Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Lead

The lead just has one positive sentence on the research and misses the point entirely. Thus tagged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to join the ongoing discussion here on this issue.(olive (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC))

• You are unilaterally changing content that is under discussion. Your edit summary is not an accurate representation of what you are doing. Again, please join the several editors on this page who are doing their best to come to agreement on this content rather than stepping over them and editing, then reverting, to your own version.(olive (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC))

Your revert did not cite any specific objection with the edit, nor does your comment here. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wolfie, did you read Olive's comment? She clearly states that what she is objecting to is the "unilaterally changing [of] content that is under discussion". Doc James deleted contentious content that has been under extensive review and discussion by multiple editors over a period of several weeks and during which text was being crafted in a collaborative manner. By making undiscussed, unilateral changes, Doc James is disrupting the collaborative editing process. Something he has done here on this article multiple times and has been asked not to do on multiple occasions[1] (more diffs available upon request) and the fact that he continues despite multiple warnings is deeply troubling. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"unilaterally changing [of] content that is under discussion" amounts to complaining that someone made an edit, but it doesn't highlight any issue with that edit. You appear to have some warped view of how editing works; unilateral and undiscussed changes is how wikipedia works, it's called editing normally. Read WP:BRD. Objecting on the grounds that someone made a bold edit without discussing it is a non-reason (complain at ANI that someone made a bold edit and await the laughter). I also see no prior discussion about this specific sentence, so what discussion are you talking about? Your diff [2] which links to you rather than where the quote comes from appears to fail to mention that the "uninvolved" person is a strong supporter of alternative medicine with only 10 article edits. Obviously a simple oversight on your part? Can you also please focus on content issues rather than attacking other editors with very dubious diffs, thank you, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

An editor with a pattern of unilaterally changing edits, walking over other editors who are in discussion on those edits, on articles that fall under an arbitration, whose edits in this case reasonably appear to be retaliatory, and who is an admin may meet more than laughter at an AE. I suggest you reread the threads on this talk page since you seem to have missed the pertinent discussion. I think you are mistaken in thinking that WP:BOLD trumps good and respectful collaborative editing skills which include respecting editors who are in discussion on content.(olive (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC))

Wolfie, from what I've seen of your editing style, the person with the "warped view" is in fact someone other than me. My diff was to a post I made on James page warning him about TM ArbCom discretionary sanctions and cautioning him about his repeated deletion of sourced content and apparent disregard for collaboration and talk page discussion on a contentious article. My post included several diffs such as James past issues with ArbCom for edit warring, which you failed to mention. Obviously a simple oversight on your part? If you took the time to look at all the diffs in my post you would see that James did not follow WP:BRD and was edit warring on his content change as he has done before on this topic area. So don't lecture me on policy or try to defend Jame's behavior with inaccurate and incomplete information. Meanwhile, can you please focus on content issues rather than attacking other editors with very dubious comments? Thank you, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I focus on content? You have attacked James in both comments in this thread, I merely called you up on your misrepresentation. Do you agree with any part of my analysis of the particular diff (the diff you linked to only contains a single other link)? Do you disagree that the editor who made your quote only has 10 article edits? You don't appear to disagree with the substance of my comment, merely that I didn't look at the diffs that you didn't put in the diff, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(Yawn) anything else Wolfie? Are you ready to discuss the article content now? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict

The edit is secondary to a fundamental problem. Doc James made an unilateral edit to content which was under discussion on the talk page. This is disruptive especially given he came directly from my talk page where he, an highly involved editor and admin threatened to block me which would be a grave misuse of his admin tools, and where I then clearly informed him not to threaten me. This by any standard looks like retaliation. Further as to the edit: He removed less significant but important minor details, but he is also in error on significant content. He deleted text which he claimed was a duplicate, but clearly was not, the summary of the study itself is not the same as a clinical recommendation

• The heading of that section of the AHA report reads: Summary and Clinical Recommendations.

• The first quote represents the AHA summary: overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP"

• The second quote represents the AHA clinical recommendation: "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP."

He deleted the latter.

The edit he made should be reverted given his error.(olive (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC))

We do not need to state the same thing three times. I have suggested that people try a RfC a number of times to get wider and outside input on this matter. However it seems only I have attempted this. Now that new evidence is out it may be worth trying another one. Also probably more productive to comment on content rather than other editors and speculation of their motivation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, however, perhaps reread the post above, surely as an MD you'd know a clinical recommendation is different than the summary of the report as a whole. I suggest that if you don't agree with the content you discuss that point rather than add an incorrect comment on what that content is, which seems to be a moot point anyway since you've reverted and are edit warring in your preferred version. Perhaps join the discussion above. (olive (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC))

Summary of evidence

I think that something all the literature agrees on is that the quality of evidence is poor regarding TM and thus no concrete conclusions can be drawn. As this is the generally summary and all other conclusions are in light of this it should go first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I’m sure anyone reading the article now would agree — since on March 23 you, User:Jmh649, deleted [3] all the sources that tell a different story! EMP (talk 01:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah so you have high quality sources which draw definitive conclusions about the health benefits of TM? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, now. Let's let go of a specific edit from 2 months ago and have a serious conversation. James appears to be correct in that the highest-quality medical sources seem to agree that the literature on TM, while voluminous, is of poor scientific quality, making it difficult or impossible to say anything defininitve about TM's efficacy. Do we agree on that much? MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a serious conversation and I don't think we can minimize Jame's unilateral removal of several WP:MEDRS compliant sources, three times, in one day. When editors on this page have attempted to discuss those sources, which report on TM's efficacy, James has responded by calling for an RfC, as a diversionary tactic. What is he afraid of? Since James won't discuss each individual source, are other editors willing to examine them individually and decide through consensus, which sources can be placed back in the article, without James reverting them? Once appropriate sources have been reinstated, then we can have a discussion about how to best summarize the research in total. One of the removed sources (Seidlmeier) has been presented for discussion below. Does anyone feel it is should be disallowed from the article? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Any comments on the subject of this section? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this thread is the research. An editor's opinion and or suggestion on the research cannot define the research and cannot be discussed in anyway with out looking at the sources and the research itself. A peremptory deletion of sources under discussion cripples the discussion since it removes the very content information we should be talking about. It seems somewhat disingenuous to me for an editor to first selectively delete content that is part of what we should be discussing, then to open a supposedly comprehensive discussion on the research based on the content that remains. If you want a discussion on the research and how to present it in the article, unilateral edits should be reversed, and the totality of sources to be discussed should then be noted. Further, general statements of opinion on the research are just that. Agreement with an editor opinion gets us nowhere. If we want to be serious about this discussion we need to look at and summarize the multiple sources that inform about the quality of the research. I'll leave this discussion to others, but suggest a more objective approach than what I see in this thread. And I note the TM arbitration and concerns about peremptory deletion of RS content. (olive (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC))

Okay so no comments on the topic at hand either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not quite following. We can discuss any research here, whether it's found in the current version of the article or not, so I don't see how a single article edit from 2 months ago cripples discussion. You and Keithbob seem to be saying that we need to restore your preferred version of content as a precondition for any further discussion. Now that seems sort of crippling. I'm sure it's not your intention to hold the article hostage, but it certainly comes across that way.

Furthermore, while I share the view that RfC's are often disappointingly inconclusive, they are not a "diversionary tactic". They are Wikipedia's prescribed method of resolving content disputes, so it's inappropriate to attack an editor for proposing one here.

In any event, it's probably a better use of our time to discuss how to move forward. Above, I proposed a starting point: the highest-quality medical sources seem to agree that the literature on TM, while voluminous, is of poor scientific quality, making it difficult or impossible to say anything defininitve about TM's efficacy. Do we agree on that point? MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Mastcell: Let me clarify what I am saying. A summary of the research, and my "preferred" version, indeed the only Wikipedia complaint version, must contain content that is based on scrutiny of all of the research whether it is presently in the article or not. Any other actions that have either left the article with slanted content or will leave the article non NPOV is unacceptable. Statements about the research must be sourced and the source must clearly support what we are adding to the article. If I happen to see an editor or editors acting unilaterally I suspect I'll comment. I've said what I have to say about and to James. He's been through this before. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.(olive (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC))

By the way this ref http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2012-12792-001/ did not support "clinically significant" improvement as it does not look at people with diseases (it looked at a non clinical population). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you agree that in light of the 2012 AHRQ protocol [4] (see Background— Previous Systematic Reviews on This Topic) that Ospina/AHRQ's conclusion on meditation research should now be discounted? Or should we continue in this article to promote the use of an unmodified Jadad scale, and ignore this most recent thinking from AHRQ authors? EMP (talk 20:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your question is phrased in a curious and leading way. We should continue to use the current AHRQ review until a new AHRQ review supersedes it, at which point we should update our coverage. Presumably an updated AHRQ review will be forthcoming soon, since the protocol has been published. And while I'm happy to discuss a specific paper, it might be more useful to start with broad overviews, to see whether we're speaking the same language. I've asked a couple of times without getting an answer, so I'll try once more: the highest-quality medical sources seem to agree that the literature on TM, while voluminous, is of poor scientific quality, making it difficult or impossible to say anything definitive about TM's efficacy. Do we agree on that point? MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues here that we need to look at: 1) that Ospina 2007 has been archived by AHRQ. Every page is now stamped "ARCHIVE: For Historical Reference Only." AHRQ says the findings are "no longer considered current." 2) The latest AHRQ authors have concluded that Ospina's methodology of quality assessment was inappropriate, and in an important way ― the Jadad scale was misused. This leads to the question: should we continue to present findings from Ospina in the article? If we do, it's clear they should be set in the framework now current at AHRQ. EMP (talk 05:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The AHRQ report is going to be updated soon; the draft of the new report is already circulating. In the meantime, I suppose we could clarify in our article that the AHRQ is in the process of updating their guidance, although that seems like an excessive level of detail for the overview presented in this article. No doubt the AHRQ update will account for the "misuse" of the Jadad scale along with other changes in methodology.

Now, I've asked several times about where we stand on a clear overview of TM research, but every time you or other editors have steered away into discussing specific papers. I'm sure you're not intentionally avoiding the question, but could we please make an effort (in this thread, at least) to establish whether we have some common ground at the overview level? Do you agree with my summary above that the highest-quality medical sources agree that the literature on TM, while voluminous, is of poor scientific quality, making it difficult or impossible to say anything definitive about TM's efficacy? MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a summary section is it better that we leave the flawed Ospina quality assessment out of the article? Perhaps a fuller treatment could be in the main article. It's good progress anyway if we agree this assessment no longer has authority. In this case we are not actually waiting for an update: we are responding to AHRQ's current criticism of the methodology of one of its earlier reviews. And the forthcoming review will be on a largely different research area, so it will not be an update as such.

I welcome your call for consensus on a broad statement describing the research and I thank you for your help in determining one. I'm sure you're not saying we should put content in the article without examining the components of that content. Isn't the best way forward to continue to examine any claims and counter-claims for the quality of the research? If we're now discounting AHRQ 2007 we've already taken a great practical step forward to agreement.

EMP (talk 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I find your focus on discrediting the 2007 AHRQ review a bit puzzling and off-putting. A study is not "flawed" simply because a subsequent paper criticizes its methodology; if that were the case, then much of the medical literature could be called "flawed". In any case, even if one sets aside the 2007 AHRQ review entirely, it still seems that the highest-quality medical sources agree that the literature on TM, while voluminous, is of poor scientific quality, making it difficult or impossible to say anything definitive about TM's efficacy. Do you agree with that summary? MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement appears to reflect what the most reliable sources say, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, Five times now in this thread you have repeated the same sentence: Do you agree with my summary above that the highest-quality medical sources agree that the literature on TM, while voluminous, is of poor scientific quality, making it difficult or impossible to say anything definitive about TM's efficacy? My answer: I’m not sure. I have been attempting here to examine the sources in detail in order to achieve a consensus. In the meantime, you have been repeating this same sentence, demanding of me a yes or no answer to a complicated question involving dozens of sources. I find this ominous. You are a powerful Wikpedia Administrator. I am frankly apprehensive. I understand that other editors have gotten in trouble for their participation in detailed discussions on these articles. I am feeling that it is not in my best interest to continue here as I fear the consequences. EMP (talk 21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In this section MastCell was asking a straightforward question. The response was not necessarily straightforward each time; other issues were raised unrelated to the question. Read the sources, come back and give your answer, there are no apparent time limits. MastCell and Doc James are both admins, and are also just editors see WP:INVOLVED, there are no consequences to replying to a straightforward question. I do not understand the sudden apprehension to this direct question since you have been arguing with said admins for at least the last few months about these issues. good luck, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

@EMP: "I'm not sure" is a totally fine answer to my question. Any answer is totally fine. What's frustrating is to have the question consistently and completely ignored. I've made an effort to answer your questions, and in return you've ignored mine, which makes this interaction feel very one-sided. You are obviously quite familiar with these sources, so I think it's fair to ask how you would summarize them. It's fair to ask you to actually engage with other editors, rather than simply following your talking points and ignoring their input.

As for being a "powerful Wikipedia Administrator", you should know that I would not use my administrative tools in this setting, nor would I be permitted to. I'm here as an editor, like you. You shouldn't be afraid of me, but you should be willing to engage in an actual discussion with me. Like IRWolfie, I don't quite understand your sudden recourse to claiming victim status here. I'm asking you for your thoughts on the central question we've been wrestling with; if a straightforward question about interpreting sources makes you too fearful to continue, then I'm not sure what to tell you. MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Psychological Bulletin

One of the sources I'm proposing be restored is Sedlmeier 2012. This systematic review was published in Psychological Bulletin. The journal has an Impact Factor of 14 and ranks 2 of 125 in the category Psychology ― Multidisciplinary. It ranks 10th at Core Psychology Journals. It appears to me a high quality and reputable source. If there is no disagreement on that, we could discuss the merits of Sedlmeier's findings. Spicemix (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been taking a bit of time to read that article, because it's quite thorough, detail-heavy, and well-written, and makes some subtle and very interesting points. To move the conversation forward, what do you see as the paper's findings, and how would you propose to present them in our article? MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming. It'll be good to have a detailed discussion of Sedlmeier's findings, and you can understand why I put the initial focus on the journal itself. You've said recently that presenting a review's findings and then assessing the quality of the journal is back-to-front, and while I agree too that we should avoid inflexible prescriptions for assessing weight, it's important we get our procedure broadly right. You'll be aware of the history here: by being deleted several times[5][6][7] this source has effectively been ascribed zero weight, so can we be clear in our initial agreement that Psychological Bulletin is reliable enough to support content on the subject areas presented in Sedlmeier ― negative emotions, trait anxiety, neuroticism, learning and memory, and self-realization? Thanks again. Spicemix (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the source has been "ascribed zero weight"; I think there was concern that it was quoted selectively and misleadingly, which is a recurring theme in this topic area. Thus, I'd like to understand how you propose to convey this paper's findings. MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In the opening sentence of this thread I link to a text proposal that arose in our previous conversation, but I'd like the purpose here to be to justify any content.

You have made strongly worded criticisms of sourcing procedure for this article, both on this page and prominently elsewhere. I agree with you that it's teleological to argue for the inclusion of any finding in an article if the source is without sufficient merit. For the content itself, I welcome the chance here to hammer something out with you, and I'm looking forward to hearing your readings of the findings. But of the three primary conclusions available to us, inconclusive, works, doesn't work, none can be included if the source is insufficiently reliable. The phrasing of the content is a matter of how we read Sedlmeier: I'm sure you understand that the quality of the source is a different question ― and the first we should address. Spicemix (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This paper seems to qualify as a reliable source. How would you propose to use it? MastCell ^Talk 21:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I can draft a RfC. I guess the question should we do them sentence by sentence or as a summary? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you pushing for an RfC when the editors here are discussing amicably and seem to be moving towards understanding each other. RfC is for resolution of disputes after talk page discussion fails. Talk page discussion here is ongoing and editors are engaged. Why not join the discussion? (olive (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC))

Meant to post this one section above. There seems to be an avoidance of dealing with the topic under discussion, which sort of means that things are not really moving forwards, which of course is fine. Consensus does not mean universal agreement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In reading the thread above what I see is that editors are approaching the discussion from different angles. Both are legitimate approaches. I guess that's what you're saying. OMG! Doc and Olive are agreeing!(olive (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC))

Thanks. Perhaps it's best to look first at the initial summary and final concluding statements. Though there is nothing in either specific to TM, on p.1 the authors say, "We conclude that to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of why and how meditation works, emphasis should be placed on the development of more precise theories and measurement devices." The implication is that "meditation works", and this reading is confirmed on p.25 in the Conclusion: "The effects found in the current analyses show that meditation affects people in important ways." They also say, p.1, "specific findings varied across different approaches to meditation". Have I fairly represented the authors so far? If so, we could look at those findings specific to TM. Spicemix (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think we agree so far. Let's get a bit more specific. In the abstract, the authors reiterate the universally appreciated fact that the vast majority of research on meditation is methodologically and scientifically unsound: "Mostly because of methodologic problems, almost 3/4 of an initially identified 595 studies had to be excluded. Most studies appear to have been conducted without sufficient theoretical background."

In the discussion, the authors describe the effects of meditation as broadly comparable to those of other educational and behavioral approaches: "Thus, the impact of meditation on (healthy) practitioners is quite comparable to the impact of behavioral treatments and psychotherapy on patients."

With regard to TM in particular, the authors' findings were quite interesting. On a superficial first pass, results with TM seemed superior to those with other meditation techniques. However, on deeper analysis, TM's apparent superiority was driven by large positive effects reported in non-peer-reviewed book chapters and other less scientifically rigorous outlets, and disappeared when the analysis was restricted to the more rigorous category of peer-reviewed journal articles. There was also evidence of publication bias for TM (and TM alone) which might lead to a further over-estimation of its effectiveness: "If only the journal results are compared, TM does no better than the other approaches. In addition, the funnel plots of the TM studies... indicate that even these results for TM might be slightly overestimated. 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."

So I would summarize the article's key points as follows:

• A substantial majority of the published research on meditation techniques is methodologically flawed and lacks a suitable scientific background.
• Meditation techniques, taken as a whole, appear to have benefits similar to those seen with other behavioral, educational, or psychotherapeutic approaches.
• TM does not appear to be superior to other forms of meditation, and there is evidence of publication bias which results in a potential overestimation of its benefit.

Does that seem reasonable? MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sums it up well and put it into context.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it also appears consistent with what the other reliable sources have reported, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell: I'm going to take a little time looking at the findings before I respond. Spicemix (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. Are you reading Sedlmeier as saying that meditation doesn't deliver important benefits? Or could such a phrase be added to your summary list? Spicemix (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The term "important" lacks a clear or agreed-upon scientific definition, a point which the authors themselves make. They therefore define the benefits of meditation more meaningfully, by comparing them to the benefits seen with other behavioral, educational, or psychotherapeutic approaches ("As for the overall size of the effect, is it practically meaningful? This question is hard to answer, but a comparison with other fields of study might be of some help here... Thus, the impact of meditation on (healthy) practitioners is quite comparable to the impact of behavioral treatments and psychotherapy on patients.") To the extent that the benefits of health education and psychotherapy are "important", the benefits of meditation are "important". As an aside, that finding applies to meditation programs across the board, not uniquely to TM. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We've agreed that the authors' abstract says "meditation works" (p.1) and that their conclusion is that "The effects found in the current analyses show that meditation affects people in important ways." (p.25) The Conclusion contains no statements that nuance or compromise that broad appraisal.

Within the body of the review the authors say "meditation has a substantial impact on psychological variables" (p.21), and in answer to the question, "Does meditation work in principle, that is, does it have positive effects?", say "The evidence accumulated in the present meta-analysis yields a clear answer: yes." (p.20)

When we check their meta-analysis to be sure that TM specifically is included in that assessment, we see that TM is noted for "Comparatively strong effects … in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and being helpful in learning and memory and in self-realization." (p.19) The authors further say, "This finding is consistent with prior meta-analyses that found superior effects of TM in trait anxiety and measures of self-realization."

I appreciate your close attention to some of the detail, but do you feel that in light of these statements, we should reflect the authors' overall conclusion "that meditation affects people in important ways"? Spicemix (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Hence my second bullet point, above, indicating that meditation is comparable to other approaches which affect people in important ways (e.g. psychotherapy, health education). More generally, I sense that you're looking for the vaguest possible favorable statement that can be excerpted from the Sedlmeier paper. The paper doesn't just say that "meditation works" - the authors went into great detail about how well meditation works, how it compares to other similar interventions, how strong the literature is, etc. I think that boiling it down to "meditation works" is a disservice, because the authors clearly use that statement as a starting point for a serious, scholarly analysis of the topic.

As for specific findings with regard to TM, please don't cherry-pick the positive sentences from the paper. The authors make it extremely clear that TM is not superior to other forms of meditation ("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.") They elaborate that any apparent superiority of TM is driven by positive results in non-peer-reviewed and less rigorous publication venues, and that there is further evidence of publication bias (that is, selective publication of only positive results) in the TM literature such that even the finding of equivalence may be over-estimated. So if you're trying to use this paper to argue that TM is somehow superior to other forms of meditation, then you are clearly mis-using it in a way directly at odds with the authors' actual findings. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I enjoy rational dialogue, and often our discussion is just that. But also it often feels as if your tone is accusatory and that you are assuming bad faith. I have in fact suggested that discussion move towards looking collaboratively at very specific aspects of the sources so we could decide together what should go into the article. Were I cherry picking I would not be opening the door for scrutiny of the specific sources and joint decisions.

Further, you have selectively discounted items in your analysis: for example, when the authors say (p.20), "the impact of meditation on (healthy) practitioners is quite comparable to the impact of behavioral treatments and psychotherapy on patients", they seem to be saying that meditation is effective as it matches the effect sizes seen in other types of intervention.

And when you say "there is further evidence of publication bias (that is, selective publication of only positive results) in the TM literature such that even the finding of equivalence may be over-estimated", please consider the authors' statement, (p.16), "we still find unlikely susceptibility". If my reading is correct, their fail-safe analysis indicates there would need to have been 2,246 unpublished studies to change their results. So I am beginning to wonder how neutral you are.

I came to this TM topic because I had witnessed the bullying and edit warring of Doc James and the assumption of bad faith and false narratives put forth by others. I have tried to be patient, but working in this kind of biased and aggressive environment is unpleasant and fatiguing and I'm going to step away from this page. Spicemix (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding publication bias, the fail-safe analysis is a single test (among several) to look at the question. The authors also used funnel plots and population variance. When the authors summarize their findings on publication bias in the article's discussion, they do so by writing: "If only the journal results are compared, TM does no better than other approaches. In addition, the funnel plots for the TM studies (for both chapters and articles together—not shown—and for articles alone—see Figure 4) indicate that even these results for TM might be slightly overestimated."

This example illustrates why I've tried to emphasize looking to the authors' conclusions for their interpretations of their own data, rather than selectively quoting a single finding in a multi-part analysis. One individual test (the fail-safe analysis) showed no evidence of publication bias, but several others did. The authors summarized these test results as suggesting publication bias. It is inappropriate for us to select the one test which failed to find publication bias and highlight it in isolation, and in contradiction to the authors' synthesis of their own data. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

did these guys ever get off the ground?

i posted a link straight from them. deal with it, they said they were going to levitate and fly! lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHwhGUo90jw

Amusing, but this is not a forum. WP:NOT#FORUM
i know they were trying to fly their bodies through space, any luck with that yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.252.247 (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Youtube video, where a TM executive claims "the 3d stage is full levitation and flying": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHwhGUo90jw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.171.79 (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring attempt to compromise

To Doc James: Its unfortunate that you chose to ignore an attempt to compromise on the research section. The section should open with the historical perspective which logically should lead the paragraph.(olive (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC))

This section should open with the current situation and understanding and end with the history. This is how medical content is typically presented per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Olive, that's a tautology. You've merely restated your position without advancing any policy based argument, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Also this moving of content is promotional in nature. It is an effort to emphasis how long research has been taking place and were it has been conducted over what it has found. Neither of the former says anything about the effectiveness of the methods in question or the quality of said research. As this was Olive's 5th revert within 24 hours and she has been warned about these sorts of issues in the past I have brought the matter to the noticeboard Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Doc, I removed three promotional edits made by a new user, and then attempted to compromise on this content with you. How is this promotional. Further nothing in the text emphasises anything, but its a couple of short sentences laying out simple statements of fact per the sources. That you regard this simple content as promotional says a lot about your POV. I did not revet you a third time because you are clearly intractable on this content, nor will I discuss further. You are welcome to your version. While I misjudged my edits today in trying to keep promotional content out of this article, nothing you did after that leaves me with the sense that your actions had integrity.(olive (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC))

Can you please comment on the specific issue rather than other editors. Are we all agreed that it is important to emphasise the current state of research? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

To me this looked like trying to emphasis the amount of research and who did it rather than the results. This is common practice by the TM movement as can easily be seen at TM.org. The organization love to comment on how many studies have be done and who has done them rather than the fact that they have been generally poorly conducted. I do not see any effort to compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm finished with this discussion; the issue is resolved and I have stated my position. Thanks.(olive (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC))

• Note that I've just protected for a week to stop the edit warring. Please try to reach a consensus here on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)