Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 38

Science of Creative Intelligence
This section seems too long and detailed for this article to function as an overview. On a diagonal reading, the section appears to be mostly about the technique, so some of its contents should probably be moved to one the sub-articles. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is part of a consensus around suggestion #5, which you can see above. It goes even further than that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

AE proposal
There is an WP:AE proposal to ban several of the long-term editors of this page. I'm noting this here because the list of proposed bans exceeds the initial report (which was against User:Littleolive oil). Tijfo098 (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted. --BwB (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Skeptics Dictionary
"Varma and his school have contributed nearly nothing of importance to the science. Their main concern is using science, no matter how questionable or controversial, to support the view that TM is good for your health. For some people, that's probably true. But even if true, it doesn't seem to be earth shattering. For the record, I have never maintained that meditation isn't good for you. My position is that TM is not unique."

This is an interesting quote. WRT previous discussion regarding the use of this source at WP:RS we have this and  which consider it a RS. Not that this is different than the AHRQ conclusion just that it is simply put. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As with any (to put it mildly) controversial topic, one can find a near endless supply of critical quotes that more or less state the same facts. (Google Julian Assange for instance). So, I'm not sure what is the point of your exercise starting a section here for each quote you find juicy. The current TM (overview) article lacks a good summary of the health-related findings from Transcendental Meditation technique. Just select a few of the most reputable reviews from there (Cochrane, etc.), and that should be enough. I see that Ospina et al. (AHRQ) is cited in the lead but not in the body here, which seems to contravene WP:LEAD. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for good suggestion, Tijfo. Yes the lead should reflect and summarize the text. Perhaps the lead need to be adjusted accordingly? --BwB (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Marketing section
This section is almost completely pejorative. Is this NPOV?(olive (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC))
 * It's a common misunderstanding that "neutral point of view" is the same as "neutral". There's nothing in the NPOV policy that requires majority and minority views to receive equal attention, for example. I don't think that all or even most of the material in the section is pejorative. As I said to another editor, if there are sources on the topic of marketing which have a different view that we've omitted then let's include those too.   Will Beback    talk    09:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with olive - a waste of space. --BwB (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A reliably sourced view is just that, and shouldn't be confused with accuracy or NPOV. NPOV is maintained by including content from the sources per weight in the mainstream, and then added per weight of content in an article. (olive (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Is this no longer true?   Will Beback    talk    23:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think most of the last paragraph in that section can be removed without much loss of information in article, specifically:

Yale University architecture professor Keller Easterling compares TM to "Arnold Palmer Golf Management", a developer of golf courses, saying that both are "ideologies and practices" that are regarded as "commercial products".[9] According to Easterling, TM maintains a partial story which allows it to keep the "brand amnesiacally refreshed" and alter plans without explanation.

The previous paragraphs in that section are more to the point, and cover the same material. I don't see what this rather convoluted exercise in metaphors adds. The (architecture) book is also cited without page numbers. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I may be able to do a better job of summarizing the extended comparison, which is discussed across an entire chapter.   Will Beback    talk    22:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. It's written in the most silly postmodern language I saw in quite some time; it rivals TM scriptures in that respect. And it's about franchises in general, beside Maharishi and Arnold Palmer's architectural follies and how they relate to the branding on their companies, the chapter also covers Martha Stewart, Sam Walton and Howard Schultz. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say the chapter covers Waltion and Stewart equally with TM and APGM, though other companies are mentioned. Yes, it's partly about franchising which is why it seems relevant to marketing. While architecture may initially seem like a tangential topic, in fact it is an integral part of the Maharishi worldview and a focus of the movement. See Maharishi Sthapatya Veda.   Will Beback    talk    09:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I also have at hand a four-page article titled "The Secular Selling of a Religion" in a 1975 issue of The Christian Century. Obviously, it concerns marketing too. Since it's a prominent partisan source, it's a significant point of view to be includd with attribution.  Will Beback   talk    13:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whow! A 1975 issue of The Christian Century, how timely! --BwB (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to discard all of the pre-1980 sources then the reference list will be significantly shorter. I'd guess that, aside from the physiological studies, as much was written in scholarly sources about TM in the 1970s as in all subsequent decades combined. Newer sources can be better, and if we're missing any imporant ones let's add them too. Easterling, who writes on marketing, is from 2007. Anyway, the point is that there are sufficient sources that speak directly about marketing TM to cover it in Wikipedia.   Will Beback    talk    13:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to the overall organisation
Unless we move back the Rfc tag (which would be pointless), the RFC is now closed. We should now take action. I propose Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Move the Chararacterization and Theoretical Concepts sections in the TMT article in the spirit of respecting the consensus around suggestion #5.
 * Discuss the move of the Marketing section in the TMT article in the Talk page of this article. It cannot stay here against consensus, but we cannot move it in another article without first discussing it in the talk page of this other article.
 * Have a Rfc about the lack of representation of peer-reviewed research and the undue weight given to content that is pejorative against the research.
 * Add a NPOV dispute tag in the TM article. This will help the discussion, bringing the talk page and this dispute to the attention of the readers. An Rfc is not sufficient because editors either ignore it when it is not favorable to their POV or they quickly take action as soon as they see one comment that could be in anyway interpreted in favor of their POV. In the latter case, the Rfc is then considered over or lost in the mess that is created.
 * Striked ways to get external opinions. It is simpler to agree among us and we already have some new opinions coming in naturally. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Might be best to find an uninvolved admin to summarize the RFC for us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have that. Are you going to keep asking uninvolved admins until you get a comment that you can in someway interpret in favor of your POV? I think you need to first show that you can respect the current consensus, which has already been pointed out by an uninvolved admin.  As I said before to Olive, I know that a consensus is not a frozen decision. It is fine to ask for even more external opinions as long as we do it right with a complete new Rfc, not something that could be a way to seek support for a POV. However, now, we must act in accordance with the consensus that we have. We have waited enough.  The current situation is exactly why I think we need a NPOV tag. This is a way to make sure that we have more attention on the issue. Isn't it what Doc James want also? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is this consensus from the previous uninvolved admin. I must have missed it among all this text. Can you please link to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us wait for opinions of others here. I could provide it, but it is better if others participate. They might have more to add. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the archiving of the RfC was done by a 'bot, and has no official status. However it is a result of a lack of further discussion.
 * If we follow #5 then we would have little mention of research on this page. There's a proposal to split the research on TM (and perhaps related technologies) into a separate article. If that were the case then, under #5, we could have a summary of the research here.   Will Beback    talk    23:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us not go into that level of details at this stage. Doc James still questions the consensus on suggestion #5. Can we just agree that we had a consensus for suggestion #5, within which we have yet to agree on what are the best summaries? If there is an issue about Research in the best summaries, this does not invalidate the consensus. We can simply do another Rfc about this Research aspect, as I suggested above. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) It was stated that an independent admin had summarized the RfC regarding the layout of the article. Where is this summary please... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Sj comments:, (olive (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC))


 * If we go for #5 then we'll move the three non-summary sections ("Theoretical concepts", "Characterizations", "Marketing") to the TMT article. I don't see the need for more discussion over it, another Rfc, or a re-application of the NPOV tag, but let's take it as it comes. But it'd be nice if there weren't so much turmoil here.   Will Beback    talk    06:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * These sections however equally apply to both the TMT and the TMM. Also four external editors supported option 1 while only three supported option 5. I do not see this as that much of an issue however if we do this it will be going against the RfC. I am hesitant to set a precedent. I have asked User:Sj to clarify his position. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Option 5 has consensus support, with only one oppose. Much of the support for this option specifically addresses the differences between it and Option 1, and some note that it is an acceptable compromise for them.
 * Option 1 was created first, and 10 of its 13 comments were left before #5 was written -- so most do not address the subtle distinction between the two. It has a number of opposes, only one mentioning #5 as better, all of which later supported #5.
 * There is limited difference in external opinions voiced - Tijfo098 recently added support for #5, and Literaturegeek and Guerillero left supporting comments for #1 that equally support both options, written before #5 was added. –SJ +  21:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The remaining objection seems to be that there are topics that apply to both detail articles which should not be left out of an overview; some threads have suggested these could be included in the overview summaries, or the topics of their own detail article, while remaining compatible with #5. If this is clarified, you may be able to resolve that concern.  –SJ+ 06:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Two detail articles can overlap. A topic that applies to two detail articles will logically be included in both as needed. Such a topic can thus be summarized in the two corresponding summaries, accordingly. Any content that does not fit within a detail article should not appear in the TM article. It's simple. It's part of the consensus, i.e., of option 5. Is there any objection? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An example might make this clearer, perhaps two version of the same article or section.  –SJ +  21:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let see what Doc James proposes. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! It is always nice to have opinions. If serious concerns are being expressed around suggestion #5, in particular, if constraints on the best summaries are being proposed, then I propose we even do a complete Rfc on the subject because, if we have to create a consensus around the best summaries within suggestion #5, we must do it right.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds painful. An rfc is a cumbersome way to edit an article; particularly if you want to wait weeks for input by uninvolved editors (who almost by definition have little interest in the topic).  Editing via back-and-forth revision and simple talk-page discussion usually suffices, and avoids a bureaucratic bottleneck that freezes contributions.  –SJ +  06:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right! It is better to avoid a Rfc and agree among us. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked in the TMT article talk page if it would be fine to move the Marketing section in there as well (in addition to the Theorerical concepts and Characterization sections). I feel it must be discussed in the TMT article context because it was not a part of the recent consensus. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation of suggestion #5
My understanding of option #5 was simpler, just simple ordinary summaries of the three detail articles. People could get the essential from these summaries and go to the detail articles for more details. However, I will be happy to join a consensus on a different interpretation. We just need to make sure that we have a common understanding of this interpretation and indeed a consensus around it. If we include the Intro, the Theoretical concepts, Characterization and Marketing sections, the TMT article would contain 11 sections. The Research section would be excluded from the summary of this TMT detail article. Which sections among the 11 sections would be included? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that's what suggestion #5 says...  and we don't need to have a consensus around a consensus...do we? (olive (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
 * I was just asking that we clarify suggestion #5 so that the nature of this consensus is clear. I really meant it when I said that I will be happy to join this consensus. Really, it is not easy to obtain a consensus and I am convinced that TimidGuy, KeithBob, Early Morning, Tijfo, BwB, Doc James, Will Beback, etc., all of us, me included, will continue to compromise around suggestion #5 as you see it. Let us simply move on and the consensus will become clearer, more concrete, as we move ahead and hear from others.   Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Edith you have already joined the consensus if you voted for #5. This is what #5 says explicitly...

That's what was agreed on. Start your engines. Start editing.(olive (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Content in the TM article must be a summary of a topic that has its own article.
 * Any content that does not have its own article will be moved out of the TM article.
 * Content added to the article must be a summary of a topic that has its own article.
 * Any content that does not have its own article cannot be moved into article.


 * I sincerely do not understand what these four bullet point means. It is not a problem. I will join any consensus. I cannot start editing now because I do not understand. Yet, I do not want to insist to have an answer to the question that I asked above. Hopefully, I will understand as we move ahead and we hear from others. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I don't know how else to explain. The TM article can have a summary about TM technique because we have a TM technique article, but not a summary about TM characterizations because we don't have an article on TM characterization. (olive (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
 * So, out of the (would be) 11 sections of the TMT article, we at the least exclude the Research and Characterizations sections from the summary. I am guessing that we also exclude the Marketing and Theoretical concepts sections. What sections do we include in the summary?  BTW, Tijfo supported the consensus on suggestion #5 and yet he was ready to include Research in the summary.  So, I am not alone that did not see that suggestion  #5 implied these exclusions.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the simplest way to summarize articles would be to use their introductions, which are already supposed to be good summaries. They'd require a little copyediting to reduce redundancy, but otherwise it wouldn't be much work.  Will Beback   talk    20:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That would follow normal guideline about summaries. The guideline says that the summary can be more detailed than the Intro, which also makes sense, but the principle is the same. So, I was not alone with a different interpretation of suggestion #5. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which guideline are you talking about? What interpretation are you talking about?   Will Beback    talk    21:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. I was referring to this guideline and to the interpretation according to which we should exclude the Characterizations and Research topics, and most likely other topics as well, from the summary. I see that you do not share this interpretation because the Research topic is not excluded from the Intro. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying, but maybe others do.   Will Beback    talk    23:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point !!! I am collecting evidence that it is actually often the case. I am convinced that many editors, if they go through this talk page, will understand what I am talking about in this thread. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is where it says that a summary in the main article is usually longer than the Intro of the detail article: Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the material in the guideline, thanks. What I don't understand is why there is so much discussion of research on this page in the past weeks. None of it seems productive or edit-centered. In any case, please don't say that I agree or disagree with your interpretation of whatever the issue here is unless I say so myself.   Will Beback    talk    23:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that to achieve a consensus, we have to check if we agree on a given interpretation. So, I was just trying to see if you agree or not with Olive's interpretation (not mine), which seems central in our discussion. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why a discussion on Research is important here?
I think that Will Beback asked a very important question. Some have suggested that we remove the isolated statement about Research in the Intro and that we have nothing about Research (and other topics) in the TM article. Others, consider that we must normally include Research in the summary. Among those that want to include Research, there is a disagreement on the notion of independent sources. Because we need to work together, we need to discuss all of that and achieve a consensus. That is why there is so much discussion about research on this page. It is crucial for the resolution of the current dispute. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this fixation on the the minimal research material. Let's just move forward with the editing and resolve disputes as they come up.   Will Beback    talk    04:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What edits do you have in mind? I propose that we move the three sections Theoretical concepts, Characterization and Marketing in the TMT detail article. We might not have yet a consensus whether or not these sections can be included back in the summary (in a summarized form), but I think that we all agree should all agree that they should be moved out since they are not a summary of anything. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No one disagrees with moving those sections. What that has to do with research I don't know.   Will Beback    talk    08:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Research from the TMT article
Tijfo suggests that we include a summary of the most reputable reviews from the TMT article. This seems the logical thing to do. This should be a general principle that we maintain over time. Perhaps, the situation will change in the TMT article, reviews will be added, some will be considered obsolete and removed, etc. We would simply keep adjusting the TM article to the situation in the TMT article. One might disapprove the current situation about Research in the TMT article or disapprove the way the general principle is going to be applied, but I cannot see why one would disapprove the general principle itself. (I have not yet looked at the current situation concerning research in the TMT article, but it does not matter - I think we should apply this general principle.) Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We have consensus on this talk page to include in this article only content that is summarized from its own article-suggestion #5. I don't see agreement to change that. Maybe I misunderstand the comment above.(olive (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
 * You did not express your concern explicitly, Olive, but from what I can guess, I would say that you have a good point! We should not directly summarize the most reputable reviews, but only the content of the TMT article, which is itself sourced in part in these reviews. It is a subtle distinction, but if we want to respect the consensus around suggestion #5, this is what we must do. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also struck a sentence that could have been misinterpreted - of course, we will have to start from the TMT article to summarize it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment given the RfC we have agreement to include in this article only summaries form those topics which have their own articles. At this time that does not include the research. however there is also agreement to create an article on the TM research.(olive (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Is your concern here only that we should not have a complete section to summarize the research topic or any other topic without its own detail article? Of course, a summary of the research topic would have to be a part of the section that summarizes the detail TMT article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to suggestion #5 and the move of the three sections
As the previous thread implies, I believe that "discussion on Research is important" but, I propose that we move along with Will BeBack's last advice "we can resolve disputes as they come up." I disagree though with "no one disagrees with moving those sections". Doc James expressed a clear "oppose" to suggestion #5, explaining why he moved back these sections. SJ asked him what he suggests. I wrote "Let see what Doc James proposes", but he must be busy with other things - we did not hear from him about that. I also asked in the TMT article itself about moving these three sections, but all discussions stopped in the TMT article since Dec 3. So, I would not be comfortable with moving these three sections at this stage before we hear from others. I only meant that we should do it and don't see how someone can disagree. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.   Will Beback    talk    10:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I applaud in one way, but would not have done it myself. I feel that we should wait longer for this kind of moves and favor careful and in depth discussions toward consensus in talk pages. However, now that this is done, I will be happy to get a consensus around that move, even if we did not have it before. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Renewed or new consensus around a TM article with only summaries
It appears that hidden behind an apparent consensus around suggestion #5, there were different viewpoints on what should be the summaries. This can easily be documented with diffs. So, I suggest that we confirm or obtain a consensus around the following: we move the three sections Theoretical concepts, Characterizations and Marketing in the TMT article, but then avoid any turmoil, do not include Research, Characterizations, Theoretical concepts, Marketing and any similar topic "without their own detail article" back into the summaries. At the same time that I propose this, I am aware that a completely different understanding of suggestion #5 emerged later on: I will be happy to join a consensus around that too. I can also accept a proposal that we do not try to get a consensus on what should be the summaries, that is, we do not fix any specific constraint, just move on and resolve specific disputes as they come up. We just need to agree on one direction, the latter proposal being the default. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The summaries will be done in accordance with the guideline.
 * The TM article will contain only summaries of the three detail articles TM history, TM technique and TM movement together with its own Intro, References, External Links and Further Reading sections.
 * The three sections Theoretical concepts, Characterizations and Marketing are moved in the TMT article.
 * To quote olive from just two days ago, "". Fladrif (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I made some minimal change to my comment above, just changed the order - I was working on this before Fladrif's comment. It is not related to his comment. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

@Fladrif, I think it is useful to acknowledge the different viewpoints on what should be the summaries. Looking back at the discussions in the last Rfc, I realize that, indeed, there was most likely a consensus around the "no turmoil" approach, the "keep it as it is" approach of suggestion #1, but only after having moved out the Characterizations, Theoretic concepts and Marketing sections. Is that the case? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Edith.To clarify: Your second point is not in suggestion #5. The other two points are procedural points and are not explicitly related to the suggestions laid out in the RfC.(olive (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks for clarifying Olive. Perhaps we can all move on to the editing of the articles based on the suggestion £5 now? --BwB (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great ! Is any topic "without its own detail article" excluded from the summaries? Was this the point that I misunderstood before? Sorry, if I did misunderstood it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:lead violation
The following sentences violate WP:Lead. How do we proceed to respect it?
 * TM is one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched meditation techniques.   Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.

Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Half of the discussion on this page seems to be about that sentence on research. It's not the most pressing issue. Why do you keep bringnig it up? 19:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought a violation of WP:LEAD should be addressed. That's all. I thought it was helpful to bring this to the attention in the talk page. I agree there are other issues. We have to start somewhere. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's start somewhere else. If we're going to review the lead then let's review the whole thing, not a single sentence. However, the more logical thing would be to fix the summaries first. I had earlier suggested using the article intros as the basis for the summaries. Any opposition to that?   Will Beback    talk    19:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, after your previous comment, I had exactly the same thought with regard to WP:LEAD: we should not focus only on that particular sentence. Let see what others think. Why do you want to fix the article. Who said it must be fixed? Suggestion #1 was to "keep it as it is" and suggestion #5 was only slightly different, it was not about fixing the whole article, all the summaries. Are you sure that you respect consensus here? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you.   Will Beback    talk    01:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The main point is that I prefer that we move ahead with proposition #5. The rest are details. Let us see what others have to say. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the point of #5 was that we'd move the three section to TMT. What's left to do?   Will Beback    talk    03:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Will. The next obvious step is to clean up what we have in place. Some combination of the summary in place now and the intro from each article represented? Is that what you're suggesting, Will? Once we have a solid, neutral, cleanly written article, we can move on deal with any further additions. My thoughts anyway.(olive (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC))
 * This is a very general statement. Hard to disagree with it. I should have realized that fixing or cleaning the article does not mean that we will violate the consensus on suggestion #5. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Intros should be good summaries, so we can minimze the editing and inevitable disputes by simply using the intro of the subsidary articles as the summaries. A little editing would be necessary to reduce redundant material, especially in the first sentences, but it could be minimal. It'll also be easy to keep the articles synchronized - changes to the child article intros can just be mirrored here.
 * There are threads at Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique and Talk:History of Transcendental Meditation regarding improvements to those intros. I suggest it might productive to fix those first, then copy them here, then re-write this intro as a top-level summary. Does that make sense?   Will Beback    talk    11:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying now to understand Olive's explanation of the consensus on suggestion #5:
 * I'm sorry I don't know how else to explain. The TM article can have a summary about TM technique because we have a TM technique article, but not a summary about TM characterizations because we don't have an article on TM characterization. (olive (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC))
 * TM characterizations is used as an example here by Olive. She says the same thing about the research topic. Doesn't the Intro include a summary of Research, Characterizations, etc. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro need to be rewritten, but a lot of work needs to be done elsewhere too. I'm suggesting fixing the foundations first. Or, as a wise man used to say, "water the root to get the fruit".   Will Beback    talk    12:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the quote is "Water the root to enjoy the fruit". --BwB (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if we place it in its context, the "root" is whatever is within our brain or obtained through it that allows us to take decisions that are moral, useful, etc. I am not sure that Intros of articles fit that description.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While minimizing discussion seems a good idea, throwing out the summaries in place now doesn't. I'd like to see a combination of intro and present summary. I'm very busyt today but will draft a version tomorrow and post it here so everyone can look at it if that's ok.(olive (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Not only OK, but thank you for all the work. I think it is a good way to proceed ahead. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the two of the intros are being re-written, any work synthesizing summaries based upon them will become obsolete quickly.   Will Beback    talk    23:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I understand you to say we should use the intros to create the summaries? Is there a difference between using those very same intros, and combining them with the content now in the summaries. Same intros. Different use. Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying. And sorry, but I don't think your reason holds water. Articles are always being changed. I'll draft a version and of it changes the summary can be changed. We could be waiting around a long time for an article on Wikipedia in this area to remain unchanged.(olive (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC))
 * I've responded with an example below.   Will Beback    talk    09:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Independently done systematic reviews

 * ''While some independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits ...others have found that the practice of Transcendental Meditation leads to lower blood pressure, decreased propensity towards addiction, and improved academic performance.

This is newly added material. I'm still tracking down some of these papers, which have incomplete citations, but the first one listed, is certainly not independently done. The authors are Robert H. Schneider, Charles N. Alexander, Frank Staggers, Maxwell Rainforth, John W. Salerno, Arthur Hartz, Stephen Arndt, Vernon A. Barnes, and Sanford I. Nidich. Most or all of those people are closely connected with TM. I am going to revert this addition on the assumption that the editor didn't know what is meant by "independently done systematic reviews". The material may be worth adding to the new TMR article if it complies with MEDRS.  Will Beback   talk    22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're going to remove reliably sourced content?


 * This topic (independent) has come up again and again. Lets define "independently" done. And lets look at MEDRS. We are giving an overview of TM research not stating these are supporting studies for health benefits. The sentence in place before this was added is one that I have raised concerns about in the past, but always discussion was deflected elsewhere so we never quite got to it. It seems we have to deal with it now.

There are many reviews on TM.


 * So seems the discussion we have at hand has to deal with:


 * Defining independent.
 * MEDRS as per the lead.
 * Dealing with the content of the sentence previously in place if necessary


 * This is the area I was in the process of filing a mediation for...Maybe we need help with this since these three points come up over and over with no resolution in sight.(olive (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC))


 * We could move it into a different sentence that contrasts independently done reviews with reviews conducted by TM researchers. But right now, the material mis-summarizes the sources by mislabeling them as independent. I found this:
 * Alexander CN, Robinson P, Rainforth MV. Treating and preventing alcohol, nicotine, and drug abuse through Transcendental Meditation: a review and statistical meta-analysis. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 1994 11(1/2):13-87
 * Obviously, that isn't an independent review.   Will Beback    talk    23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nidich, S.I. et al. School effectiveness: Achievement gains at the Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment. Education 107: 49-54, 1986.
 * Nidich, S.I. and Nidich, R.J. Increased academic achievement at Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment: A replication study. Education 109: 302-304, 1989.
 * These aren't independent and they don't even appear to be reviews. They are not included int he text of the article, so they do not belong in the intro. I suggest moving this discussion to the TMR talk page, where we can consider adding some of this material to that article.   Will Beback    talk    00:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeing no other comments, I'll move this material and discussion to the TMR talk page.   Will Beback    talk    04:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Transcendental Meditation research.   Will Beback    talk    05:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Its probably a good idea to give others chance to respond. I'll continue the discussion on the concerns I have here. If Will wants to have another discussion ongoing on the TM research page that would be fine with me. I'll be able to comment later tomorrow.(olive (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC))
 * It seems logical to discuss research on the research talk page, but if you have a different perspective I'd be happy to hear it. I've invited the editor who added this to respond, but I'm not holding my breath.   Will Beback    talk    05:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bone of contention

 * Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. 

This text has been a bone of contention. With the reorganization of the article we no longer devote as much space to research, so this is more detail than we need here. I've moved it to the intro of the TMR. That's the logical place to thrash it out further. I've replaced with text based on the compromise language proposed by TimidGuy: The whole intro will need to be re-written soon, so this is just a stopgap.  Will Beback   talk    06:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The scientific research has been of uneven rigor and quality.
 * Yes this covers it succinctly The first line covers it more succinctly. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. Was this intentional?   Will Beback    talk    09:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I meant that the line above is a good summation of the research. Not sure why it was removed.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain my reasoning. I moved the first line to the Transcendental Meditation research intro and used briefer language, the second line, here. I'd thought that other editors would appreciate that but if no one prefers this we can undo the edits.   Will Beback    talk    09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) if we think it is too long we could remove "and among the most widely researched meditation techniques" The volume of research does not matter as much as the conclusions of said research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Widely researched" is a frequent assertion which appears in good sources. While we might argue about quantity versus quality, the quantity is an often-noted characteristic. Quality less so, but still significant.
 * Anyway, if no one endorses this change I'll revert my edits to both articles.    Will Beback    talk    11:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with leaving it in but if we all feel we need to cut stuff out there are many things that we should trim before the conclusions of a Cochrane review regarding the foundations of TM. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be so. You haven't been active on this page recently so you may have missed some of the recent threads. I believe there's no major opposition to reworking this topic from the ground up, so to speak, by improving the sub-topic intros (especially TM research and TM history), then using those intros as the summaries here. The final step, presumably, would be to re-write this intro as a top-level summary. If we follow that plan then we'll be back here soon enough to discuss the intro. That's why I said that I was making a stopgap edit. No big deal. If it's not an improvement we can go back to what we had before.   Will Beback    talk    11:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "foundation of TM"? I'm not sure what that means. At any rate, I'm not so comfortable with an edit made that unilaterally reverts another edit made with discussion. I'd suggest that if an editor is  not part of a discussion that rather than trump the discussion of other editors with his own individual opinion he might comment and discuss first. Will's version was a compromised version of a sentence that is contentious. What Doc has readded misrepresents the sources, it ignores reviews and meta-anlayses that say the opposite, it ignores all of the research that uses comparators other than relaxation and health education, etc. It also selectively references just 3 of the 14 research reviews that are included in the article, and in general compromises the accuracy of the article. We need to deal with this sentence. We can't just ignore that kind of blatant inaccuracy(olive (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC))
 * The "independently done" sentence has been discussed extensively, and my edit was not, so if anything reverting back to the old version is more appropriate.    Will Beback    talk    01:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. If that were the case, then any time no matter the discussion another editor can come in ignore the discussion and whatever progress has been made towards collaboration and compromise and undo the time and efforts of other editors. How does that respect both those editors and that process. I won't revert Doc but I would ask him to consider what I'm saying.(olive (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Olive, what discussion are you referring to? Where did we agree to the text I added? I don't see anyone endorsing my bold edit. You certainly didn't. The fact that it was reverted is part of BRD. I made the bold edit without prior discussion, Doc James reverted it, now we're discussing. Standard operating procedure.   Will Beback    talk    04:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you're right. We didn't discuss this as a  particular way of dealing with a long-held, contentious sentence.  You made the edit and we moved immediately to another talk page. I assumed my lack of complaint and willingness to move on would be seen as agreement. If this was a first instance of this  editor making edits no matter the discussion, I'd think less of it, but its  not. However, lets move on. The sentence is a concern, and we will have to deal with it at some point soon. (olive (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
 * P.S. On a contentious article after an arbitration that cautioned all editors to behave in ways that are considered collaborative, I wonder how much WP:BOLD we should be practising.(olive (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

(undent)If people wish to suggest changes to the medical aspect of the article we should return back to a structured RfC similar to what we went through to generate the current summary of the literature. If someone does this they should also alert all the previous people who commented. I do not wish to read through everything here on an ongoing basis as much of it is unpleasant. Content is not to be decided by "the last person standing" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

@James: I really don't understand what you're saying in some ways, but this I know. If you want to make substantial edits to a contentious article please take part in the discussion before you make those edits. Nobody likes to hash through each sentence word by word trying to find agreement. Sure its easier to just write your own version, insert it and walk away. We all would like to do that. But that's just not the way collaboration works. I really think that we can come to agreements/compromises on this material as long as no one short circuits the process of discussion. I realize that as an emergency doc you make unilateral decisions all of the time in order to save lives, and with little or no time to discuss things. This has to be more collaborative, and there is no rush or urgency. Anyway. I respect your background and the way you have to operate in your profession. Maybe give this a thought. I've suggested mediations recently as a way to work though this sentence and the research. We've already had an RfC on it which was cut short.(olive (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Olive, the text has been in the article for over four months, following an RfC, IIRC, and there's been plenty of discussion since then. I don't see how you can say Doc James added it without discussion. I was the one who acted unilaterally without discussion (AKA bold editing). As is permissible in such cases, another editor reverted. so we're back to the stable text we've had since August. Can't we move past this already? This is getting to be tendentious.    Will Beback    talk    07:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No. It isn't tendentious to make sure an article properly represents the sources, and if you want to look at those RfC's closely I'll be happy to. In the meantime, I'm also happy as I said above, to move on. We'll be back here dealing with the intro and we can deal with any concerns  then, since that seems to be preferred. Per the arbitration, and of course per Wikipedia we have to make  sure  sources are properly represented, and again I support doing that in a DR forum whether an RfC as James suggested, although that seems repetitive, or as a mediation, unless we can come to some sort of agreed on conclusion.  I feel that the issue of this sentence has been repeatedly sidestepped, and I do wonder why. (olive (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Why was this changed?   Will Beback    talk    19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored this much-discussed version pending a consensus for change.   Will Beback    talk    19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are you saying there is a long standing version for a new section/summary in a newly designed article which is supposed to summarizes content in the lead of the parent article per your discussion points. And why did you revert to content that does not accurately reflect the sources. I compromised on the content that was in place revising it for accuracy and using only some of the content in the lead of the mother article. I can also just use the content in the lead in the research article if that is more suitable. Let me know what you prefer. At the moment your comment and editing action seem inexplicable.(olive (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
 * This thread is on the lead not the research section. So now we have duplicate content in the lead and in the research section. Bewildering action.(olive (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC))


 * I will revert this once. Accurate sourcing is imperative and you seem to have misunderstood the thread. Let me know if I have this wrong. I can also revert myself if I do.(olive (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC))


 * We'd all agreed that these summaries would simply be copies of the intros of the sub-articles. You first added the partial into from the research article, which contained the discussed sentence, then you edited the sentence to alter it. I believe that's what happened. I suggest we copy in the complete and exact copy of the research article intro. If folks want to make changes to it, they should change it there first, then copy the changes back here.
 * I think it's a bit disingenuous to say this thread is on the lead. It's on the text in question, and your edit changed that text. The lead should summarize the contents of this article, which is now four intros. Each section should get roughly a paragraph in the lead (though we may need to shorten that if we add more summaries).   Will Beback    talk    20:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What I'll do is copy some of the text editing you did to the middle section over to the research article, then copy back that entire intro. If you'd like to suggest changes to that text, the research talk page would be the best place.  Will Beback   talk    20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll assume my understanding is different than yours. The sentence under discussion is from the lead of this article, and has only been long used in that context, and not in the newly-formed-last-night, research section. I do see though where we misunderstood each other. As well, I didn't agree to freezing sections of this article based on an intro of another article. My sense was that we could use the intros to start with, but some only-applied-on-the-TM articles rule is  not a good idea, and I can't agree to that. What I did in this article  was obvious. I simply moved content over to this article. I then checked  refs and once again was struck by the inaccuracies of what we are saying, and saying in three articles, and twice in this one. That's absurd. I attempted to clarify slightly. I note the content after the edits I made is still  not accurate per the sources. But I felt I'd gone as far as I could in terms of specificity of content in the source. What is starting to really concern me is that not only is there support for misrepresentations of the sources and so the research, but that there is a concerted effort to have the identical material appear in three articles and to be repeated twice in one. I attempted to change that while staying close to the original sentence and even quoting to make sure there could be no concerns about complete accuracy of the language in that part of the contentious sentence. Even that was reverted. I'm out of solutions, and whatever I try is reverted back to this one inaccurate and misleading sentence.(olive (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Three articles? I only know of two: this and the research article. Of course material will be duplicated between these summaries and the child articles. That's what we agreed to.
 * There is no agreement that this sentence misrepresents sources. We've discussed it ad nauseum for months. To change it, yet again, without further discussion is unhelpful.
 * As for the introduction of this article, we need to keep revising it as new material is added, just like any article. Since we have this sentence in the text, it may be included in the intro, or not. I suggest starting a fresh thread about changes to the intro, if folks want to discuss that.   Will Beback    talk    23:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This sentence has been repeated four times in three articles. TM x2, TM technique x1, TM research x1.
 * I've never agreed to freeze articles so changes especially in favour of accurate representation of sources can be bypassed. By your standard an editor passing by, and coming to this article can't make changes to the summaries. I'm sorry if you thought I had agreed to that. I can't and won't. Unless this article is protected it has to be editable.
 * I didn't say "agreement" I said "support". Some editors have reverted to this single sentence several times. The sentence is inaccurate per the sources. Making the kinds of minimal changes I did for simple accuracy is not helpful? is it helpful to accurately represent the sources and to so while making as minimal changes as possible to attempt to compromise with the other editors here? We need to deal with this sentence specifically without burying it in yet another discussion of the lead.(olive (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Since the research material is no longer in the TM technique article, we can cut out the research material from that intro. Let's discuss it there.
 * Nobody suggested freezing anything. The plan has been to use the intros of the child articles as the summaries for this article. If someone makes a good change to the summary then we could add that back to the relevant intro. If it's not necessary there then it's not necessary here. Obviously, in some cases there may need to be some slight editing to minimize duplication.
 * If you'd like to change the wording of this much-discussed sentence, please get a consensus rather than changing it without comment.   Will Beback    talk    05:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The research is linked from the technique article, is an important aspect of the technique, needs a summary, and so also a mention in the lead of the technique. Deleting one repetition of content that misrepresents a source, impacts the least of the problems here.
 * The action you are suggesting in effect freezes this article. Who decides what is a "good" change. Apparently you do, since you removed my shorter more concise version of the intro, removing a more accurate reading of the sources. My simple change could hardly be considered contentious unless accurately representing sources while trying to respect the other editors editing is contentious. I note that while both you and Doc allow yourselves to create highly contentious edits as appropriate or bold, like forking off content and supporting that fork, other editors making much less contentious edits are being reprimanded or reverted by you. This is becoming  increasingly a concern magnified by the fact that in this case the edit you and Doc both revert to is both inaccurate per the sources, and inaccurate per the content on the TM research we have in the articles. The "plan" is your plan for the most part. While I am happy to go along with something that fairly represents the sources, I'm not happy to go along with a plan that as I can see now, doesn't, and which you control. I'm increasingly concerned by ownership issues on these articles. I intend to edit this content so that it is accurate per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and accurately represents the sources. How that is worded exactly is certainly open to discussion, but representing the sources accurately isn't. (olive (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Currently the text is accurate WRT the sources and makes changes that make the conclusions inaccurate will be reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, James the text isn't accurate and your above comment and a history of removing sourced content on the research and  to even  edit warring to keep in a misrepresentation of the sources,  indicates efforts to control aspects of these articles and how the research is represented no matter what. That's ownership and a concern.(olive (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC))


 * I don't see where anyone has shown that the sentence I question is inaccurate. Olive, can you point to that discussion?   Will Beback    talk    20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I had entered a version I said was accurate I would assume that in reverting you knew the studies, the research, and could point out where your version was accurate and mine wasn't. Any writer knowledgeable in writing a lead for content could see in a glance the lead on the research does not represent the content in the article. And yes that point was discussed but oddly before that discussion was ended I was removed from the discussion when Doc took me to an AE and I was sanctioned for making two reverts . Now in  that same time period you also made two reverts and Doc made 5 but interestingly enough I was sanctioned. If you'd like to discuss this sentence again, and its been discussed before we could certainly do that. Why don't I start another thread.(olive (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Olive, if you want to change this text please discuss it first and get consensus. Changing much-discussed text without doing so is unhelpful. Dredging up old disputes is also unhelpful. Let's stick to the talking about improvements to the article.    Will Beback    talk    21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your could try another RfC. The previous one supports the current text which is why you where reverted... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not why I was reverted. Do you see that in Will's edit summary? And an RfC where an uninvolved editor declares consensus before the RfC closes is not much of an RfC. You continue to bring this up, and my comment is the same every time. So probably no need to continue to say the same thing and we can agree to disagree. An RfC is fine with me as is a mediation.(olive (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Rather than rehashing what happened in August of last year, could we please discuss what is wrong with this text today?   Will Beback    talk    21:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as I'm dealing with editors who maintain a standard that applies to some but not others, and which standard existed in August and onward to now, I am forced to ask those editors in light of this history to reconsider their actions so we can move on. As long as as editors ask for proof of some action that took place in the past or who cite an old and poorly, lets say, tended RfC then there is an implication that the past is important. When the door is open for a straightforward appraisal  and writing of a source, then I'm happy to go with that. Those entering an edit in an article, when called on and the edit questioned per Wikipedia need to show how that edit is verifiable per the source. Can either you or James show how this one line fairly represents both the  Opsina/Ernst studies and through its implied language all of the TM research, and as well the research section of the three articles its been added to. If you can't and if this doesn't represent the sources your version can and should be removed. Consensus does not trump adding content that creates errors in this encyclopedia. But, yes, some of this is obvious but for the rest we can discuss below. I'm offline in a few minutes but will be happy take this up again tomorrow.(olive (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC))
 * It is outlined in the refs provided below. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Using intros for summaries

 * Intro from Transcendental Meditation movement


 * Current summary

As we can see, these are totally different. Both could be improved by combining them into one good summary. My suggestion is to take good material from the current summary and integrate it into the TMM intro, then copy that integrated summary back here. That means we have one summary of the TMM, instead of two different ones. the same for the other child articles. Doing so minimizes the editing of the most contentious sections of articles on a contentious topic. If we have two separate summaries, then we need to have two separate discussions, doubling the effort for no reason. Is there a good reason why the summary here should be substantially different from the intro of the artuicle itself, other than a little redundant context info?  Will Beback   talk    09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No the intros should be ostensibly the same. --BwB (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The two should be synchronized, but I don't think it matters how that's done. To start it would be fine to create one summary/lead and add it to both the lead of the daughter article and the summary article of the parent article, then allow it to expand from there as needed.(olive (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

Here's a version: Kind of bare bones. How is this? Too short, too long, not enough information. I'm not attached in anyway. Just seeing what everyone has in mind by posting something. I feel this is approachable for anyone wanting a little information. All of the trademark/tax stuff seems like too much detail and what the casual reader who only goes as far as the lead or a summary will get bogged down in. Comments needed and welcome.(olive (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

First draft intro/summaryTranscendental Meditation movement:

I did take out "Neoplastic ... " whatever that was... if one source makes a comment I don't think it belongs in a lead...but again open to comments/suggestions.(olive (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure what is being proposed. If this is also suppose to be the intro of the TMM article then let's discuss it on that talk page instead of here.   Will Beback    talk    08:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've copied the main parts of the drafting thread to Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement. I hope that's acceptable. Let's discuss it there and then copy the finished product into this article.   Will Beback    talk    12:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: following further discussion on that page the intro was revised and also posted to this article as a summary.   Will Beback    talk    21:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bone of contention 2

 * Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. 

I don't see any obvious inaccuracies in this text. It appears to be a correct, neutral summary of relevant sources.  Will Beback   talk    21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes agree. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks you've made your positions clear.(olive (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Which parts are inaccurate, in your opinion?   Will Beback    talk    21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this no longer a concern? Can we mark this as resolved?   Will Beback    talk    19:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We've been through this multiple times in discussion and in an RfC.(olive (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Olive, you started this thread and said "But, yes, some of this is obvious but for the rest we can discuss below. I'm offline in a few minutes but will be happy take this up again tomorrow.(olive (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC))"
 * Are you no longer willing to discuss this? The sentence is only 16 words long. Is it too much trouble to say which of those words is inaccurate?   Will Beback    talk    20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a point where ongoing circular discussion is no longer a useful way to deal with some issues, and outside assistance is useful. This discussion started before the RfC on this same sentence months ago. There is no good reason to now not ask for help in dealing with this dispute. I'm out of the energy required to argue this further with the same arguments, and points. lets seeif we can have an outside make this easier for all of us. Thanks.(olive (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Mediation
I will be requesting formal mediation to deal with the above sentence, and have left notices on the talk pages of the most active editors on the TM articles. There is no intention to leave out anyone who might wish to join the discussions. Just add your name to the list of involved editors once I post the request. Thanks.(olive (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
 * I think a RfC would be best but your call as you are the one attempting to change consensus. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually per your talk page comment Mediations are meant to deal with content issues. We've had one RfC on this topic that was abandoned before there was consensus. I would assume that anyone really wanting to deal with this content fairly would welcome a mediator on the page helping us come to some conclusion after months of going around in circles on this.(olive (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Currently we have accurate content regarding the state of the research. Unless a new independent review is put forth I am not sure how this will change anything. But what you wish... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

History summary
I've moved content from the intro of the history article per discussion here. Also as per summary style I've moved a little content that was very specific. The section though is still long. I will shorten the section with some syntax changes while not removing sources.(olive (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC))


 * James. Your edit is disruptive. The article per standard writing style should line up per arrangement of information in the lead. You have reverted with no explanation per Wikipedia . Your personal opinion is not a reason to abandon a logical style that makes reading and understanding easy for the reader. Please revert in consideration of a more standard format. (olive (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC))
 * If you have a reason for your move beyond an opinion, and that I'm not aware of please let me know. This should be discussed here before anything further is done.(olive (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

This history section applies to both the TMM and TMT thus for this reason should go first. The movement should probably be second and the technique after that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a legitimate point in my opinion, but I don't think it trumps what is in the lead and a logical progression from the lead to the arrangement of the content. Maybe more input would be good and maybe outside input. It would be interesting to see how the community would see this, for further reference. Thanks for your response.(olive (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Olive, thanks for moving over the History intro as a summary. I hadn't done it earlier because that intro needs revising, but what you did is a good stop-gap. Also, because that intro will be re-written sometime soon, there's no point in arguing over the contents too much, as long as it's basically correct.
 * As for the arrangement, many articles place history sections first. That's the standard arrangement in articles on cities and colleges, for example. When those sections are very long they can be a little difficult for readers to get past, but this section is short so that's not a problem.   Will Beback    talk    21:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * With a technique, I think it is a problem, actually. Readers are generally looking for information about a technique itself, what it is, how to do it, before they want to know about its history, as in the CPR article. I don't think university and city articles are comparable. At the same time I'm sure we could dig up "technique articles" where the history precedes information on the technique.  Since there doesn't seem to be a definitive way of organizing such articles,  it makes sense to go with a standard writing practice, that is, to organize the article per the lead. My opinion.(olive (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
 * It's also a movement, so if we're looking for precedents we'd need to look at other "movement articles" as well.   Will Beback    talk    05:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Its a movement and technique article, and I can't think of any other article/topic like that. My first thought would be to explain clearly technique and movement before going into anything else, But I'm sure there are other sensible arguments. I think this is a very good situation for an RfC se we can see what the outside-of-the article community thinks. I did think of a Notice Board but can't think of one that would really satisfy. This is an easy, more of a stylistic issue than anything although ease of reader experience is an issue too.(olive (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Before we resort to RfCs or noticeboard requests, perhaps we could take another stab at resolving this here. If I understand your point, and perhaps I don't, the article should follow the same structure as the intro. However I believe the general rule is the opposite: the intro should summarize the article. Is there another reason for placing the history section last?   Will Beback    talk    19:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The intro lays out information summarized of, first the technique, then the movement, then the history, and finally the research. That is one way to order the content in the article proper. I am discussing an organizational point. Sure I'm happy to discuss this further here although outside help might be helpful. By the way I never suggested the history section should be last(olive (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
 * So? We can change the intro. Regarding the CPR article, I don't see any discussion of the structure on the talk pages, so it may have ended up like that without any conscious decision. It'd be more helpful to have an example where editors agreed that the history should go in a later position. An article that is comparable in some respects is Scientology. The history section is first in that article.     Will Beback    talk    21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAD "The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject." TM supposedly refers to technique and movement.That should be in the first sentence. Are you suggesting describing the history before defining what the article is about?(olive (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
 * That's true for all articles, even those about colleges and cities. Yet those articles put the history sections first. Therefore WP:LEAD does not appear to determine how the rest of an article is organized.   Will Beback    talk    21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion is starting to go around in circles. That is the way wikipedia articles are written and a standard way of writing articles is to follow the way content is alid out in introductions. As I said this is one way of writing the article. So far I don't see any argument that would definitively defend one kind of organization over another, and I do see a discussion that is going around in circles. This is a stalemate and so I suggest having someone outside add a voice to the discussion. Why not?(olive (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Are you saying that all of the city and college articles are mis-organized because their layout does not conform to their first sentences? I don't think that makes sense. WP:LEAD describes how to organize the first section of an article, not how to organize the rest of the article. I don't see anything there which says that the intro's organization should reflect the article's, or vice versa.   Will Beback    talk    22:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see that I said anything about Cities and colleges, do you? I made a simple technical suggestion based on good writing practices and clearly stated that there may good arguments for both sides of this discussion. A certain amount of common sense comes into play here. What serves the reader best? The reader should be told first what TM means and or references, and then what the technique and movement are before he /she is faced with a lot of more obscure information on how different sources describe the history of both or either.(olive (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry if I made too many logical conclusions for you to follow, or maybe I didn't follow your logical conclusions. WP:LEAD applies to all articles, including city and college articles. I understood you to mean that since WP:LEAD says that article intros should start with "what (or who) is the subject" therefore the main text of the article should also start by describing the who or what, rather than with the history. Yet, many articles, including all cities and colleges, place the history first. So either they are in violation of guidelines, or there is a failure in logic. I don't think WP:LEAD is useful for telling us where the history section should go. If I've made a mistake or mischaracterized your logic then please correct me.    Will Beback    talk    08:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to me to be logical and in the best interests of the reader to have the subject described and identified first and then the history could come later. I also think it makes sense to have the lead be a summary of the article and to proceed in the same order as the body of the article. Thereby providing the reader with a sense of continuity and flow.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We describe the subject in the intro, so readers are not coming to the body of the article unaware of the topic.   Will Beback    talk    20:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref needed
This needs a ref "Research reviews and medical textbooks say that the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) is the most studied form of meditation, and that it has specific effects on human physiology. These reviews and textbooks differ with regard to their assessment of research quality and on the results of practicing TM. Research reviews say that more research is needed to firmly establish the effects on mental and physical health." Especially since research review that are independent say it does not have a significant effect beyond other health measures. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That section is just a copy of the intro at Transcendental Meditation research. It should be referenced somewhere in the text of that article. The intro is woefully incomplete and probably needs a complete rewrite to properly summarize the article.   Will Beback    talk    22:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is unreferenced on that page aswell and removed that section to talk there. We can continue discussion on that talk page if you wish. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That'd probably be best. Once it's hashed out there and the intro to the TM research articles is fixed, then it can be copied back here.   Will Beback    talk    22:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with WBB, best to work it out on the other article first, then proceed here.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We use this ref
"Beginning in the 1990s, a focus of research has been the effects of Transcendental Meditation on cardiovascular disease, with over $20 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health."

It also goes on to say

"'Will family doctors really feel comfortable referring patients with high blood pressure to the nearest Transcendental Meditation clinic - where they will be asked to write a $2,500 check?'." The cost should be somewhere in the article... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your choice James in terms of talk page deletion. You're the admin you'll know how it should be done.(olive (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC))


 * And content on the price of admission is in the technique article and is linked from here.(olive (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Yes which is why I removed this, than stuck it out when you restored it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh...That's not what you said in the edit summary. (olive (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

logo size
This is mostly an aesthetics issue, and I understand the restrictions on non-free logos, but would it be possible to get a somewhat larger low-res image here? I unconsciously expect the main image on a page to be 2 to 3 times as large as this one, and it looks funny to me as is.

If someone can point me to the original source, I'm happy to make a larger (but still low-res) image and replace this one. -- Ludwigs 2 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on every page of the TM.org site, except the home page. But you can find it here, for instance. I haven't seen a larger version anywhere.   Will Beback    talk    00:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * weird, there doesn't seem to be a decent sized version of this anywhere, though there does seem to be a large number of images of attractive women meditating. I wonder if that's an actual bias in the demographic (the women part, not the attractive part) or just an advertising thing...  I'll keep looking for a better image, though. -- Ludwigs 2  02:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dare to speculate on how those pictures are chosen. We looked around for better illustrations before. It pretty much comes down to someone sitting with their eyes closed, which isn't especially informative. Regarding the logo, it's based on a diagram that is used frequently to explain the process of meditation so at least there's an actual connection to the practice, but since no one has ever connected them in a source so we can't so say in the article.
 * Maybe we could make the logo seem larger by putting a frame around it.   Will Beback    talk    03:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the policy on taking logos from web pages? Do we have permission for this logo?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Logos are used under the fair use exemption.   Will Beback    talk    23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 03:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Order of text in research section?
I thought to reorder the text in the "research" section, putting the earlier dated material first, but then thought maybe better the way it was. What do people think? --BwB (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:DUE we should put the best stuff first. This is not about the history of research per say. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The guideline we should be following here is WP:LEAD, since these paragraphs simply replicate the lead of the TM research article. You may recall that we discussed this on the TM research article Talk page. Here's what was said but not addressed:
 * "We should adhere to WP:LEAD: 'the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.' Why is TM research notable? Because one meta-analysis of 5 studies found no difference compared to health education, and one review that looked at 1980 study found no difference compared to relaxation? No, it's notable because there has been 40 years of research, with findings in many different areas of research, findings that have been widely reported in the mainstream media, in research reviews, and in medical books. The consensus among all of these is that TM has beneficial effects. Even Ospina said that it lowers blood pressure, and even Cochrance 2006 found that it reduces anxiety. TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)"
 * "DJ is naturally concerned, as an MD, with finding and bringing to the fore the highest quality and most relevant research findings. He has contributed some very useful information on these pages. However, the beginning section of this article is in clear violation of the Wiki policies and guidelines on writing articles and should be adjusted immediately. In addition to WP:LEAD, Wiki “Writing Better Articles” and “Article Development” both state that articles must begin with an intro or lead that gives an overview of the topic. As is stated in the latter, “Remember that, although you will be familiar with the subject you are writing about, readers of Wikipedia may not be, so it is important to establish the context of your article’s subject early on.” Let’s get a little more reader-friendly here. Early morning person (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)"
 * "The lead needs to be rewritten entirely.  Will Beback    talk    20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)"
 * Will says it needs to be rewritten entirely. I'd be eager to hear what he has in mind. Maybe we could move this discussion to the research Talk page and begin the work of entirely rewriting the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

NYT: "Look Who’s Meditating Now"
There's a big new article on TM in the New York Times: "Look Who’s Meditating Now", IRINA ALEKSANDER March 18, 2011. I'm sure we can add material from it to more than one article.  Will Beback   talk    11:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Lowe article
Nova Religio, a peer-reviewed journal, has published a lengthy article on the philosophical underpinnings of TM. Material in that article is relevant to many TM-related articles, including the MMY biography. I've only scanned it so far, but I'll start to read it more closely and to add appropriate text sourced to it.  Will Beback   talk    11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Transcendental Meditation, Vedic Science and Science" Scott Lowe; Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 14, No. 4 (May 2011), pp. 54-76

Sentence added to opening section
I have added a sentence to the first paragraph of the Research section. It summarizes in brief the substantial number of reliably-sources that report health benefits in Transcendental Meditation practitioners. This sentence is supported by 10 independent research reviews (three of them systematic), an independent meta-analysis and two medical textbooks, all of which are currently in the Transcendental Meditation Research article. I have cited 5 of these 13 sources to avoid cluttering the page, but I would be happy to cite the remaining 8 sources if needed. Here is a list of the 13 refs I refer to: Early morning person (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

List of 12 refs
Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Source Summary

NPOV issues in lead
Related to the above two threads (also being discussed in the TM research article) and other issues in the lead, I've added an NPOV tag to the article. Here's a summary of the issues that need to be resolved:


 * The statement in the lead regarding research excludes the fact that there are research reviews that have found health benefits and other effects beyond relaxation or health education
 * The characterization of TM as pseudoscience excludes the view that the research on TM is widely recognized as being scientific and that there are many studies in top medical and science journals, etc.
 * The characterization of TM as a religion excludes the view that it's not a religion TimidGuy (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you propose?   Will Beback    talk    10:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To start with, I propose that we reinstate the sentence added by EMP, that we rewrite the lead of the TM research article so that it accurately reflects the article's content (as you yourself said should be done). Then we can remove the tag on that article and consider the first point above resolved. TimidGuy (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are three points. What about the other two?   Will Beback    talk    11:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The previous content was NOT supported by the references added. Thus was removed. We specifically state "systematic review" "literature reviews" are of lower quality as they frequently just parrot the conclusions of primary research. We use them if systematic review or meta analysis are not available. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To be nit picky but accurate. TM is neither science nor pseudoscience, its a meditation technique. There has been research done on the technique.(olive (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC))


 * We should stay on topic but one should not confuse what a 'thing' is and how a thing is characterized.(olive (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC))
 * TM is a meditation technique. --BweeB (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "TM" covers a meditation technique, a movement, and a philosophy (SCI). As Bigweeboy recently wrote on another page, "we simply use the text from reliable sources."   Will Beback    talk    21:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, my proposal was that we deal with the first point first, and once that's resolved move on to the next two. Of course, if you wanted to go ahead and revise the lead to address the other issues, feel free. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This thread raised three issues at once, not one. I try to avoid research topics - so dreary. Please let me know what your thoughts are on the other two issues so I can perhaps work on those.   Will Beback    talk    12:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The best quality research has not found health benefits beyond health education. We have gone over this many times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of point one

 * This is a discussion that should include all parties interested. We can deal with the issues point by point so all parties are clear on what is being discussed and issues are not confused. Alternately, as suggested, a rewrite of the lead could be posted. Further, Since TG is raising these concerns and has asked we deal with his points one at a time lets respect that request and the editor, and do so. Thanks(olive (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC))


 * To start with, I propose that we reinstate the sentence added by EMP, that we rewrite the lead of the TM research article so that it accurately reflects the article's content (as you yourself said should be done). Then we can remove the tag on that article and consider the first point above resolved.

repost/copy from above:(Jmh649/Doc James)

''The previous content was NOT supported by the references added. Thus was removed. We specifically state "systematic review" "literature reviews" are of lower quality as they frequently just parrot the conclusions of primary research. We use them if systematic review or meta analysis are not available.'' Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The best quality research has not found health benefits beyond health education. We have gone over this many times. With respect to EMPs edits I continue to WP:AGF Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Doc, that is an opinion not shared by other editors. I suspect they also are assuming good faith in continuing to discuss the matter with you. Lets continue with a reasoned discussion. EMP has made some strong points. TG has as well. They need to be addressed and discussed.(olive (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Changes
"Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits resulting from TM practice."

What we currently have does not say TM does not have a measurable benefit just that it is no greater than health education. Thus removed this addition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Valid point. I think you mean no greater than health education or relaxation, which is what the lead sentence in the research section of this article states, and what I am responding to in adding this sentence. However, four of the studies cited in the sentence just added do in fact compare TM to either health education (most of them) or relaxation. Ref 1 (Vogel et al) uses health ed. as their control; Ref 2 (Paradies) uses relaxation; Ref 4 (Fekete et al) uses both health ed. and relaxation; and Ref 5 (Olivo), uses relaxation.
 * Same thing for four more reviews in the list of 13 embedded on this page (see List of 13 refs immediately above), which I could also cite: Ref 6 (Pratt et al, Epel et al, Hassed) use health ed. as their control; Ref 7 (Black et al) uses health ed.; Ref 8 (Sibinga & Kemper) uses health ed; Ref 12 (Ospina et al) uses relaxation. All of this control group and comparison information is also mentioned in the Transcendental Meditation Research article, under Health outcomes.Early morning person (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Early morning person (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Early morning person (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Early morning person (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to call a number of non systematic reviews systematic. Please list a systematic review here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Paradies and Black both systematic. Black is in updated list. See full explanation on talk page of Transcendental Meditation Research. Early morning person (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Further disc'n of point one/proposal
Sorry for the delay in responding to this. Please note that the four refs that I was citing includes not only two systematic reviews, but also a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and a medical textbook. All of these rank as “high-quality evidence” according to WP: MEDRS (see 2nd para of “Assessing Evidence Quality” here ). Therefore, I trust there will be no objection to my adding a sentence in this article, in the 3rd para of the opening section, following the 2nd sentence, “Independent systematic reviews. . . “

Proposed sentence: “Other studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) have reported that the technique has a range of health benefits.”

My refs:

1) Medical textbook: John Vogel, Rebecca Costello, and Mitchell Krucoff, Chapter 47 in Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, Peter Libbie, et al, eds, Saunders Elsevier, 2007, p. 1157. Quotation: “TM has been shown not only to improve blood pressure but also the insulin resistance components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiac autonomic nervous system tone.”

2)Systematic review: Black DS, Milam J, Sussman S (August 2009). "Sitting-Meditation Interventions Among Youth: A Review of Treatment Efficacy". Pediatrics/American Academy of Pediatrics 124 (3): e536. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-3434. Quotation: “TM group decreased from before to after test in SBP (systolic blood pressure), HR (heart rate) and CO (cardiac output) during acute stress simulation, and in SBP to a social stressor compared to controls . . . . “ “Study design: RCT: TM (n=17) vs health education control (n=18)” ; “TM group increased EDAD compared to controls, indicating improved endothelial function.” “Study design: RCT: TM (n=57) vs health education control (n=54)”

3) Systematic review: Paradies, Yin. "A Review of Psychosocial Stress and Chronic Disease for 4th World Indigenous Peoples and African Americans": Ethnicity and Disease 16: 295, 302, 305. (Winter 2006) Retrieved March 31, 2011. Quotation: “In general, TM was more effective that PMR (progressive muscle relaxation) in an eight-year follow-up of 530 African American participants which found a 63% reduction in all-cause mortality and an 82% reduction in heart disease mortality in the intervention group compared to the control groups.”

4) Meta-analysis of RCT's: Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, et al. (June 2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 148. . Quotation: "When compared to PMR (progressive muscle relaxation), TM® produced significantly greater benefits in SBP (systolic blood pressure) and DBP (diastolic blood pressure)."

Re: the quotation in the Black et al systematic review: you must actually go the page e536 to see this quotation. You cannot get it by performing an automated search, because it is on a page of condensed information which is apparently not searchable. Nevertheless, it is obviously an integral part of this article, as indicated by the fact that it assigned a page number! Early morning person (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a "pseudoscience
Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a "pseudoscience". 
 * Boa, Kenneth, Cults, World Religions and the Occult, David C. Cook, 1990 ISBN 0896938239, 9780896938236 p. 204
 * Carlson, Ron, Decker, Ed, Fast Facts on False Teachings Harvest House Publishers, 2003 ISBN 0736912142, 9780736912143 p. 254
 * Hexham, Irving, Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements, InterVarsity Press, 2002 ISBN 0830814663, 9780830814664 p. 74
 * Marvizon, Juan Carlos "Meditation", Shermer, Michael (ed)The Skeptic: Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience ABC-CLIO, 2002 ISBN 1576076539, 9781576076538 p 141
 * Nanda, Meera "Postmodernism, Hindu Nationalism and Vedic Science", Koertge, Noretta Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195172256, 9780195172256 p 232
 * Kinman, John M., Of One Mind:The Collectivization of Science Springer, 1995 ISBN 1563960656, 9781563960659 p 130
 * Hook, Ernest B, Prematurity in Scientific Discovery; On Resistance and Neglect University of California Press, 2002 ISBN 0520231066, 9780520231061 p 215
 * Becker, Carl B. Paranormal Experience and Survival of Death, SUNY Press, 1993 ISBN 0791414752, 9780791414750 p 1
 * Bainbridge, William Sims, Across the Secular Abyss: From Faith to Wisdom Lexington Books, 2007 ISBN 0739116789, 9780739116784 p 10
 * Stenger, Victor, Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness Prometheus Books, 2009 ISBN 1591027136, 9781591027133

I am not sure this warrants being in the lead. We don't mention skeptics or pseudoscience anywhere else on the page...On the TM technique, Movement, research and history pages...it is barely discussed at all. In light of this we should delete it from the lead due to its lack of presence in the article and subordinate articles.--Uncreated (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A) We've discussed this extensively in the past. Is there anything new to say?
 * B) Given the number and quality of sources, if we don't mention it in the text then we should.   Will Beback    talk    04:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL okay I can see there has been quite some discussion about this. What ever my 2 cents are worth at this point...it seems funny that a reader might come by the article and see the sentence in the lead...but then after 20 minutes of reading etc only then come to a sentence or two in the subordinate articles where skeptics describe the Science of Creative Intelligence and Vedic Science as Pseudoscience. It doesnt seem right to me at least that the spectrum of "TM" is painted with the brush of this one sentence in the lead...when in reality as far as I can see sceptics are labeling SCI and VS as a Pseudoscience not the entire field of "TM". In the lead of the TM technique article it says, "Skeptics question whether SCI is actually scientific." Maybe we should be using a similar softer sentence in the lead.--Uncreated (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SCI and VS are the underpinnings of TM. If I understand correctly, it's impossible to be initiated into TM nowadays without some training in SCI and VS. TM-Sidhi is a very important extension of TM. And so on. I really don't want to rehash the last two dozen threads on this. Everywhere I look there are TM-oriented editors proposing deleting unflattering material from the TM articles, or insisting on using poorly sourced defenses of the movement.    Will Beback    talk    18:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been nearly 40 years since I learned TM, but when I was taught, the level of SCI theory given could be summed up as: there is an infinite reservoir of creativity and intelligence at the basis of thought, TM allows one to gain rest and thereby reach that level, because the deepest level of rest IS that level, and that repeated practice of TM, alternated with daily activity will eventually create a situation where that reservoir is always available throughout daily activity because that level of rest has undone the stresses that prevent you from normally operating at that level in the first place. Sparaig2 (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS and literature reviews
Re: previous section: Although the Paradies review does not explicitly ID itself as a syst review, it has the main characteristic features of one. However, even if one doubts that it is systematic, it is certainly a high-quality general or literature review ( also referred to as a narrative review).

MEDRS does not relegate literature reviews to the status of “lesser quality evidence.” In fact, the opening statement in WP:MEDRS (the “This page in a nutshell” summary) states: “Ideal sources for biomedical material include general (literature) or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks. . . ”

Later, under “Assessing Evidence Quality,” here MEDRS adds:  “The best evidence comes from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation. Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs; other controlled studies. . .”

Again, the literature or narrative review is ranked at the highest level, and is considered helpful in establishing evidence quality. Early morning person (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The material in this article is just a summary of what is in the TM research article. The talk page of that article is where you should discuss it.   Will Beback    talk    19:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me useful to discuss it here too. It’s not as if I have dropped this from the blue. There has been substantial discussion of this issue on this talk page, and I am responding to specific points that have been made by Doc James here. So why not discuss it here? 99.240.168.179 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that we should not edit the material here first. It is and should remain a summary of the much more detailed material at the sub-article. I suggest just copying this and the thread above to that page.   Will Beback    talk    20:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Summarising Ospina and Krisanaprakornkit
This reflects the salient points from Ospina's structured abstract on page v:. The abstract mentions TM exactly once, saying "Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure." The abstract also presents, as its overall conclusion, that no firm conclusions can be drawn due to the studies' poor methodological quality. The summary of the anxiety review follows much the same line: "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety" (for further detail see the "Main results" and "Conclusions" in the structured abstract). -- J N  466  11:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As the current wording was decided by a RfC I would prefer to start another one to get consensus before changing from the current version. Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When was the RfC please, and would you have a link? -- J  N  466  19:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * . Never closed, no consensus.


 * Followed closely by this AE . Sanctions: Future Perfect seconded by Cirt.(olive (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Jmh649, could you confirm if this is the RfC you were referring to? -- J N  466  00:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Since James has not responded here, perhaps a message on his user page would help.(olive (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

TM is considered by many people to be a cult
and yet this is not discussed in more than a passing somewhat cynical remark. Many people who jave left TM describe in detail the ways in which the TM organization takes over the lives and assets of its members. My whole family is trapped in this thing and have spent large amounts of money on all their services and products, despite being quite poor. They would for instance prefer to pay for a yogic flying course than pay for a college education, or even help out with rent. I think this issue, which is very widespread and is in fact the basis of the TM movement, should be discussed more in depth in the article. 132.66.235.247 (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article serves as an umbrella or overview covering several sub-articles. One of those is Transcendental Meditation movement, which has a more extensive discussion of that issue.   Will Beback    talk    01:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And of course the material would need to be supported by reliable sources. --BwB (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Brahmananda Saraswati (Guru Dev) has not taught Maharishi
According to the German documentary "David wants to fly" (videoportal.sf.tv), the sentence "is a version of a technique passed down from the Maharishi's teacher, Brahmananda Saraswati" is wrong. The narrator (David) travels to the monastery where Brahmananda Saraswati taught and met his successor(1h24min in the video), who said this:

"Maharishi served Guru Dev as accountant (or clerk?)." [Maharishi diente Guru Dev als Buchhalter.] ... "Guru Dev has not trained him as a Yogi or spiritual teacher." [Guru Dev hat ihn nicht als Yogi oder spirituellen Lehrer ausgebildet.] ... "Maharishi belonged to the clerk caste. He had no right to give mantras or teach meditation." [Maharishi kam aus der Schreiberkaste. Er hatte kein Recht, Mantren zu vergeben oder Meditation zu lehren.]

Should I include it in the article? I don't have an English source though. But I thought it's relevant.

Kind regards, Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilchimy (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, there were at least 2 claimants to the Jyotirmath seat at the time the film was made. The controversy about who should or should not have been made Shankaracharya as Swami Brahmananda Saraswati's (SBS) successor has been going on ever since SBS died nearly 60 years ago. Interestingly enough, even before Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (MMY) became famous, there were two basic camps: the person supported by the committee of scholars and priests who originally chose SBS in the first place, and the person supported by MMY, who produced the will designating who would be the next Shankaracharya. Regardless of any "official" title that MMY had in the monastery, it is obvious that he was very influential in that branch of the tradition because MMY's camp prevailed in court for many decades and it wasn't until a 2nd generation successor was appointed (one not named in the will and who had never studied directly with SBS) that the courts ruled in favor of the other claimant.Sparaig2 (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is possibly the most complete  discussion of the Shankaracharya succession controversySparaig2 (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for refactoring for readability
This article (and indeed most of its associated family of articles) is written in a way that emphasizes controversy in such an extreme way that it is difficult to discover the facts behind TM (such as: what is it, what does it do, are there any bad effects?, etc.) without becoming, against one's will, embroiled in every single polarizing issue that has ever been published.

I'm not saying that only one POV should be represented. I'm saying that, since controversy has been over-represented, the article needs to be refactored into completely separate pro- and anti- sections or articles. I am aware that WP encourages mixing issues together in a single narrative. But this idea has not been achieved here in a neutral way, and, given the history of editing here, this is not likely to be achieved.

Rather than holding on to this unreadable structure, I propose that we embark on a major project to rewrite one or all of these articles to eliminate the constant jerking from pro- to anti- points of view. Let's structure this so it's readable first in a pro- position, then in an anti- position. We could even conclude with a Controversy section that allows in-depth discussion of the issues that are of particular interest in terms of controversy.

WP policies do not rule out the creation of readable articles on controversial subjects. There is even one policy that encourages the disregard of policies if it results in a better article.

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree, and let me know your thoughts on this idea. David Spector (user/talk) 22:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Waiting for responses. Something like this seems to have been done at Chronic fatigue syndrome and Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome. David Spector (user/talk) 14:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi David, As you know this is the "lead" article for an entire topic area that consists of dozens of articles (43 in the TM template and 80+ in the TM category). It serves as a kind of portal to the topic area and as a result of what I believe to be prior consensus it consists of the lead paragraphs from the "main" articles in the topic. So if the content of this article seems problematic  in some way the first step would be to verify that it contains the most up to date versions of the lead paragraphs for the articles it highlights. Then if a particular section still seems inept then we would need to go to that individual article and check and see if the lead paragraph is a good summary of what the body of the article says per WP:LEAD. If the lead is an accurate summary, and it is still not satisfactory then we would need to look to the body of that article to see what needs to be tuned up there. Then the lead of that article could be amended to accurately reflect the body of that individual article and then in turn that new version of the lead for that article could be copied to the appropriate section here in the main TM article. I hope this makes sense. -- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't limit this proposal to just this article. I posted it here precisely because this is the lead article for the entire topic area.

The problems I list apply to all of the articles, because they were all written and rewritten using the same flawed process making use of editors with heavy, biased, point-of-view agendas, either in favor of or opposed to TM. Those editors who have survived have done so because of their ability to compromise their agendas through wikilawyering and finding sources that support their POV or at least do the least damage to it. This flawed process is aggravated by "ownership", which means that the same small band of editors have worked on these related articles for years, without balance or relief from new blood. Particularly absent are neutral editors, who quickly get scared off. WP is not about scaring editors and keeping a set of editors in charge of articles. WP is about creating a truly informative and helpful encyclopedia. That goal is not being satisfied here.

Your reply is just another example of the pervasive habit of wikilawyering. You point out that this lead article should coordinate with the lead paragraphs of all the other articles (which is true), but fail to consider even one of the issues I have raised. I'm not blaming you. I'm blaming the habits required to make an impossible editing situation work. But the problem is, it's not working well. All you (plural) have gained is the ability to reach formal compromise. You have not gained the ability to write coherent, consistent, readable articles.

Let me try a different approach: I will now directly address both types of editors. Just read the subsection addressed to you.

To Pro-TM Editors ONLY
You're not really happy with these articles, are you? The Ospina study, which uses many words to state that there isn't any good research on meditation (which actually isn't true), doesn't belong here. It's biased in favor of a conservative medical establishment that is scared of anything outside of itself. The talk of TM being a religion is ridiculous, and you know it. It only survives because of ignorant rulings and statements that would evaporate if the facts were fairly considered. The talk of TM being pseudoscientific or a cult is even worse: it's downright defamatory and has no real basis. And where is the inspiration? Where are the words that describe how it feels to practice TM and gain the energy to take on even extreme challenges in life? Where is the explanation of TM as the basis of accomplishment and happiness in life? Where is a really good description of transcending, with its inward and outward strokes? Don't you want the WP article to inspire people to learn TM? You see how crummy the article is, with its constant bickering, don't you? So, why not agree with me and change course? Rewrite the articles according to the facts as you know them. Allow the anti-TM people to have their own sections or articles to present their points of view, but keep them separated for the sake of readability.

To Scientific/Skeptical Editors ONLY
You're not really happy with these articles, are you? The Ospina study, which is the first truly objective and independent metastudy on meditation, belongs here, and needs to be emphasized. The triviality of the practice of TM, and its allied techniques, needs to be stated more clearly. And the direction clearly taken in the legal system toward applying common sense to TM (some of its aspects are clearly religious) needs better documentation. The pseudoscience spouted by the "Maharishi approaches to health" and the "Maharishi Effect" needs to be exposed, and the claims for curing illnesses revealed for the danger that they pose in keeping patients from getting proven health care. So, why not agree with me and change course? Rewrite the articles according to the facts as you know them. Allow the pro-TM people to have their own main sections or articles to present their points of view, and keep all the critical material together for the sake of readability. David Spector (user/talk) 16:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)