Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 14

message: Regarding TM-effect on cognitive function: Chalmers did not respond to the Canter/Ernst study in Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift but to an not mentioned editorial of Canter on BMJ. -- Josha52 13:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Josha. I was curious who put that in there, and mysteriously there's no record of its insertion in the edit history. I was just about to delete it but then wasn't sure what the problem is. In his editorial Canter refers to this study and the conclusions he drew.. TimidGuy 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right: In one, two sentences he seems to refer also to the Canter/Ernst study (but without any reference). But main subject of Canters editorial are "therapeutic effects of meditation", where the Canter/Ernst study deals with cognitive function. Therefore I think that one should refer to the Canter editorial more detailed in "Effects on physiology", together with a detailed Chalmer reply. On the other side: The editorial is only an editorial, not a study. Relevance? --Josha52 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should simply delete the BMJ reference and instead say, "Researcher David Orme-Johnson has critiqued this study, noting errors and omissions." TimidGuy 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right in that web sites aren't generally considered reliable sources. But the exception is web sites of experts who are writing in their field of expertise. David's web site qualifies in this regard. I was once backed up by an Admin on this. TimidGuy 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for adding it to this article. I really like the way you worded it. I think we may want to condense the sentences on the Canter & Ernst study. It's a minor review in a minor journal. TimidGuy 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exspectational effect 

message: It looks to me like the page should be restructured. I would first like to read what TM is about, then about its history. I think the research review should be last of these three. Piechjo 09:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Piechjo, for the suggestion. I guess one reason the research is so prominent in this article is because that's where most of the documentation is -- not only in the academic journals but also in terms of popular media coverage. Are you suggesting to put the "Theory of Consciousness" section first? I'll be eager to hear what others think. TimidGuy 12:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piechjo makes an interesting point. Stylistically it seems to make more sense to lay out all of the material on the technique, theory, history and follow that with the research . On rereading the article, though, I realized that at this point the article is organized so that the research which has been done on the technique, and not on the theories follows info about the technique. From that viewpoint, the present organization makes sense. I guess I'd leave it the way it is . Although some readers might want info on the theories, others might approach the science side with more interest. So different editors would see appropriate  organization of the article in different ways dependent on their interest.At the same time, if a majority of editors want to change the organization of the article I would be fine with that . (olive 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Piechojo for your comments . Frankly I have no idea what "Vedic" has to do with the layout of this article.I wasn't aware of any such information that in any way has to do with the layout of any kind of article. Perhaps you are aware of such info. There are numerous ways of laying out Wikipedia articles and there is no definitive guideline for that. Rightly so, since different kinds of information may require different layouts. However as I said before, I don't think it matters in a general, objective way whether the article is laid out as you suggest or whether it should stay the way it is. I really think this has to do with the subjective approach one brings to the article. I personally don't care one way or the other, but other editors may . There have been many editors working on this article ( the article has been tagged as contentious/controversial) those who are TM supporters and those who aren't so probably a consensus should be reached for the article to be changed in any major way.(olive (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Aha perhaps you are saying the language seems Vedic to you . Again I don't see that, since actually the Vedic language, if one can say that, is Sanskrit. There has been a lot of effort lately to make sure the article reads in a more objective way and there may be more to do. So, I am very interested, as one editor, in hearing that this is your take on the article, and I'd like to work on that. Thanks for the feedback. TM is not  a religious practice,but may be a spiritual practice. I think confusion comes out of the fact that in many western cultures we often do not delineate religion and spirituality. They are not the same thing. Some people may use TM or may define TM as a spiritual practice, and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi I believe has described himself as a spiritual leader. Many people as well have used the TM practice for health reasons and/or to help with stress. It seems to have multiple uses/ impacts.As I understand it: 
*Spiritual practice can be defined as a practice that some people may use to understand or achieve some higher meaning in their lives. I personnaly have no argument with most of the numerous diverse things people do to live lives with meaning. 
*Religion on the other hand, is in actuality, a system of traditions that may give boundaries, form and structure to this desired spiritual life. People of different cultures for example may construct certain practices and traditions around their efforts to live spiritual lives dependent on their cultures.
*Perhaps spirituality could be defined as this rather abstract, vague in some cases, underlying need many people have to live lives with meaning. Human beings may all have a desire to live lives with meaning or spiritual lives but how they deal with or achieve that will be different . TM might be spiritual in that it is one way to deal with a desire for a spiritual life but it is not limited in any way to any one kind of religion,or culture, but rather for some people could underly religious or other practices rather than is a religion or religious practice itself.
*In our western cultures we have not separated these two things very well so the ideas seem vague, mysterious, and muddled together. 
My take on it anyway.(olive (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Piechjo. Seems like some good ideas here. I'd actually like to move the TM Communities section to External Links. There are no sources on the Israeli communities, and this section doesn't really seem to add to the definition of Transcendental Meditation. This would help shorten the article, too. Seems like the section on relationship to religion and spirituality should maybe remain in the controversies section, since it's a matter of controversy whether it's a religion. Your suggestions nicely dovetail with Olive's suggestions below. For example, a condensed section on theory of consciousness would be more workable in the location that you suggest. Moving the research will help address the issue of tone that you and Michaelbusch noted. I guess one reason it was so prominent is because that's what dominates the sources, both the academic literature and popular media. But as you say, a different structure may be more in line with the typical flow of an encyclopedia article. Too bad Roseapple isn't here. She's likely away for the holiday. I think she's the one who suggested and implemented the current structure. Eager to know what Olive thinks. Thanks, again. TimidGuy (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, TM communities may not be notable and TG's suggestions for dealing with that seems fine.I hope thats ok with the editor who added that info. I'm fine with Piechjo's suggestions except that I think religion should definitely stay under controversies. I will be leaving town in an hour or so and may not have computer access,so I will not be able to do anything until maybe Sunday.I would like to make sure Michaelbusch is on board, then I think we, or however makes these changes (I could do it Sunday or Monday) could make some substantial and important adjustments to the article.(best wishes all)(olive (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New structure?

message: Michaelbusch, I see that you used slightly different wording in the public post, which may be misleading:
Talk:Transcendental Meditation several of the major editors to this article admit to being associated with Maharishi and his organization, the founders and marketers of Transcendental Meditation. See also the request for comment logged on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
It makes it sound like I'm involved in marketing TM. And by the way, it's not clear in what sense I"m associated with Maharishi, unless you would say that because I use a Macintosh computer I'm associated with Steve Jobs. And your use of "admit to" makes it sound like I've concealed something and then admitted to it. I volunteered the info early on that I practice Transcendental Meditation and that I'm on faculty at Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa. TimidGuy (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TimidGuy, you are employed by an institution that is run by Maharishi and his organization.  Maharishi and company founded and market TM.  'admit to' is simply that I asked if you had a COI and you gave the information.  That is all that I meant by my wording. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael,Ya know what? I have no clue what you want. I made a plea with you, clearly,  that said nothing about trying to prevent you from editing, but that asked, that two editors who have knowledge in this area be considered. You reply again with conflict of interest charges. I asked very specifically that all edits on the main part of the article be delayed until your return from vacation. That clearly indicates that I have a desire to work as part of an editing team on the editing of this article.  I believed I had considered your wishes, and had treated you with respect, and in doing so wanted and suggested that all editors delay any editing. I made a relatively simple edit on the lead that removed significant amounts of what I considered to be POV. I didn't write that lead , Michael, and I have spent time in the past trying to make it compliant. What do you want?  Do you really think there is a conflict of interest here? Honestly.. Have you looked closely at the edits we have made here and elsewhere. Both TG and I have never made a secret of the fact that we have affiliation to MUM. Do you have alliations with a university that supports you in any way with furthering your knowledge of science of research. Does the fact that you work in that environment mean that you are not capable of neutrality. Should you then be editing in the area of science. All of the edits I suggested on this article and volunteered to do, with a consensus, where aimed at reducing or eliminating any possible POV.  The only changes? No. Just a place to start. Michael , charges that I exhibit COI in my editing does not concern me . I edit with as much honesty as I can muster. POV  editing does not benefit anyone as I said before. Who does it serve?, And if another editor comes along and fairly, with a verifiable source and with WP:Weight in mind adds something fair enough. I don't know what else I can say to you.I had thought to recommend the article either be put on the talk pages and edited from there or in a sandbox so that things could move forward. What else can I say.Do you really think its fair and neutral to want editors with knowledge in this area to walk away and leave it . Do you have awareness of what the article was like many edits ago. How many Wikipedia article are either written or edited by experts who know enough about the topics to write about them or help with the editing . How many article would remain unwritten if these people didn't or couldn't edit. Thus  we have to assume good faith. The final concern isn't about affiliation according to Wikipedia but whether the editors can be neutral. (olive (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to apologize to Michael for the tone of my above post.Its not always easy to be judged in a way that seems unfair, but the tone is not appropriate whatever the reason.I think my sense of frustration leaks through. I feel the door is open to make improvements in this article and its frustrating as well not to get at the job. Many apologies. (olive (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Let’s give him a chance to win your faith. Here I made the experience that edits of somebody who seemed to be in a strict anti-mood (what I do not think of Michaelbusch) changed the article substantially to a better one. At some points there is till some discussion but the article became much more "encyclopedic": reads now much more as a lexical text. I do not mean by this that the english version is in the need of bigger changes: But may be Michael discovers the one or the other detail which could be worded in a still more neutral way. I think that all of you are in the meantime so full of knowledge about the rules of Wikipedia – much more than the majority of all who are editing in Wikipedia – that you should not be in fear of anything. --Josha52 (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes This is the point. Lets edit the thing . If Michael sees non-neutrality in the words can he begin to edit it .... after his vacation of course. I look forward to everyone working on this article and making it stronger. (olive (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Michealbusch will find, as many other editors have, that this article is owned by a cabal of cultic TMers who use the classic cultic methods to pretend they are not skewing the article while attacking editors until they leave. They will discuss and discuss, even appearing "reasonable", but the basic problem somehow always remains unchanged. The obvious clue of this true state to the discerning reader is the suppression of criticism and the excessive reliance on self-published and biased sources, which nearly every objective editor who has been here notes, but there simply isn't the interest to take on this cabal at this time. Until such time as enough Wikipedians care enough about the joke this article has become in being written by the cult's advocates to even bother and exercise the force of majority, more neutral opinion, careful study shows all these critical comments by individual editors are used for is to adust the article to enhance the illusion that the article is balanced when it is not. Other than tagging the article, nothing can be accomplished by a few editors as long as the TMers own the article, and there is no point in inadvertantly aiding disinginuous cultic editors in their efforts to refine propaganda by fostering the pretence that talking will get anywhere. Over and out. --Dseer (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Public RfC post

message: Since I have not heard from anyone except TimidGuy, and because everyone pretty much agreed that the lead could be changed, I have gone ahead and edited that part of the article to hopefully be more user friendly.I'll wait a few days for other editors to respond since we are going into a holiday period in the US, and if there is still no response, I'll continue editing with the view that no one has objections.(olive (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Olive, for moving things ahead and addressing the points raised even as the discussion of process and of participants takes place. I think your changes to the lead are good. If there are no objections to the other suggestions on the table, including the restructuring, please do go ahead. TimidGuy (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Because whatever will happen to the article: The better it’s status before any bigger changes may come the better the ground for forthcoming discussions. --Josha52 (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New changes 

message: A possible version to follow "Procedure" Feel free to edit or discard just an idea and am not attached.(olive (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. Looks like a good basis -- just the sort of approach I was thinking of. Seems like a next step would be to add in the research. Maybe I can have a go at it tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite theory section 

message: Theory
Theoretically, Transcendental Meditation is a technique that helps to bring the mind from more concrete thought to increasingly finer levels of thought until the mind has moved beyond or "transcended" the subtlest forms of thought to what Maharishi terms, the experience of the source of thought. Maharishi calls this experience, Transcendental Consciousness. He has labeled, Waking, Sleeping (dreamless), and Dreaming (REM) as the first, three states of consciousness, and Transcendental Consciousness as a fourth state. He goes on to say that the ability to maintain the experience of the fourth state while living everyday life is an “enlightened” state and terms this fifth state, Cosmic Consciousness. The movement of the mind towards the source of thought is said to create deep rest, facilitating normalization of the bodies’ functions on both the physiological and psychological levels.
* An idea was to add research here.
History
In 1957, at the end of a festival of "spiritual luminaries" Mahesh Yogi]] (or simply "Maharishi" to followers) inaugurated a movement to "spiritually regenerate the world. The official TM website indicates that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its inauguration including such well known personalities as comedian Jerry Seinfeld, Dolly Parton, Andy Kaufman, The Beatles, Beach Boys' Mike Love, Stevie Wonder, and Al Jardine, jazz musicians Eric Kloss and Charles Lloyd, actor Stephen Collins, radio personality Howard Stern, actor Clint Eastwood, film director David Lynch, actor Hugh Jackman, inventor and author Itzhak Bentov, Scottish musician Donovan, actresses Mia Farrow and Heather Graham , and Deepak Chopra. Political leaders who practice TM include  Joaquim Chissano
  
In the early 1970s, Maharishi launched a "World Plan" to establish one Transcendental Meditation teaching center for each one million of the world's population. Today, The Global Country of World Peace is the name of the organization through which the TM technique is taught.
(olive (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible draft rewrites for "Theory" and "History" sections 

message: TimidGuy is once again disingenuous and since I'm accused of harassment I'm calling his bluff. If TimidGuy considers speaking the truth about his COI and article ownership "harassment", as all other attempts at resolution including the COI Noticeboard have failed, I encourage him to walk his talk and take me to arbitration where we can resolve this once and for all with appropriate penalties for the offenses. 
The following is taken verbatim from:.  
After much debate at the COI noticeboard, in response to concerns originally raised by Philosophus which I followed up on, it appears that there is a significant body of agreement among three expert, senior editors there, Durova, Tearlach and Athaenara, that WP:COI means what it says, and that it is not necessary to demonstrate anything more than an editor has or reasonably appears to have a Conflict of Interest. One does not have to also show that a given editor is not a "good editor", or that "bad things will happen if they don't edit the article" on the main page. Attempts to refute such "waffle defenses" are unnecessary and only muddy the water.
As Tearlach has stated in clarification: A basic report of COI just needs brief evidence of the relationship ("editor X is chief of Y's fan club - see Google/diffs/whatever"). And reams of "oh but everyone says I'm a good editor and Bad Things would happen if I stopped" waffle in defence are irrelevant. If such a relationship has been shown, editor X should follow the advice at WP:COI full stop."
Tearlach also said: "One possibility for cutting to the chase: do we need to get bogged down in discussions of whether an editor with a demonstrated COI is editing fairly? Seems to me that WP:COI is as much about being seen to avoid COI, as it is about actual proof/disproof that a known COI is biasing edits. I might be the most objective ever editor of the article on the hypothetical Tearlach Wonderful Products Inc of which I'm CEO, but there would always be some level of suspicion if I took a leading role in editing it: reason enough that I should stick to the Talk page so that propriety was seen to be observed.".
Durova said: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles. The particular reference in question appears to be published legitimately and appropriate as a reference source. I suggest an article content request for comment to settle the particular debate. I hope that resolves the problems, but in case it doesn't the likely alternatives are this: a user conduct request for comment and an eventual arbitration case, which would likely end in article paroles on TM topics. Another experimental option is community enforceable mediation."
Athaeanara said in follow up: Durova said: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles." Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book. Wikipedia does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens..."
Additionally, Ed Johnston noted the concern for the dearth of criticism was valid and was something to work on. And the header has been changed to note that "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents related to the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline: that is, situations where an editor appears to have a close personal or business connection with the article topic."
In summary, TimidGuy, such a COI relationship has been established for you in particular to the TM organization, as confirmed for you by three senior editors at the COI noticeboard whom I have quoted (resulting in clarification of header guidance to clarify who it applies to), and that there are no follow up statements by the other senior editors there supporting your position on why COI requirements don't apply to you because of the "good editor" defense you raised, and can also be shown for the other TMers in the original COI complaint in general, by Philosophus.
It's time you stop fantasizing, dissembling, and spreading misinformation about the decision about the problematic and damaging nature of your editing and ownership history on TM related articles, TimidGuy, and recuse yourself to an advisory role, the only appropriate role you have here now per Wikipedia standards. The issue has been fairly decided already, TimidGuy, you just won't accept the verdict. Otherwise, if you continue despite this warning to block attempts to make this article more NPOV as you have done in the past and if you refuse to take this "harassment" to arbitration, I suggest concerned editors consider taking you to arbitration to enforce the decisions of the COI noticeboard which you have ignored, so we can resolve this once and for all and get on with a more NPOV article. The only reason I haven't confronted you recently is there are so many TMers with COIs editing here backing you up it requires a body of neutral editors to make it worthwhile. Since you have exceeded your authorized role in editing on this article, I submit and will support a determination that more neutral editors do not need your agreement or consensus from TMers to proceed. --Dseer (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:HARASS, especially regarding your suggestion above that I recuse myself. If you feel I'm in violation of COI policy, please do take this to Arbcom. And in doing so, please heed the advice that you received from those involved on the COI Noticeboard. You need to make your case by showing problematic mainspace diffs. TimidGuy (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TimidGuy et al and COI 

message: IIRC, the yogic fliers claim that they fly as a result of this technique. Well, more like hop... using their leg muscles... but they CLAIM they can fly. Should this be noted in the article? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular claim has been discussed in Maharishi's biography. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Titanium. See TM-Sidhi program. Yogic Flying is a facet of the TM-Sidhi program, which is different from Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yogic Flying

message: recently changed.Is it ok as is?(olive (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree to remove clause on "effortless"(olive (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true -- probably no one understands that. Thanks. I concur. TimidGuy (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction to TM article AND Beginning of threads on discussion of changes to TM article 

message: The first study I could put my hands on was ""The Physiology of Meditation: A Review. A Wakeful Hypometabolic Integrated Response," published in 1992 in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. The authors describe the subjective experience of being characterized as a "relaxed, blissful and wakeful state." (p 415) Later (p 420) the subjective experience of transcendence in those is described as "restful alertness." And the article says that this subjective experience "appears to be a patterned physiological response of overall decreased peripheral metabolism and activation in many of its features, including decreased whole body, muscle, and red cell metabolism, as well as decreaed plasma thyroid and adrenocortical hormone secretion. Electrophysiologically, increased galvanic skin resistance and/or decreased phasic skin resistance response, and decrease or disappearance of the EMG, frequently reported accompaniments of meditation, are also qualities consistent with rest. Other changes that may be described as extraordinary include alternation of the nature of intermediary metabolism by muscle and red cell; and phasic five-fold elevation of AVP."
So how about if we said something like this in the Procedure section: "During the practice of Transcendental Meditation, the individual experiences a state referred to as 'restful alertness,' in which the body exhibits characteristics of deep rest but the mind is relaxed but alert. The physiological characteristics of deep rest include a reduced metabolic rate and decreased hormone secretion." Whether we use this or not, the idea would be to characterize the subjective experience and then say that it affects the body. TimidGuy (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd aver that those physiological changes are indistinguishable from those accompanying the process of relaxation; therefore, the state which TM induces might be characterized safely -- and hypobolically -- as "relaxed."Naturezak (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, seems the bottom lines in terms of Wikipedia are verifiablity -WP:V, and reliability  -WP:R. If there is a source we use that, and use of the terminology in the source is appropriate. TG are you suggesting we use this and not use any reference to higher states or a little of both?(olive (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't expect that you will be able to find a source that explains what "the movement of the mind" means in non-metaphoricall terms; what sources are you looking at? Let's please discuss them directly, rather than alluding to them. Naturezak (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I meant my earlier statements as a call for an *explication* of the technique, not a clinical contextualization or characterization. That is: we need to explain what actual act of this meditiative practice looks like, not just what it is supposed to achieve. This explanation is noticeably absent from the article at present. If no one else wants to put together this text, I shall shortly.Naturezak (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Naturezak. I appreciate your clarification. The actual practice is simple. You sit for 20 minutes with your eyes closed. You experience your mind settling down. A specific meaningless sound is used to prompt the natural tendency of the mind to go inward. The practice doesn't involve analysis but instead involves moving beyond the level of the intellect to deeper levels of the mind. Of course, the challenge is that such a description introduces a range of new concepts that would need to be explained. This could be sourced to an article by Jonathan Shear in The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, published last year by Paragon House, an academic press. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm pleased that you have Shear's book. This is the best and most complete description of the practice that I've seen. See, for example, page 26 where Shear talks about the natural tendency of the mind and the levels of the mind. I'm not sure of the distinction between a physiological explanation and physiological correlates. Very specific EEG patterns, for example, are associated with the practice. This would indeed be interesting -- and would give a nice basis in research. I really know nothing about this, but it would be easy to summarize the explanation given in one of the studies. TimidGuy (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of a study

message: * "Autonomic and EEG Patterns during Eyes-Closed Rest and Transcendental Meditation (TM) Practice: The Basis for a Neural Model of TM Practice." Consciousness and Cognition 8, 302-318 (1999)
* "Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: Possible markers of Transcendental Consciousness," Psychophysiology, 34 (1997), 39-46
* "The Effects of Transcendental Meditation Compared to Other Methods of Relaxation and Meditation in Reducing Risk Factors, Morbidity, and Mortality," Homeostasis, 35, 1994, No. 4-5, 243-264
* "A Randomized Controlled Trial of Stress Reduction in African Americans Treated for Hypertension Over One Year," The American Journal of Hypertension 2005; 18:88-98
The first two study physiological effects during the practice. The latter two are clinical applications that include discussion of the mechanism for the observed clinical effects. This discussion characterizes the practice in terms such as this: "During the TM technique, it has been reported that the ordinary thinking process settles down and a distinctive 'wakeful hypometabolic state' is gained."
So what's my point? I'm not sure. : ) Seriously, maybe these studies can help characterize the nature of the practice by offering solid sources that use specific language to characterize the practice and then, beyond that, show that the state of the physiology during TM is well understood, such that this characterization isn't just a "teaching" by Maharishi or merely a subjective experience, but rather a specific subjective experience that has been repeatedly reported and that has been understood empirically through via scientific study. TimidGuy (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with the first three studies; the physiological changes reported, such as they were, all fall within the boundaries of the lay term "relaxation." Is there something remarkable in the fourth? I'd like to observe that it would not be appropriate to assert that a phenomenom -- here, "the settling down [?] of ordinary thinking processes" -- has been demonstrated under clinical conditions if the phrasing used follows the formula "it has been reported." Naturezak (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great that you're familiar with the studies. I guess we'd have to have the particular context to know whether the term "relaxation" is apt. One could certainly say, for example, that Transcendental Meditation fosters relaxation. But I don't think it would be accurate to say that the physiological and neurophysiological effects are the same as relaxation. Nothing remarkable in the fourth study, other than it's a randomized controlled trial published n a major medical journal. These four were selected simply because I was able to quickly obtain them and because they happened to characterize the technique. Quite right -- we need not use the scientific jargon "it has been reported." We could say, "practitioners of Transcendental Meditation say that . . . " TimidGuy (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another way of looking at this  - not writing about it, but in response to Naturezak's question about what does the technique look like is that the technique actually has a specific "look at different levels of the body. I would argue that for example the technique does not cause brain wave patterns in the brain to change but that the change of the brain wave patterns in the brain is simultaneous with the technique. That is the brain looks like this, in meditation the blood looks like this , respiration is this... and so.(olive (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are both misunderstanding my point. This article does not describe the practice in detail -- what is said, done, and thought, in order to induce the altered state.Naturezak (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had made an attempt to begin addressing that point in the thread above. TimidGuy (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for possible further characterization of Transcendental Meditation

message: :This subheading does not belong in this article.Naturezak (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we keep a short version on Theory this would then become appropriate.(olive (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would emphatically not become relevant, as it is twice removed from the topic of the article. If a discussion of the yogi's theory of higher consciousnesses requires substantiation, it probably also deserves its own article, as I have said elsewhere.Naturezak (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this has now been resolved below in the thread Research on the TM Technique. TimidGuy (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research  - Higher states 

message: Comments:
:Thanks, Olive.  I hadn't realized that the two paragraphs on research on transcendental consciousness and higher states got cut in the editing process. I'm sure it could be much better written. Will try to work on it. One idea would be to go with the ideas the two of you have regarding the theory section and move the transcendental consciousness and higher states research to the research section. Plus, we actually had transcendental consciousness research in two different places (the section titled Effect on the Physiology is also related to transcendental consciousness). Or actually, no. I think it's like this: physiological changes are present during the entire meditation. Certain instances during the period are uniquely transcendental consciousness, with specific parameters. Then the higher states research sees these specific parameters in activity (and also in sleep -- research done at the U of Iowa sleep lab). So this could all go together, be shortened, and more clearly explained. And we could put a pointer to it in the theory section. I do think this is important. The theory section makes major claims, so it's good to show that there is research related to these claims.  Joe Tecce of Boston College was a co-author on the primary study on higher states that we'll want to use (published in Biological Psychology). TimidGuy (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are failing to take into account that I and other editors believe that the material on higher states of consciousness should not be included at all... if it is a coherent and discrete teaching, it should have its own article.Naturezak (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The teaching of the 7 states of consciousness is part of every TM-course. The whole purpose of TM is, according to the TM-course, to give these "higher states of consciousness" a chance to develop. The teaching of the 7 states of consciousness is the main recurrent theme of the main primary literature (Majharishi’s Science of Being and Art of Living, Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita). "Action in tune with Natural Law", the leitmotif of Maharishi’s teaching regarding "Age of Enlightenment", "Invincibility for Every Nation", "Global Country of World Peace", is inextricably combined with his teachings of higher states of consciounsness. --Josha52 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is the concern. Higher states is not discrete. I  believe the section there now is still too long by a long shot, but a short version would be appropriate. Some mention needs to be there because the technique and its "spiritual " outcomes cannot be delineated so easily. To do so would would be to create an artificial separation. Naturezak , didn't you agree to Roseapple's suggestion that procedure and theory be one heading.That seems like a good compromise. I have written  much shorter  version on theory, but any would be fine with a consensus. I'm not attached to my version, and in fact think it needs more editing for more laymen friendly language.(olive)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Research has never been done on any other group experiencing higher states of consciousness... for good reason, no?Naturezak (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I propose the elimination of the section "Research: Higher Consciousness", and including any research deemed relevant to TM under one research heading. In my previous edits to the article, you will note that I briefly contextualized the procedure with the theory of higher consciousness. It may be feasible to title that section "Theory and Practice." There should not be an elaborate explication of what those higher consciousnesses are; if they are discrete, they should have their own articles.Naturezak (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this a major issue. The technique and higher states are not discrete.(olive (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research on the TM technique 

message: Comments:
Use a condensed version?(olive (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies:  Religion section - Malnak v Yogi 

message: Since lawsuits are definitionally occasions of controversy, I believe they should be listed separated under the heading "Controversy." This has the added benefit of streamlining the article structure.Naturezak (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawsuits by definition  are inherently controversial in that they require a response to a situation that is not accepted by some parties. Without a response the lawsuit doesn't exist. TM is however not inherently controversial unless someone for example an Archbishop decides TM is not compatible with Religion. TM exists without controversy. Lawsuits do not. We are talking about two kinds of controversy here. This section discusses and is notable because the controversy here is not inherent to the topic, TM, under discussion.Lawsuits is also WP:Fringe. Three lawsuits in over 50 years is not notable. To include this topic in a section with true controversy lends verisimilitude to the topic. Although I too, like "flow" in an article including lawsuits in the Controversy section opens the door for a lot of material that may be only of fringe importance.The section as in the past could become a dumping ground for any and all objections to TM. I'd like to keep this section clean and tight in this area, and include lawsuits  in a section of its own. We have to be aware also I believe of weighting WP:Weight the Controversy section.(olive (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't concede your distinction. The lawsuits themselves are not the controversy, of course. The lawsuits appear within, and help to create, controversy regarding TM. We'll have to get other editors in here to settle the matter.Naturezak (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't concede to your points either : ), but I will compromise and put lawsuits under controversy despite my concerns, unless other editors don't want to compromise.(olive (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go along with it. And I believe Naturezak wants a separate heading for each lawsuit, as in his proposed outline. I haven't felt comfortable with that for the reasons I explained above -- undue weight -- but I won't make it a sticking point. TimidGuy (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes! That is a sticking point for me . Each lawsuit should not have the weight for example of the whole section on religion.That is Undue Weight to say the least and isn't logical in terms of the article ... WP:Fringe.... Can we compromise and include lawsuits under "Controversies" but not with separate headings for each lawsuit. Don't think I can go that far.(olive (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Olive on this. Roseapple (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with Olive on this. It is not the case that each lawsuit "takes on the weight" of the "whole section on religion"... to present it thusly assumes that one think that an entry, but dint of BEING an entry under a subhead, is given a status. Since the entries under this subjeading represent distinct controverisies -- rather than categories of source of criticism -- I argue that the lawsuits, being unrelated, should be listed separately.Naturezak (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Having each lawsuit highlighted by being in a separate section seems like a subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) attempt to discredit TM. Roseapple (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Controversies: Lawsuits 

message: Comments:
Agreement to move to external links from Timid Guy, Naturezak, Roseapple, Olive.(olive (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intentional communities 

message: Comments: Don’t want to make it still more difficult here, but: Question is, how strict Wikipedia is a , let me say lexical encyclopedia. If it is, structure seems very ok for me. If it is not, one thing could be added: organisational aspects. I opposed long time to this argument in german WP. But today I am looking at it in a different way: from the viewpoint of the reader/visiitor of the article. Because: Many people who are googling TM are not only interested into what the TM techiques would be. But also in the question "what about the organisation behind it". They often even do not know that this organisation is called today "Global Country of World Peace". So I think today that it would be at least an act of kindliness to offer in such an article some more insight into the organisation/movement: may be with the information of "In details please see ...". So: I do not think that TM should be looked at primarily out of an sociological angle as some had argued here and in Germany. But on the other side without any doubt in the eyes of its founder and organisations it is a tool by which the world should be changed to a better. Somehow it feels as if this aspect is not covered enough here (again: in details, sure, there could be another article for that). --Josha52 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Josha.This has been discussed before I think and in general the thought is to keep this article strictly about the technique to avoid an article that has been and could be again very much too long. That said the History section ... see a revised version on the talk pages... has some information about the organization that teaches the TM technique. That may be enough.This is definitey open to discussion though.(olive (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Well, then hear my proposal: Rename "History" into "Organisation". Since: "History" does not reflect the history of the TM technique (whose history – if there is any ;-) – is almost unknown, beside the fact that its founder says that the technique is part of the vedic tradition and was passed to him by his teacher). "History" reflects actually the history of the organisation. Think it’s ok if this chapter would still outline the main past steps of the organisation too: together with it’s actual form (in brief) – and an obvious link to the main article on GCWP. But change only if others agree. --Josha52 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, I agree. The title change is appropriate and you're right I think in saying  History isn't the right word. So maybe a shorter version of the History section renamed organization or Organizational structure. Any other comments on this.(olive (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better word than "organization" is "Development." I'll change my proposed site structure to reflect this good suggestion.Naturezak (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think "Development" is fine. Lets have TimidGuy, Josha, and maybe Roseapple if she's around, sign in and see what they say, and we then  could have a consensus on a change of title . I want to make sure the version is shortened considerably ....I can't support the present version. I have a version that we can start with.See: but another version could be fine. Good. Things may be moving forward. (olive (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Olive. I think that's fine. TimidGuy (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My thinking was that development describes the origination of the TM method from non-TM precursors.Naturezak (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, "History" is the most meaningful title that any reader can understand without explanation.  Olive offered a shorter, simpler, straightforward history re-write (see above) that could be used. Roseapple (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Development to mean development of the organization that teaches the technique. The fact that three if us understood this differently doesn't bode well for the reader's ability to understand. "History" is OK too. Maybe its a safer choice.(olive (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we agree on shorter version of the section?(olive (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As a point. When I reduced the article size I  didn't reduce the list of well known personalities.I am always a little uneasy about hacking away at another editor's work. This section in relation to the new article length, seems overly long and I would suggest violates WP:Weight.Any thoughts on this.(olive 22:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on inclusion of organization's structure - History section

message: History
In 1957, at the end of a festival of "spiritual luminaries" Mahesh Yogi]] (or simply "Maharishi" to followers) inaugurated a movement he describes as one that would"spiritually regenerate the world". The official TM website indicates that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its inauguration including such well known personalities as comedian [[JerrySeinfeld] Dolly Parton, Andy Kaufman, The Beatles, Beach Boys' Mike Love, Stevie Wonder, and Al Jardine, jazz musicians Eric Kloss and Charles Lloyd, actor Stephen Collins, radio personality Howard Stern, actor Clint Eastwood, film director David Lynch, actor Hugh Jackman, inventor and author Itzhak Bentov, Scottish musician Donovan, actresses Mia Farrow and Heather Graham, and [[Deepak Chopra. Political leaders who practice TM include Joaquim Chissano
In the early 1970s, Maharishi launched a "World Plan" to establish one Transcendental Meditation teaching center for each one million of the world's population. Today, The Global Country of World Peace is the name of the organization through which the TM technique is taught.
::We should not include a list of personalities; whether Jerry Seinfeld practices meditation is incidental and uninformative of TM. The fact that they are TM practitioners should be on THEIR article pages, rather than their affiliation listed here. There is precedent for creating a "List of TM Practitioners" as a separate article, e.g. List_of_people_who_converted_to_Catholicism. Indeed, the only available rationale for including such a list is as implied endorsement of TM, contravening NPOV. Furthermore, it is fallacious to imply that the participation of celebrities is a significant aspect of this methodology's "History." Considering the contested objectivity of this article's editors, this inclusion -- as implied endorsement -- needs to be justified very clearly, very succintly, and persuasively. Naturezak 03:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points from Naturezak.  Roseapple 13:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite history section

message: I really appreciate the fact that we're collaborating and coming to consensus on a number of points. But I'm worried that we'll forget what we've decided. So I want to start a summary in this thread.
* move the Intentional Communities section to external links
* implement a new sequence: Lead; Procedure & Theory; Development (or History); Research; Controversies; References
* include the two lawsuits in a single heading
* combine the separate sections on theory and procedure in the current article into one, and greatly shorten and simplify
* move the empirical research on higher states of consciousness out of the theory section and into the research section
* remove "effortless" in the lead which is redundant with the latter part of the sentence
* use Naturezak's new version of the Development (or History) section
* exclude the list of celebrities from the article unless someone can justify its inclusion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 16:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oops sorry. I moved things around after Joshi's request for location of the history section, and before checking your comment about sandbox.(olive 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your approach is the best. TimidGuy 12:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of consensus 

message: I just wanted to thank Naturezak as a newer editor on this article for patiently wading through this and really considering every area. I really appreciate working with someone like this.(olive (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra points for Naturezak 

message: Things are starting to get muddled it seems so what about starting to write a new section for this with multiple variations.
In the meantime, I would like to summarize what has been said so far. Please add on what I forget to add.
*Theory on higher states of consciousness seems to be losing ground as a desired element in this article
*Add what the technique looks like , and what does that mean on every level of the body
*Is the technique the same as relaxation. Research indicates the TM technique displays different physiological markers than relaxation.
*Added by Olive here rather than from another thread: I suspect we should be very careful about use of the terms rest and relaxation. These terms for the lay reader have multiple associations . Can we avoid the terms? As TG suggests there are several terms that if used require explanation. Can we or should we avoid explanations?
*Should we add what the technique feels like to the practitioners. Do we have a good source for that?
*Is information about the mind's movement from concrete to finer levels of thought included. Seems not from my reading of discussion.(olive (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Olive, for taking the lead on this -- and for the summary, Yes, I do think it would be useful to begin drafting some versions. The studies I listed in the other thread give a brief characterization of the subjective experience. TimidGuy (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a source for the assertion that TM displays different physiological markers than relaxation?Naturezak (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Seem like the study that you have in hand, titled "Autonomic and EEG Patterns during Eyes-Closed Rest and Transcendental Meditation (TM) Practice: The Basis for a Neural Model of TM Practice," would be a good one to look at. TimidGuy (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say I've got it here. What is the relevant passage? Naturezak (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The abstract gives a good overview. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that I fail to see any statements that would support the assertion that there are physiological effects outside those described by "relaxation" or "concerted concentration".Naturezak (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The paper documents a range of physiological effects different from those associated with relaxation. It's a single-blind experiment. The control was having subjects sit with their eyes closed relaxing. Their physiological patterns were different compared to during TM. Here's how the Discussion begins: "In this true experiment, physiological patterns during equal-length, counterbalanced eyes-closed and TM periods were significantly different." TimidGuy (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not suggesting that we report the uninteresting fact that doing TM is nonidentical to sitting with one's eyes-closed; rather, my point is that all of the physiological markers manifested during this study fall into the category of "relaxation." Naturezak (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. Certainly you can create an arbitrary stipulative category and lump everything together as relaxation. But to what end? If you want to say that TM is the same as relaxation or that the effects of TM are no different from relaxation, then it doesn't seem like that assertion would be supported by this and other studies, including the meta-analysis that you deleted. If you want to say that TM is relaxing or that it's a form of relaxation, that's certainly supported by research. Sign me confused. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This exchange can be amicably closed if you'll provide an example of a physiological correlate of TM that isn't part of the conventional understanding of "relaxtion." It's my contention that there aren't any.  The categorization here isn't stipulative, it's conservative. I am unaware of any markers that would differentiate states undergone during TM from mere relaxation. Naturezak (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing in on a new procedure ( procedure,theory) section 

message: Hi, Naturezak. I wonder about your deletion of the reference to the study in Current Hypertension Reports. How do you know it's not peer reviewed? I actually think this may be a good study to include. Also, it may not be appropriate to delete something because you think it's "statistically suspect." But of course we would need to give a proper citation, rather than the link to EurekAlert. Or maybe both, since Wikipedia does encourage "convenience links." TimidGuy (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CHR is a briefing publication, in which editors are commissioned to do reports upon other peer-reviewed research. It is not itself peer-reviewed. I propose that a case be made *for* the inclusion of such non-refereed metanalyses. Naturezak (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, I would be in favor of taking it to the RSN. To address another point, we might be wary of the inclusion of any citation whose rationale for inclusion is not given by the contributor in the edit summary.Naturezak (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove this for now because the December CHR isn't actually out yet. We should know more about the source once it's actually available. It's quite possible that parts of CHR are peer reviewed, while other parts probably aren't. --Philosophus T 10:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study in ''Current Hypertension Reports'' 

message: Please discuss removal of apparently relevant, sourced content such as in this edit, before removing it.  Thanks!  Dreadstar † 02:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see the previous section? --Philosophus T 10:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Naturezak was BOLD, and someone disagreed with the edit, and so brought it to Talk. That's common practice on Wikipedia, and there isn't anything wrong with it. If it happens that the edit comment convinces everyone, then it saves wasted discussion on talk, and if it doesn't, then it can easily be reverted and brought to Talk. --Philosophus T 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of sourced content

message: * Done move the Intentional Communities section to external links
*   Implement a new sequence: Lead; Procedure & Theory; Development (or History); Research; Controversies; References
* Done include the two lawsuits in a single heading
*   Combine the separate sections on theory and procedure in the current article into one, and greatly shorten and simplify
* To Do move the empirical research on higher states of consciousness out of the theory section and into the research section
* Done Remove "effortless" in the lead which is redundant with the latter part of the sentence
* Done Use Naturezak's new version of the Development (or History) section
* Done Exclude the list of celebrities from the article unless someone can justify its inclusion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 16:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list of changes with consensus   

message: I have  re added "Theory" for now since its inclusion was agreed on by all editors editing at the time. I'm not sure what it really means either, in this context, or if its the best word for this section. I think Michael raises a important point. Michael maybe you could come up with something better.There should eventually be changes to that section so maybe wait until that section is done to rename.(olive (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with this change, since as Michaelbusch says, this is a *definition* rather than a theory. Notably, the yogi's "theory" generates no testable hypotheses. Naturezak (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a trifle confused.Have we thrown out discussion and consensus,in favour of adding or deleting anything you want based on your opinion. Is this Wikipedia? Are there Wikipedia Guidelines? Are there tags on these pages? Could someone provide some enlightement.(olive (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not be argumentative, Olive. The discussion is moving forward; you simply don't seem to be pleased with it. If you have a reasonable argument that demonstrates where my reasoning went wrong, you should share it, rather than making noise that WP policy is being ignored. Truly, it isn't. Naturezak (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting Theory and Procedure 

message: I wanted to summarize the issues at hand right now.
* Some editors object to the word theory in the introduction. I am not attached to the word. However at this time, the theory and procedure section material has not been decided on , and if we remove theory we are dealing with a lot of material and a title that does not support what is in the section. Something needs to be in the heading for the time being.What should that be?
*Research institution section has  been deleted without consensus. I am willing to leave it like that since further discussion seems a waste of time. However does a new introduction need to be placed here and if so what? A history of the research?
*I will add to the appropriate section in talk, the condensed version of Malnak v Yogi and editors can decide if it should replace the rather long version now in place. I doubt readers wade through the long version. (olive (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues at hand 

message: The Jevning study indicates (but does not demonstrate) that plasma neurotransmitter levels increased during meditation. The same happens during relaxation; phenylalanine is a precursor to tyrosine, which is both a chemical precursor and a signal transducer involved in systemic 'stress' levels. The control group was a 'resting' group, not a "relaxation" group. Given clinical conditions, it is not unusual that a differential emerged between the study group and the control. This study might be included in the listing of research on TM, but it can't be used to substantiate the claim that TM has physiological markers not shared with states of relaxation. That lay interpretation is not supported by the data. Did you read the study yourself, or were you basing your interpretation on third-party reports? Naturezak (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the study. The study uses "relaxation," so I would think a summary in a Wikipedia article could reasonably use it. If I were summarizing it, I'd say "indicates" or "suggests." (Most research studies, as you know, typically use tentative language rather than "demonstrates.") You could argue about the wording but I don't think there would be a Wikipedia policy that would disallow my using this study to distinguish the physiological effects of TM from those relaxation, whether quantitatively or qualitatively. If you wanted to dispute or explain away the findings, I think you'd have to find a published source that does so or a TM study that specifically addresses these same parameters but with differing results. TimidGuy (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where the issue of your medical understanding is coming into question; it's rather elementary phsyiology. The study neither indicates nor demonstrates that there are effects outside the bounds of relaxation; I'm not disputing the findings, so much as your characterization of an increase in plasma NTs being other than a sign of relaxation. Naturezak (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't pretend to have any medical knowledge. But it's not necessary, as long as I accurately characterize the study. The study did an experiment and found an "acute appearance of increased plasma phenylalanine" in the TM group that wasn't seen in the control group that used simple relaxation. So I guess this an example of a quantitative distinction. Maybe next we can look at a study that finds a qualitative distinction. TimidGuy (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, no. The Jevning study would be an example of a qualitative difference since there was no change of phenylalanine concentration in the control relaxation group. A quantitative difference would be the case if both groups saw increased phenylalanine concentration but there was a statistically significant greater increase in the TM group. TimidGuy (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see your purpose in trying to categorize these findings as either 'qualitative' or 'quantitative'. The terms don't really apply here, that is, they are misapplied if you are trying to say something meaningful about the nature or implications of the data or analysis in this study. I continue to be puzzled at your inability to understand that the rather modest claims about the report of a rather non-actue effect  made by these authors still doesn't support your assertion that there are effects induced by TM which are different from those induced by relaxation. Certainly, the paper doesn't contradict my asserion that TM produces effects that can safely be called 'relaxation'. Naturezak (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the terms "quantitative" and "qualitative" as applied to differences between TM and simple resting states somehow do not apply.  In fact, both terms accurately apply in describing the types of physiological differences found (and while neither one is necessarily more substantial or important than the other, it may be argued that qualitative differences are medically more interesting).  There have been hundreds of published studies that show statistically significant physiological differences between the practice of TM and resting states.  These studies have been performed in dozens of different labs around the world for over 40 years and have involved many hundreds of researchers, reviewers and editors.  The results are robust and compelling. These studies have been scientifically vetted and published in top medical journals, thus satisfying wikipedia's highest level of RS.  Any argument to the contrary is factually unsupported and is simply OR. Duedilly (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the same assertion that TimidGuy has been making. I invite you to cite one of these studies, and provide, as a courtesy, just a few words indicating your understanding of how the authors' conclusion in the article supports this assertion. I'm not disagreeing that there is a lot of RS research done on TM; where I disagree is the broad interpretation that TM practice can't be characterized essentially as a process of relaxation. Relaxation, distinct from rest, mind you. Though perhaps it is a kind of OR for Wiki editors to be engaged in debating the interpretation of scientific studies. To get more to the point, could you cite a RS that makes this assertion itself, directly? Naturezak (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define and physiologically characterize your distinction of "relaxation" relative to "rest" and provide medical references establishing this distinction.Duedilly (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations of TM research 

message: Hello Naturezak. Could you please let me know why you are ignoring the procedure adopted on this article and on any contentious Wikipedia article as noted in this tag.(olive (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a procecure that you have adopted for the article, but it is not one I agreed to follow. Rather, I am satisfied in staying within WP guidelines. While we are on the topic, I'll observe once again that you, and TimidGuy, should not be editing the article directly, given your non-neutral POV, but instead should be restricting your participation to the discussion page. Naturezak (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturezak, I didn't adopt these guidelines. Please read the tags on this article. I consider your comments inappropriate especially given the recent history of the discussions on this article.(olive (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty surprised actually and sorry.There have been a lot of changes made to this article , and I think the article is looking better than ever. I also think there is more to do. There are big changes coming on and I think agreement is needed to implement the changes. Trying to get rid of the other editors is not the best way to get a good article out of this process. There was a lot of good cooperative work going on. I'd like to see that continue. My concern is not about the changes you made. Both TG and I tweaked them to make them more neutral, and I think they are fine, but with disregarding the method the group had managed to cooperate on the article. I can't see why you would disregard that process.... sure there was a lot of discussion by everyone, but still the article was improving with out edit warring or protection . I want to reiterate , Wikipedia is about group process.(olive (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer to the guidelines you seem to think I have violated. Since I didn't violate any WP guidelines, I presumed you meant *other* guidelines, such as delaying productive edits with voluminous and obfuscatory discussion, etc. You are welcome to judge my comments as inappropriate, but I think you'd be hard put to explain how they violate civility or WP policy. I'll observe once again that you should not be editing the article directly, given your non-neutral POV, but instead should be restricting your participation to the discussion page. Naturezak (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I have in any way been insulting. That wasn't my intention.I do wonder what you would do If I just went ahead and made the edits I wanted to without discussion.Consensus protects your potential edits as well as mine.  I feel like discussion creates consensus and a sense of order. I have seen some very abusive stuff on these discussions and in the article, and respecting the guideline on the tags about adding comments to the talk pages maybe helps that. Hey maybe I'm pushing for something no one else cares about, and maybe my concern is extreme.I do try to explain things carefully. There is a lot of misunderstanding , and its unpleasant.I try to explain to prevent misunderstanding. POV? Given the discussions on this pages and the agreements reached so far, that just seems insulting, but that's the game here, so I guess i just have to suck it up and not complain.  Having knowledge of a subject and/or disagreeing is not POV.... its just disagreement. (olive (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely coherent right now, but it doesn't seem to me that he's doing anything wrong per Wikipedia policy right now. That tag isn't actually policy, and IAR can go a long way with things that aren't policy, especially if the edits are good and people don't disagree with them. It doesn't seem like there is any edit warring going on over his edits, so why would following some particular procedure that isn't policy be important? --Philosophus T 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing. I probably shouldn't have put it here but I am feeling relatively desperate with an editor who ignores Wikipedia guidelines for contentious articles, and the situation here in which editors have made progress in a cooperative manner on this page.Many of the changes made were suggested by Naturezak. Sure its slower than just adding whatever one wants at anytime, but that's the nature of Wikipedia.Its cooperative. This article has just gone through edit warring and was protected. I would not say ever that an editor is doing something wrong, but rather that this may not be the most cooperative way of dealing with this.We are trying to move ahead with consensus from the editors involved to prevent edit warring and protection again.From my point this action seems thoughtless and disrespectful. This may not be the case, but unless the editor explains why he is doing this and explains his edits as per guidelines thats how it seems. This particular edit may be fine, but what if I decide to delete or edit something or TG does, or if Zak makes an edit that is highly controversial. What then?.If we proceed in a orderly way, everyone has a say, everyone will feel good about the article.The bottom line is the climate of the article  -highly controversial, contentious.(olive (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important question to Naturzak 

message: I've tweaked the recent edits in the Origin section. Maharishi doesn't self-identify as a Hindu, and as I understand it, Wikipedia says that editors should respect the person's self-identification regarding religion. I also felt "spiritual guru" was pulling the article toward a particular point of view. We've been ruthlessly editing the article to remove POV (thanks to some good suggestions by Naturezak), so I think we want to make sure it doesn't get pulled in the other direction. TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterizing Maharishi 

message: I hope we can continue our momentum. We've made lots of changes. Thanks to everyone.  I apologize if I've taxed people's patience. A next step might be to try again with the Procedure section.
I reviewed briefly the various versions of the Procedure/Theory section. There were a number of unresolved points of contention. So I thought that maybe as a starting point I'd simply condense what's currently in the article. I'm not really changing anything, mainly condensing, so maybe we can simply decide whether it's better than what's there and postpone issues such as how to characterize the process of TM.
The technique is taught to new practitioners in a standardized, seven-step procedure, comprised of two introductory lectures, a personal interview, and a two-hour instruction session given on each of four consecutive days. Instruction begins with a short ceremony performed by the teacher, after which the student learns and begins practicing the technique. Subsequent sessions are said to provide further clarification of correct practice, as well as more information about the technique.The Seven-Step Course[http://www.maharishi.org/tm/learn_tm.html 7 Steps to Learn the TM 
The goal of long-term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique is enlightenment, according to Maharishi. He posits a theory of enlightenment comprising seven major states of consciousness. The first three, waking, dreaming, and deep dreamless sleep, are commonly known. Transcendental consciousness, the fourth state, is said to be experienced during practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. Maharishi says that the practitioner eventually maintains the experience of transcendental consciousness of the fourth state while living everyday life. He refers to this as enlightenment and terms this the fifth state, cosmic consciousness. States six and seven, God consciousness and unity consciousness, are further refinements of cosmic consciousness.
A lot shorter for sure. Maybe too short. TimidGuy (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems much better than what is there now. I'd support this version.(olive (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there have been no objections and a fair amount of time has passed,I have added the new, shorter, reader-friendlier version of the "old" procedure theory section. I have also added "goals" to the heading as a suggestion.(olive (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible rewrite of Procedure section