Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Time to revisit the "health effects" question

The last sentence in the lede states "It is not possible to say whether it has any effect on health as the research, as of 2007, is of poor quality." Well, as of now, it's 2018, and things change in 11 years. I've looked through the Talk page archives and there's a bewildering variety of posts about health and health claims, so it seems to me that starting from a blank slate to evaluate all studies post-2007 is reasonable, since the premise is that the studies pre-2007 are unacceptable. Here are a couple of more recent studies from reliable sources:

• [1] Meditation and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction -- A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association (published 28 Sep., 2017, Journal of the American Heart Association) "Summary: Studies of meditation to date suggest a possible, though not definitively established, benefit of meditation on cardiovascular risk reduction. A 2008 review of >400 trials of meditation and health care rated the methodological quality of clinical trials as poor, but noted that the quality of these trials had significantly improved over time."
• [2] Stress Reduction in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Randomized, Controlled Trial of Transcendental Meditation and Health Education in Blacks (published 1 Nov., 2012, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes) "Conclusion: This randomized, controlled trial found that a selected mind–body, stress reduction intervention, the TM program, significantly reduced risk for mortality, MI, and stroke in black men and women with coronary heart disease. These changes in clinical events were associated with lower BP and psychosocial distress. Thus, the TM program may be a clinically useful behavioral intervention in the secondary prevention of CVD in this and perhaps other high-risk populations."
  

Bricology (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The second is a primary source and not relevant in WP. (See WP:MEDDEF and all of WP:MEDRS). The first is not about TM per se. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Checks

I've started to look through the research for the best current sources. I'll post findings here for discussion.Littleolive oil (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I got stuck on this with illness and family loss. I'll try to pick up where I left off. Its a biggish job so may take a while. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Redundant poorly sourced

I've removed redundant content that is not well sourced with this edit summary." This is in the article body. The sources being used here are problematic some very old 1958 and some don't support the article content. English wikipedia we have English sources for this content in the article. body..." This can be discussed further but given the editor who added this need to simplify the lead this is not a consistent POV edit. The article is pretty clear on "cult". I have been quite ill and also dealing with family loss but should be back to work in a day or two. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

176.150.245.115 I have replaced the poorly sourced content with content from the article body. I have concerns with your edits on for example: List of Works of Leonardo De Vinci [3] I am not in a position to check all of your edits but other editors are. Please read up on English Wikipedia and please do not edit war to your Point of View position on any Wikipedia article. The Leonard article is well sourced as is this one. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way please recheck the sources you tried to add. One is dated 1958, two are foreign language and the fourth does not mention cult so your use of that source is WP:OR. I have added sources that through consensus are considered appropriate for this article. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I will in the next while pare down the content I added to the lead so it does not repeat the body content. For now I'll leave as is given my time constraints. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I will clean up the lead later... as I am running into revert issues. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert the edits by the ip to the lede only because they did address some much-needed trimming. Of course, we don't want to remove important points of view while doing so, but there is a lot of detail that seems unnecessary and distracting. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with James' changes. I moved the content from the body to the lead as a temporary measure to satisfy the ip's desire to include controversy. I had hoped to trim the lead later tomorrow. The article has been pretty stable so I don't think there's anything outstanding to adjust. I have been looking at the research and I think we will have to adjust sources although the article will probably read about the same as it does now. As I said above that will take some time, but I'll post here so others can look at what I find. I have no desire to make those changes myself. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The ip is now way beyond 4 reverts in 24 hours and has readded content. I'm fine with adding controversy in the lead but we should have a range of controversy. Clearly the IP is focused on cult. As with most new religious movements- the word cult is not academically driven but is an emotional response to what is unknown- the word cult generally gives way to a more nuanced description with academics over time as per Chryssides, a New Religious Movement expert with out any ties to any organization. I'd prefer that at least we include the range of controversy. My initial edits were sloppy; I didn't realize I was reverting as much as I was and had planned to clean up with a next edit; I did back away before I could clean up. I'd be happy to have someone readd controversy; I don't really like working on these articles given their past history. Anyway. If no one responds I will try and read appropriate content later. Thanks for input James and Ronz. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

And now we have what looks like a meatpuppet adding "cult" to the lede with no edit summary and no indication of references [4]...

I don't believe "cult" belongs in the lede for the reasons already given, and certainly not with such prominence. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree: a meat puppet or sock. Note the user contributions and overlaps with the IP, [5] [6]. The editor refuses to come to the talk page so its impossible to discuss. If we add any controversy to the lead it should include a range of controversies rather than a focus on one. My preference is for wording that is more academically driven rather than one with generalized emotional overtones but either way just adding one controversy is undue. My thought is to do a CU if the editor shows up again. I looked at the edits both have made and am concerned about "their" edits on other articles. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

revert by IP again

From IP [7] user talk page

Hi 176.150.245.115

Regarding your comment and edit summary here:"I mean look at the article in other languages. Plus, I'm sorry if I seemed rude but if I did not go to talk page it's just because I don't know how to use WP properly. Really."

Two points to keep in mind: What goes on on other Wikipedias is not our concern here. And if you don't know how to go to a talk page to discuss you should hold off on editing content until you do.

To edit the TM talk page: In the left hand corner you will see a blue "Talk". Click on it. This will take you to the article talk page. Look for discussion on this topic in section headings. I will revert you and then you can bring your concerns to the talk page. There is an implied agreement to remove cult from the lead in part because it is in the body of the article with other controversies. Placing cult in the lead on its own creates an undue focus on one controversy. Second, the word itself carries emotional baggage that can better be dealt with by a more academically driven description which the article does in the body. You are attempting to add a WP:POV to the article. You have been warned; please join the discussion to state your position. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

So I don't think that just saying the movement has been accused of being a Cult would put an undue focus, as it is an important aspect. Moreover, I don't think that user oliveoil can say that this is a POV as I used the word "accused" : just basic fact. It is really not honnest. And he did not answer about him only getting rid of any nuance let alone criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.150.245.115 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

We are not getting rid of cult; it is in the body of the article. That it is an only, singular, important aspect for the lead is a POV viewpoint and we can't make decisions based on POV. Cult is one of several controversies. By including this one controversy but not the other controversies we place undue weight on this controversy and this creates a Point of View position and is not neutral. Littleolive oil, that would be me, did not initially suggest removing cult from the lead. I suggested placing the accurate weight on the topic of cult by including the other controversies. Two other long time editors implied that it be removed from the lead when they reverted the lead to its former stable status where most if not all controversies were in the body of the article. Until you have a consensus to undue the stable version of the lead and to override these editors, to add your own version of the article, you should not add this POV addition. We all have opinions but Wikipedia runs on a collaborative model; to try and move an article to your own POV jeopardizes your editing status. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Present state of the TM article

This is a discussion. No content on the research should be added to the article at this time pending the end or control of the pandemic since one of the major editors on this article is an MD. Content added on the research will be removed. Thank you for your understanding.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Krishnakumar, Divya; Hamblin, Michael R; Lakshmanan, Shanmugamurthy (April, 2015). "Meditation and Yoga can Modulate Brain Mechanisms that affect Behavior and Anxiety- A Modern Scientific Perspective". Ancient Science. 2 (1): 13. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14259/as.v2i1.171. PMID 26929928. Retrieved 27 February 2020. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |doi= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

This is an obscure publisher.[8]

Restored the better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

•Opsina has been archived so I will remove but leave text in place until sources can be found.

•Also, Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease Louise Hartley Angelique Mavrodaris Nadine Flowers Edzard Ernst has been withdrawn as superseded.

•From what I am seeing of the research left-there is one more review that I have to look at more closely- we could say in this article that the present research can be characterized as somewhat effective, possibly biased, and with more research needed. I believe there is one of our reviews in place now that makes these three points; I'd have to check again.

Apologies for this delay. I had looked at the research quite a while ago and found these problems but never got around to mentioning the issues or fixing them. The Opsina review should be removed across the article as well as in the lede (which I did), and the Hartley review source removed across the article as well. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I have restored both the Cochrane review and the Opsina AHRQ review. We have them dated to when they were published.

The prior Cochrane review on TM for the prevention of CVD is not withdrawn https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25436436 and that is the version we are using. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see the Chochrane review on the edit page. Apologies for unintended removal. Opsina was archived "for historical purposes only" an indication that it should not be used to support conclusions but as a historical reference only. I'm not sure why we would use it here and how an old and archived review can be MEDRS compliant. We have better, more recent sources.

There is no version of the review that has not been withdrawn. We can't use a review when authors have withdrawn it unless we are presenting a historical section. Then I guess we could start collecting early secondary sources and indicate how they are placed in reference to the research as a whole.

I replaced the Cochrane review and removed Opsina before I saw your comments here. I'd like to think we can use the best and most recent reviews to indicate the range of conclusions. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the Cochrane review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16437509

I have restored it again

I disagree with the removal of Opsina. It was an accurate statement as of 2007.

AHRQ has not done a review since. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

What the heck... I thought I just restored the Cochrane Review after I mistakenly removed it....Sorry for the confusion. Sheesh.

I don't see how we use an archived review that has been labeled for historical purposes only. There are more recent reviews. Not sure what else to say about this. We have stringent guidelines for health related content so I'd be thinking in those terms. We have three general findings in terms of TM research: that there is some benefit, that there is potential for bias, and that more research is needed. I know we can state those findings with out using an archived and a withdrawn source. Thoughts on this? Littleolive oil (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, science is not a frozen state but a process; what was true or accurate in past years may not be with further research. If we want to indicate what research was stating at a particular point in time seems to me that's a historical perspective which if stated as such would be fine. But a historical perspective requires context. With out context we are not giving the reader an accurate view of either the older research or most current state of the research. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If we have a newer comprehensive equally high quality review we can discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to be very busy in the next while so won't get to this for awhile. Apologies for starting a discussion I can't continue immediately. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Reiterating discussion points (partially for my own memory)

• Cochrane review. [9].

Reason for withdrawal.This Cochrane Review has been superseded. See 'Meditation for the prevention and management of heart disease'. 
The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

So per MEDRS-"must accurately reflect current knowledge"-we should set aside a publication where editors have withdrawn the review and the review has been superseded. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yah the 2017 version has been withdrawn but the 2014 version has not been.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25436436

Here it says it has been superceeded but I am unable to find what it was superceeded by.[10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay appears this is going to be the update but it is not finished yet.[11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Added text

The text added was "A high-quality 2020 study on PTSD found that Transcendental Meditation was as effective as a standard treatment called "prolonged exposure", which requires patients to focus on their traumatic experiences."

Text says "In all these trials, active treatments (PE, CPT, PCT, sertraline, and transcendental meditation) were not significantly different in all direct comparisons of clinician-administered primary PTSD outcomes"

Does not say it was "high quality" also the study was neither done nor published in 2020. Additionally this is a "clinical update" not a review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31999301 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It also does not describe the comparitor as standard treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The Steenkamp clinical update is a reliable MEDRS source but I think we would have to reword the WP content. Steenkamp published a review of PTSD randomized controlled trials in 2015 in JAMA. She published this update because some of the strongest RCTs have come out since her 2015 review. Essentially, she is simply updating, also in JAMA, her earlier review.

I'd be happy to reword and post here so you can take a look at it to see how it reads. I have a bit of time today so will look over other discussions and see what I can find and or add. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Maybe something like "One trial which compared TM and prolonged exposure therapy found little difference between the two in PTSD." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Sorry I didn't see this post, James. Rather than randomly deal with content added months ago it might be less confusing to just begin with the lead and go from there dealing with each source as we get to it. I could add the sources one at a time with an area for discussion. I suspect we will have to rewrite the research section eventually since additions and subtractions will likely leave confusion in the syntax. This might be a good way to approach it. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• • I've returned the article to its last stable version. I believe we have an implied agreement to wait until the pandemic is under control (or 6 months as requested by Doc James) to make major changes to the article. Spicemmix. I may have removed a minor edit along with a major revert to a stable version. I apologize for the inconvenience to any editor. This articles has been so contentious that only with input from all editors who have played a major role can I see that the article will maintain neutrality. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This bit has been removed "Other reviews have found no effect on weight, alcohol misuse, or pain compared to controls."

That review from 2014 mentions TM 194 times.

Sure happy to discuss newer sources. 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

• This was a recent addition. I deliberately removed, for now, all recent additions on the research in an attempt to reach the most stable version of the article. I wanted to be completely neutral in what was removed and what wasn't so just went to the last stable version. Also, my thought was to first deal with older sources from that stable version, then look at newer sources including ones recently added. If we are dealing with both recent and older sources at the same time I think things could become confusing. I would be happy to set the discussion up to deal with each source and discussion of it, and agreement, as we go along. Dealing with older version should go pretty quickly since in my opinion most of the older sources are fine although there are a couple that need looking at. We might have to do some rewriting of content. Thoughts? Littleolive oil (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Strong bias undertone

As a first time reader of this article by someone interested in TM and as a career scientist, I found the opening section to carry a strong bias. Specifically, the article uses the state of the field in 2007 to question the credibility of health claims of TM. This also creates an impression of an unmaintained article. Throughout the rest of the article, references to studies on the health benefits of TM are followed by (typically) subjective criticism. The prevalence of such criticisms creates an impression of bias. The primary author (I assume) claims to be in the process of updating the research as of 2019 and, currently in 2020, has instituted a block on adding any new research by using the reason of COVID-19 and that one editor is an MD. Really? That comes across as obstructing valid debate and counterargument to the apparent bias. The article suggests that just because a few Western studies fail to corroborate peer-reviewed claims regarding the health benefits of TM then the claims must be invalid. This article needs to have a counterbalance to the dismissive bias otherwise the casual reader cannot obtain an objective view of TM and its claimed health benefits. Contrary to the assertions in the article, I can say that, from personal experience with C-PTSD, TM and other "mantra" type meditations have helped me tremendously. Anecdotally, many other people report the same. That mainstream Western medicine is blind to that or cannot demonstrate such is not justification to dismiss it. Perhaps the article should be reorganized and have a section on Western medicine's assessment of the health benefit claims of TM, a section on Eastern medicine's assessment, and a section on the proposed link between TM and the Unified Field. Alternatively, rename the article so that it is clear that its focus is on the health benefits of TM and not TM in general. JohnnyMalaria (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyMalaria (talk • contribs) 11:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The TM article has a long and contentious history especially around the research. Research on health related content has very strict boundaries according to Wikipedia; we are restricted to sources that are WP:MEDRS compliant. As you read through what this means note that this guide refers to all health related content across Wikipedia. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is simply a collection of published content and is not meant to indicate the most recent information on anything unless it has become mainstream. This is the remit of an encyclopedia rather than a research paper or news article, as examples. There have been changes in the last few years to the TM research in terms of systematic reviews and we can with care and consensus add that content. Because the article has been so contentious including arbitration cases, I have taken the bold step of making sure that the primary architects of the research in the article are available for discussion and consensus. Understanding how research is added in Wikipedia terms requires experience so experienced editors are probably a necessary part of improving this article. Note that adding content that is not compliant results only in content removed which is frustrating both for the editor adding and the one who has to remove. The MD I mentioned asked that we delay making changes until this unique world event has receded somewhat and he can be part of the discussion. I will shortly be adding content for discussion on the talk page, although to be clear not adding anything to the article, and anyone is welcome to be part of this discussion. I also have no formal power to stop anyone from adding content but if that content does not fall within the boundaries of what Wikipedia allows I and anyone else can and should remove it. I'd add that our personal opinions on the effectiveness of TM cannot dictate what we add; Wikipedia is not a blog or opinion piece but an encyclopedia. If you have an interest in being part of the discussion on readjusting content I'd suggest you look at or review HELP:Introduction and then specifically WP:MEDRS to give yourself some background. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

State of the research

I am about half-way through looking at research. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not possible to say whether TM has any effect on health

"TM is one of the most widely practiced and researched meditation techniques.[10][11] It is not possible to say whether it has any effect on health as the research, as of 2007, is of poor quality.[12][13]"

Really? What about all the peer reviewed research and videos like these?

Transcendental meditation shows promise as PTSD therapy https://www.militarytimes.com/2016/05/28/transcendental-meditation-shows-promise-as-ptsd-therapy/

People try Transcendental Meditation for 60 Days https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HykQj9zLA7g

And what about all the peer reviewed research? Okay, no one is going to fly and and the top TM people really do look stupid with their phony powerless "governments" and gold crowns but the technique works. I'm done TM off and on since 1974 and feel incredibly relaxed after a 20 minute session. I usually also sleep like a baby that night so IMO TM is a very efficient way to relax. All I'm saying is, go easy on these guys.

Are these people who do TM all hoaxed simpletons?

Al Gore, Al Jardine, Amy Schumer, Andy Kaufman, Arianna Huffington, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barbara De Angelis, Barry Zito, Ben Harper, Bettye LaVette, Bill Hader, Bill Hicks, Billy Gibbons, Buckminster Fuller, Cameron Diaz, Clint Eastwood, David Lynch, Deepak Chopra, Dennis Miller, Donovan, Eddie Vedder, Ellen DeGeneres, Eva Mendez, Gary Player, George Harrison, George Lucas, George Stephanopoulos, Gisele Bundchen, Goldie Hawn, Gwyneth Paltrow, Heather Graham, Howard Stern, Hugh Jackman, Ivanka Trump, Jeff Bridges, Jeff Goldblum, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Lopez, Jerry Brown, Jerry Seinfeld, Jim Carrey, John Cusack, John Densmore, John Gray, John Stamos, Judd Apatow, Larry Bowa, Laura Dern, Liv Tyler, Louise Hay, Madonna, Marianne Williamson, Marshall McLuhan, Martin Scorsese, Mehmet Oz, Merv Griffin, Michael J. Fox, Mike Love, Moby, Naomi Watts, Nicole Kidman, Oprah Winfrey, Paul Horn, Paul McCartney, Ravi Shankar, Ray Dalio, Ray Manzarek, Rick Rubin, Ringo Starr, Robin Roberts, Rosie O'Donnell, Rupert Murdoch, Russell Brand, Russell Simmons, Sheryl Crow, Smokey Robinson, Soledad O’Brien, Steve Vai, Stevie Wonder, Sting, Tim Burgess, Tom Bergeron, Tom Hanks, Tom Petty, William Scranton III, and Willie Stargell. (Snapdog187 (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)).

False dilemma. Throughout history, smart people have believed in lots of wrong stuff. (Stupid people too.) Lacking the science skills to tell true from false claims in complicated cases does not make you a "hoaxed simpleton", it just makes you a layman. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes

• This. "....and less commonly to the organizations that constitute the Transcendental Meditation movement." was meant to reference and summarize the multiple ways TM is referred to in multiple sources. Changed to this..." promoted by organizations that constitute the Transcendental Meditation movement" is an exclusive and POV statement as the edit summary here underlines, "Anyway, it's clear that TM is a kind of meditation that is promoted by the devotees of the Maharishi."

• Edit summary: Two problematic sources (essentially promotional work by true-believers) and rewording in a way that is the actual state of the situation.

Sources are RS. Neither author has any affiliation with TM organization.( I checked the authors' bios and don't see anything. Not sure what is problematic.

• "actual state of the situation". Is a point of view statement even if the sources weren't a problem, the edit summary is probably simplistic and an inaccurate summary of the range of research over about 40 years or so. I contacted Doc James one of the architects of the research section on this article. Because he was an MD on the front lines in a pandemic I agreed to a 6 months moratorium on making changes to the research in the article. [12]

There are newer sources that should be added and summarized, and older ones that should be removed. I am going to add a beginning look at this in the next section. I will revert this recent addition to the article to it's stable version, based on the fact that Doc James is on a break from Wikipedia and hope all editors can respect this. And no, I mostly disagree with James but this seems fair given the world circumstances. I'd note the sources are problematic though-that Opsina has been archived for historical purposes only and should no longer be used; it's also very old. The second review used a single primary study on TM, and says there was not enough information to draw conclusions. We have more recent research including Ooi which is a meta analysis of reviews and meta analysis to date of the publication that says,"Overall, there exists a clear trend of increasing evidence over the years supporting the efficacy of TM in lowering BP. However, some conflicting findings remain across reviews and potential risk of bias exists in many of the RCTs included in these reviews." and which may begin a good overarching statement about the state of the TM research along with the range of value from none to useful. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I won't revert if there is no good to come of it. Your content doesn't match the sources and yes, they are poor sources but the content is the stable version, which by the way I did not write, Doc James did and I don't agree with it, but that version is the long-time stable version. Had I wanted to improve the accuracy of the article I would have used the newer sources, but I made a promise to Doc to not add anything on the research. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, we aren't using "studies" in the research content, but reviews and meta analyses, because studies are not MEDRS compliant. The Ooi meta analysis is quite good because it is a meta analysis of reviews and meta analyses if that makes sense. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm just concerned with the sources which are pretty awful. We should just remove them and make the sentences simpler. I doubt doc james will be mad about that. I could be wrong. jps (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

For myself I want to keep my word. Waiting for another editor is a kind of an unprecedented way of dealing with content, I know, but then these are unprecedented times. The research content has always been contentious so my personal position is to wait and work on it as a group so we have strong consensus. The research has been like this for years so a month or two won't make much difference in my opinion anyway. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the sources I removed represent "research" in the normal sense. jps (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Source discussion

Oh I see. Ok. New section started here for discussion. I took your edit summary to mean the sources were somehow connected to the TM organization which I didn't see on checking them. But if you have other concerns I agree they should be looked at. My agreement with Doc was about the research. I have to do a lot in RL in the next few days but I suggest we start laying out the potential problems. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

TM is one of the most widely practiced and researched meditation techniques.

I don't think the sentence is very contentious but how it was put in the article was poorly done and lacked context. First, it shouldn't preface the fact that there isn't any good evidence of efficacy. Obviously the quality of the evidence is more important than the quantity so that should go first. Second, it didn't contextualize the fact that much of the research was done at the request of the movement. Even the source you used basically explained that research was done at request. As long as those two points are met first I don't think explaining that the most popular and most profitable modality is the most researched.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

References

my reverted edit on 12/19

Littleolive oil in your edit notes, you said "no explanation for major changes" and reverted. I took it most of it from Transcendental Meditation technique. did I get it wrong? Is it poorly written? please don't revert unless there's something wrong with what i wrote, and if there is, say so. thanks, Lmomjian (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You made big changes in content without an edit summary explaining why. If you want your edits to be respected and understood an edit summary is important. This article and subject area have been the subject of arbitrations, is highly contentious and is under discretionary sanctions. Please see the top of this talk page. Go slowly when you make changes so other editors can follow what you did, and get agreement from other editors on this talk page if your edits are contested. I have to sort out what you did; you did not move slowly but made some big changes quickly. I can't agree to those changes until I can trace them. It may be a few days until I can look at this properly given the upcoming holiday. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Thanks for being patient. (I've worked on this article for many years so have a sense of its history and when and where its content came from.) Littleolive oil (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil I didn't add edit summary because i made some small tweaks here and there, I really don't think that qualifies as "big changes". from what I know I don't think your "guilty until proven innocent" approach is the standard for wikipedia. someone please correct me if i'm wrong here. thank you for offering to review them later.Lmomjian (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil still waiting on your review here Lmomjian (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I forgot about this in the rush of the holidays. I'll look at this tonight. Apologies for delay. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Always add an explanatory edit summary if you want your edits to be understood and respected. I did remove duplicate content; it was hard for me to see what you were doing and you did not leave an edit summary to guide any editor who saw the edits you made. Changes should improve an article.

This, "silently-used sound" is more succinct and less awkward than this, " repeating a mantra in the mind silently" which you added. If it's not broken don't fix it. This is not sourced, " Mantras should be chosen by a certified TM teacher for an individual meditator." and is not quite accurate.

You seem to have added a fair bit of content within the reference formats. Am I misreading that. If you did, these are not small tweaks. And again if the tweak doesn't improve the article don't bother with it or expect to have to explain why what you add is better than what has been in a long standing stable version of an article.

These changes along with the fact that you made all of your edits without explanation are red flags for an editor trying to see what you did and looks like vandalism. Please note as I said before, this article has a long history of contention so edit summaries are a very good way of signaling to other editors that your intents are serious. Also there is no "guilty until proven innocent" approach in editing. If you make a bold edit and that edit is contested then you should expect discussion. Guilt doesn't enter into the equation. Wikipedia is collaborative. No one has a right to add something or not. Expect discussion, use an edit summary, make changes slowly in a contentious article, and if its fine as is, no need to change it. Check the top of the talk pages for article status if you're unsure. Littleolive oil (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Littleolive oil You say there's no "guilty until proven innocent" in editing yet you assumed that the absence of an edit summary indicates vandalism. when you bring up previous vandalism/contested edits it seems like you are trying to justify this way of thinking. i am not trying to vandalize, and i'm seriously trying to improve the page. WP:FAITH Good day. Lmomjian (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No one accused you of vandalism. I said that if and when an editor makes changes and there is no explanatory edit summary than this "looks like" vandalism. The result of such a situation is that the editor making changes is at a disadvantage. Add edit summaries or you will have the same experience wherever you edit. You are part of a collaboration where the guidelines for editing have been established by the editors themselves. If you don't want to agree to these rules, fine, but you will risk at the least having your edits questioned. I've explained the concerns I have with your edits. Instead of accusing me read the policies and guidelines. Please note that this page is under discretionary sanctions which means any admin can sanction. Rather than accuse me look at what I'm saying. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH) seems think TM is valuable

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211376/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19798037/ 74.12.79.24 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The NCBI is the organization that operates PubMed, a search engine for the medical literature. What you're finding are PubMed search results, not an official government endorsement of TM. I mean, it's as if you used the results of a Google search to prove that Google itself endorses TM, or looked up pro-TM material on an iPhone and then claimed that Apple endorsed TM. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible source misrepresentation

It appears that quote mining is used with doi:10.1037/a0028168 (Sedlmeier et al.) I could only access its abstract, but said abstract does not appear to support the general claim made in the article that quotes a sentence from the article. For instance, it highlights methodological issues. —PaleoNeonate – 12:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you link, please.Littleolive oil (talk)

Capitalized?

Is there a good reason why Transcendental Meditation is capitalized all over? It looks really weird, IMO. If it's a trademarked phrase, we might as well go for TM®. Otherwise, I see no reason for the capitalization. VdSV9•♫ 11:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation and it's short version TM are both trademarked and proper nouns. Proper nouns must be capitalized not just here but anywhere. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it, though? Sorry, but I still don't get it. I am aware that proper nouns are capitalized, and of course acronyms are usually all caps. But a person stating that something is a proper noun doesn't make it one. How is a practice, a type of meditation, a proper noun? What makes this any different than, idk, just silent meditation or any other type of meditation? Dhyana isn't capitalized, nor is Buddhist meditation. If it is because it has been trademarked as such, then it makes it a product and not just a practice, and the whole description is off. It just makes no sense to me. Another thing I noticed while reading the article is how Maharishi is referred to over and over as "the Maharishi", which reads like a religious text. It is also the case in other pages that mention him. VdSV9•♫ 20:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RayDudo. Peer reviewers: RayDudo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 10 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicejacksons.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 May 2021 and 6 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kacart98. Peer reviewers: Rk052020, T01H98, M4c9s0.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Transcendental Meditation® program" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Transcendental Meditation® program and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 28#Transcendental Meditation® program until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

footnote 16

It seems that the PDF with the footnote is not available. Stjohn1970 (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Archived and weak source replaced

Per my edit summary and comments I made here almost three years ago: I've replaced the Ospina source which has been "archived for historical purposes". I took the Bai meta analysis, in the article body, which indicates modest results, as well as concerns with possible bias and need for further studies, to replace Ospina and the weak Cochrane. The AHA here, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000947 uses Bai to support this statement, "Some, but not all, studies and meta-analyses have found that meditation can decrease various forms of psychological and psychosocial distress such as perceived stress, anxiety, and negative affect; increase smoking cessation rates; and modestly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures.” so indicates credibility and supports Wikipedia compliancy. There is a 2017 Cochrane which was with drawn and I should dig that out too and remove it. I haven't removed Ospina from the rest of the article but will get to that in a few days when I have time again. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added an overview of review and meta-analysis which seems most appropriate for a summarizing statement in a lead. Citation coming. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the withdrawn review. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010359.pub3/full. I'm very busy off-Wiki so done here for a while. There may be more recent research, but I don't have the time to deal with it. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Convert section to a table?

I feel like it would be cool to turn this to a table that includes when and how long the practitioner practiced!

> Some notable figures in pop-culture practicing TM include The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Kendall Jenner, Hugh Jackman, Tom Hanks, Jennifer Lopez, Mick Jagger, Eva Mendez, Moby, David Lynch, Jennifer Aniston, Nicole Kidman, Eric André, Jerry Seinfeld, Howard Stern, Julia Fox, Clint Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Russell Brand, Nick Cave and Oprah Winfrey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation?wprov=sfti1 />

73.93.14.241 (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Technique Section

Hi! The second paragraph of the Technique section appears to be word for word from this book - Methods of Stress Management by Allen Ulrich: https://psu.pb.unizin.org/kines082/chapter/transcendental-mediation/. To me, this appears to be WP:PLAG. Would someone be able to also take a look and confirm. If we align that this content is plagiarized, I can remove it from the article or paraphrase it. Whitestar12 (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Movement Section

The last sentence in the first paragraph under the Movement section has excessive citations. I clicked through each citation, and most of them are linked to books/ articles that I do not have access to. What is the best way to address the "excessive citation" subscript here? ["The organization was estimated to have 900,000 participants worldwide in 1977,[53] a million by the 1980s,[54][55][56] and 5 million in more recent years.[when?][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][excessive citations]"] Is it best to find 1 to 3 reliable sources and replace this content with information from those sources? Whitestar12 (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

If you don't have the sources you also don't have the information to know whether to remove something. :O) These are reliable sources just sources you don't have. We have to remember that sourcing is added for the reader's benefit not the editor, ours. While you may not have a sources clearly some editors did. That means the reader has a range of sources to look at. I suspect and I can't remember now that the content in question was debated and the heavy sourcing indicated the support for the content in the face of debate. I can check/ recheck the sources and will remove anything that is excess. It may be that all of the sources are necessary. Anyone can add a tag; a tag means an editor has questions about content not that the content or sources are at fault. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So I see the problem you may have been having. I actually remember several years ago reading these sources but they don't seem to be available now. They must be archived somewhere so I can continue to look. Until then I guess let the content stand as is. Thanks for catching this problem. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't considered the merits of the point, but as for ["The organization was estimated to have 900,000 participants worldwide in 1977,[53] a million by the 1980s,[54][55][56] and 5 million in more recent years.[when?][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][excessive citations]"] as a format issue, yeah, that doesn't work. If you want to keep all those refs they should be formatted as single ref (or anyway, fewer refs) rather than multiple individual refs, that is, instead of having [54][55][56] you have just [54], like this:

<ref>{{cite book (or whatever it is), data data data}}{{cite web etc etc etc}}{{cite news etc etc etc}}</ref>

This not only makes the mainline material more reader-friendly, it's also probably better (maybe?) for most readers who want to see the refs, as they don't have to go down-up-down-up etc to access each ref individually. This's what I do (usually; there can be exceptions) and I've seen it enough to suss that's it's reasonably common practice; whether there's a rule about this I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this format, but it seems a really good solution to the ref situation here. Thanks so much. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I consolidated [WP:CITEMERGE] the citations for the last sentence under the "Movement" section which was marked for "excessive citations." I did not remove the "excessive citation" marker because I do believe that the citations need to be looked at again for reliability. Additionally, I can't seem to access some of the citations/sources. Whitestar12 (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Update

I haven't been watching this article very closely since I am no longer very active on Wikipedia, but today I noticed that there are sources that are not MEDRS compliant and several that are out of date, by a long shot. I'll try to update in the next while. My understanding is that MEDRS is the standard for all health related content so I will adhere to that standard as I look through the article. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Littleolive oil - I noticed that the 2015 study which I deleted from the lead is mentioned in the article. Thanks for pointing that out.

According to WP:MOS, the lead should include the most important points and be written in a neutral POV. The sentences I deleted were "A 2015 review found that TM may reduce blood pressure compared to control groups while a trend over time indicates practicing TM may lower blood pressure."

1] This study is mentioned only once under the "Health Effects" section, which makes me question how critical/ important it is to be mentioned in the lead section.

2] In the "Health Effects" section of this article as well as in the source itself, it says, "Conflicting findings across reviews and a potential risk of bias indicated the necessity of further evidence, conducted by researchers without bias." The other source used also says, "However, some biases may have influenced the results, primarily a lack of information about study design and methods of BP measurement in primary studies." Leaving this point out in the lead section makes it appear as though there is a claim being made that TM helps to reduce BP. Hence, I had added WP:MEDRS when I had removed the content from the lead. If someone were to only read the lead which did not have this clarifying point, it could be misleading.

3] If we want to add the original content back in, perhaps we also add the point mentioned in #2 re: potential risk of bias in the studies.

Let me know your thoughts on whether the info should/ shouldn't be added back into the lead based on the 3 points I made above.

Thanks!

Whitestar12 (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Whitestart.

When dealing with research and systematic reviews and meta analysis we are already dealing with multiple investigations into a subject. In this case both sources, Ooi and Bai are highly reliable reviews published in Wikipedia compliant publications. Ooi is particularly valuable since this is a review of reviews.

Both sources indicate ongoing and increasing evidence that TM as a mediation technique effects BP in a positive direction and both have the support of The American Heart Association that "recommends that TM may be considered in clinical practice."

In general, using the number of times something is mentioned in an article as significant is not a good gauge for research. We are citing the trajectory of TM and it's research as it affects health. There would be no need to mention the same study multiple times for the same points. And again, these are reviews so are already overviews of multiple sources/reviews/ meta analysis' in themselves. I hope I'm clear and making sense to you.

There is a caveat with the information that is, that there may be bias.

Our job is to include the sources and their information; they are in themselves reviews of ongoing research on TM and blood pressure. Second, and with less emphasis given the sources themselves use the bias as a caveat, we can note that caveat.

And yes, there is a claim being made in the sources that TM affects blood pressure, but that claim is being made by the sources= reviews and not by us; we are simply noting the sources and what they say.

Both the claims about BP and the caveat were included in the content I originally edited. The main focus of the sources, that is the effect on BP, has been removed while only the caveat remains. This gives us a lopsided view of the sources and is not a accurate view of what the source actually says, and so in non- neutral. The important thing is that we as editors do not interpret the source. In simple terms-TM positively affects BP and there may be some bias.

I'd add that there is more recent research that should be added. I just have never had time to do add it.

I think it's important to realize that most research in it's infancy is fringe to the mainstream until more research is published. By this time- that's why noting the first research in the 70's is revealing- there is much more reliable(per Wikipedia) published TM-topics research; and so much of the TM research has become more mainstream and can no longer be considered fringe.Littleolive oil (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to re add the information or you can. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting points. Previously when I have edited yoga or ayurveda articles, I've been guided to not include anything that has claims (even with supporting research) due to the bias. For that reason, I was wary of the claim included here. But, I see your points.

While the article contains both the research claim & caveat, the content in lead section that I had originally removed only had the claim and not the caveat. When we add the content back in, I think we should include both the claim and caveat. (The "Health Effects" section has both caveat and claim)

I'd also be happy to look into the more recent research to help improve this article. Let me know if you have any suggestions on where to start.

Thanks!

Whitestar12 (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Whitestar: This is the content I'm familiar with, which includes both a summary of the research and the caveat. It is not a claim to simply cite research, it's just content, that is reliably sourced.

"A 2015 review found that TM may reduce blood pressure compared to control groups while a trend over time indicates practicing TM may lower blood pressure. Such effects are comparable to other lifestyle interventions. Conflicting findings across reviews and a potential risk of bias indicated the necessity of further evidence, conducted by researchers without bias.[10][11]" Littleolive oil (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. What you've cited is in the body of the article.

What I had deleted in the lead section was: "A 2015 review found that TM may reduce blood pressure compared to control groups while a trend over time indicates practicing TM may lower blood pressure. Such effects are comparable to other lifestyle interventions."

All I'm saying is if we want to add this info back into the lead (revert my deletion), we should include the caveat as well. That is all.

Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) Whitestar12 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I did add the content back in while leaving in place the caveat. Hope that works for you! Littleolive oil (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! That is perfect.

Appreciate this conversation/ collaboration.

Whitestar12 (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sedlmeier et al.

The source Sedlmeier et al. (2012) was quite seriously misrepresented insofar as it claimed an analysis of 163 studies found that TM performed better in several categories. The source is clear that cross-technique category analysis is based on a far smaller subset of those studies due to the paucity of data. More seriously, in the same paragraph the study finds that TM performed poorly by comparison in numerous other outcome categories; this finding was left out completely. There was also no mention of the authors' primary comparative finding that "the three categories we identified for the sake of comparison, TM, mindfulness meditation, and the heterogeneous category we termed other meditation techniques, do not differ in their overall effects." I've amended accordingly to properly represent the underlying source. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't access the source, so can't really discuss this with you in any meaningful way. I'm fine with what you've added at this point, and take your word for what the source says.I'm not sure when the objectional content was added, I'm just not very Wikipedia active so missed it. I can check the history if I have time.

There is a source in the health effects section that is debatable which is being used for a historical perspective, but which I do not consider to be MEDRS compliant. As I noted on my edit summary it can be removed if there is objection to it. This:

A 1997 journal article noted the technique promoted a state of relaxed awareness, stress relief, and access to higher states of consciousness... Alexander et al. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Further concerning Sedlmeier et al ( quoted from the Health Effects section).

A thorough comparison of the three kinds of meditation was difficult, due in part to the small number of studies that used a given category of dependent measure. Again, we only included results that could be calculated from at least three studies. On the basis of these data...there might indeed be differential effects. Comparatively strong effects for TM...were found in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and being helpful in learning and memory and in self-realization...For mindfulness meditation, such comparatively strong effects were identified in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, and improving attention and mindfulness...(other meditation techniques) yielded a comparatively large effect in the category of cognition...TM yielded noticeably larger effects than mindfulness meditation for the categories negative emotions, neuroticism, trait anxiety, learning and memory, and self-realization. The opposite results were found for negative personality traits and self-concept, where the effects of mindfulness meditation were larger...For most of the specific categories that could be analyzed, we found quite a variation in effects. These results indicate that different approaches to meditation might have differential effects. To date, it is difficult, however, to deduce any consistent differences therefrom

The salient point from the review is that different kinds of meditations will have differential effects. Is that what our lead is saying? Perhaps the Health Effects section of the article is more comprehensive per the review. If I have bit of time I could rewrite this for the lead and see what others think. Alternately I'm not against removing the whole thing. The research wasn't conclusive and after reading some of the responses to the review, Orme Johnson, there may have been issues with the review itself although the authors don't agree. I prefer adding trouble free sources; I'm not sure this is one. And sorry, I realize I haven't included any real solutions. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no problems with the source itself, only with its (mis)representation in the earlier version of the page. The source is a reputable and widely cited academic journal published by the leading professional association in the United States for the subject. The section you quote above is one of two quotes from the source that I just added to the page; the other is in the ref named "Sed12a" (currently citation 12). That section says:

The global analysis yielded quite comparable effects for TM, mindfulness meditation, and the other meditation procedures...So, it seems that the three categories we identified for the sake of comparison, TM, mindfulness meditation, and the heterogeneous category we termed other meditation techniques, do not differ in their overall effects.

Cambial — foliar❧ 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware the source is highly reliable, has an excellent impact factor and so on; I'm not sure we are accurately representing what the source is saying.

The review itself may have issues such as missing over 25 TM studies which it could have included but did not. I believe Orme Johnson points this out while the authors believe the issue would not change the review findings. None of this however, disqualifies this as a poor source, although what I am saying is that it's not a trouble free source either, I may have not made that clear. I'm fine with using the source but we do have to accurately represent it.

The article is about TM and so we should be discussing TM and not other forms of meditation. At the same time I believe it is appropriate to note how TM compares with other meditation forms, if and because we are using this source. How would we word that? From my understanding TM is best in some instances while other forms of meditation such as Mindfulness are better in others. We either make clear the differential effects or don't use this source, in my mind at least. I'll try and get back to this later. Thanks for your input! Littleolive oil (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You and I are not qualified to judge whether this source is troublesome. It's authored by seven specialists in the field, refereed by other specialists, and published in a leading journal. As a meta-analysis it's pretty much the highest-quality type of source available.

The phrase Transcendental Meditation and other meditation techniques performed equally when viewed overall as diverse but interrelated is not a coherent clause in English.

The source concludes that TM and other categories of meditation technique do not differ in their overall effects. It thus supports that Transcendental Meditation performed no better overall than other meditation techniques. It also finds that comparative data for specific dependent variables have little data to support them: A thorough comparison of the three kinds of meditation was difficult, due in part to the small number of studies that used a given category of dependent measure. It concludes that for specific variables different meditation techniques might have differential effects but that it is difficult...to deduce any consistent differences therefrom. It thus does not support the claim you inserted that while specific forms of meditation were more effective in differing psychological situations; in fact the source specifically denies that it is possible to draw any such firm conclusion from the data. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

We are certainly qualified to note that there are aspects of this review which are contested which makes this troublesome-probably not the best term- but don't confuse that opinion with refusal to use the source. This is troublesome: "A thorough comparison of the three kinds of meditation was difficult, due in part to the small number of studies", yet the researchers ignored and admitted to not using 25 more TM studies. They say that only three studies is an issue but later in their reply to Orme Johnson say that more studies wouldn't have changed the outcomes. They are contradicting themselves here and that is troublesome! But again please note that I am not disputing its use.

Second. The review sites two findings: One, that in a global analysis, that is, diverse but interrelated aspects, TM and other meditation forms perform equally. Second, the review notes that certain kinds of meditations impact certain psychological situations. (There is a caveat but this doesn't mean we ignore this aspect of the review which was a substantial part of the review. We just include the caveat. We can't make a decision to ignore a substantial part of a review.

Our present wording, "no better than" implies that none of the meditation forms were effective. So I'm not attached to that wording. "Equal too" might be more accurate. We have to be clear that several meditation forms were/are effective and not imply that they perform poorly. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No, they didn't "admit" to not using 25 other studies. They make clear the methods used for searching and for assessing the methodological and evidentiary value of the studies found. In their reply to two researchers from the TM private establishment Maharishi International University, the study authors point out that they did not include studies with severe methodological problems such as the failure to include a control group. It's appropriate and not in any way troublesome for professional academics to ignore useless studies with obviously faulty design.

Applying their study design to studies listed by the Maharishi researchers, the authors note:

This leaves three studies that we should have included (Dillbeck, 1982; Kember, 1985; Martinetti, 1976). We calculated the mean weighted (by sample size) effect size of these three studies and found (r =.17), that is, an effect that is smaller than the average effect size we found in our original analysis for TM studies (r =.27).

They are not contradicting themselves; that seems like a view formed from a failure to read the original study and a partial reading of the replies (i.e. merely their abstract). When the authors point out that adding all of their suggested studies that we would have included according to our criteria would probably not have made a substantial difference in our findings, they are referring to the statistical weight of the the three studies, of fifty-three suggested by the Maharishi researchers, that would have been included after removing studies with severe methodological problems or otherwise not appropriate to the evidence base. It is evident the Maharishi researchers did not pay sufficiently close attention to the study design described in the meta-analysis – a design based around meditation techniques in general, not specifically around TM.

If you think your opinion that the analysis is troublesome means that we need to treat the study differently than we would treat similar analyses in other fields, I'm happy to raise at the relevant central noticeboard on reliable sources to get a wider view.

Your claim that the review notes that certain kinds of meditations impact certain psychological situations is incorrect; they make clear that it is not possible to draw statistically significant conclusions of what the differences on specific dependent variables between meditation techniques mean for any specific technique . You say We can't make a decision to ignore a substantial part of a review. - we can decide to not include in the lead those aspects where the author's have explicity stated it is not possible to draw a conclusion from the data. Indeed it's appropriate to make that choice, as the lead summarises the article.

You state above that you can't access the source, so can't really discuss this with you in any meaningful way. I agree that without access to the statistical analysis that forms the vast majority of the paper your partial reading does not make for a meaningful discussion. I've amended the text to make clear that the study finds an observable effect: it does not make value judgements about "poor" or "good" and does not compare to other interventions. I've quoted the relevant parts quite extensively in the citations. I cannot facilitate access to the paper without breaching copyright rules, so perhaps we should leave it at that. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with your arguments or the bad faith supposition, of course, but the change you made is fine.Littleolive oil (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps indicate what you think indicates a bad faith supposition with a diff and or quote, rather than making such a claim without evidence, which is uncivil. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This "If you think your opinion that the analysis is troublesome means that we need to treat the study differently than we would treat similar analyses in other fields, I'm happy to raise at the relevant central noticeboard on reliable sources to get a wider view."

At no time did I say this (bold) or imply it. I won't argue this further I don't have the time or interest, but I do feel that it's not a great idea to make this kind of supposition. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not a bad faith supposition, nor could any reasonable and fluent person make such a reading. If that is the sum total of your ostensible evidence of bad faith supposition on my part - of which there is none - I think that closes the matter. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)