse or side effects. The term hypo-tensive is not even mentioned in the paper. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

ESL's arguments utterly ignore WP:MEDRS which specifically contemplates assessing sources, and assigning them weight, reliability and emphasis based on the listed factors in the policy. The fact that the UK study was TM-Movement funded is a relevant consideration under that policy, and it is thus entitled to less weight and reliability. The fact, which hasn't been raised, that the "face" of the study, Anderson, is a retired professor emeritus, a internist whose research was previously confined almost exclusively to diet (big proponent of the oat-bran fad in his day), which is an odd qualification to be leading a meta-analysis of meditation and hypertension, is relevant. The fact that the study found that there were only three studies of TM that it regarded to be of high quality is relevant. The fact that the weight to be assigned to the various studies has been extensively discussed previously on this and other boards, and that the current text is the result of a consensus of previously uninvolved editors who do not conveniently fall in your categories of "pro" and "Con" as to what are the highest and best sources to use in this article to conform to WP:MEDRS is relevant. Relying on the actual findings of a study and not merely on its abstract is relevant. Not only are these considerations relevant, they are required under WP:MEDRS, and tendatiously arguing that they are violations of policy serves neither the purpose of these talk pages nor the end you are trying to achieve. Do not re-argue the same points over and over, particularly points that have been addressed over the course of months and even years by dozens of editors on multiple boards. Fladrif (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If the WP:MEDRS guideline is misinterpreted to give a lower weight to a peer reviewed journal that has a standard peer-review process and is well cited by other journals, then this goes in the category six. The first thing that the WP:MEDRS guideline says is that, given a contradiction with the policy, the policy must be applied. The policy WP:Source says that we evaluate a source in terms of its review process. It does not say to consider its content. In the WP:RS guideline, it is suggested that we consider how other reliable sources cite it. Again, this avoid that we evaluate the content itself. When editors (involved or external) evaluate a source in terms of its content, they do it in accordance with a POV, for example, the POV in AHRQ. This is only an indirect way to violate WP:NPOV through a misinterpretation of [WP:SOURCE]]. The section Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles) can be useful in many cases, for example in the case of two primary sources that otherwise would have the same weight. Such a use of this section does not contradict the policy. It complements it. However, this section is useless in the case of secondary sources (meta-analyses) published in peer-reviewed journal because the peer-review process has already done the job, a much better job than the (outside or involved) editors can do. This is confirmed by the fact that the Anderson meta-analysis used only RCTs and thus, not surprisingly, is has at the top of the ranking system provided in WP:MEDRS. This supports that we give the highest weight to it, but we don't need that argument: the fact that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal is sufficient. In fact, misinterpreting MEDRS to re-evaluate the reliability of the peer-reviewed journal, which is already well established, would misinterpret WP:SOURCE to violate WP:NPOV. It would not only belong in the category six, but also in the category two. I will only briefly reply to your other arguments. I don't see what policy is related to your oat-bran argument. The abstracts summarize the actual findings, so it is the best way to consider the findings. Going into the details of the paper to find a statement that fits with a POV goes into the first category. Your three studies argument is only a way to re-evaluate the meta-analysis. It goes in the second category. Your suggestion that we do not need to discuss further because there is already a consensus belongs in the last category. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your issue then, is with WP:MEDRS and not with the editors with whom you have been arguing. Take up your arguments with the folks who wrote WP:MEDRS, because that's what we're following here. You get them to rewrite it to your specifications, then great, that's what we'll follow.  Until then, your arguments arguments are directly contrary to the current standards of WP:MEDRS.  Fladrif (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the current state of the policy. Even if I was not happy with it, I suspect that it is the result of a lot of negotiation because there are many opposite interests involved. I would not be able to see the consequences in all the other articles of any modification to this policy and associated guidelines. I am not experienced enough with the various articles in Wikipedia. I can see the usefulness of the specific section Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles). I am also happy that the WP:MEDRS guideline is clear  that it cannot be used in any way to reinterpret WP:SOURCE in violation of WP:NPOV. An analysis of the content of a source, is necessarily done in terms of a POV, say the POV of the AHRQ report. The content of the source might be a competing POV.  Using such an analysis to reduce the weight of the source, is obviously tantamount to favour one POV over the other and thus violate NPOV.  Using using a POV A to look at POV B within some source and conclude "the source of POV B must have low weight" is just an indirect way of using POV A to look at POV B and directly conclude "POV B must have a low weight" and thus violate WP:NPOV.  The WP:SOURCE policy avoid this violation of WP:NPOV when it says that we evaluate a source in terms of the professional review structure in place, not in terms of the content.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ESL, are you saying that we should evaluate studies and reviews based on the affiliations of the authors and the funding sources, and avoid giving excess weight to any one POV as defined by that analysis? If so, we're probably giving too much weight in this article to the POV of MUM-affiliated authors.   Will Beback    talk    23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking this question because it might be an occasion for me to better explain the seven categories. I would just need that you explain to me what makes you believe that am saying that. What did I write that makes you believe that? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should move this to your talk page, since it doesn't seem directly connected to any editing here. But, to answer your question, there is a long-running debate over how to treat sources. Simplifying it, ne side says we should treat all reliable sources alike, without questioning any of their assumptions, conclusions or author affiliations. The other side says that we should investigate those and treat sources differently depending on our evaluation of their reliability, neutrality, etc. This argument seems to follow the latter line.    Will Beback    talk    23:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These are seven categories of talk page arguments concerning edits. I illustrated them with arguments provided in this talk page, even in this very section. So, it is totally relevant to this talk page. If you use the second sentence to suggest that there is no need for further discussions about these categories, then this second sentence belongs in the last category. Your second and third sentences are more to the point. I will discuss the categories in terms of the two sides. These categories do include many arguments that are therefore dismissed, but one can argue outside of these categories while evaluating sources. It is not at all that we consider all sources alike, but only that they must be evaluated in accordance with the policy.  The policy says that one must evaluate a source in terms of its review process. Just read WP:SOURCE again and you will see its clear.  The WP:RS guideline says that you can also consider how other sources cite the source. This cannot be used to violate policy, certainly not WP:NPOV. So, you can use the policy and thus argue outside the seven categories and yet be on the second side. I am on the second side. However, if your view of the second side allows arguments in one of these categories, then the argument is used to violate policy and must be dismissed. In particular, the current state of the Intro is supported by arguments in all these categories and thus it violates policy, especially NPOV. These categories are very much relevant to the current biased state of the Intro.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "The policy says that one must evaluate a source in terms of its review process." I don't see that in WP:V. Could you quote the policy text that you're referring to?   Will Beback    talk    04:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it is:


 * The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.


 * Emphasis is mine. The expression "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing" is very close to what "review process" means. In the case of a journal, this process includes a "peer-review". The key point is that the "professional structure in place for ...", which I shorten as "review process", is not at all the same thing as the content in the source. It is clear that the basic idea is that we evaluate the professional structure which itself evaluates the content. We do not directly evaluate the content. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The intro actually describes the state of the science regarding health effect well now. We just need to bring the rest of the article into balance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe Doc could clarify what he means exactly. I'm confused by the process he seems to be outlining. We have content in the article . We have a lead that doesn't reflect that content, so then we change the content to suit the lead. Is that what is meant. I sure hope not.(olive (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Olive, what do you think about ESL's thread which lumps together editors depending on their presumed POVs and making generalities about them? Do you endorse this?   Will Beback    talk    04:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It don't need to be endorsed and the way you describe what I did is biased. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Olive can answer for herself.   Will Beback    talk    06:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My interest is the lead. To that point I will continue the discussion on the lead in the section below. I won't be drawn into comments about other editors. That's not the purpose of the talk page.(olive (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Your question was not about Olive, but about me. I wanted to clarify that I do not need her/him to endorse me, if he/she does not want to. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds right.   Will Beback    talk    04:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Doc said before that he want to use the current state of the Intro as a template. I would put this in the last category. It is obviously implicit that Doc assumes here that there is already a consensus within some abstract notion of a large community and there is no need to discuss further. I would not be surprise that he follows this by saying something like "If you disagree, ask outside opinions". This would just confirm that he is using an argument in the last category. Yes, we will go to Rfc and Noticeboard again. However, I am a new editor and will need outside and impartial help to make sure I do it right. It may take some times. Meanwhile, we should continue to discuss. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if people provided difs. A lot of false accusation are being made.  To clarify one misconception an abstract is NOT a summary. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this can be a way to discuss further. However, "accusation" is a strong word here. I am just referring to arguments used in this talk page and I already provided some specific examples, not with diffs, but since they belong in this talk page, diffs are not always necessary. You are right that abstract are not always summary, but in an extended abstract, we have paragraph called results, conclusions, etc. Of course, if a statement appears in the conclusions at the end, which is often used to sum up the findings, this is also very good. We have to see case by case where the main conclusions and findings are located, but common sense says that they are not in the third section in the middle of the paper. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How about a section titled "executive summary"? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources needed to evaluate prominence of "Part of this difficulty ..."
The connecting phrase "Part of this difficulty ... " in the Intro does not have consensus. It creates an overall POV connecting two sentences. Where is this overall POV sourced? Just need the source with the exact page, for now. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus is in the RfC. Cheers  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is disputed. Please answer the simple question, if you can. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Doc, that those who responded to the RfC might not have realized that the source didn't say this. They trusted you to be accurately representing the sources, and didn't realize that you have a tendency to misrepresent them -- something I documented at Arbcom and intend to document at Arbitration Enforcement. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you now? :-)  I think I provided direct quotes for every reference.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I did. And no you didn't. TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I did... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Ospina Bond"
During the few months I was a participating editor here, I pointed out that there is no such research paper as "Ospina Bond." I don't know why editors keep referring to this meta-analysis as "Ospina Bond;" there is  no style convention I'm aware of under which "Ospina Bond" would be used to refer to a study with many authors, of which Ospina is the first author and Bond is the second author. The only time the second author is normally referred to in a citation is when there are only two authors, and then it would be "Ospina & Bond" not "Ospina Bond." I see that my earlier comments about this have been completely ignored and that this nonstandard form has again crept into the article; I've corrected it in two places. As to how the conclusions of the review are represented in the article, I haven't the energy to participate in the 97th reiteration of that discussion. But however you represent it, please at least don't refer to it as "Ospina Bond." Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Woon. All the best. --BwB (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks Woonpton. A good point.(olive (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC))
 * I made the same point six months ago but the peculiar and eccentric usage has continued.  A more meaningful expression of respect for my "research" as it was called below (actually, no research was required, simply a minimal acquaintance with citation conventions) would have been to take the information on board six months ago and correct "Ospina Bond" wherever it appeared from then on, instead of leaving it for me to come out of retirement to fix. Woonpton (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy Woonpton. Unfortunately, some of us are slow learners. Thanks for bring your attention to this issue again. --BwB (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring against consensus
We have the consensus from the RfC above with outside input. Some editors here seem to think that they can not consider the outside input as supposedly it was uninformed and instead of asking for further input are just edit warring to make the page they way the wish it too be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Doc that's just straight up rubbish. Several editors made edits and you reverted them all. Woonpton made a strictly, very good, very necessary technical edit. Do you want to show me the consensus against that edit. I added context per the study names... you reverted that too. Again where's the consensus for that.(olive (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC))


 * I have a personal revert rule of one revert. I think you've made an error and you should probably self revert. (olive (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC))


 * We have comments in the RfC saying that the previous text was good. You and a number of editors who practice TM keep changing it.  There have been no attempts by those who practice TM to get outside supporting opinions.  It seems that only those who practice TM agree with the wording presented.  I recommend that you self revert.  I am unable to revert myself as you have already done so a few minutes after the change. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doc ... I revert once so will not revert you.(olive (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Doc. The RfC was for a very specific concern with the lead. Nor do I see consensus for anything. Even if there was a consensus, you reverted simple context, and Woonpton's research, edit point. My edits do  not change meaning per the sources.  And you as well, insist over and over again of attaching any discussion or edits to so called TM practitioners. This constitutes a continuos  assumption of bad faith.  Your inability to allow for edits that do  not change meaning, but rather clarify and move the article towards a  clearer more accurate writing style is a great concern.(olive (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC))


 * No. Doc did not revert me; nowhere in his version did the neocitation form "Ospina Bond" appear. Please leave me out of this. Woonpton (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. He removed Opsina et al completely. And you aren't involved, I am simply trying to identify the edits.(olive (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC))
 * In other words, you agree that he didn't revert my edits, so please strike your two misstatements of fact claiming that he reverted my edits.Woonpton (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I said he removed the content completely, admitting to a mistake. That's what I can do for now. (olive (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

RfC: How to best summarize the scientific literature on TM
We have been having an ongoing disagreement over how to best summarize the scientific literature on TM. I have proposed the following to replace "Scientific studies published in peer review journals have examined the effects of the technique. A 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for the treatment of anxiety." Others may also make proposals. Recent discussion have taken place: RS Noticeboard, ArbCom case, and on the TM talk page.

Addendum added by involved editor: All commenting editors please make sure to  read the research section in the article to make sure proposed leads summarize that section per WP:LEAD(olive (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Suggestion 1
Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigor. Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Comments from involved users

 * 1) I feel this is an better summary than we currently have. It is the best avaliable articles on the subject matter at hand.  I have added the lines of texts used under "quote" in the references to make it easier to determine how each sentence is supported. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm no scientist, but I have read some of the cited papers. This draft seems to be a good summary of their relevant findings. The choice of studies appears to be in keeping with the guidelines at WP:MEDRS, using the best available sources while avoiding excess weight on fringe views. This draft is easier to read than the existing text in the intro and would be a significant improvement to the article, from what I can tell. I hope this is something that can be resolved without turning it into a major fight.    Will Beback    talk    08:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doc, you can't make stuff up, as you have. And you can't completely ignore NPOV, as you have. Please show me the clinical research that compares Transcendental Meditation with relaxation. There are only three randomized controlled trials in the citations you give that compare TM with relaxation, and the AHRQ meta-anlaysis of two of them found that TM had a statistically and clinically significant effect on blood pressure compared to relaxation. The only generalization one could make about relaxation based on the research you cite is that TM has found a health benefit compared to relaxation. TimidGuy (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah these are two of the most prestigious research organizations in the world. They are systematic reviews of the literature.  They looked at nearly everything that was published.  I provide direct quotes from all the sources to support these statements. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. For example, you quote a finding that uses health education as a comparator. How does that allow you to make a generalization regarding relaxation? TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree and changed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem remains that there's no support for the first statement, and the second is one-sided, as is the rest. Remember the feedback that we got at RSN. The lead is supposed to be a fair summary of what's in the article. This is not. TimidGuy (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let agree to disagree and wait for outside opinions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't rocket science. The lead must summarize what's in the article. If it doesn't, it must be considered poorly written in a technical way, and can end up, as is the case here, being biased because it omits information. Simple.(olive (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
 * 1) The first and second sentences use the same sources (the first and the fourth references are about the same meta-analysis, a meta-analysis done for the AHRQ). The first sentence is only an interpretation against TM of the second sentence: if no conclusion can be drawn, then no advantage has been found. However, only the second sentence is the main conclusion of these sources. In particular, the AHRQ meta-analysis was also published in a peer-reviewed journal which did not mention at all that TM has no advantage over other approaches. The two references provided by Doc James for the AHRQ meta-analysis were not peer-reviewed. If the first sentence was an important conclusion of the meta-analysis, why it is not included in anyway in the peer-reviewed version? Similarly, the Cochrane review only says that no conclusion can be drawn. Doc James refers (not even correctly) to a conclusion of a 1980 paper that was included in this review, but it was not the conclusion of the review.  The last sentence is a subjective point of view that is highly controversial and assume that the peer-reviewed journals, the editors and the reviewers, did not properly review the studies on TM that were submitted to them. Though it may happen, it may happen against as much as in support of TM. A response was published (I think in the same journal) to rebut this controversial viewpoint.  This controversy has no place in the Intro, even if we presented the two sides, certainly not if we present only one side.  The main problem, however, with this proposal is that it excludes important point of views about the physiological and health effects of TM that are found in other reliable systematic reviews that are published in peer-reviewed journals. It is totally one sided.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One again all sources that I have used are from the most highly respected evidence based research organizations in the world. I do see that the science is being less and less well represented in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The AHRQ should not have more weight than other respectable peer reviewed journals. In fact, since it acted as the editor while it was the source of funding for the report and moreover used a non standard peer-review process, it should have less weight. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Comments from uninvolved users
Sources appear to be of the sort promoted by MEDRS and the summary neutral. I support the change, as it is much clearer than the original text and provides an accurate summary.Yobol (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to the addendum added by another user, I agree that the proposed suggestion #1 does not follow explicitly WP:Lead in summarizing the research section; clearly the way to resolve this problem is to update the research section to follow it. I agree with the proposer of the RfC that most weight in research section should come from large, independent reviews (i.e. Cochrane reviews, the AHRQ review) with less weight to other smaller reviews.  Yobol (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we change the article to suit a lead? (olive (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC))
 * No, I'm suggesting that the article needs revision, and this lead would be a good template for that change. Yobol (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but that's backwards. We need to look at the research in a holistic way, be aware of it, in its entirety then draft the article. Choosing a lead with out that knowledge can only create inaccuracy and subsequent slant and bias. A lead can only be a template if we have a comprehensive view first. (olive (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC))
 * All medical issues, per MEDRS should be based on high quality reviews (such as Cochrane, etc). That is the comprehensive view.  Both the lead and the article can be adjusted at the same time.Yobol (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In support to Yobol, I must say that a Wikipedia article is not static and both the Intro and the body of the article can change. I don't think we can use WP:LEAD to fix the content of the article. In support to Littleolive, I must say that, in general, it is common to first write the body of an article, without worry about the Intro, and write the Intro after. Therefore, I would suggest that those who edited the Intro against WP:LEAD in the past should not repeat that again.


 * Where Yobol does not have a point at all is when he says that we should exclude the meta-analyses that are not published in Chochrane review or the AHRQ. In particular, this excludes peer reviewed journals that cover traditional medicine. Modern medicine is more recent and thus complementary in a sense to traditional medicine. Traditional medicine might not have a large weight in some specific governmental agencies and in large pharmacological corporations, but it has a large weight in the population and is supported by very respectable governmental agencies. It is used a lot. It makes no sense in an article about TM not to give an equal weight to these other reliable peer review journals. Besides, excellent meta-analyses, other than those in Cochrane Review and AHRQ, were published in journals covering a more general area than traditional medicine. Why should we exclude any of these excellent meta-analyses, which also respect WP:MEDRS? The specific scales used to exclude studies in Cochrane and AHRQ are not MEDRS policy.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes though I would start with the lead and than move onto the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At no point did I say we exclude everything except Cochrane and the AHRQ analysis. I said the highest quality secondary sources that are independent should be given the most weight (both in terms of coverage and our wording and summary) and form the framework of the section on medical researech; other MEDRS compliant secondary sources should be added to supplement this, with due weight (if they are not independent, if they are smaller, etc.)  Yobol (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been brought to my attention that an editor may have somehow interpreted my position to have "changed". If this comment was in reference to me, let me clarify that this is not the case, and that my support for the lead as noted in the RfC continues. I also note that current version of the lead with attribution is less encyclopedic and possibly runs afoul of WP:ASF.Yobol (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had the following in mind:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=376686243&oldid=376684444 and then
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=376742719&oldid=376742405. However, if you are telling us that you were fixed in your opinion and there was no point to further discuss, then there is nothing I can add to that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop mischaracterizing my words - this is the second time in only one thread on one talk page you have done this about what I have said now. It is clear from those diffs that I misunderstood the topic of the discussion in that section outside the RfC (i.e. excluding the study from the lead vs. article) and I appropriately corrected my stance after I realized my mistake. No where did I voice any change in my stance on the lead, which is the topic of discussion in this RfC. I will also add that no where have I said my opinion is "fixed"; quite the contrary, I was reading this talk page to see if there was anything that would make me adjust my opinion on the subject. Clearly, there has not, and I continue to support the lead as proposed in this RfC as a significant improvement of the lead that was present at the time the RfC was introduced (and, frankly, the current lead). Yobol (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I am sorry for the confusion, but I knew that your opinion was most likely not fixed. I said "If ...", and, of course, I expected you to say that your opinion was not fixed. In fact, my point is that it was not fixed and the new elements that you added were highly significant (in my opinion) as far as the paragraph on Research in the Intro is concerned. People will be able to judge by themselves. They have the diffs. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the diffs clearly show I was concerned that an editor was saying a properly peer-reviewed journal article should be removed/kept out of from the wikipedia article (not the lead). If you expect someone not to have a fixed opinion, then you probably shouldn't be commenting on them as if they did, and therefore seeming to imply that they are in fact fixed.  Some would consider that very rude and not conducive to a collaborative environment.  Yobol (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yobol, if I say "If A then B", I do not mean that A is true. It actually means the opposite when B is non sense. So, I did not try to imply a bit that your opinion was fixed. It is also clear that it was not to my advantage at all to say that it was fixed. In fact, again, now that you mentioned that it had changed, thank you, I can add that your added points were highly significant for the Rfc issue. OK, I see that you did not like my style, but I did not attack you or said anything incorrect about you. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no particular interest as to what is an "advantage" to anyone in this dispute, I am only providing my opinion on what is best supported by wikipedia policies. I have already explained I find it very rude to suggest, even by saying appending a hypothetical "if", to my motives or positions, so I would appreciate it if you would just drop the subject instead of trying to justify it. As to what you think has "changed", I have no idea what you are talking about.  I have made it explicitly clear that my opinion has not changed on the RfC, and that I do not believe my comments that you reference in the diffs above are particularly relevant to the RfC as I was speaking about the article, not the lead, and even said "I have no strong feelings either way".  Please stop putting words in my mouth.  It is getting to the point to being disruptive.  Yobol (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I really feel that your added points were highly significant for the Rfc. You may honestly disagree because you don't understand the context, but your points stand by themselves and every one can decide for himself by looking at the diffs. So, we can agree to disagree. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As the person who actually wrote the comments, I guess it is my duty to say that I do not think they are particularly relevant to the RfC at all, as I state in the diff and multiple times here, in this RfC. I find it very odd that someone is arguing with me about what I mean about what I wrote, but I guess it's par for the course on this talk page (and part of the reason I have not contributed more to this page - this type of behavior is toxic and not what I want to experience on wikipedia). Yobol (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take it easy. I maintain a peaceful and honest dialogue. I don't understand why you mention "toxic", etc. Some others that know the context can consider that your points are highly relevant. First, because the article is highly relevant to the lead. I assure you that your point about the article is very important for the lead in this context. Second, "no strong feeling either way" is already a statement, different than, for example, "clearly, it should be this way." This other point was also in my opinion a strong improvement. So, please take it easy. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider having my own words twisted around into meaning something other than what I actually wrote, despite my corrections on multiple occasions, a toxic atmosphere for a collaborative environment (I count three occasions in this one thread alone!). That says to me the person doing the twisting does not want to collaborate, but wants to do anything to "win" the argument. It's a wonder anyone actually sticks it out in this environment, but God bless those who do.  In other words, I have no desire to carry on this "conversation" forward with you, as it is very unpleasant. My stance on the RfC stands as I originally indicated.  Cheers. Yobol (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. This proposed text summarises the article content accurately and is more compliant with WP:MEDRS.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  20:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 2
TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques. Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn. Some studies have found specific physiological effects, and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being.

Suggestion 2: Comments from involved users

 * 1) The first ref by Murphy is from 1997. The Dakwar ref looked at "The emerging role of meditation in addressing psychiatric illness" not physiological effects. The next ref says that physiological effects are NOT supported by the evidence. "The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials." The Anderson ref was funded by an unrestricted gift from Howard Settle a well known TM supporter and thus not independent. The conclusion of the peads study with respect to ADHD is refuted by a 2010 Cochrane review mentioned above. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, we can use Ospina for information about the extent of the research. Canter and Ernst say that there are physiological effects. Their conclusion about cognitive function is unrelated. There are many additional sources for physiological effects. If funding disqualifies a study, then we'd have to remove all the findings regarding the pharmaceutical research. The Peds mention of ADHD research isn't mentioned in this article. It cites the other findings. TimidGuy (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Were do Canter say physiological effects? I provided their text above were they said it was do to "expectation effect" . This version totally misrepresents the references used and the sum of the scientific literature.  It emphasizes point that are neither here no there (the amount of research done) without sufficiently emphasizing it actually conclusions.  This reads too much like a TM press release.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This looks good to me. The first and second sentences are supported by the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews. The second sentence corresponds to the main conclusion of these reviews. The third sentence is supported by other reliable systematic reviews. The whole paragraph is simple and cover all point of views. Doc James is incorrect when he says that the main conclusion of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews is that TM is not better than relaxation. He argued before that, if no conclusion can be drawn, then no advantage has been found. This argument uses an absence of conclusion to actually suggest a negative conclusion on TM. In one study included in the Cochrane review TM showed effects comparable to biofeedback and relaxation therapy. This was a 1980 study. It is not a conclusion endorsed in the review, which endorsed no conclusion. More recent systematic reviews (and studies included therein), which did not use the strict criteria used in the Cochrane and the AHRQ reviews, support the third sentence. These other reviews are peer-reviewed. Some of their authors were independent from the TM organization. Certainly, the reviewers and the editors were independent of the TM organization. These are thus independent peer-reviewed reliable sources. The criteria of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews are not Wikipedia policy. They are supported by one point of view and cannot be used to exclude other point of views and thus violate Neutral Point of View and Reliable Source . They should not be used by an editor to create its own interpretation of the sub-policy WP:MEDRS for medical claim, which does not specify any specific criteria to assess studies, but suggest that we rely on recent systematic reviews instead. Not all of them use the criteria of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews. It is not the job of the editors to assess the criteria used in reliable peer reviewed systematic reviews. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Completing the repair to the 'Transcendental Meditation Movement" section
Apologies for my delay, I was away for some time. I am ready to complete correcting Will's sentence in the Transcendental Meditation movement section of this article. I would like it to read: "two entities, the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota (as a successor to the World Plan Executive Council)[252] in 1997 and the Maharishi Spiritual Center in 2001, were denied property tax exemptions as the educational activities of the organizations did not did not reach the ‘purely public charity’ threshold in one case, and did not involve the entire real estate in the other." This is fairly succint, clear, and resolves the issue. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I can take full credit for that sentence. I did the most recent copy-editing but many editors have worked on it over the past seven months. The compromise that we achieved for the TMM intro is to say this: "Most movement organizations have tax exempt status; others have operated for-profit." That seems much better than a disproportionately long explanation of the tax status of two parcels. Many other parcels are not tax exempt too, so focusing on just two seems undue.   Will Beback    talk    20:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are removing all references to the Spiritual Center and the Maharishi School of Vedic Sciences-Minnesota? That works as well.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure it is needed to add "Others have operated for-profit". Isn't it implied by the "most" of the first statement? I am not questioning the truth of the statement (Wikipedia is not about truth anyway - it is said), but the emphasis on the "for-profit" concerns me. It suggests that the only motivation was profit, but it is not true and, at the least, I can say that we don't know that. It could be that "for-profit" is a technical term that does not imply any motive, but that is not the point. The point is that for a general audience it can suggest that the motive is only profit. We have to be careful about the wordings if it is to be presented in the voice of Wikipedia. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose we could turn that around and question the emphasis on "non-profit", which pre-dates the "for-profit" language added to balance it. "Non-profit" might suggest to readers that the motive is charitable. We could fix the potential problem of these implications by deleting all references to non-profit and for-profit status from this article. However, that seems worse than including both.   Will Beback    talk    00:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We do not have to spoon-feed the reader in every case. If we had an article on Coke, and we said "a comparative study of Coke to Pepsi showed that 55% preferred Coke", the reader can deduce that 45% did not prefer Coke. Similarly here. If we say "Most movement organizations have tax exempt status", the reader can deduce that "some movement organizations do not have tax exempt status". Secondly, non-profit organizations can operate "for profit". "Non-profit" is a tax status here and does not necessarily have anything to do with finance. --BwB (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Tax exempt" is a tax status determined by regulations. "Non-profit" is a charter status determined by the founder. I agree that saying "some are for-profit" doesn't convey much info. Rather than deleting it let's explicate it briefly. Something like, "The movement also includes for-profit companies such as MAPI and MHOED."   Will Beback    talk    10:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I will let you guys analyse the situation. I think that BwB and Will Beback know more about the context than me. I just want to mention general points. First, we are trying here to write statements in the voice of Wikipedia, which normally only happens when there is a consensus that the statements have no implicit point of views attached to them. Second, the context is very important. If the context is the controversy "for profit" Vs "charitable", then we should not limit the statements to some wordings that suggests or implies the different point of views. Instead, we should present all point of views clearly and explicitly in the voice of reliable notable sources, not Wikipedia. If these sources do not exist, then this controversy need not be presented in Wikipedia. If the context is different, then we should not use some statements in that context as a template to bring this controversy. We should use the simplest statements that present what sources say, without even thinking about this controversy. I know it is tricky, but we need to find the statement that has the largest prominence in the most reliable sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what controversy you're talking about. No one (that I know of) disputes that some elements are non-profit and others are for-profit.   Will Beback    talk    20:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Look inside you! You will find it. Actually, you might only find one side of it. Just joking. OK, let us start from the beginning. If there is no controversy between two POVs to present, why is it that we do not simply use the first statement?  I suggest that you acknowledge the POV that you want to present. There is nothing wrong with it. It just need to be done right. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What POVs are you talking about? It isn't a POV to say that an organization is for-profit or non-profit.   Will Beback    talk    21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, fine, the issue is not at all whether the TMO's motive is to make money or not. We only want to convey its formal non-profit charter status or its formal tax exemption status. I am curious, in what context there is a need to provide these boring technical informations? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but you might ask Olive. She added it here:   Will Beback    talk    03:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Kbob would know about that. I addd content based on agreement from other editors. The nonprofit point was added by Kbob into the draft version. He would be most knowledgable about that point.
 * Referring to Olive's sentence does not help. I guess she thinks that there is no POV attached to "non-profit" and in that case the sentence is fine. I contested the "for-profit" in a subsequent sentence and explicitly said that there can be a POV attached to it. Personally, I do not think that there is a corresponding POV attached to "non-profit" because it is more common and natural than "for-profit", but you seem to have disagreed. I could not argue against that. It is subjective and, if it is your position, it is legitimate. I am just confused because, at the same time, you insist that there is no POV attached to these expressions.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is really a great discussion but it is not what I was talking about at the beginning of the thread, never mind, I'll clean up the sentence, I think that is something we agreed on.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, but you seem to really want this text in the article for some reason so I won't fight it.   Will Beback    talk    05:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think that there is a POV attached to any sentence that is presented in the voice of Wikipedia, you should fight it. If I were you, I would fight it. Certainly, I intend to fight any such a sentence. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Will I made the changes. I am sorry you do not agree, but I appreciate your flexibility. The sentence is now slightly longer, however, on the positive side, the facts are represented more accurately.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion has challenged some misconception that I had about the distinction between facts and POVs. In particular, I retract my claim that we can contest any sentence presented in the voice of Wikipedia simply because a POV can be attached to it. Every single way to present a fact can convey different POVs depending on the context, the readers, etc. This is the nature of human being. When presented with a fact in some way, we interpret it accordingly. A fact always come together with these natural interpretations and Wikipedia policy says that it can be acceptable to present such a fact in the voice of Wikipedia.


 * However, to respect the policy, we must present the fact as it is most often presented in reliable sources. We must also be careful that its most natural interpretations given the context in the article correspond to its most natural interpretations in these sources. In particular, I would be very careful when a strong POV can be attached to some special way to state the fact. In short, we must stick to the sources. I guess my point was that anyone should feel free to contest any fact presented in the voice of Wikipedia if these criteria are not respected. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not really the place to wax philosophical on such questions. They are for discussing improvement in the article. That being said, I fundamentally disagree with the policy propositions that you are advancing. But, policy page discussions, and not here, are the places for such discussions. I'd suggest that you find the appropriate policy page discussion(s), and take it there. Fladrif (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just a brief connection between this thread and the current policy. I used it to amend a position that I had in this thread. It would not have served its purpose elsewhere and I did not intend to go beyond that. BTW, I discovered a new category of arguments in Wikipedia. They are the arguments of the kind "You are wrong, etc. but let's not argue because it is not the place." Very convenient. I like it, but let's not discuss further because it's not the place. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read sources
In this edit and editor removed references that was supporting a statement. It is unclear if the editor read the source. In the 2010 Cochrane it spends many pages discussing the limitation of the best studies available that address the question at hand and concludes: "As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias" and "Risk of bias in included studies: Systematic biases directly affected the validity of the included studies. See also the ’Risk of bias’ graph (Figure 1) and ’Risk of bias’ summary (Figure 2)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doc, Cochrane 2010 didn't look at any TM studies. No TM study was among the included studies. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. What else is there to say if we are not even reading the same papers.  TM is mentioned multiple times: "Five broad categories of meditation practice were identified by a group of experts using modified Delphi methodology:

mantra meditation (comprising the Transcendental Meditation ® technique (TM®), Relaxation Response (RR) and Clinically Standardized Meditation (CSM)), mindfulness meditation (comprising Vipassana, Zen Buddhist meditation, Mindfulnessbased StressReduction (MBSR) andMindfulness-basedCognitive Therapy (MBCT)), yoga, Tai Chi and Qi Gong" If you read the paper you will see mention of a couple studies specifically dealing with TM. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no study on TM among the included studies. Cochrane only considers RCTs. There are no RCTs on TM and ADHD. The statement that you cite is in reference to research that's not on TM. Your use of this review to support the statement that TM research lacks rigor is problematic, and yet another example of your putting false information in Wikipedia. Please stop. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the Cochrane review of meditation research on ADHD considered the universe of such research -which would include all TM research - and then excluded from further analysis, for lack of rigor, any study that was not a RTC. It then did further analysis of the four studies that met its criteria, only one of which it concluded had good data.  Everything else (including any non-RTC studies of TM and ADHD) it dismisssed as being no better than anecdotal and unworthy of further analysis. If, as TG claims, there are no RTC's on TM and ADHD, then it is more than a bit problematic to complain about a statement that TM research on the subject lacks rigor, and accusing  Doc of putting false information in the article based on that claim is an inappropriate personal attack. Fladrif (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All very interesting, but we must use sources accurately. --BwB (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, "the universe of research" on meditation and ADHD would contain only a single study on TM : http://cie.asu.edu/volume10/number2/ . I am not aware of any other study of TM on ADHD. It is announced as an explanatory study. The authors explain that since there was only 11 students diagnosed with ADHD in the group, the size of the controlled and intervention groups would have been too small in a RCT. They used a different methodology and they did it rigorously. A preliminary study can be rigorous as long as it is presented as such. This incorrect qualification of preliminary or explanatory studies as "lacking of rigour" appears also in AHRQ and other Cochrane reviews. This issue is not specific to the 2010 Cochrane review. However, it is particularly easy to observe it in this case because there is only one study on TM Vs ADHD to look at.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) They looked at all the studies and thus are able to conclude what the evidence does and does not show. And then comment on the quality of evidence. If there is no evidence they can thus say the quality of evidence is poor or lacking. Here are so more quotes. So evidence does not show that TM has a benefit in ADHD because there is little to no evidence.: Some reports exist which detail the usefulness of meditation for childrenwith ADHD.Grosswald (reported inMicucci 2005) conducted a study in April 2004 at Chelsea School in Silver Spring, Maryland, a private school for children with learning disabilities. The study compared ten students with ADHD before and after they learned and practiced Transcendental Meditation for ten minutes twice daily for three months. Participants reported being calmer, less distracted, less stressed and better able to control their anger and frustration. However, there was no control/comparison group in this study.

French 1975 French AP, Schmid AC, Ingalls E. Transcendental meditation, altered reality testing, and behavioural change: a case report. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1975;161(1):55–8.

Lazarus 1976 Lazarus AA. Psychiatric problems precipitated by transcendental meditation. Psychological Reports 1976;39(2):601–2.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doc, the problem is that you quoted from their comments about the included studies to support your point. But none of the included studies was on TM. This was a misrepresentation -- one that you repeated on WP:AE. TimidGuy (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They did look at TM. And yes found that evidence was not sufficient to draw conclusions.  This is stated above. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Arguing with TG when he cannot reply is not so appropriate. I would have participated, but the last time I checked, the Cochrane review was not available online from my institution. I checked for it on Wiley Online using their filter "Journals" (i.e., removing entries that are not in journals) and I could not find it. It was in their database, but not indexed as a journal entry. Perhaps, this is why I cannot get it online from my institution. Also, I saw this edit in the talk page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=378081498&oldid=378080524 ), but could not find where in the talk page you explain why you did that.  It is very delicate to edit previous text in the talk page because it can interfere with subsequent comments. Make sure that you acknowledge explicitly this change where it can be relevant. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A number of people have commented on this thread. It is a discussion between all of us.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have fixed a typo in your posting above, "threat">"thread", just to avoid misunderstandings. Hope you don't mind. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks always happy when people correct my spelling :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. Still, I cannot get the article, which is not indexed as a journal. Perhaps, we should wait until after it gets indexed as a journal before including it. Also, can you address my last point. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean indexed like it is here ? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And here, in the Wiley system: .   Will Beback    talk    17:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I had seen these two entries. I was referring to the main Wiley Online library site. When you search for meditation, you find the the 2010 Cochrane review, but after you filter for Journals, it disappears. I am guessing that explains why I cannot get it from my institution. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The 700 studies

 * Many of the 700 studies have been conducted by researchers associated with the TM organization.

What 700 studies are being referred to here? This is the only mention of them in the lead, so it's a non-sequitor. Do C&E mention "700 studies"?  Will Beback   talk    05:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it states "Our searches have identified some 700 research papers on TM and most of these have been written by researchers directly associated with the TM organization. Many have not been subjected to peer review." and "All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization. There is at present insufficient good-quality evidence to conclude whether or not TM has a cumulative positive effect on blood pressure." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In that case the sentence should be written so that we communicate what these studies are. Also, "many" seems significantly different than "most". How about this: Most of the 700 studies on TM have been conducted by researchers associated with the TM organization, and many did not go through peer-review. All of the studies on blood pressure have been found to have methodological weaknesses and potential biases by some reviewers.    Will Beback    talk    05:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I think that sums up the source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You did not ask all the relevant questions. "Where is it sourced?" and "Did it fairly represent the source?" are only two of the many aspects to consider. Here are some other aspects: "Was the statement prominent in the source?", "Was the source prominent for an article on TM?", "Are there other reliable sources that say the same thing?", "Is the statement contradicted in other reliable source?"  The first of these other aspects is actually a refinement of "Did it fairly represent the source?"  Also, I am not saying that we can exclude a statement because it is contradicted or  ignored in other reliable sources on the same topic. This can only be used to give it a lower weight. Most importantly, there are other important issues that need to be discussed. This one (i.e., this new section) is also important. We can discuss it, but we will not succeed to address the NPOV violation of the lead without also considering the other issues. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason this is misleading is that the figure of 700 includes everything, such as dissertations, conference abstracts, pilot studies included in the early editions of Collected Papers. It's a matter of fact that many of this list of 700 weren't peer reviewed. But that doesn't in any way reflect on the hundreds of peer reviewed studies. Most of the studies published in the last 25 years have been peer reviewed. It really skews things to cherry pick this point and let it define the body of research. This shouldn't be in the lead. It doesn't matter how many pilot studies or conference presentations there were; what matters is the peer-reviewed research. And there's plenty of that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, TG. You're the one who made the edit that I'm questioning. If we all agree that many of the 700 studies were not peer-reviewed, and that most of them were conducted by TM-related researchers, then what is the problem with saying that?   Will Beback    talk    18:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Will, first it is not our job to evaluate the truth of a statement in a source. However, it is our job to understand it so that we represent it fairly in the article. I think TG problem is summarized here NOR. The problem is that this statement is unclear in terms of numbers of peer-reviewed studies (how many is many?). I think if we need to say something about the studies, we need a better reference, more precise. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm also wondering about the difference between "700 studies" and "over 600 studies". I assume that these are mostly the same studies. The movement makes frequent mention of the "over 600 studies", yet they rarely if ever make the distinctions that TG refers to. Since there are a variety of views on those studies, I don't see why we'd exclude an important, scholarly view about them. It would be incompatible with NPOV to leave the impression with readers that all of the over 600 studies are published in high-quality, peer-reviewed papers. If we're going to refer to these studies, then we need to give views besides those of the TMM.    Will Beback    talk    21:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see the same issue as Will here. I previously made the point that the "over 600 studies" does not have its place in the Intro because it does not convey the quality of the research. I am going even further : how many studies are peer-reviewed is also not so important. The existing meta-analyses have already done the job of analysing the quality of the research and they counted the number of studies that were eligible for consideration. However, why focusing on one or two sentences in seven years old reviews to address this issue? I guess I am reaching the same conclusion as TimidGuy. I believe that the ratio of high quality studies over all studies is about the same for research on meditation in general and possibly also in many other areas of research, if anything perhaps the ratio is higher in the TM case. This is cherry picking statements to imply that there is something wrong with the TM research in particular. I have no problem in citing the number of studies illegible for consideration in the various meta-analyses, but not only in Cochrane and AHRQ. We can mention that the TMO says that there are over 600 studies, if the con-TM wants it. This will imply that the majority of these studies were not illegible. However, I disagree with cherry picking one or two statements that draw unsupported negative conclusions specifically about the TM research from these numbers and then refer to them in the Intro. Moreover, if we do include such statements in the article, not in the Intro, they should be clearly attributed to C&E because they are highly controversial statements. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Cherry picking" implies that the sentences being summarized are not typical of the entire study. I don't think that's the case here. The sentences seem to be important conclusions, not just passing comments.   Will Beback    talk    23:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us consider this version of the statement in the Intro


 * According to Canter and Ernst, all of the studies on TM and blood pressure are potentially biased as they were conducted by researchers connected to the TM organization, and on subjects with favorable opinions of TM.


 * For the record, I say that your last argument (if used to include the above statement in the Intro) belongs in category one here. I recall that category one contains arguments that are "Giving more weight to points out of the main scope of a source rather than to its main conclusions and findings."  Before, I substantiate my position, I would like to ask you a question. What was the main scope of the C&E analysis in your opinion? Did they do a systematic analysis of the effect of a TM affiliation on the outcome of the studies? If they did I hope they controlled for a complete negative view of TM, the opposite of an affiliation, just in case the effect was the same but in the opposite direction. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm dense, but it wold appear to me that the scope of the review covers studies on the effects of TM on blood pressure, and the conclusion is that the studies are insufficient to make any conclusion about those effects. Does anyone think the review had a different scope?  Will Beback   talk    03:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Objective: To carry out an independent, systematic review of randomized clinical trials of Transcendental Meditation (TM) for cumulative effects on blood pressure.
 * ''Conclusion: All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the afﬁliation of authors to the TM organization. There is at present insufﬁcient good-quality evidence to conclude whether or not TM has a cumulative positive effect on blood pressure.
 * Yes that is indeed the scope of the study. It conclusions agree with other independently done systematic reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We really shouldn't be using C&E 2004 on blood pressure, since it's superseded by Ospina 2007, and since Ospina makes essential the same point. It's out of date. It doesn't include two of the highest quality studies: Schneider 2005 and Paul-Labrador 2006. In addition, the latter study was conducted by researchers who don't do TM. It can no longer be said that all studies to date are potentially biased by affiliation to the TM organization. TimidGuy (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If two highly reliable source say the same thing, that doubles the message rather than cancelling it out. WP:MEDRS says: "Although the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism." In the text, we can describe the 2004 review, and then describe newer reviews and mention that additional research was conducted in between. That's too much detail for the intro, though.   Will Beback    talk    20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They don't say the same thing. Please be more explicit. What part exactly of the 2004 C&E review is also found in recent meta-analyses? Is it "have important methodological weaknesses" or "are potentially biased by the afﬁliation of authors to the TM  organization."?  Except for the generalization to all studies, I agree that the first part is also mentioned in more recent meta-analyses.  I didn't check for the second part, but it is irrelevant. The phrase "are potentially biased by the afﬁliation of authors to the TM  organization" is not within the scope or objective of this 2004 review or of more recent reviews. They did not study that: the affiliation of the authors was not a variable in these reviews.  I understand that it is mentioned in the 2004 C&E conclusion, but it remains a controversial opinion, not supported by their work, a passing comment and it should not receive too much weight even if we were to consider this review alone (which we should not do.) Whenever we present this opinion, normally not in the Intro, it should be separated from the true findings and, to respect WP:NPOV,  presented together with the other opinion: "Probably all investigators bring bias to implementation of clinical trials—either enthusiasm or skepticism.", which can be found in the Anderson review and most likely elsewhere as well. The true findings can receive more weight than this opinion as long as they are not contradicted but supported by the most recent meta-analyses (thus with no all).  Also, the wordings "lack of rigour" or "important methodological weaknesses" have a subjective component. It is unfortunate that these weasel expressions have been used to qualify studies that are rigorous, provide very useful information, but only cannot be used to draw definitive clinical conclusions according to some standard. These expressions should definitively be explicitly attributed to their sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let you and TG argue over whether these reviews have the same conclusions or not. If C&E's conclusion is just an opinion then I suppose all conclusions are opinions. I don't see the difference. I disagree that a core conclusion is the same thing as a passing comment. All conclusions found in reviews and papers should be attributed. However we don't need to name obscure scholars in the intro; that conveys no information to the readers. It's sufficient to name them generically or refer to their paper, and then give the details in the body.     Will Beback    talk    21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I recall, we did not insist to attribute to the authors. I think TimidGuy finally attributed the statement to the review, not to the authors. The statement we are talking about is "[All studies on TM] are potentially biased by the afﬁliation of authors to the TM organization". This is not a finding of the systematic review. The affiliation was not a variable in the review. It was not a rigorous well supported scientific statement. The statement "[All studies that found TM has no advantage over relaxation] are potentially biased by authors or funding agencies that are detractors of the TM organization" is as true. The emphasis on one possible bias here is a question of opinion.  The true finding is that the studies did not meet their quality assessment criteria. This is a systematic finding based on their systematic review. They express it by saying that the studies were of pour methodological quality. I feel there is a subjective component in the way it is expressed, but at the least it is linked to the actual finding.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Orme-Johnson specifically criticized this review yet he didn't mention anything about the potential bias conclusion, so it's probably OR for us to raise it here. Since MUM exists to promote TM and related technologies, it's not a stretch to assert that researchers there could be biased. Is there actual bias? Last year I asked if any study conducted by TM-affiliated researchers had ever failed to achieve a positive finding. The answer then was, basically, "no". Out of more than 500 studies, every single one found the expected result. That's a remarkable achievement but it also implies bias on the part of the researchers. Another form of bias is evident in the choice of topics. How is it that prolific researchers like Orme-Johnson, Dillbeck, and Travis have never conducted research on any topic unrelated to TM?   Will Beback    talk    08:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Orme-Johnson most likely ignored it because he viewed it as a passing comment and because it is not false since it says "potentially biased". It does not mean at all that the statement is acceptable to present the main findings of the review. It would be acceptable in a context where we specifically discuss a controversy about affiliation, but again the opposing POV should then also be presented. BTW, OR is not about the content of the talk page. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If OJ ignores the issue then who is presenting what is being called the "opposing POV"?   Will Beback    talk    19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I already answered this question in this thread . Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see who is representing the "opposing POV" or what that POV would be. We don't seem to be proposing any actual text, and we fixed the text that started this thread, so I don't know what we're discussing here. Maybe you could start a fresh thread if there is something in the article that needs to be changed.   Will Beback    talk    01:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just replying to your comment. As I told you, the actual text and its source is provided here, just read it carefully. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would take issue with you assertion Will that "MUM exists to promote TM and related technologies". Surely it exists to provide an education to the students that attend?  Yes the education system there includes TM and related technologies, but it provide both undergrad and grad programs in a wide verity of subjects. --BwB (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to graduate from MUM without learning TM?   Will Beback    talk    08:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thread is drifting off into personal-opinion territory again. Can you two please re-focus? As I understand, the original topic of this thread was whether the summary cited at the beginning was a fair and accurate reflection of the research it meant to summarise. Is there still anything to debate about that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. The text that I questioned at the beginning of the thread is now gone, so it's not about that topic anymore. Then it took a turn over whether some material in the conclusion of a review is just an opinion or not. I'd be happy to close this in favor of a more focused thread.   Will Beback    talk    09:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)