Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Archive 2

American Veda
Now that we have consensus not to use popular media as sources for information on scientific research, and now that the material has been removed, I'd like to open discussion of whether we might remove the material sourced to American Veda. It seemed appropriate as a source when we were still using popular media, but now it may be questionable. I guess my feeling is that we should only be using peer reviewed science sources in any discussion of research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a a consensus that the ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies? I keep seeing editors adding non-independent studies and reviews, and books that are not widely recognized textbook. However MEDRS only applies to biomedical research, and it does not override NPOV which requires that we include all significant points of view. While the ideal sources for reporting the findings of research are reviews from third-party journals and standard textbooks, those aren't the only sources we can or should use. There's a place for the more popular views as well.    Will Beback    talk    06:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Using only peer-reviewed sources would be unduly restrictive. American Veda is a reliable source, and it is not given undue prominence. I think the Orme-Johnson comment, that enthusiasm for your data does not make your data wrong, provides an interesting viewpoint and the article would be the poorer for its loss. Early morning person (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that the second use (the proselytizing claim and OJ's response) is acceptable, but using this source regarding the quality of research isn't compliant. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not?   Will Beback    talk    12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No answer?   Will Beback    talk    20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I stated my reason when I opened this thread. Also, see the RSN posting on this source. Such as this: "The problem is one of assessing Weight, not Reliability. Goldberg's book is reliable for a statement as to what is said in the book... however, mentioning his book is problematic. We don't know who these "experts" that Mr. Goldberg claims he spoke to are, and whether anyone else considers them "experts". More importantly, we have no way to assess what "most" means as we don't know how many "experts" he spoke to... he could have spoken to exactly three "experts", two of which said that the TM studies rise to professional standards, one of which said they do not... if so, then "most" is accurate, but misleading. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)" TimidGuy (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yikes
I'm just looking at new material that was added. In a couple cases, it's citing press releases that were posted by various websites, and in another case a blog. I'm going to remove so we can discuss this. TimidGuy (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess EMP is not a part of the purported consensus to keep non-peer-reviewed sources out.   Will Beback    talk    04:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me review the policies. Hope to do it soon, but have a lot of other irons. Early morning person (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ospina had two major components: assessment of quality and meta-analyses of published and unpublished studies. This article had already cited criticism of the quality component, but there was also criticism of the meta-analyses component. It does seem appropriate to have brief criticism of the latter, and so far the only peer-reviewed criticism seems to be that by David OJ that was published along with Ospina in JACM. I think it's appropriate that EMP added some content from this source. I moved it to the end, since it wasn't specifically a criticism of the health education meta-analyses. TimidGuy (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A review of the sources

 * Medical News Today — This is, as far as I can tell, verbatim from a press release that was sent out by MUM. Note that at the very end it says, "Source: Ken Chawkin Maharishi University of Management Roth Media." A press release would fall under the guideline for self-published sources. The press release made very strong claims — and probably wouldn't be allowable under this guideline. I don't know whether the fact that the press release was posted by Medical News Today would confer some sort of legitimacy. Since they identify it as a press release, I think that they're explicitly acknowledging that it's not their reportage. I therefore think this is a questionable source.


 * Senior Journal.com — This, too, seems to be verbatim from a press release that was sent out. This situation is less clear, though, since the website doesn't explicitly acknowledge the source.


 * The C.A.M. Report — This very clearly self-identifies as a blog. According to the guideline cited above, blogs are among the self-published sources that aren't acceptable. The exception is if the blog is "by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." We'd have to research whether Russo is an established expert on the topic. TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Medical News Today: True, this ref is based on a press release, but the editors state at the end of the article proper, “Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.” I would argue that the issue in establishing the reliability of an information source is not whether the staff of the source has written the article, but whether there has been proper editorial scrutiny of the material published. Newspapers and magazines often publish press-releases after editorial screening and scrutiny. Medical News Today appears to be high-quality information source. Same comment for SeniorJournal.com. HOWEVER, although that was my thinking at the time of placing the content in question, as I further peruse WP:MEDRS, I see that although these points may apply to most subject areas on Wiki, they probably do not apply to the reporting of biomedical information—except in the case when the subject is “social, biographical, current affairs and historical information in a medical article.”
 * The C.A.M. Report: I see your point. It is a blog. I had arrived at this particular article “the back way” as a result of a google search, and did not notice that this blog is NOT embedded in the site of any news organization (in which case a blog could possibly be a valid source), but rather a personal blog—albeit one by an expert, a doctor of pharmacology. Early morning person (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. It seems, then, that we shouldn't use these sources. I checked to see whether the blogger (Russo) has published on this topic, and there is no evidence that he has. So it seems that he wouldn't meet the exception in SPS. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Medical News Today is a step up from a content farm, but still a far cry from a reliable source for anything. Check their article submission guidelines. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Meta-analysis of over 100 studies (again)
I do not see where the RSN agreed that this should be included before discussion of a 2006 Cochrane review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus was that it should be included. Where do you think it should go? The feedback that we got is that it should be chronological. If we put Cochrane first, then you say that Eppley sounds like it's refuting Cochrane, If we put Eppley first, then you say that Cochrane should go first. You can't delete this: the feedback was clearly that it's RS. TimidGuy (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you link to that discussion. I do not believe that was the conclusion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Which RSN discussion are we talking about? Is it Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 71?   Will Beback    talk    02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is it clearly does not support the inclusion of a 1989 analysis. Will give TimidGuy time to clarify and remove this info if he doesn't. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe he is referring to this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_87#Using_a_1989_meta_analysis_to_contradict_a_2006_Cochrane_review --Uncreated (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that must be it. In the future, it'd help if editors could link to the discussions they're referencing.
 * I see a range of opinion there, but three people seem to say that the 1989 review is superseded by the later reviews, while only one says it is not superseded and should also be included. There's a suggestion compromise:
 * ''While some studies conducted during the 1980s claimed a positive effect, more recent research says that effects are unproven.
 * Can we agree to that?   Will Beback    talk    08:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I would be okay with that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My version currently in this article actually satisfies this suggestion. It dates the Eppley review and then says that a 2006 Cochrane review that only looked at the most rigorous research found that there's insufficient evidence. (The RSN suggestion, as worded, is factually inaccurate, since of the research is of the same vintage, as FormerIP pointed out.) I think the best way to resolve this is to make clear that these two research reviews looked at different groups of studies. Eppley looked at nonclinical research on trait anxiety. Cochrane looked at clinical anxiety. Eppley excluded studies on psychiatric patients, while Cochrane only looked at studies on psychiatric patients. These two reviews bear no relationship to each other.

If we clarified that these two research reviews looked at different bodies of research, this would also let us take into account these qualifications that we received that closed the thread at RSN: "I'd be fine with that, but this should not be done so as to ram home the idea that the earlier research is superceded. Fine to point out/suggest the superiority of RCT-based research, for example, but not to give the impression that the matter has been scientifically decided or that there is a complete absence of evidence in the other direction, because that would be a misrepresentation on the basis of the small amount of research that appears to have been done. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)"

We could clarify that these are two different study populations either narratively or by having subsections. TimidGuy (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that FormerIP was one of several editors who responded, and the other three held different views. Just quoting him would not be a representative sample. Also note that his statement, "I'd be fine with that,..." refers to the compromise language, posted above, which doesn't even mention Eppley.   Will Beback    talk    22:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FormerIP says, "I'd be fine with that, but this should not be done so as to ram home the idea that the earlier research is superceded." That's what I did in the version that I posted. But we have to consider the fact that these research reviews each looked at a different corpus, which isn't clear in the current version. Here is what Cochrane 2006 says:
 * "'Inclusion criteria: Adults with a primary diagnosis of anxiety disorder (or corresponding to another diagnostic criteria including Diagnostic and Statistical ofMental disorders (DSM), International Classification of Disease -9(ICD-9) or ICD-10 clinical descriptions or research diagnostic criteria for neurotic disorders) with or without another comorbid psychiatric conditions, irrespective of gender, age, race or nationality.'"
 * The authors' criterion for inclusion was that the individuals in the study have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. They were psychiatric patients. That's why they excluded for consideration 46 of the 50 studies on anxiety that they found. They only wanted those studies on adults with a specific diagnosis: "Using the diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorder (DSM or ICD classification) and limited to include only Randomised Controlled Trials, 46 studies were excluded from the early phase." Of the four studies that remained, one was on TM. Cochrane looked at a single study on TM.


 * Eppley looked at every study on TM that related to anxiety. Most of these were nonclinical studies, that is, they included subjects that hadn't been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. These studies, both meditation and relaxation, most commonly used the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, a standardized assessment of anxiety levels that's been validated in hundreds of studies, to assess the level of anxiety in the subjects. His meta-analysis included 35 studies on TM. In sum, the best way to represent these sources is to make it clear that they were looking at different populations of subjects, and hence, different groups of studies. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TimidGuy, you keep mentioning FormerIP's comments but he wasn't the only editor to respond. What did the other editors say?   Will Beback    talk    12:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus was that this source can be used. The consensus was that it shouldn't appear to refute Cochrane. The current version accomplishes this. But the problem is, everyone participating in the discussion didn't realize that Cochane is very narrow in scope, that it excluded randomized controlled trials on TM and anxiety solely for the reason that the subjects weren't patients who had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. Eppley's meta-analysis included research that used subjects who didn't necessarily have an anxiety disorder but who were found to have trait anxiety by using a state-trait anxiety assessment. State anxiety is temporary and ad hoc, such as what I feel when Doc James deletes material that is reliably sourced. Trait anxiety is anxiety that persists daily and causes regular discomfort. An anxiety disorder refers to the situation in which an individual has so much anxiety that it's causing serious problems in his life, or to his health, and he has sought professional help. The Cochrane review only looked at randomized controlled trials on individuals diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. That was why they excluded 46 of the 50 studies that their search turned up. The single one on TM was the 1980 study by Raskin, which found that TM reduces anxiety, but about the same amount as muscle relaxation therapy and muscle relaxation therapy combined with biofeedback. Eppley included the study by Raskin in his meta-analysis. In fact, he did a subgroup meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials conducted by individuals neutral or hostile to TM. The effect size was .89 — an even greater effect than that found in the meta-analysis of all 35 TM studies. I'll send you Eppley's meta-analysis so we're on the same page, in case you don't have it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that consensus. Here are the comments of thee out of four participants:
 * If, as I suspect, the Cochrane review takes into account the studies analyzed by Eppley and also newer studies done since then, the Cochrane should take precedence; 21 years in medical research is a lifetime, and a 1989 meta-analysis probably should be avoided. Yobol (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems adequately covered by WP:MEDRS and its recommendation to use up-to-date sourcing. We shouldn't be juxtaposing a 21-year-old paper as if it "rebuts" a current Cochrane review. The standards for what constitutes "thorough and well-designed" clinical research have evolved substantially since 1989. MastCell Talk 18:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More than two decades is a really long time for medical or psychological research, and especially for a subfield that has such a poor reputation. (TM research, especially the older publications, has received far more accusations of deliberate bias and outright fraud than average.) I'd be very cautious about using that elderly source at all, and if I did use it, I would probably frame it a historical statement, e.g., "While some studies conducted during the 1980s claimed a positive effect, more recent research says that effects are unproven". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only FormerIP seem to favor some sort of inclusion, and even he endorsed the suggestion of WhatamIdoing, which appears to summarize Eppley without giving details of its findings.   Will Beback    talk    00:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If I could just add my own 2 cents worth... If what Timid Guy has said is correct then the Cochrane review and the Eppley Meta analysis examined two different fields of anxiety. Needless to say that Yobol's comments that "the Cochrane review takes into account the studies analyzed by Eppley and also newer studies done since then" is not as he suspected and therefore his suggestion can be put to one side. The same applies to Mastcell since he was concerned with..."We shouldn't be juxtaposing a 21-year-old paper as if it "rebuts" a current Cochrane review." We are not doing that with what Timid Guy has written since the Cochrane review and the Eppley Meta analysis examined two different fields of anxiety. Whatamidoing points out that we should not use it because of its age is a possibly valid one...but since no other recent reviews look at this field of anxiety and that the Eppley Meta Analysis was the last one that looked at it then we should include it for that reason.--Uncreated (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have been more helpful if you'd made those points at the time. We can pull the earlier discussion out of the archive and start it again so those editors can reply to your input. Is that how you'd like to proceed? We certainly can't say that there's a consensus to keep Eppley based on that thread unless we throw out three quarters of the responders.    Will Beback    talk    04:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I am indifferent. I'll leave it up to others decide. But if wikipedia is going to have articles on TM and its research etc it might as well be accurate and have a neutral point of view. I was not made aware of these points until TG raised them.--Uncreated (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what everyone wants. If we follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines I'm sure that's what we'll get.   Will Beback    talk    06:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If I could make a suggestion though it would seem that the original premise of taking it to the notice board was that somehow this research was being used to contradict the Cochrane review in the eyes of some editors. Obviously that is not what is happening. It would seem that if one wants to take it back to the notice board...it should be relogged anew to see if this is a reliable source to be used to document this meta analysis. To me it does not seem necessary though. --Uncreated (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to ignore the outcome of noticeboard input, then at least don't claim that there was a consensus where none existed.   Will Beback    talk    09:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh? You talking to me? I'm completely lost by that last post. I'm off to bed now...so will be out of action for a while. --Uncreated (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, the thread closed with three editors (including the editor who opened the thread) agreeing that both sources can be used in the article. if someone objected to that, then why didn't they say so? Your own point at the end of the thread was that the issue was the way Eppley was being used. Several editors agreed with you and suggested an approach regarding how it can be used. I have taken this discussion into account in the current version. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The involved editors don't really count. Can you please cite the statements that contribute to this "consensus"? Have you incorporated WhatamIdoing's recommended intro, which FormerIP endorsed?   Will Beback    talk    23:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've incorporated the feedback of Whatamidoing and FormerIP. I artfully wrote it in a way that strongly implies that the latter study disproved the former, but without saying that explicitly, because 1) FormerIP stipulated that it not say that the latter study superceded the former or that the matter had been decided, 2) because it wouldn't be factually accurate, and 3) it would violate WP:NOR, since we don't have a source that says that Cochrane disproves Eppley. The only problem with what I've written is that it's not really accurate in that Eppley did subgroup meta-analyses on randomized controlled trials — meta-analyses that are more significant than a review of a single, small study of moderate quality. It's also not completely accurate because it still makes it sound as if the two reviews were looking at the same thing, but they weren't. Eppley was looking at studies on broader trait anxiety, whereas Cochrane only looked at studies that were on individuals diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, thereby excluding at least 5 randomized controlled trials on trait anxiety. I have suggested ways that we could deal with this inaccuracy, but you haven't responded. For now, I'm willing to go with what we have, but eventually we should make it more clear that the two reviews were looking at different populations. TimidGuy (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you add the phrase that WhatamIdoing suggested, or something close to it, to indicate this is a historical finding not borne out by more recent and stringent reviews: "While some studies conducted during the 1980s claimed a positive effect, more recent research says that effects are unproven"?   Will Beback    talk    12:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your statement that "a historical finding not borne out by more recent and stringent reviews" is factual. When you say "reviews" plural, do you mean Ospina? That review didn't do any meta-analyses on TM and anxiety. Cochrane can't be said to be more stringent, because Eppley did subgroup meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. And one can't say that Eppley isn't borne out by Cochrane because they looked at different groups. Cochrane only looked at studies on adults who had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, leaving out a half dozen perfectly fine randomized controlled trials done using subjects who hadn't been diagnosed using the criteria for a psychiatric disorder (DSM or ICD). Most of the subjects in Eppley were normal individuals evaluated to have trait anxiety using assessments such as the Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory that have been validated in hundreds of studies. Also, Eppley included studies on high school and college students, whereas Cochrane only looked at studies on adults. The conclusion of Cochrane is only for a very narrow patient group.


 * Cochrane explicitly excluded studies included by Eppley:


 * "'At the preliminary phase of searching, 50 studies were found. The majority of these studies tested various meditation methods in anxiety subjects with a variety of anxiety conditions such as test anxiety, music performance anxiety, speech anxiety, complaints of anxiety, anxiety related to medical illnesses and psychoneuroses without any definite statement of diagnosis. Using the diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorder (DSM or ICD classification) and limited to include only Randomised Controlled Trials, 46 studies were excluded from the early phase.'"


 * The current version implies that the later study superseded the former. I wrote it like that to try to please everyone -- even though the implication isn't accurate. Also, we can't just ignore the feedback of FormerIP, who said that it shouldn't say that the earlier review was superseded. I don't know what we can say beyond the fact that a more recent review found that there's not enough evidence to show that TM is an effective treatment for adult patients diagnosed with an anxiety disorder because only one study has been done on this population. TimidGuy (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As I understand the issue, Eppley included studies which would not be allowed under more modern standards for reviews. In other words, the same review conducted today would get different results.
 * You say we can't ignore the input of FormerIP, but are we ignoring the input of other editors? At a minimum, it seems like we should give less prominence, in terms of position and space, to the Eppley review than to the more recent and higher quality reviews.    Will Beback    talk    22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Will, for discussing this. Your understanding of the issue isn't accurate. Yes, Eppley included uncontrolled studies. But so did Ospina, for example. And also, for example, the systematic review by Black, published in 2009 in the top pediatrics journal. If there's a "modern standard," these prominent reviews didn't adhere to it. But let's say you want to set the highest standard: only meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Eppley did that too. In addition to doing a meta-analysis of all the evidence, he also did meta-analyses on only the most rigorous studies, and he reported the data on page 967. Excluding all uncontrolled and nonrandomized studies, he did a meta-analysis on 6 randomized controlled trials on TM that were published in journals or appeared as dissertations and that had low attrition. The result was, again, an effect size of .77. And he did a meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials on TM that only included published studies and dissertations that were conducted by researchers who were neutral or hostile toward TM and got an effect size of .89. It's an extremely rigorous meta-analysis because of all the tests he performed. Compare that with Cochrane, which isn't even a meta-analysis, and which looked at one small study of moderate quality. It included only this study not because it was adhering to some modern standard but because the authors chose to exclude studies on high school and college students and because they chose to only look at studies done on individuals who were patients that had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A recently added citation about the Eppley study appears to go to a letter to the editor written by a general practitioner. In general, I believe LTE's are only useful as source for opinions of noteworthy people. Does anyone else have a different view?  Will Beback   talk    00:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think responses in medical journals fall into a different category. But whether or not this is used as a source seems moot. The question is why it said "current or past." There's no source that says that either Shear or Abrams is a current faculty member, nor any source that says either was a current faculty member at the time the study was published. Seems like OR to suggest that they may have been current faculty. And we have evidence that they weren't, per this published comment in a medical journal. Additional evidence that neither was a current faculty member can be found in the MIU yearbooks. Take, for example, the 1984 yearbook, which shows that neither of them were on faculty. Also, the 1989-90 yearbook. shows that neither were on faculty. TimidGuy (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why they'd fall into a different category, unless there's an indication that the letters undergo a significant editing process. I'll remove the citation but leave the uncontroversial assertion.   Will Beback    talk    21:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good solution. But note that you yourself in the past proposed using a published comment on the Paul-Labrador study. And note that such comments are indexed, just as the articles themselves are. Anyway, no point in discussing it further, since the source isn't needed here. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Student BMJ
I don't think that this source should be used, and it's not needed, since there's already a source for the statement. The article is a personal essay, and the citation the author gives for his assertion that most of the studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals is the 1977 edition of the Collected Papers. TimidGuy (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume you're talking about this paragraph:
 * According to a 2003 review by Canter and Ernst that looked at the effects of TM on cognitive function and an article in Student BMJ'', many of the 700 studies they found in their literature search weren't peer reviewed. TM promoter and physician Roger A. Chalmers has compiled a list of 341 studies on TM that he says were published in "independent peer-reviewed journals or other edited scientific publications". Research reviews by Canter and Ernst (2003, 2004) also said that many studies have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Transcendental Meditation movement, including Maharishi University of Management in Iowa and Maharishi European Research University in Switzerland, which is disputed by Orme-Johnson, who cites the number of institutions worldwide where the research has been conducted. According to TM researchers, studies on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health have been conducted at over 200 different research institutions and universities in over 30 countries worldwide. Orme-Johnson also says that a meta-analysis of studies on TM and anxiety found that those studies done by researchers with no connection to TM showed a slightly larger effect than those studies by researchers who had a connection. In addition, David Haaga, who has collaborated with TM researchers on four studies in 2009 and 2010 and who is "not committed to a favorable or unfavorable view of its effects," says that such collaboration helps to "ensure that procedures to minimize bias are always given highest priority in the conduct of the research."


 * What kind of source is the just-added Haaga cite? Is it a study, a review, or an essay? Could you send me a copy? We also cite in this paragraph a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal and a personal website. How are those better sources than an essay in the Student BMJ? Maybe we should get rid of all of them - that'd be equitable.    Will Beback    talk    22:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the text used to say:
 * Most of the 700 studies on TM have been produced by researchers directly associated with the TM movement and many of them have not been peer reviewed, according to a 2003 review that looked at the effects of TM on cognitive function and an article in Student BMJ''.
 * That was rewritten to:
 * According to a 2003 review by Canter and Ernst that looked at the effects of TM on cognitive function and an article in Student BMJ, many of the 700 studies they found in their literature search weren't peer reviewed.
 * The edit summary was "reorganize to juxtapose related points; no text change". I don't think that was an accurate summary - clearly text was changed. Since that was unexplained and makes a significant change in the tone of the assertion, I'm going to restore the previous text pending a consensus.   Will Beback    talk    23:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, what happened was that I wrote the edit summary, then previewed the text that I had moved around. Then kept editing, forgetting to change the edit summary. It would be great if you could address the points that I made about Makin and explain why you think it's a reliable source. If you feel that other sources are questionable, we can address those in turn. TimidGuy (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They're all in the same paragraph so let's deal with these sources together. What makes Makin less reliable than the OJ LTE and website? What kind of article is the Haaga cite?   Will Beback    talk    15:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for sending it. Haaga is labeled as a "commentary". That seems equivalent to an essay. I think the article could be improved by raising the standards for sources to exclude Makin, Haaga, and the self-published OJ sources. But I don't see any reasons to treat them differently.   Will Beback    talk    15:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Makin is a student. He has no record of publication. He has no expertise in scientific research. He cites a 1977 anthology to support his point. Haaga is a tenured Professor at American University and Director of the James J. Gray Psychotherapy Training Clinic He has a bachelor's degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. from UNC. He has over 130 publications and has received recognition for being a leading researcher.. I'm surprised that you don't see a reason to treat them differently. Again, please tell me why you think Makin is an acceptable source for the statement that many of the studies aren't peer reviewed. You put it in the article, so you must have had some rationale for thinking that there's strong evidence in his personal essay for the statement that it's being used to support, and that he has some expertise in this field of research. TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reliability of a source is a combination of three factors: the author, the publisher, and the assertion. While the author is a student, the publication itself is considered reliable. If they thought the essay was worth publishing then that conveys some weight to its reliability. The last element is the assertion, which is straightforward and which confirms what is said by a second source. We could make the calculation ourselves and get the same result, but that would be original research. I don't believe the assertion itself is controversial - does anyone here dispute its accuracy?
 * As for Haaga, I don't think we've correctly summarized it. So long as we're including essays/commentaries, self published sources I don't mind retaining it. However we need to work on the summary a bit more.   Will Beback    talk    23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Cosmic consciousness"

 * Research suggests that long-term practice of TM results in neurophysiological states not ordinarily experienced and that are associated with enhanced awareness. Such a state, sometimes referred to as "cosmic consciousness," is characterized by “ever present wakefulness” that is present even during sleep. Research on individuals experiencing this state as a result of practice of TM has found EEG profiles, muscle tone measurements, and REM indicators that suggest there is physiological evidence of this higher state.

Some points about this newly added material: I haven't seen the Walsh and Shapiro paper, so I'm not sure which assertions belong to which papers.  Will Beback   talk    21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Which research makes this suggestion?
 * 2) The first sentence refers to "states" (plural) while the second sentence refers to "such a state" (singular).
 * 3) Calling enhanced awareness "cosmic consciousness" is an opinion and should be attributed.
 * 4) "Research on individuals..." What research? Is this research we've already described elsewhere? If so we should consolidate the references to those studies.
 * 5) We need to fix the citation to the Shauna & Walsh paper. The citation is to a paper in Humanistic Psychologist, but the link goes to a paper with an additional author published in Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research. We need to pick one or the other.


 * The research mentioned in the reviews by Shapiro and Walsh makes this suggestion, including studies by Alexander and by Mason showing indications of transcendental consciousness and cosmic consciousness. Thanks for noting "states" v "state." I made an adjustment to the text. "Cosmic consciousness" is a term rather than an opinion. Fine to attribute it. Walsh uses it several times, variously attributing it to William James, TM, and a study by Alexander and Langer. I don't think this research is mentioned other than in this paragraph. I'll delete Journal of Medication and Meditation Research. TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Which text are we summarizing when we say that
 * ...TM results in neurophysiological states not ordinarily experienced and that are associated with enhanced awareness. Such a state, sometimes referred to as "cosmic consciousness," is characterized by “ever present wakefulness”...
 * TimidGuy was kind enough to send the sources, but I don't see this actual assertion about TM in any of them. Wold it be possible to quote the passages that we're summarizing?   Will Beback    talk    01:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "not ordinarily experienced" is a summary of Walsh 2006 -- the discussion in the section The Farther Reaches of Human Nature and the further subsection of Enhanced Capacities. It says, for example, "Meditative disciplines claim to facilitate maturation to these kinds of stages and beyond, and growing research offers initial support." The section is saying that these are stages not ordinarily experienced. It then says, "The following section includes a partial list of enhanced capacities." Lucidity during sleep is one of those enhanced capacities and references research on TM. The words "enhanced awareness" that I used are referencing the Lucidity section, which says, in part, "Unbroken lucidity throughout sleep is recognized in yoga and Christian contemplation, is a goal of Tibetan dream yoga, and in TM marks the maturation of sporadic “transcendental consciousness” into unbroken “cosmic consciousness” (C. Alexander & Langer, 1990; Walsh & Vaughan, 1993). In Western terms, this is the transition from a peak to a plateau experience and from an altered state to an altered trait (Maslow, 1971; Wilber, 2000). Confirmatory studies of TM practitioners have yielded sleep EEG profiles consistent with alert awareness throughout sleep (e.g., Mason, Alexander, Travis, Marsh, Orme-Johnson, & Gackenbach, 1997)." This is also one of the instances where the term cosmic consciousness is used, and the source for the characterization of the term "ever present wakefulness." See also the section subtitled "Unique Capacities." For example, it says "In addition to the capacities described previously, advanced meditators have also demonstrated preliminary evidence of 12 capacities that Western researchers once dismissed as impossible. These include voluntary control of the autonomic nervous system and lucid dream and lucid nondream sleep (Mason et al., 1997)." The study by Mason is on TM. On page 100 Shapiro talks about a "unique EEG signature not usually found in normal individuals," which also is the basis for the statement "not ordinarily experienced." Etc. Hope that helps.  TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to make sure we're only summarizing material on TM, which is difficult when the sources are papers which discuss many practices at once. Also, we need to make sure we aren't cobbling together bits and pieces into a whole which doesn't closely follow the source. I think we're in danger of both with this text. While it's a bit more tedious to write and read, I think we need to unpack this material and add attributions to specific sources.   Will Beback    talk    23:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any explicit mention of TM in that section. It says: However, meditative disciplines claim unequivocally that attention can be trained, albeit with difﬁculty, even to the point of unbroken continuity over hours, as in advanced Christian contemplatio, yogic samadhi, and TM’s “cosmic consciousness.” "Cosmic consciousness" is presented as a claim, not as a fact. It says: ''Continuous 24-hour-a-day “ever present wakefulness,” as Plotinus called it, is described in yoga as Turiya (the fourth)—a fourth state of consciousness beyond the usual three of waking, dreaming, and nondream sleep (Feuerstein, 1996). Unbroken lucidity throughout sleep is recognized in yoga and Christian contemplation, is a goal of Tibetan dream yoga, and in TM marks the maturation of sporadic “transcendental consciousness” into unbroken “cosmic consciousness” (C. Alexander & Langer, 1990; Walsh & Vaughan, 1993). In Western terms, this is the transition from a peak to a plateau experience and from an altered state to an altered trait (Maslow, 1971; Wilber, 2000). Confirmatory studies of TM practitioners have yielded sleep EEG proﬁles consistent with alert awareness throughout sleep (e.g., Mason, Alexander, Travis, Marsh, Orme-Johnson, & Gackenbach, 1997). I'm fairly sure that Plotinus was not referring to TM, so I think we should omit "ever present wakefulness". We should split out the idea that the TM researchers view lucid dreaming as the mark of cosmic consciousness, as that's an important point on its own. I don't see any mention of TM in that section. We need to re-work this material so that assertions are clearly attributed and clearly relate to TM.  Will Beback   talk    04:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Farther Reaches of Human Nature
 * Enhanced Capacities: Attention
 * ''Lucidity.
 * Unique Capacities
 * 1) "The Farther Reaches of Human Nature" is a major heading. Everything in that large section (through page 237) is related to that heading, including the sections that mention TM. 2) Everything in science is a claim, not a fact. Science only presents support for hypotheses, it doesn't present facts. That's why this paragraph begins by saying "Research suggests." 3) The text is clearly drawing a parallel between the terms "ever present wakefulness" and "unbroken lucidity throughout sleep," with the latter being a specific example of the more general former. The authors are adapting the phrase from Plotinus to the phenomenon they're describing. It's the authors of this research review who are making the connection between this phrase and TM, not Plotinus. 4) The section headed "Unique Capacities" includes a reference to Mason's study on TM: "These include voluntary control of the autonomic nervous system and lucid dream and lucid nondream sleep (Mason et al., 1997)," the same study referenced elsewhere in this section on Farther Reaches. TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I say, let's work on unpacking this dense set of assertions by attributing, footnoting, and making clearer statements. The result will certainly be longer, but it will be closer to the source and easier for the reader to understand. How about something more like this:
 * ''Roger Walsh and Shauna L. Shapiro write in a 2006 paper that various meditation practices can lead to what they call "enhanced capacities", and they say TM has shown signs of achieving three out of the nine capacities they list. Two of these capacities are the maintenance of attention for hours and the experience of lucidity during sleep. In the case of TM, those capacities are called "cosmic consciousness". They say that TM may also achieve a third capacity, "moral maturity".
 * That's based on the American Psychologist paper. Does it seem like a fair summary?   Will Beback    talk    08:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Will, for your collaboration on this. I was trying to summarize both the 2003 and 2006 reviews, since they're covering the same study by Mason, and the 2003 paper goes into more detail. This study is also covered in Cahn and Polich 2006, which is a comprehensive review of EEG research on meditation, and in this review, which also goes into some detail describing the findings. I was attempting to give the main finding of the study, as presented in the reviews, and to use the language of the reviews to put that in context. Were you thinking that we should summarize each review separately? n any case, I certainly do like the idea of making it easier to understand. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We're summarizing the Walsh and Shapiro papers because those are the cited sources. Let's take them one at a time.    Will Beback    talk    01:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Then it seems like we may want to begin by summarizing Shapiro/Walsh 2003, since it gives more detail about the study. Walsh/Shapiro 2006 and Tassi are good for giving a sense for what it means. I would use Cahn 2006 p 182 to introduce the material. Basically Mason's study found that EEG patterns showed a type of alertness during sleep not usually seen in normal individuals, yet the subjects' muscles were relaxed in the way that one would ordinarily only see in deep sleep. This was a physiological confirmation of the subjective experience of the individuals in the study, who reported that they experience transcendence during activity as a result of the practice of TM. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2003 paper gives more details on most of the studies it reviews. The Mason study, apparently conducted by an MUM doctoral student, is just one of many TM studies included. We should try to summarize the paper's views on TM research with more or less the same balance as the source. We should not focus on one result and omit the others. The paper covers a lot of ground so it isn't easy to summarize. I'll give it a stab.   Will Beback    talk    09:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to seeing a version of your "stab" here. --BwB (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We already devote considerable space to the Chinese student studies, as reported in Shapiro & Walsh 2003. And we give a long sentence to the personality growth of 120 female subject reviewed in the same source. So there's only a bit left from that source.
 * In one study conducted by Travis, students who were long term meditators were asked during meditation if they were transcending (defined by the Maharishi as "taking the mind for the experience of a thought to finer states of the thought") or not. Those transcending had different physiological patterns in their respiration and EEG readings. A study on long term meditators who were sleeping found different EEG reading than non-meditators or short term meditators. Shapiro and Walsh say the study suggests the ability to develop lucid non-dreaming states during sleep, which they say may be a "valuable metaphor" for "enlightenment".
 * How's that?   Will Beback    talk    20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. That's a great start. I really appreciate your attempts to summarize these two reviews. There are small inaccuracies in both summaries, and there are important points that I think could be included. For example, I'd really like to get in the point that they make that these findings show a unique EEG signature not usually found in normal individuals. Also, the finding regarding chin tone is important. It indicates that these individuals were indeed deeply asleep. We have to make sure that it's clear from the summary of these two reviews that the Mason and Travis studies suggest there are neurophysiological correlates of subjectively experienced states of consciousness. It's more than finding EEG differences: it's what these EEG differences mean. I'd like to begin with a sentence based on Cahn, then briefly characterize the Travis study, and then combine points from the four reviews of Mason. Tassi has a fuller description of some points. I can go ahead and attempt a draft, based on what you've written. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember this is an encyclopedia article. "Chin tone" is probably an unnecessary detail, for example, which would mean nothing to most readers. It'd be sufficient to say the subjects were in deep sleep, or whatever the source says. I don't have the Cahn or Tressi papers, so I can't help there. But let's avoid over-emphasizing a single study.   Will Beback    talk    11:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I linked to the papers by Tassi and Cahn earlier in this thread. Maybe for the sake of simplicity we should just summarize Mason's paper itself, rather than the multiple reviews. TimidGuy (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Cahn discusses a variety of outcomes regarding TM, but mentions the Mason paper only briefly. I don't think we should give a single study conducted by a graduate student too much weight. A sentence or two is sufficient. We can combine the reviews' views of it.   Will Beback    talk    22:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's taking me so long to get to this. Here's a draft for Mason: "A study of 11 long-term TM practitioners who reported the experience of higher states of consciousness during sleep found that their brain waves differed from those of nonmeditators and short-term meditators, suggesting that there are neurophysiological correlates of these subjective experiences. The presence of a unique pattern of brain waves not seen in ordinary individuals offers support for the claim that transcendental consciousness experienced during TM is eventually maintained outside of meditation, including during deep sleep." We could precede this with research on transcendental consciousness during TM to give some context, as Shapiro does. TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That much attention to a study with 11 subjects? The first sentence is fine, but the second looks like advocacy.   Will Beback    talk    11:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement regarding maintaining transcendental consciousness outside of meditation is the principal finding in Mason. And Shaprio/Walsh 2003 make the observation about this pattern not appearing in normal individuals: ""These results complement previous studies of waking transcendental consciousness that have showed similar increases in theta-alpha EEG. By demonstrating a unique EEG signature not usually found in normal individuals, these findings buttress the claim that it is possible to develop an alert state of transcendental consciousness during deep sleep." TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "A study [by Mason, et al.] on long term meditators who were sleeping found different EEG reading than non-meditators or short term meditators. Shapiro and Walsh say the study suggests the ability to develop lucid non-dreaming states during sleep, which they say may be a "valuable metaphor" for "enlightenment".
 * That seems more matter-of-fact, and inclusive.   Will Beback    talk    09:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's, unfortunately, not accurate regarding the experimental group and the outcome. The experimental group consisted not just of long-term meditators. It only included long-term meditators reporting experiences of higher states of consciousness during sleep. The point of the study was to see whether there were neurophysiological correlates of these subjective experiences. The finding was that there are indeed neurophysiological correlates. And the reviewers note that these EEG patterns aren't usually found in normal individuals. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That addresses the issue of the study group including long and short term meditators. The fact that the EEG readings are not found in non-meditators covers the fact that these are not found in "normal individuals". Should we include the size of the study to help readers understand the relative importance of the finding?  Will Beback   talk    20:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ''A study [by Mason, et al.] on sleeping subjects found different EEG readings in long term meditators than non-meditators or short term meditators. Shapiro and Walsh say the study suggests the ability to develop lucid non-dreaming states during sleep, which they say may be a "valuable metaphor" for "enlightenment".
 * The study group didn't include short-term meditators. They're a control group. The study group consisted of individuals reporting experiences of higher states of consciousness. The EEG signature of the group experiencing higher states of consciousness was also not found in the short-term meditators, who were selected because they reported no experiences of higher states of consciousness during sleeping. The study hypothesized that there are electrophysiological correlates of the subjective experience of higher states of consciousness: "Based on maintenance of transcendental consciousness along with deep sleep as a primary criterion of putative higher states of consciousness, we predicted that subjects reporting a higher state of consciousness during sleep would display a greater theta-alpha (6-10 Hz) activity that is typically associated with transcendental consciousness, occurring along with the delta (0.25-4 Hz) pattern typical of sleep stages 3 and 4." The hypothesis was confirmed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Olivo
My fault, I was assuming that this version of the paper was similar. Who did the underlying research? I'm always concerned that we'll end up the same studies in different reviews.  Will Beback   talk    11:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A 2009 review reported on TM research conducted at the Medical College of Georgia on variables related to blood pressure that found that, compared to an eyes-closed relaxation control group, the TM group had increased cardiac output and decreased peripheral resistance as well as decreased systolic blood pressure.
 * No problem. It's citation 100, by Barnes et al. We hadn't yet included this research. TimidGuy (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have returned "by MUM professors Michael Dillbeck and Fred Travis" as this is important in judging the quality of the research. WRT the other bit we went through an RfC and IMO would need another one to change it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Trouble is, Dillbeck and Travis is incorrect. They didn't do this research. TimidGuy (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And why delete the ref names I added? TimidGuy (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the cited paper significantly different fro the paper I linked to? Because that version doesn't single out footnote 100, but rather cites three different studies in one sentences, footnotes 99-101, citing studies by Wallace, Barnes and Wenneberg.
 * Perhaps a separate discussion, but what talk thread is this about?   Will Beback    talk    21:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the papers are identical. You need to look at the remainder of the paragraph, with citation 100 being given at the end of the paragraph. I was referencing this Talk thread where Doc says above I shouldn't add that without having another RfC. I made that change because I'm intending to consolidate the Ospina citations. But I can do it in a different fashion. TimidGuy (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. I've added the name of the lead researcher to the article. His official bio identifies him as a graduate of MERU and MUM.   Will Beback    talk    10:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Consolidated refs
I've understood that it's desirable to consolidate refs. I spent a good amount of time doing that this morning. In every instance but one, I consolidated refs that I had added. It's not clear why my work has been reverted. TimidGuy (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You removed all the page numbers for where the content was supported. For books or large documents one needs the page numbers. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I know. Makes sense. But I understood from Will Beback that one should consolidate refs. I'd like to hear from him on this. Or can you point me to a guideline? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Refs can be touchy. Consolidating identical refs can make it easier for readers, but we shouldn't lose information, like page numbers, in the process. There are various citation schemes, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages, but it can be disruptive to switch from one to another so it's advised to discuss a change prior to investing a lot of time in editing. See WP:CITATION.   Will Beback    talk    19:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. How about if, for Ospina and other book length works with multiple citations, we use parenthetical refs for the page number and then also the named-ref convention that I used? For example, "TM reduced blood pressure compared to PMR (Ospina, p. 88) [citation number]" Or perhaps we should just use the convention that Do has used, putting in the complete citation for Ospina in every instance, along with a quotation and page number. I assume that's also a correct and accepted way. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mis-attribution

 * Most of the 700 studies on TM have been produced by researchers directly associated with the TM movement and many of them have not been peer reviewed, according to a 2003 review that looked at the effects of TM on cognitive function and an article in Student BMJ'', which cites a 1976 anthology.

An editor added the underlined text, with the edit summary "add small point about source for assertion". However that's incorrect so I reverted. The 1977 anthology, by Orme-Johnson and Farrow, is used as a source for the assertion that "[The transcendental meditation movement] also imply that the more outlandish claims, such as the belief that some music can lead to rain, will soon be verified scientifically". I'm sure we can work something into the article about that too. Maybe something like, "In addition to research on the psychological and physiological benefits of TM, the movement also hopes to provide scientific verification for beliefs such as that certain kinds of music can cause rain"?  Will Beback   talk    20:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify what the inaccuracy is and which source you are referring to. (olive (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm referring to the underlined text in the quoted material. The source is not the 1977 anthology. That anthology is used as the source for a different assertion. I'm asking whether we want to include that assertion in the article as well.   Will Beback    talk    21:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I see on checking the source what was meant unless TG meant something else. And this opinion article is a RS for a comment on scientific research? It might be an acceptable source for an opinion on whether TM is a religion or not. Although I think its a pretty poor source all around. Actually, that's a pretty strange paragraph: redundant, weasel words, questionable sources. It probably should be looked at more closely and rewritten.(olive (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC))
 * I don't see it marked as an opinion piece. We've been over this several times before.   Will Beback    talk    21:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I not familiar with the discussion on this. I'll check in the archives for it. In the meantime ....Is this opinion an appropriate source for crediting the quality of scientific research?(olive (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC))
 * At least it's not a self-published webpage written by a partisan.    Will Beback    talk    21:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks. Your opinion is clear.... I'd like to add input to the whatever other comments might be added here,  but won't have time until Monday.(olive (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Oops. Thanks, Will. My mistake. TimidGuy (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn paper
Apparently a major paper on TM's effect on heart disease was withdrawn just minutes before being released.  Will Beback   talk    01:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * New Concerns Raised About Withdrawn Archives Meditation Paper
 * Archives Delays Publishing Meditation Study

Another view.  Will Beback   talk    04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LATE last month, something unprecedented happened in the annals of publishing medical research. [..] It remains unclear if said paper will ever be published but the hint of scientific misconduct is hard to ignore. Far from being merely a scientific brouhaha, this is a major public relations disaster for TM. In business since the 1960s, the TM organisation is hugely profitable. Dr Schneider has been at the forefront of creating a body of TM research published in respectable journals for some time now. But that corpus of research may be suspect. [..] Thus the data appears to have been massaged towards certain conclusions. This fiasco should dent the image of TM the practice and TM, the multi-billion dollar operation.
 * Transcend the spin on transcendental meditation Andy Ho. The Straits Times. Singapore: Jul 9, 2011.
 * Innocent until proven guilty. --BweeB (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes it sound as if he's been accused of something. He hasn't. The researchers themselves brought the issue to the attention of the journal. According to this account, the most detailed so far, Kaufmann didn't even specifically recommend that they include the data. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are sufficient sources for this that we should include a line or two about it in the "research quality" section.   Will Beback    talk    00:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe Better to wait until the new stats are reviewed and the paper released? Otherwise, we are jumping to conclusions. --BweeB (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All we do is summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. When a bunch of sources say something is "unprecedented", that's an indication that it's noteworthy.   Will Beback    talk    10:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

While I think text on this issue is premature, I have added content anyway using the RS. Newspapers are not RS for comments on methodology in science which should undergo a peer review process, nor are blogs. The Forbes blog does have some oversight, but the article writer in this case is a PhD in English rather than a science 'peer'. There is no section that deals with this kind of issue. Reliable sources are not citing research quality as an issue so it would be an inaccurate to place the content there. For now I've added a new section. (olive (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC))
 * There's also coverage at the blog on Nature.
 * I've trimmed and re-written the material a bit for readability and flow. We don't need to give a blow-by-blow account and the incident. I don't think it deserves a section of its own, and "recent" is a word to avoid since it becomes dated so quickly. Let's think up a better title or section for it.   Will Beback    talk    23:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anxiety
The paragraph in 2.3 Cognitive function beginning "Three studies published in 2001...." looks as if it would be better placed in 2.2 Anxiety. If there are no objections, I'll move it. Spicemix (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a valid point. Most of that para belongs in the anxiety section. However, last sentence would seem to belong with cognitive fn. Can you think of a way to finesse this? Early morning person (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentence added to opening section
Per WP:LEAD in a nutshell: "define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Accordingly, I have added a sentence to the lead paragraph which summarizes in brief the substantial amount of reliably-sourced content in the article that reports 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 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. I post a list of the 13 just below. Early morning person (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The list of 12 refs referred to below
Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Source Summary

Studies do not support text
The refs do not support "health education" or "relaxation" as controls. The controls in some studies appear to be wait list ( a very poor control indeed ). Only one of the studies was a systematic review (the pediatric one) and I am unable to find the text claimed to be in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source?
Currently the top paragraph of the lead contains the wording "studies have the potential for bias because of a connection of researchers to the TM organization". This is a generalization which reduces the reader's confidence in much of the research, but in fact the citation is specific: "All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date... are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization." Such a specific opinion should not be used in the lead to characterize the research more generally.

We should note that the phrase "potentially biased" is not a scientific finding, but a subjective and minority opinion of two authors. As such, it does not summarize the research, as required by WP:LEAD, nor even summarize wider expert opinion on blood pressure trials, but gives prominence to an isolated and unproven point of view, in violation of WP:UNDUE.

WP:MEDRS requires that we "Summarize scientific consensus", and WP:MEDSCI states that Wikipedia policies "demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus.... Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally the views of tiny minorities need not be reported."

Spicemix (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Altered the text to address the concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But what is the "difficulty"? The only plausible answer is that it is, as the citation makes clear, bias, so now we have WP:WEASEL added to the violations of policy.


 * The allegation by Canter and Ernst of bias in research on Transcendental Meditation is the only one we have found in the scientific literature, I am assuming. Is that correct?


 * It is presented in their paper not as a scientific finding, but as a claim. It is what WP:MEDASSESS describes as "non-evidence, such as anecdotes".


 * It is a damaging claim to make. WP:REDFLAG says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Given that we apparently have hundreds of papers by authors with TM affiliations published in independent peer-reviewed journals or other edited scientific publications, and that no editor or peer reviewer has found bias, Canter and Ernst's claim seems to be one "that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions", a further WP:REDFLAG criterion.


 * WP:FRINGE says, "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight". WP:MEDSCI says: "the views of tiny minorities need not be reported".


 * For the avoidance of doubt, Canter and Ernst's assertion is a view, and they are, apparently, a tiny minority in this field of scholarship.


 * To comply with these policies, the minority and unsupported view of Canter and Ernst must be removed from the lead. Spicemix (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That their is bias is something anyone can see by looking at the papers. A number of articles and textbooks have commented on this. Most have just ignored the research entirely. This stuff has not entered main stream medicine. The TMers are the "tiny minority" here. This stuff is not even mentioned by NICE or the AHA. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * From the wording of this post, "this stuff", etc, you clearly hold Transcendental Meditation and its scientific literature in contempt. I admire your honesty, but it has no weight in improving this article, where Wikipedia policy is first and last.


 * That their is bias is something anyone can see by looking at the papers. We can't get further away from Wikipedia policy than that. Please see WP:FIVEPILLARS: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here."


 * A number of articles and textbooks have commented on this. Until we have references to reliable sources for this claim, we must treat it as untrue.


 * I do not know what Nice is, but regarding not even mentioned by the AHA, please see paragraph four of Research quality.


 * For This stuff has not entered main stream medicine, please see here, paragraph two.


 * As laid out previously in this thread, for violations of WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDASSESS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:MEDSCI and WP:WEASEL, we must remove from the lead all reference to bias in connection with the affiliations of the authors of peer-reviewed and edited papers.


 * If there is no objection based on policy, then let's take this course of action. Spicemix (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to "Studies do not support text" (Aug 12)
Sorry for delay. My other life has been unusually busy. I’m happy to accommodate the request for proof that, 1) the studies I cite specify relaxation (R) and health ed (HE) as controls, 2) that two of my refs are independent systematic reviews, and, 3) that several other refs are of highest quality as per MEDRS. I provide that in brief below, and the full details can be seen in the updated list of 12 refs, also on this page (see above: “Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Source Summary”). Note: All of these refs are also contained in the TM Research article, mostly under "Health outcomes." I also post below a slightly new version of the sentence I propose to add after the first sentence of this article. Again, this sentence is necessary to reflect abundant content in the article (including 12 high-quality sources) that indicates significant health results associated with TM. The current lead sentence ignores this fact and is in clear violation of WP: Lead and WP: NPOV. The proposed sentence: “Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits associated with TM, compared to health education, relaxation, and other control groups.”

I will reference this sentence to just six of the 12 refs (to avoid cluttering the page): two independent systematic reviews, an independent meta-analysis of RCT’s, a medical textbook, a narrative review, and an academic textbook. In response to your concerns, I will describe in detail how we know that relaxation or health ed were used as controls in the studies cited in five of these references. I include a sixth RS that did not elect to use either R or HE as controls--surely it is not the type of control that is of primary importance, but whether or not a reliable source found significant results re: the subject being researched.

Here are the refs: 1) Paradies (2006 independent systematic review): see list of 12 refs on this page for a direct quotation from this review indicating that a study noting health benefits in TM subjects used relaxation [progressive muscle relaxation or PMR** (see explanation below)] as a control; 2) Black (2009 indep syst review) see ref list for a direct quotation indicating health ed was used as a control. (Sorry, I earlier gave the wrong pg #. It is now correct in the list of 12); 3) Ospina et al (2006 independent meta-analysis of RCT’s) see ref list for quotation that relaxation (PMR**) was used as a control; 4) Vogel et al (2007 medical textbook chapter). Vogel describes a significant health result re: TM, and the study cited specifies health education as the control (see details in list); 5) Olivo (2009 narrative review): again a direct quote indicating “relaxation” was used as the control; 6) Brabozcz (2009 medical textbook): reduction in effects of pain observed in TM subjects. Please note that three other narrative reviews in the ref list also report significant health results re: TM, and that they specify either HE or R as a control. These are: Fekete et al (2007), Pratt (2010), and Sibinga & Kemper (2010).

You asked which refs are systematic reviews. They are Black (2009) and Paradies (2006), in the list of 12 on this page, and in also in the article under Health outcomes. MEDRS defines SR’s as follows: "A systematic review uses a reproducible methodology to select primary studies meeting an explicit criteria in order to answer a specific question.” Each of Black and Paradies has a methodology section at the beginning of the article describing their systematic approach. Only systematic reviews do this. They clearly describe their methodology for their literature search, including the specific databases they searched and the key words they used. Both give detail about the results of the search. Both are in every sense a systematic review.

But of course, systematic reviews are just one of several top-ranked sources. MEDRS also names “professional or academic books” as an “ideal source,” and also states that “meta-analyses of RCT’s” are “the best evidence.” In the next sentence, MEDRS notes the value of narrative reviews in establishing evidence quality.

This sentence would seem to contradict the views of the ambitious Ospina et al study referenced in the lead sentence, but there is a logical explanation for this: 1) Ospina added no further studies after Sept 2005 (note that the major AMA study cited by Vogel, as one example, came out in 2006), and besides, as noted in the 1st para of Health outcomes in this article, disregarded 98 “potentially relevant” studies suggested by their peer-reviewers; 2) Ospina excluded studies of adolescents. Also note that Ospina did find a significant health benefit for TM, compared to relaxation. With this thorough explanation, I trust there will be no further objection to this well-supported and necessary sentence. Early morning person (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

**Regarding whether PMR is recognized as a standard form of “relaxation” therapy:
The following sources indicate that it is widely recognized as such in current research: a) See the 2009 Cochrane review “Relaxation therapies for the management of primary hypertension in adults,” which.included PMR as one of the main approaches examined. (Dickinson, Beyer et al, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD004935.) Quotation from their Plain Language Summary: “Different types of relaxation were taught in different trials. . . ‘Progressive muscle relaxation, cognitive/behavioural therapies and biofeedback seemed to be more likely to reduce blood pressure.” URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004935.pub2/abstract

b) Mosby’s, a standard health reference, includes PMR in its survey of the main relaxation therapies. See Freeman, Lyn (2009). Mosby's Complementary & Alternative Medicine: A Research-Based Approach. Mosby Elsevier. p. 159.

c) It should also be noted that in one of the sources currently cited in the lead sentence of the TM Research article [Cochrane (re: anxiety) (2006)], the one study that met their narrow criteria for inclusion used “modifed progressive relaxation” as the control. "Progressive relaxation" is defined here as "a deep muscle relaxation technique developed and published by Edmond Jacobson in 1929" (Jacobson, of course, is the founder of PMR, which is synonomous with “progressive relaxation.”) Early morning person (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Takes changes to a RfC
If you guys wish to propose a change please take it to a RfC so that we can get more eye on it. One policy that Spicemix has seems to have missed is WP:COI. Having my words twisted as they have been above or simply deleted as they have been here is not going to move use forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV/NB
I've just seen this posted on the NPOV/NB. Since Early is new at this he may not have realized he should post a notice here. Hope he's OK with me posting a notice for him per  procedure .(olive (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Don't mind at all. Thanks for taking care of it. Thanks also to Doc J for the advice, but on reflection, decided that a wider forum would be more appropriate in this case. Early morning person (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved content
Nuclear warfare has added content to the lead which I am moving here for post Notice Board discussion. The opening sentence is under discussion on a Notice Board and adjusting meaning during a NB discussion may be inappropriate.(olive (talk)`)

My edit summary statement about practitioners vs research claims stands but I'll with hold comment until the NB discussion has been completed.(olive (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

"Practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) have claimed that the technique is more effective than standard meditation practices. However,..."
 * I agree with NW it does put things into context. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be changed during a NB discussion on the issue. It can be discussed later once the discussion is completed.(olive (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC))


 * Doc I'd suggest you revert yourself. I will ask for neutral admin guidance on this issue if you fail to. I may be wrong on this but its with out merit to change content while that content is under discussion on a NB. A neutral admin could help me determine what is appropriate.(olive (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC))


 * Let's pretend that this article was Research on the effects of fishfingers and custard instead of Transcendental Meditation research. Wouldn't you agree that it would be kind of silly to start out the article with the statement "Independent, systematic reviews have found no benefit to eating fishfingers and custard after rebirth"? Wouldn't you want to know who in the "real world" might have suggested such a thing and why they might have done so before delving into the article? Anyway, that's my one foray into the article. Feel free to do with it what you wish. As for the discussion, just point the edit out wherever else discussion is happening. I'm sure uninvolved readers like myself won't be confused if my change is pointed out prominently. NW ( Talk ) 22:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Doc James not only wrote but has diligently protected that opening statement you might ask him. I happen to agree that the former opening statement is poor and is not compliant per WP:LEAD. And that's why a discussion is ongoing on the NPOV NB. My concern is not  your addition,  but  just that it is  an addition at this point which impacts the sentence under discussion  and seems out of process. For myself, I will be happy to discuss the accuracy of your addition once the NPOV discussion has come to some conclusion. Thanks for you input. (olive (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Love the DR Who series by the way, nice connection.(olive (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC))
 * ) Let me know if there's anything else that you would like my input on. NW ( Talk ) 03:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

reversion of edits
James could you outline why you reverted the edits of three editors in the lead of this article. Thanks.(olive (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC))
 * One does not connect one sentence that says TM has health benefits with another that also says TM has health benefits with a however. TM is as effective as "health education" and "relaxation". This is not no benefit thus the however does not make sense. Next issue is that we doe not present the conclusions of poor quality research before we present the conclusions of high quality research per WP:DUE. I returned the content to the version of one of the editors in question thus not sure how you got to three. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverted 1st sentence to version by Nuclear Warfare from earlier today. As explained with my edit, it makes no sense to start this article with a statement about what practitioners of TM have claimed. That is an empty rhetorical convenience, and has nothing to do with the content of the article. The subject of this article is what professional researchers have found about TM. Researchers have noted health benefits in a dozen independent reviews, as explained earlier on this page. These have included several reviews of the highest quality as defined by MEDRS: two independent systematic reviews, a medical textbook, and an independent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. These refs supporting the sentence about independent systematic reviews are from good sources, but they are not in a higher category than the reviews reporting TM benefits--at least not according to MEDRS. There are other reasons for this revert, stemming from the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. But the reasons I have given are sufficient. Also, NW is an uninvolved but knowledgeable editor who does not act rashly. I feel that his edit is very fair and sensible and should be respected. Early morning person (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great I agree NW is an excellent editor and have thus restored his addition. Could you tell us which experts told you that the "systemative review" which does not state it is a systematic review is in fact a systematic review. I am an expert in these sorts of things and disagree. Do these experts work at the Maharishi University of Management. It appears a number of editors here do. And seriously Wikipedia is not here for you guys to promote your movement. The NPOV board has referred to these activities as a "advocacy beehive"  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You do not have any grounds for reversion: 1) NW made two edits today, and you have reverted to the earlier one, which obviously does not represent his later thought! This was his latest edit, "Some studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) have reported that the technique has a range of health benefits." 2) I consulted, among others, with an editor at a peer-reviewed journal that publishes systematic reviews. I suggest you clear up your misunderstanding about the Ethnicity and Disease systematic review by consulting a medical reference professional. But again, my argument does not hinge on that. As explained just above, this is one of four reviews that I cited that are, according to MEDRS, equal in quality to the sources cited in the sentence about no benefits for TM. And in the list of twelve embedded above, see also three more refs from professional or academic books, which are also at this same level of highest validity according to MEDRS. 3) I object to your insinuation that I am "promoting" something other than the truth in this article. 4) NPOV editors: a) Dmcq: "I would have thought the lead should say what has been established for it for starters” b) Immediately after Dmcq, Aprock responds, "I agree with the general sentiment here." c) Aprock's final point: "As long as no one is claiming magical powers, I'm fine with whatever goes into the articles." Re: Dmcq’s comment that an article on TM research should logically start with what has been "established" for it: ordinary “TM practitioners” are in no position to establish anything. That is the job of researchers, hence the need to refer to research in the lead sentence. The other editors at NPOV NB, once explanations were made (again, note their later thought, not the earlier), had no problem with adding content that clarifies the role of TM, "if there are good sources." Which there are. Again, see ref list above. I feel it is obvious that your reversion is unjustified. Therefore, I am reverting to NW's later edit, for these several reasons. Live and let live Doc. Early morning person (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Early morning person (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added four reliable sources for 1st sentence, as per MEDRS. Early morning person (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The most recent feedback at the noticeboard (after you restored the sentence and added the sources) supports this current version, except to change the order of paragraphs. I've done so, per that suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection. In terms of WP:Lead, this is an even better way to start the article, since it gives a better overview of the stated subject of the article. Early morning person (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This order of paragraphs seems an intelligent move. It is good to let the reader know that there has been ongoing research on TM since the 1960's. Later the competing opinions on the quality and results of the research can be presented in a balanced and NPOV manner supported by reliable sources. --BweeB (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored to agreed on version at WP:RfC. Maybe we should ask NW to clarify his opinion. One does not attempt to contradict high quality evidence with lower quality evidence. There is an article on the history of TM. This is not it. Picking and choosing comments that one wishes to follow on notice boards is not consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer (older) over  (newer), because I think it's important to mention why TM is being studied in a scientific context in the first place. It's not terribly important to me though. NW ( Talk ) 01:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)