Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:57, 17 April 2013 editMatipop (talk \| contribs)485 edits →Proposed addition to article ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:17, 20 August 2024 edit undoCambial Yellowing (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers16,258 editsm fix
(92 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~talk~~ header}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{British English}}
	{{discretionary sanctions\|topic=tm}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Transcendental~~ ~~Meditation movement~~\|class=B\|~~importance~~=~~top}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement\|importance=top}}
	{{auto archiving notice \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months }}
			{{WikiProject Yoga\|importance=mid}}
	{{Controversial3}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Spirituality\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness\|importance=High}}
			}}
			{{oldafdfull\| date = 28 October 2013 (UTC) \| result = '''keep''' \| page = Transcendental Meditation technique }}
			{{Controversial-issues}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 11:		Line 17:
	\|algo = old(90d)		\|algo = old(90d)
	\|archive = Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{connected contributors
			\|User1= Littleolive oil \|U1-EH=yes \|U1-otherlinks=
			\|User2= TimidGuy \|U2-EH=yes \|U2-otherlinks=
	}}		}}

			== Independent sourcing ==
	== Parking sourced content for discussion ==

	This stuff was in the SCI/Characterizations section and, correct me if I'm wrong, but the are not specifically about SCI. Can we use these someplace else?
	*A 2009 research review in the ] says that "despite the criticisms (that) its organizational structure and religious viewpoints have aroused, TM’s medical claims have been taken seriously."ref>Dakwar, Elias and Levin, Francis R. (2009) The Emerging Role of Meditation in Addressing Psychiatric Illness, with a Focus on Substance Use Disorders, Harvard Review</ref
	* In a 1980 book, ] ] wrote that "science has been used as a sham for propaganda by the TM movement" .ref name="Harvey1993" . ref name=Persinger>{{Cite book\| last1 = Persinger \| first1 = Michael A. \| last2 = Carrey \| first2 = Normand J. \| last3 = Suess \| first3 = Lynn A. \| title = TM and cult mania \| year = 1980 \| publisher = Christopher Pub. House \| location = North Quincy, Mass. \| isbn = 0-8158-0392-3 }} --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 18:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

	:* The main purpose of the first one (2009 review) seemed to be to balance a statement by James Randi, which denied any scientific basis for claims of benefit for TM. But since that statement is now gone (because it both had nothing to do with SCI, and was considered non-compliant with MEDRS), there would no longer seem to be any purpose for this statement about TM's medical claims being taken seriously. Also, as you say, the statement has no bearing on SCI. I can't think of another place this statement would go, with advantage to that article. The same point has been brought out in different ways in the other articles, I believe.
	:* Re: Persinger, I agree--the statement does not apply to this section on SCI, but rather to discussion of TM and TM marketing. As to where else it could go--same reaction as to above text. There's already lots on the TM orgns use of science in bringing TM to the public. Also, the quotation seems weak. The phrase, "Science has been used as a sham for propaganda" is unskillful prose. I ''think'' he means that the TM orgn has made a sham of science in its marketing. Even if grammatically correct (which is doubtful) the phrase is unfamiliar and a head-scratcher. Not up to standard, IMHO. ] (] 18:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

	::The quote from Cult Mania could possibly go in the Marketing section but I'd like to see the context of the quote first. I think I can get the book at my library. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

	:::The quote is actually from an article in the Ottawa Citizen. The article is ostensibly quoting the book, but given the problematic syntax, it would be a good idea to locate the quote in the book to see if it's accurate. Apart from this, I question Persinger's 1980 book from a Christian publisher as a source. It goes into detail criticizing the research, faulting every area. But that was 33 years ago. In the intervening years, the research has been published in top medical journals, has been funded by NIH, and has been recognized as playing a role in developing the new field of mind/body medicine. TM is included in standard medical textbooks. I would think that a statement by Dakwar in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry would have more weight that an outdated book from a Christian publisher that claims the research is a sham. ] (]) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

	OK, I finally got a hold of the book and here is the quote from page 35:
	*''The Maharishi insists that his meditational states can be verified by science (rationalism) but at the same time he emphasizes the importance of inner experience, which cannot be verified easily. Within the format of this peculiar postulation, TM scientists have engaged in sham research. The have intended to "scientifically prove" the nebulous and indefinite statements of the Maharishi by spanning vast conceptual distances between concise data and the diffuse wonder of words of mystical philosophy.''
	Therefore the current text: "science has been used as a sham for propaganda by the TM movement" seems grossly overstated and inaccurate. Also, the topic of SCI is not mentioned until page 92 and receives only a minor mention. I recommend that the following text be placed in the Marketing section:
	*According to the 1980 book, TM and Cult Mania, scientists associated with TM have attempted to prove the Maharishi's concepts by uniting scientific data and mystical philosophy.
	Comments? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 18:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

	::My feeling is that this source has been superseded by the many research reviews that include research on TM and report that TM does indeed result in a wakeful hypo metabolic state, does indeed find EEG signatures that are unique, does indeed affect body chemistry in specific ways. The National Institutes of Health wouldn't provide $25 million in funding over a period of 20 years for "sham research." The early studies, according to a research review published by the New York Academy of Sciences, are now considered classic. The study by Wallace in ''Science'' published in 1970 has been cited over 900 times. This research has a solid footing in the scientific literature, and we shouldn't give any weight, in my opinion, to a 1980 book published by a small Christian press. ] (]) 16:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::I understand your concerns ie that it is not a reliable for discounting the large body of research on TM because its was published in 1980 and because the source makes a sweeping statement and provides no details about what it is referring to ie. SCI, health studies, unified field claims etc. At the same time I think it has validity as a third party opinion about the way some scientists associated with TM have spoken about TM using examples from science to justify metaphysical theory. So my suggestion is to place the text I've recommended above, in the TM movement article under the section "Characterizations of marketing" since the Marketing section has already been moved from this article to the TM movement article. Would that be an acceptable compromise? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::Since there is no response for four days I have add the text as I suggested above in the TMM Reception to Marketing section if there is still disagreement, then TG you can revert and we can continue discussion. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

	== Proposal to remove the NPOV clean up tag ==

	Given the concerted efforts and reviews given the article in recent months by myself, Coaster92 and Littleolive oil, does anyone see any reason to maintain the NPOV tag on the article? If there are any remaining issues I'd like to ID and address them as per ]: ''Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that result in the problem being fixed, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article.'' --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	:The history behind the NPOV tag is that it was placed on the article in August 2011 by Timid Guy . It was then removed by me in July 2012 and then replaced by me a few days later after input from Arjayay. All of Arjayay's feedback was discussed at length and changes were made to . Discussion was had and edits were made to address the issues raised by an IP and many of Arjayay's concerns have been addressed such as the , , , . There was also a very careful review of the lead for NPOV. Does anyone have any remaining concerns? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
	::The concerns that I had when I originally placed the tag have been addressed. ] (]) 11:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::I'm now happy as well - I have been watching from the sidelines since June - but trying to keep up with, let alone comment on, over 300 edits was too much. Congratulations to those who managed to restore an NPOV, even though, considering their detailed knowledge of the subject, I suspect that many, or most, are advocates or practitioners of TM.
	:::COI operates at many levels - but although direct, commercial, COI has many obvious problems, Misplaced Pages relies on knowledgeable "fans" of many subjects to write and improve articles about their interest or passion. "Disinterested editors" cuts both ways - we cannot rely on total bystanders, who do not know anything about a subject, to know, or find, the sources that an article needs, nor to spend a lot of their time on a subject that does not interest them.
	:::As removal of a neutrality tag by (one of) those editors who improved the article could be seen as COI, and as I am the person whose criticism caused it to be added back, I hope you don't mind if I am ] and remove the tag.<br />] (]) 12:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::Great. Thanks. I'm pleased you feel that the article is now compliant. ] (]) 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Proposal to move Marketing section ==

	As I and Arjayay have mentioned before the Marketing section seems inappropriate for this article. If you look at it you will notice that many of the sentences say the Maharishi did this or the Movement did that etc. This section is not talking about the meditation technique but rather about things the leader and organization did. Also the TM movement article already has a section called Promotion so I think it should be combined with that section and if needed some parts that are specific to the Maharishi can then be moved to that article. Comments? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 18:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
	:I think this is a good idea. There's no point in having a constellation of articles if each one is a mishmash of the same stuff. Better to parcel out the content to the relevant articles, so that the reader gets a specific angle in each article. I was thinking possibly some could go in the History article, but your suggested venues may be better. ] (]) 11:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
	::Yes, agree: let's get it all sorted out properly. ] (] 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

	:::Sorry to be the nay sayer, but how the technique is marketed seem highly relevant. I'm not saying we have the right content in this article to describe that, but just that it is connected. The real issue is and always has been, seems, where should the line be drawn the line drawn between the technique and content connected to the technique... so far that line seems to be arbitrary dependent on who is editing at the time. We might look at that more general issue first before moving content.(] (]) 18:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC))

	::::It's not a matter of whether it's relevant or connected. All of the related articles are relevant and connected, such as History of Transcendental Meditation, Transcendental Meditation, Transcendental Meditation movement. The question is parceling out the content to various locations. In general, we've been trying to avoid duplicating content. Since the Transcendental Meditation movement article already has a substantial section on promotion, It would make sense that this article be about the technique itself, and the bulk of the material on promotion of the technique be in the article about the organization that promotes it. ] (]) 17:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

	:::::In the past content has been repeated in the many different articles, so if that is not going to be the case and if we are setting a precedent for that, I think that has to be stated. And I disagree whole heartedly; it is a matter of connection and relevance and the missing aspect of that which is where do we decide the relevance and connection is too distant to include. :O)(] (]) 17:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC))

	:::::: I think the decision should be made keeping in mind the number of articles on TM-related subjects already in existence. Had there been only one TM article, as opposed to a gazillion, then the information would have gone to that one article. But there are several. It makes sense, therefore, to decide in a logical way what each article should contain, so that they do not become repetitions of the same information. This last point, I agree with Olive, is one that we should state so that it is clear, but on the other hand, what would be the point in having many articles each repeating the same information?

	::::::In this particular case, we have an article about the TM technique and one about the TM Movement. In view of this, I see the TM technique article as the one that discusses the technique, and therefore I would move the marketing section to the TM Movement article. This is because the TM Movement is described in Misplaced Pages as the organization, or number of organizations, responsible for the teaching and promotion of TM-related programs, including the TM Technique. I agree that I am making an arbitrary division, but it is dictated by the fact that an article on the TM Movement already exists. --] (]) 20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

	Articles are stand alone, so that may be reason to repeat certain kinds of information. I'm not against parceling out content to the most appropriate articles, I just think we have to be clear about where the line is drawn that causes editors to make a decision to move content, in part because the repetition of content has been a contentious issue in the past. To my mind there are multiple sections in this article that do not relate any more directly than the marketing section, "Government" for example. Why are we not moving those sections? (] (]) 20:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC))

	: I definitely agree with you that if we decided the "Marketing" section did not belong in this article, then neither should the "Government" section be there. They both have more to do with the Movement's interaction with its environment than with the practice itself. Drawing a clear cut line would be nice, though I suspect it may have to be done on an article-by-article basis. I would think editors need to decide what the article is really about and then go from there. If this article is mainly about providing an illustration of the technique, then sections about marketing and governmental reception do not belong there.--] (]) 05:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
	::My proposal was inspired by the feedback we got from Arjayay some months ago. In his mind, the article is about the technique not about the organization that promotes, advertises and implements the technique. It was with this in mind that we moved the Education section to its own article. This proposal is a continuation of that. However, ''some'' duplication will always occur from article to article and I think the way we've been handling that at the TM and TMM articles is to have a summary (usually the lead of the mother article) and a Main Article wikilink that links to the mother article. I was planning to do the same here. Does that make it any more palatable for you Olive? As for the Government section, it is a subsection of Characterization of the technique and as such it seems to me to be relevant to this article but I think we should start a separate thread or sub thread if we want to have that discussion. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
	::: I think I would still prefer to see the marketing section go somewhere else, so I like Kbob's proposal. I reread the Government section in light of Kbob's comment and I can see what he means, though I could go either way, keeping the section in the current article or maybe removing it. We can start a new discussion on that once the current issue is resolved, but if we do keep it, I would recommend changing the name of the section so that it is clear from the outset that this is a subsection of the Characterization section. --] (]) 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

	:::::I can go with a consensus on this whether I agree or not.:O)(] (]) 17:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC))
	::::::It looks like Kbob, TimidGuy and I think the section should be moved, did I get this correctly? --] (]) 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Plus the feedback we got from uninvolved Arjayay, who questioned its relevance to this particular article. ] (]) 17:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
	There is clearly a consensus to move the marketing content so I am OK with that move, as well. Go for it! (] (]) 17:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC))
	:{{Done}} --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Proposal to amend lead ==

	* Currently in the lead: ''It is reported to be one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched, meditation techniques, with over 340 peer-reviewed studies published. Research reviews of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have yielded results ranging from inconclusive to clinically significant.''
	*I think undue weight is being given to a very small section of the article and I recommend removing the second sentence. Comments? --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

	::I couldn't disagree more. First, content on the research was so extensive that it was originally split off from the main TM article of the time. The research section in this article now links to an entire article's worth of content. Second, the second sentence is merely the briefest of summaries of the entire range of the research which gives the reader simple, but critical information on the research findings. I suggest strongly that the sentence in the lead stay in the article.(] (]) 16:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

	:::What I would suggest given that the sentence appears twice in the article is to expand it slightly for the research section, then leaving the summary now in the lead, in place. The same content appears three times in the TM article and that's another issue. I 'd add that this content replaces inaccurate content that was repeated over many articles. The sentence under discussion simply replaced each repetition of that inaccurate sentence. It is time to trim that kind of repetitive content in my opinion as I had suggested in the past (] (]) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC))
	::::Since we have a TM research article, I am not sure that expanding the research section here is warranted. If we left it as is, the research section is quite small and it does not, in my opinion, warrant a sentence on research in the lead. --] (]) 17:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

	:::::I'm suggesting a sentence at the most. In my mind the section is long and the content so extensive it had to be split off. This indicates content that is highly significant. A slightly longer explanation would be warranted. (] (]) 17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

	::::::The current summary is quite good. I'd hate to start going into more detail in this article, because there are so many facets of the research to deal with and so many different findings. If you have a specific idea of what should be added, perhaps draft some text. ] (]) 11:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

	I guess I haven't explained very well. I am suggesting a very slight extension of the sentence that has been repeated, or possibly saying the same thing in slightly different words with a bit of extension. I think that sentence belongs in the lead, but it shouldn't be repeated (or should it ), especially that it appears 7 times in the TM articles. We can either remove it or explain it a little more. I can't see this as changing the section very much or extending it.(] (]) 18:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC))

	****I have moved this discussion to TM which is the mother article, to centralize the discussion This is a larger issue than this content appearing in one article. Once we have looked at the overall picture then we could come back and solve this problem. Otherwise this has become very confusing.(] (]) 16:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC))

	== Parking text that needs verification ==

	*and in one of his books, the Maharishi refers to TM as "a path to God". --''Meditations of Maharishi''. p. 59 <ref name=meditations>{{cite book\|last=Mahesh Yogi\|first=Maharishi\|title=Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi\|year=1973\|publisher=Bantam\|pages=59}}</ref>
	This text has a an incomplete citation and there had been no response to request for quote made 7 months ago. If a source can be found it can be added back to the Characterizations section --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

	*I've added the reference for the book which I found on Amazon. The quote probably deserves some contextual material. I'll let Kbob put this back in since he parked it.(] (]) 18:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC))
	<references/>
	**Ok, thanks, now we have a complete citation but Amazon doesn't provide a preview to verify the text or its context. Shall we re-add it and place a "quotation needed" tag on it?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
	**So we still have the problem that a request for a quotation was made 7 months ago and the text referenced in the citation cannot be verified on Amazon or Google Books. What should be done? Suggestions?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 04:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
	***OK, I"ve including the "quote needed" tag which was placed there in June 2012. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

	::::The book does say, "Transcendental Meditation is a path to God." But it would be better if we included some of the context. ] (]) 11:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
	::::I agree and Olive mentioned this also. However I don't have access to the source.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

	== Why do we have this at the beginning of the article? ==

	This statement appears at the top of the article:

	{{About\|the technique\|the organization\|Transcendental Meditation movement}}

	Isn't it self-evident that this article is about the technique? That is, after all, the title of the article. It's unlikely that someone would arrive at this article expecting to read about the TM movement. The most likely landing point for a reader would be the main TM article, and that very clearly directs readers to the TM technique and TM movement articles. Seems like this statement isn't needed. ] (]) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
	:There is a similar statement referring back to this article on the TM movement article. We should either remove both or keep both. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

	::Any objection to my deleting both? ] (]) 11:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

			Portions of the article are remarkably ] with a touch of ]. The underlying problem is non-independent sourcing (]). This will take some time to fix. Some examples:
	== Addition of Omni content:Mantras ==
			* The lead brags about "340 peer-reviewed studies published", however the source is a book written by a proponent who in turn points us to a website run by a faculty member of the Maharishi University of Management. Even assuming the number is true, what goes unsaid is that most of those papers are connected to MUM. This is misleading. Using independent sources tends to avoid such problems. The second citation listed is ''Mosby's'', which does not support the text.
			* The citation for "14 published studies" points us to a list of ... 14 published studies. What's not mentioned is that ''every one'' of those studies is affiliated with MUM. The reader is mislead. Besides, cobbling together papers like this and telling us how many you've cobbled is ] or nearly so.
			* Using an uncritical (and probably unreliable) source, the article twice mentions the 1993 event in DC in nearly a positive light. In reality the event was a failure (crime went up), as reliable independent sources naturally mention. ] called the group's final report a "clinic in data distortion" and an exercise in pseudoscience. That is the kind of mainstream reception that is required per ]. Lacking that means failing NPOV.
			''] ~ ]'' 12:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

			This is still clearly a big problem. Some studies referenced in the article don't relate to the text even indirectly. One passage extolling the virtues of mass meditation on causing societal behavioural changes cites an article on EEG measurements that is totally unrelated ] (]) 10:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
	There was agreement to not include the mantras published in Omni . Given that agreement I'd like to move the content here for further discussion. If there is good reason to put the content back in it could be considered here now.(] (]) 06:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC))

			This is because TM is a for-profit organization that is active in propagandizing the practice. Where's a section on criticism? This is practically a full page ad for TM.

			] (]) 20:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
	In 1984, these 16 mantras<ref name=Bainbridge/><ref>{{cite book\|title=Across the secular abyss: from faith to wisdom\|first=William Sims \|last=Bainbridge\|publisher=Lexington Books\|year=2007\|isbn=978-0-7391-1678-4\|page=136}}</ref><ref name=Barrett>{{Cite book \| publisher = Cassell \| isbn = 978-0-304-35592-1 \| last = Barrett \| first = David V. \| title = The New Believers\| date = 2001-06-30}}</ref> were published in '']'' magazine based on information from "disaffected TM teachers":<ref>{{Cite news\|work=Omni\|date=January 1984\|page=129\|title=Transcendental Truth}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book\|title=Transcendental Misconceptions\|first=R.D. \|last=Scott\|publisher=Beta Books\|location=San Diego\|year=1978\|isbn=0-89293-031-4}}</ref>
			: I agree the article is too focused on saying nice things about TM, sourced by its practitioners and marketers. However,[REDACTED] style is to not have a Criticism section. It is better to have sections like 'Efficacy', 'Relationship to religions' etc and include relevant pro and con details in each (without engaging in false balance). I believe the whole article also overuses direct quotes and putting the name of the source in the text. This has the effect of turning the article into a he said-she said affair, rather than just stating what is Verifiable. ] (]) 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
	{\| class="wikitable"
	\|-
	! Ages
	\| 0 - 11 \|\| 12 - 13 \|\| 14 - 15 \|\| 16 - 17 \|\| 18 - 19 \|\| 20 - 21 \|\| 22 - 23 \|\| 24 - 25 \|\| 26 - 29 \|\| 30 - 34 \|\| 35 - 39 \|\| 40 - 44 \|\| 45 - 49 \|\| 50 - 54 \|\| 55 - 59 \|\| 60 - up
	\|-
	! Mantra
	\| eng \|\| em \|\| enga \|\| ema \|\| aeng \|\| aem \|\| aenga \|\| aema \|\| shirin \|\| shirim \|\| hiring \|\| hirim \|\| kiring \|\| kirim \|\| sham \|\| shama
	\|}

			:: Yes, and yes. The Research section cites a mass of papers; primary research should not be used under ] (and indeed under plain old ] for that matter). Many of the sources, including the better ones (meta-analysis, systematic review, which are ALL we should be citing here, and ideally the systematic reviews should be the only sources used) are apparently about meditation-in-general, presumably including some quantity of TM-ers among the meditators; if so, they are barely relevant here at all, as they support the claim "meditation-in-general has health benefits A, B, and C" but they do nothing to support the supposed claim "TM has benefits over and above meditation-in-general", and it may be there is little or no evidence that is true (there's no prima facie reason to suppose it's any better than, say, ]). The section needs to be reworked using the best sources only, and the claims need to be properly distinguished without puffery. Mind you, that goes for the whole article. ] (]) 11:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
	{{Reflist}}

	== ~~Una~~ ~~Kroll~~ ==		== A Hot Mess ==

			Hello, all. I’m reasonably certain the edits I’m applying are going to irritate some folks. I’m not interested in ruffling feathers, but I believe the whole article needs help to make it adhere to encyclopedic guidelines. Anyone wishing to challenge any of my changes is of course free to do so, but please do it in the spirit of making the article better and not because you don’t agree with WP guidelines. TX! ] (]) 18:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
	I'm reading through Una Kroll's book, ''The Healing Power of Transcendental Meditation'', and am impressed with her language and explanations which are very approachable. I'll add content to the articles from her book because I can see her view as easy to follow and understand. She is both a medical doctor and proclaimed Christian and so seems to be in a very good position to give a somehwat neutral, although personal, of course, view of the technique.(] (]) 18:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC))

			== Meditation encourages to be alarmed? ==
	:I skimmed that book a couple months ago and felt that it was a good source. ] (]) 12:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

			"Unlike some other approaches to meditation, TM instruction encourages students not to be alarmed by random thoughts which may arise, but to easily return to…" I don't know of any kind of meditation which teaches to be alarmed by random thoughts. Which approach to meditation would that be? One to be strongly discouraged to practice. --] (]) 12:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
	== Proposed addition to article ==

			:I agree with your observation — although one other possible interpretation could be that other techniques don't ''specifically mention'' that one should not be alarmed by thoughts (which of course one shouldn't). But it was unclearly written, prone to misunderstanding, and there were no specific examples, so I removed that part of the statement. ] (]) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
	An editor added the following text to the TM article. I removed it, because it seemed more appropriate to this article.

			== Disputed content ==
	<blockquote>The following quotation sums up the fundamental principles of Transcendental Meditation: "The fundamental premise of the psychology of fulfillment is that within every person exists a seemingly inexhaustible center of energy, intelligence, and satisfaction... To the extent that our behavior depends on the degree of energy and intelligence available to us, this center of pure creative intelligence may be described as that resource which gives direction to all that we experience, think and do."<ref> {{cite journal \| title = Transcendental Meditation. A Revitalization of the American Civil Religion \| journal = Archives de sciences sociales des religions \| first = Michael \| last = Phelan \| coauthors = Jul - Sep 1979 \| volume = 1 \| issue = 48 \| accessdate = 2013-03-26}}</ref></blockquote>

			{{u\|Will M Davis}} has repeatedly tried to add content to this article (as most recently) regarding research purporting that the practice of TM Meditation, and specifically the TM-Sidhi technique, can so reduce the stress level of the population at large as to have a measurable effect on drug use and crime rates. Such research has been published by ] and Kenneth Cavanaugh, both associated with the Maharishi University of Management. This research has been published in the and '''', both of which are listed as predatory journals (or predatory publishers) in the latest . The claims of these researchers have been dismissed as pseudoscience by several critics (, , ). I ask that, at the very least, the addition of this material be discussed here at the talk page before being allowed to remain in the article. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
	Should this text be added to the article? ] (]) 10:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

			:Thanks for your clarifications. Regarding my post “ The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying, reduced warfare with time-lags, in Lebanon. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation." ”
	I've added the text to the article. Is the placement of the text ok? It seems to fit in with the general flow of the article.] (]) 00:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
			:Back to our discussion please. The Journal of Conflict Resolution is not a predatory journal? Can we therefore please include my above post citing the statistical interpretation of causality by the Maharishi Effect on reducing warfare in Lebanon published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution? This study and other Maharishi Effect studies demonstrate the following: “Causality implies lagged correlation, i.e., the cause should precede the effect in time (McCleary & Hay Jr., 1980). One type of causal analysis, called cross-lagged panel correlation, compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A, assuming that the synchronous correlations at both time periods are equal (Kenny, 1979).” ] (]) 00:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
			:: {{reply\|Will M Davis\|2600:1013:B010:5C0D:6038:4819:2700:C34C}} I believe the research is deeply flawed and a prime example of confirmation bias, but if scholarly journals have published it, go ahead and use it. I throw in my towel here. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
			::: {{reply\|Will M Davis}} I hereby retrieve my towel. Per the arguments presented at ] (and the published in the ''Journal of Conflict Resolution''), the material you propose is as unacceptable here as it is at ]. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
			::::The arguments presented at ] (and the published in the ''Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1990'') are with reference to the cross-correlation and transfer function methodologies for the Israeli-Lebanon study published in 1988 in Journal of Conflict Resolution.
			::::While the studies I cite in my new edit under John Hagelin Criticism, are from Sage, 2016, and Sage, 2017, and both contain some different statistical analyses from those discussed in the 1988 study and the 1990 critique you cite. Therefore for the sake of inclusion of all methodological variations of the studies on the Maharishi Effect presented for the Misplaced Pages reader, you should not censor my most recent John Hagelin post with more recent and more comprehensive methodologies including time series regression analysis. Historically, the refinement and improvement in statistical methodologies of the Maharishi Effect, as time moves forward, should be available for the Misplaced Pages reader, not ignored and censored by you, please. Misplaced Pages should present a balance of pro and con arguments available to the reader, not total censorship of pro arguments. With the inclusion of references, the reader like myself, can go to the studies themselves and see the specific statistical methodologies, especially more recent, as Misplaced Pages tends to have older journal references on the area of the Maharishi Effect. ] (]) 22:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the promotion of pseudoscience. Unless and until scientific consensus considers studies concerning the effects of bouncing around on ones backside on world peace to be worthy of serious discussion, Misplaced Pages won't do so either. Go convince the scientific community at large, and then come back here when you are done. ] (]) 22:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: {{reply\|Will M Davis}} Specifically, until someone else (someone not associated with Maharishi Institute or University) can reproduce these results, they are merely a statistical fluke. I point you to the page of for other such examples. All of your forum shopping will not help; multiple editors have disagreed with your content, so it will not be added. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Dear AndytheGrump and WikiDan61,
			::::::The following 5 main points suggest you should publish my edit in point 2 below:
			:::::: Multiple editors disagreed with the content of the republishing of Gilles-Eric Seralini's famous study on rats getting sick from trace levels of Roundup, but Misplaced Pages published it. Reference: "On 19 September 2012, Séralini and his colleagues published a peer-reviewed paper funded by CRIIGIN titled "Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize" in ''Food and Chemical Toxicology'' (''FCT'').It involved a two-year study of ] and the ] ] fed to rats. At a ] announcing his paper, Séralini emphasized the study's potential cancer implications. Photographs from the journal article of treated rats with large tumors were widely circulated in the press. In November 2013, the ''FCT'' editors retracted the paper, with the editor-in-chief saying that its results were inconclusive. In June 2014 the text of the article was republished in '']''."
			:::::: For the reasons contained in my 5 main points here, lease publish the following in place of the Lebanon study: A 27-member Project Review Board comprising independent scientists and leading citizens approved the research protocol and monitored the research process of the Washington, DC Maharishi Effect/ violent crime rate reduction study. Homicides, rapes, and assaults (HRA) in DC, decreased by 23.3 percent, with a statistical significance of p < .000000002. Thus the HRA crimes drop might have happened by pure chance but the analysis showed the statistical odds of this were less than 2 in a billion. Consistent with previous research, levels of homicides, rapes and assaults (HRA crimes) correlated with average weekly temperature. Time series analysis of 1993 data, controlling for temperature, showed that HRA crimes dropped significantly during the Demonstration Project. </nowiki>
			::::::The non-TM 27 Project Review Board which evaluated the research objectively, was composed of some of the leading sociologists and criminologists in the US- from the University of Maryland, Howard U., the U. of the District of Columbia, American U., Temple U., the U. of Texas, and the U. of Denver College of Law. The Project Review Board was also composed of members of the Washington, DC Police Department, and members of local government and civic leaders.
			:::::: The Maharishi Effect is not a spurious correlation, because the 2 wavy lines for variable A, Size of TM-Sidhi group, and variable B, the violent crime rate are time lagged, with A preceding B. When A always precedes B, but B does not always precede A, we have a causal correlation. When correlated changes in A always precede B, but correlated changes in B do not always precede A, there is a causal relationship, not a spurious correlation.
			:::::: Bachelor's degrees awarded in Engineering technologies (A) correlates with The number of tire repairers and changers in Utah (B) is a spurious correlation and not causal because there is no time lag between variables. Correlated changes in A do not always precede B and correlated changes in B do not always precede A.
			:::::: The following research is remotely similar to the TM research and is not pseudoscience: "Brain Waves Synchronize When People Interact," published 2023, in ''Scientific American'', measured that 2 people 150 miles apart, interacting on the phone, developed an inter brain synchrony."The researchers calculate linear correlations between subjects to determine the degree to which parts of their brains respond in the same way over time—are they in lockstep? Does their activity ebb and flow together?"(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-waves-synchronize-when-people-interact/) ] (]) 12:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Reference for distinguishing causal correlations of A and B, from spurious correlations. ] (]) 12:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
			{{outdent}} {{reply\|Will M Davis}} Your passion for this topic is clear, but is perhaps preventing you from addressing the matter ]. As has been pointed out on multiple occasions, the research you have presented has not been widely accepted in academia, and consists of ]. For matters such as this, ]. In this case, that would mean that other researchers (researchers ''not'' associated with the Maharishi Institute/University) have been able to reproduce these results. When even the editor of the journal that published the research questions its validity,<ref>{{cite journal \|last1=Russett \|first1=Bruce \|title=A History of the Journal of Conflict Resolution \|journal=] \|date=October 2017 \|volume=61 \|issue=9 \|pages=1844–1852 \|doi=10.1177/0022002717721387}}</ref> (see expanded content quote from this article at ) we'll need more. Long story short, you are not going to convince Wikipedians to accept this material. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 14:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}

Latest revision as of 15:17, 20 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation technique article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Transcendental Meditation movement Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yoga Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirituality Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Altered States of Consciousness High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of altered states of consciousness on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Altered States of ConsciousnessWikipedia:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessTemplate:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessAltered States of Consciousness
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (link)
TimidGuy (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (link)

Independent sourcing

Portions of the article are remarkably WP:PROFRINGE with a touch of WP:PROMO. The underlying problem is non-independent sourcing (WP:SOURCES). This will take some time to fix. Some examples:

The lead brags about "340 peer-reviewed studies published", however the source is a book written by a proponent who in turn points us to a website run by a faculty member of the Maharishi University of Management. Even assuming the number is true, what goes unsaid is that most of those papers are connected to MUM. This is misleading. Using independent sources tends to avoid such problems. The second citation listed is Mosby's, which does not support the text.
The citation for "14 published studies" points us to a list of ... 14 published studies. What's not mentioned is that every one of those studies is affiliated with MUM. The reader is mislead. Besides, cobbling together papers like this and telling us how many you've cobbled is WP:OR or nearly so.
Using an uncritical (and probably unreliable) source, the article twice mentions the 1993 event in DC in nearly a positive light. In reality the event was a failure (crime went up), as reliable independent sources naturally mention. Robert Park called the group's final report a "clinic in data distortion" and an exercise in pseudoscience. That is the kind of mainstream reception that is required per WP:PSCI. Lacking that means failing NPOV.

Manul ~ talk 12:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is still clearly a big problem. Some studies referenced in the article don't relate to the text even indirectly. One passage extolling the virtues of mass meditation on causing societal behavioural changes cites an article on EEG measurements that is totally unrelated 222.154.25.7 (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This is because TM is a for-profit organization that is active in propagandizing the practice. Where's a section on criticism? This is practically a full page ad for TM.

173.73.65.19 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree the article is too focused on saying nice things about TM, sourced by its practitioners and marketers. However,[REDACTED] style is to not have a Criticism section. It is better to have sections like 'Efficacy', 'Relationship to religions' etc and include relevant pro and con details in each (without engaging in false balance). I believe the whole article also overuses direct quotes and putting the name of the source in the text. This has the effect of turning the article into a he said-she said affair, rather than just stating what is Verifiable. Ashmoo (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. The Research section cites a mass of papers; primary research should not be used under WP:MEDRS (and indeed under plain old WP:RS for that matter). Many of the sources, including the better ones (meta-analysis, systematic review, which are ALL we should be citing here, and ideally the systematic reviews should be the only sources used) are apparently about meditation-in-general, presumably including some quantity of TM-ers among the meditators; if so, they are barely relevant here at all, as they support the claim "meditation-in-general has health benefits A, B, and C" but they do nothing to support the supposed claim "TM has benefits over and above meditation-in-general", and it may be there is little or no evidence that is true (there's no prima facie reason to suppose it's any better than, say, Vipassana). The section needs to be reworked using the best sources only, and the claims need to be properly distinguished without puffery. Mind you, that goes for the whole article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A Hot Mess

Hello, all. I’m reasonably certain the edits I’m applying are going to irritate some folks. I’m not interested in ruffling feathers, but I believe the whole article needs help to make it adhere to encyclopedic guidelines. Anyone wishing to challenge any of my changes is of course free to do so, but please do it in the spirit of making the article better and not because you don’t agree with WP guidelines. TX! Sugarbat (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Meditation encourages to be alarmed?

"Unlike some other approaches to meditation, TM instruction encourages students not to be alarmed by random thoughts which may arise, but to easily return to…" I don't know of any kind of meditation which teaches to be alarmed by random thoughts. Which approach to meditation would that be? One to be strongly discouraged to practice. --JonValkenberg (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your observation — although one other possible interpretation could be that other techniques don't specifically mention that one should not be alarmed by thoughts (which of course one shouldn't). But it was unclearly written, prone to misunderstanding, and there were no specific examples, so I removed that part of the statement. Jhertel (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Disputed content

Will M Davis has repeatedly tried to add content to this article (as here most recently) regarding research purporting that the practice of TM Meditation, and specifically the TM-Sidhi technique, can so reduce the stress level of the population at large as to have a measurable effect on drug use and crime rates. Such research has been published by David Orme-Johnson and Kenneth Cavanaugh, both associated with the Maharishi University of Management. This research has been published in the World Journal of Social Science and Medicina, both of which are listed as predatory journals (or predatory publishers) in the latest Predatory Journals List. The claims of these researchers have been dismissed as pseudoscience by several critics (James Randi, the Neurologica blog, Helland). I ask that, at the very least, the addition of this material be discussed here at the talk page before being allowed to remain in the article. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 19:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications. Regarding my post “ The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying, reduced warfare with time-lags, in Lebanon. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation." ”

Back to our discussion please. The Journal of Conflict Resolution is not a predatory journal? Can we therefore please include my above post citing the statistical interpretation of causality by the Maharishi Effect on reducing warfare in Lebanon published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution? This study and other Maharishi Effect studies demonstrate the following: “Causality implies lagged correlation, i.e., the cause should precede the effect in time (McCleary & Hay Jr., 1980). One type of causal analysis, called cross-lagged panel correlation, compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A, assuming that the synchronous correlations at both time periods are equal (Kenny, 1979).” 2600:1013:B010:5C0D:6038:4819:2700:C34C (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Will M Davis and 2600:1013:B010:5C0D:6038:4819:2700:C34C: I believe the research is deeply flawed and a prime example of confirmation bias, but if scholarly journals have published it, go ahead and use it. I throw in my towel here. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 11:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Will M Davis: I hereby retrieve my towel. Per the arguments presented at Talk:Transcendental Meditation (and the critique published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution), the material you propose is as unacceptable here as it is at Transcendental Meditation. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The arguments presented at Talk:Transcendental Meditation (and the critique published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1990) are with reference to the cross-correlation and transfer function methodologies for the Israeli-Lebanon study published in 1988 in Journal of Conflict Resolution.

While the studies I cite in my new edit under John Hagelin Criticism, are from Sage, 2016, and Sage, 2017, and both contain some different statistical analyses from those discussed in the 1988 study and the 1990 critique you cite. Therefore for the sake of inclusion of all methodological variations of the studies on the Maharishi Effect presented for the Misplaced Pages reader, you should not censor my most recent John Hagelin post with more recent and more comprehensive methodologies including time series regression analysis. Historically, the refinement and improvement in statistical methodologies of the Maharishi Effect, as time moves forward, should be available for the Misplaced Pages reader, not ignored and censored by you, please. Misplaced Pages should present a balance of pro and con arguments available to the reader, not total censorship of pro arguments. With the inclusion of references, the reader like myself, can go to the studies themselves and see the specific statistical methodologies, especially more recent, as Misplaced Pages tends to have older journal references on the area of the Maharishi Effect. Will M Davis (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the promotion of pseudoscience. Unless and until scientific consensus considers studies concerning the effects of bouncing around on ones backside on world peace to be worthy of serious discussion, Misplaced Pages won't do so either. Go convince the scientific community at large, and then come back here when you are done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Will M Davis: Specifically, until someone else (someone not associated with Maharishi Institute or University) can reproduce these results, they are merely a statistical fluke. I point you to the page of spurious correlations for other such examples. All of your forum shopping will not help; multiple editors have disagreed with your content, so it will not be added. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear AndytheGrump and WikiDan61,

The following 5 main points suggest you should publish my edit in point 2 below:

Multiple editors disagreed with the content of the republishing of Gilles-Eric Seralini's famous study on rats getting sick from trace levels of Roundup, but Misplaced Pages published it. Reference: "On 19 September 2012, Séralini and his colleagues published a peer-reviewed paper funded by CRIIGIN titled "Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize" in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT).It involved a two-year study of genetically modified corn and the herbicide RoundUp fed to rats. At a press conference announcing his paper, Séralini emphasized the study's potential cancer implications. Photographs from the journal article of treated rats with large tumors were widely circulated in the press. In November 2013, the FCT editors retracted the paper, with the editor-in-chief saying that its results were inconclusive. In June 2014 the text of the article was republished in Environmental Sciences Europe."

For the reasons contained in my 5 main points here, lease publish the following in place of the Lebanon study: A 27-member Project Review Board comprising independent scientists and leading citizens approved the research protocol and monitored the research process of the Washington, DC Maharishi Effect/ violent crime rate reduction study. Homicides, rapes, and assaults (HRA) in DC, decreased by 23.3 percent, with a statistical significance of p < .000000002. Thus the HRA crimes drop might have happened by pure chance but the analysis showed the statistical odds of this were less than 2 in a billion. Consistent with previous research, levels of homicides, rapes and assaults (HRA crimes) correlated with average weekly temperature. Time series analysis of 1993 data, controlling for temperature, showed that HRA crimes dropped significantly during the Demonstration Project.

The non-TM 27 Project Review Board which evaluated the research objectively, was composed of some of the leading sociologists and criminologists in the US- from the University of Maryland, Howard U., the U. of the District of Columbia, American U., Temple U., the U. of Texas, and the U. of Denver College of Law. The Project Review Board was also composed of members of the Washington, DC Police Department, and members of local government and civic leaders.

The Maharishi Effect is not a spurious correlation, because the 2 wavy lines for variable A, Size of TM-Sidhi group, and variable B, the violent crime rate are time lagged, with A preceding B. When A always precedes B, but B does not always precede A, we have a causal correlation. When correlated changes in A always precede B, but correlated changes in B do not always precede A, there is a causal relationship, not a spurious correlation.

Bachelor's degrees awarded in Engineering technologies (A) correlates with The number of tire repairers and changers in Utah (B) is a spurious correlation and not causal because there is no time lag between variables. Correlated changes in A do not always precede B and correlated changes in B do not always precede A.

The following research is remotely similar to the TM research and is not pseudoscience: "Brain Waves Synchronize When People Interact," published 2023, in Scientific American, measured that 2 people 150 miles apart, interacting on the phone, developed an inter brain synchrony."The researchers calculate linear correlations between subjects to determine the degree to which parts of their brains respond in the same way over time—are they in lockstep? Does their activity ebb and flow together?"(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-waves-synchronize-when-people-interact/) Will M Davis (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Reference for distinguishing causal correlations of A and B, from spurious correlations.

@Will M Davis: Your passion for this topic is clear, but is perhaps preventing you from addressing the matter neutrally. As has been pointed out on multiple occasions, the research you have presented has not been widely accepted in academia, and consists of primary research. For matters such as this, extraordinary claims require exceptional sources. In this case, that would mean that other researchers (researchers not associated with the Maharishi Institute/University) have been able to reproduce these results. When even the editor of the journal that published the research questions its validity, (see expanded content quote from this article at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard) we'll need more. Long story short, you are not going to convince Wikipedians to accept this material. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 14:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Russett, Bruce (October 2017). "A History of the Journal of Conflict Resolution". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 61 (9): 1844–1852. doi:10.1177/0022002717721387.

Categories: