| Revision as of 08:17, 1 August 2010 editDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,294 edits →This comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:30, 1 August 2010 edit undoEdith Sirius Lee (talk | contribs)667 edits →This commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| In this edit you removed well referenced content stating "i.e., not found in the peer-reviewed version and only an interpretation against TM of a point already included.)". It is found on the page mentioned. Thus please restore the content. Also I would like to bring your attention to this ArbCom finding which this edit contravenes. Here is a copy of the peer review process used ] (] · ] · ]) 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC) | In this edit you removed well referenced content stating "i.e., not found in the peer-reviewed version and only an interpretation against TM of a point already included.)". It is found on the page mentioned. Thus please restore the content. Also I would like to bring your attention to this ArbCom finding which this edit contravenes. Here is a copy of the peer review process used ] (] · ] · ]) 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| : Please do not revert my talk page to previous version or delete information in it. The same point was raised in the TM talk page. So I improved my reply and moved it and in this talk page. Do not also intimidate me by mentioning possible sanctions that do not apply at all to me. ] (]) 14:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I saw the sentence at the given page. I suspect that this sentence represents particularly well your view on the research on TM. However, we cannot pick any sentence we like in a reliable source and include it in the article, especially not in the Intro. Especially in the Intro, we must make sure that we write the sentence that is the most representative of the relevant reliable sources, which are the publications based on a systematic-review or meta-analysis. Otherwise, it could become cherry picking. What I pointed out is that the most important conclusion in the report prepared for the AHRQ was already included. This conclusion is that most of the studies had a poor methodology and it is difficult to draw conclusions. The sentence that you picked in the report adds nothing to this conclusion. It says less. It can be trivially deduced from it, as you actually pointed out to me. Certainly, this sentence can be more easily interpreted against TM and it seems to correspond to your view. The first part of the argument is that we cannot pick a sentence in a source, which adds nothing to its main conclusion, just because it corresponds to our POV. The second part of the argument evaluates further the importance of the picked sentence. In principle, it could be that the community of experts in the area feel that this particular sentence is important to mention because it is easier to interpret it against TM, just the way you want, or for some other reason. Fortunately, the same meta-analysis was also published in a peer-reviewed journal independent of the AHRQ. The second part of the argument is that, if this particular sentence was as important for the community of experts in the area as it seems to be for you, it would also appear in this paper, which considered the exact same meta-analysis, had the same Ph.D. authors, except one, and three additional Ph.D authors. It's the same meta-analysis prepared for the AHRQ, but sent to an independent journal, not to the AHRQ. This independent paper contains nothing about Transcendental Meditation Vs other techniques. So, this sentence or any other formulation against TM is not important for the community of experts in the area. I am sure it is important for some of them, but it is not a consensus, only a non impartial interpretation of some experts, which we can only see in the reports prepared for the AHRQ and related agencies. Don't misinterpret me. I am an inclusionist. I am sure we can find a way to include it in the remainder of the article, but we will need to provide the proper context and it is not possible in the Intro. We want to include all notable viewpoints, but we want to make sure that they are properly attributed. You don't have a case to support that it is a consensus amongst all the authors, reviewers and editors that considered the meta-analysis. ] (]) 00:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please provide a link to this independent journal you keep mentioning. This text is in the executive summary of the paper mentioned thus yes it is the consensus of the research. But we can agree to disagree and leave it to the RfC.] (] · ] · ]) 08:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:30, 1 August 2010
Welcome!
Hello, Edith Sirius Lee, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Will Beback talk 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Notes for myself
Krisanaprakornkit and his team studied only meditation practices that could be used in clinical settings. "Meditation as a part of religious or spiritual practice wasn't considered to be meditation therapy," he said. http://www.wellsphere.com/meditation-article/meditate-your-anxiety-away/369 Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
There were only two studies included in the review and only one of these two was about TM. See http://thediabeticnews.com/news/860.shtml . The only included study on TM seems to be http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6986134?dopt=Abstract . Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Considered for help User:JamesBWatson Edith Sirius Lee (alias IP 67.230.154) (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This comment
In this edit you removed well referenced content stating "i.e., not found in the peer-reviewed version and only an interpretation against TM of a point already included.)". It is found on the page mentioned. Thus please restore the content. Also I would like to bring your attention to this ArbCom finding which this edit contravenes. Here is a copy of the peer review process used Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not revert my talk page to previous version or delete information in it. The same point was raised in the TM talk page. So I improved my reply and moved it and in this talk page. Do not also intimidate me by mentioning possible sanctions that do not apply at all to me. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)