Talk:TM-Sidhi program

message: I haven't checked the sources being cited, but there are in fact only about a dozen published peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect, not hundreds, as the text says. One of those published papers documents five different studies. So that would make 16. Counting unpublished or self-published studies brings the total to around 50. I think what we should do is prepare a ref that lists the 12 published studies and then report that number in the text rather than citing an incorrect source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sources are non-scholastic and refer only to "studies". I don't see why we can't contrast that text with other sources that specify the number that are peer-review published.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  17:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that by no measure are there hundreds of studies. The TM organization only claims 50, as you can see from this Google search. The claim of "hundreds" is an anomaly. But my feeling is that we shouldn't even use the claim of 50, because it includes unpublished conference presentations and self-published studies, which wouldn't meet WP guidelines. It seems like a better measure is the number of published studies. TimidGuy (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, assuming your numbers are correct. How do we handle this. We can't just discount a source based on our personal evaluation. Can you list some sources and quotes here that give the correct info about number of studies? -- — Keithbob • Talk •  15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the search results in the link I gave, it would be easy to list 50 sources that say 50 studies: official TM websites, newspapers in Asia, military websites, David OJ's website, the critique by Fales and Markovsky in Social Forces, an article about Maharishi by Tim Mejan, who is editor of The Edge. But all of these are either self-published claims or those claims repeated by others. According to WP:V, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. It's an exceptional claim to say that there are hundreds of studies on the Maharishi Effect, especially since science indexes only list about a dozen. For claims related to science, we should use the accepted sources of science: indexes and bibliographies of published articles. The only real credible claim that can be made is the number of published, peer-reviewed studies, per core policy. It would be easy, and inarguable, to put together this list in a ref, and it would be in accord with WP:OR to then count the number of studies in the list. TimidGuy (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a sensible suggestion. We should use the best sources we have, and its acceptable to then create a list and add  up the studies especially when the original  claim made is extravagant, and not borne out by science indexes. I agree its acceptable to then add up the studies on a list. There is a point where we can't deliberately add false information to Wikipedia especially when the information in not published in RS for this content.(olive (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I think what TG is saying is that the source for the number of studies is the studies themselves and that in this case listing them and counting them would be acceptable per WP:OR and would trump a casual source that is clearly inaccurate, if I understand correctly.(olive (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and corrected the figure and listed the studies in the ref. If you think that it's too long to have all that info in a ref, we could delete the article titles and authors and just list the journals, volume numbers, date, and page numbers. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

text: This is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

text: More importantly, these are not independent sources.    Orme-Johnson's website lists him as "a certified teacher of the TM program". MC Dillbeck has a position at the Maharishi University of Management. these studies should be taken with a very large block of salt - We wouldn't trust the Vatican's studies on the effectiveness of prayer, for the same reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair that is an opinion of yours that they are not independent. All that is being done here is that a list is being composed of peer reviewed journals that published research on the Maharishi effect. It is a fact that these different journals published the research. If you can find a reliable source that somehow says that these studies are not independent etc cool. But that does not change the fact the these peer review journals decided to publish the research. --Uncreated (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: per WP:MEDRS "Many medical claims lack reliable research about the efficacy and safety of proposed treatments or about the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find while unreliable sources are readily available. Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentioned in other articles."Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Maharishi effect is Sociological in nature, not medical so I am not sure why we would apply MEDRS to this research. --Uncreated (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That people believe that the 'Maharishi effect' exists is clearly a subject of possible interest to sociologists. Its existence or otherwise isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again that is a personal opinion and OR. If you can find a source for it and a relevant article awesome.--Uncreated (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I think you will find that Sociology does not fall under Natural Sciences. Sociology is a Social Science not a Natural Science. --Uncreated (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find that the consensus of wikipedia is that all scientific articles are subject to the same definition of what a reliable source is. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: you have used a page to support your argument that explicitly says that it does not apply to the Social Sciences. Could you please site another wikipedia source.--Uncreated (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In case there was some confusion...
Wikipedia's science articles are not intended to provide formal instruction, but they are nonetheless an important and widely-used resource.[1] Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides, and high-quality non-specialist publications. Although news reports are sometimes inappropriate as reliable sources for the technical aspects of scientific results or theories, they may be useful when discussing the non-technical context or impact of science topics, particularly controversial ones.
The scope of this page is limited to the natural sciences, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, geoscience, physics, and interdiscliplinary fields. For articles about medicine, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). This page does not address reliability in context of the social sciences, biographical detail, social or political impact or controversy, or related non-scientific issues, even when these are presented in the context of a natural science article.
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources for a given purpose, or ask at a relevant Wikiproject such as WikiProject Science, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Biology, or any of the more narrowly targeted science-focused Wikiprojects.
--Uncreated (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Despite your assertion, it is clear that those studies are not social science. They are talking about fields, and effects on brain chemistry, and the creator of TM says it is quantum theory. This is firmly in the realm of natural sciences, and a fringe portion thereof. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the published research which you are disputing all deals with measuring changes in Society. To quote one of the sources used in the article on the Maharishi Effect "The Maharishi Effect is a hypothetical societal benefit resulting from a "significant proportion of the population" practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique." Now if you can find a source that says the Maharishi effect is something else great otherwise its OR from your side.--Uncreated (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundreds of studies on the Maharishi Effect 

message: Here's a pretty complete list of the studies published in peer-reviewed journals. This doesn't include research reviews; it only includes empirical studies on the Maharishi Effect.
* Dillbeck, M. C., G. S. Landrith III, and D. W. Orme-Johnson. "The Transcendental Meditation program and crime rate change in a sample of forty-eight cities." Journal of Crime and Justice 1981; 4:25–45.
* Orme-Johnson, D. W., M. C. Dillbeck, R. K. Wallace, G. S. Landrith. “Intersubject EEG coherence: Is consciousness a field?” International Journal of Neuroscience 1982; 16:203-209.
* Dillbeck, M. C., K. L. Cavanaugh, T. Glenn, D. W. Orme-Johnson, and V. Mittlefehldt. "Consciousness as a field: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and changes in social indicators." The Journal of Mind and Behavior 1987; 8(1):67–104. (presents five studies)
* Orme-Johnson, D. W., C. N. Alexander, J. L. Davies, H. M. Chandler, and W. E. Larimore. “International peace project in the  Middle East : The effect of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 1988; 32(4):776–812.
* Dillbeck, M. C., C. B. Banus, C. Polanzi, and G. S. Landrith III. "Test of a field model of consciousness and social change: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and decreased urban crime." The Journal of Mind and Behavior 1988; 9(4):457–486.
* Gelderloos, P., M. J. Frid, P. H. Goddard, X. Xue, and S. A.Löliger. "Creating world peace through the collective practice of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field: Improved U.S.-Soviet relations." Social Science Perspectives Journal 1988; 2(4):80–94.
* Orme-Johnson, D. W., and P. Gelderloos. "The long-term effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field on the quality of life in the United States (1960 to 1983)." Social Science Perspectives Journal 1988; 2(4):127-146. (presents two studies)
* Travis, F. T., and D. W. Orme-Johnson. “Field model of consciousness:  EEG coherence changes as indicators of field effects.” International Journal of Neuroscience 1989; 49:203-211.
* Dillbeck, M. C. "Test of a field theory of consciousness and social change: Time series analysis of participation in the TM-Sidhi program and reduction of violent death in the U.S." Social Indicators Research 1990; 22:399–418.
* Assimakis P., and M. C. Dillbeck. "Time series analysis of improved quality of life in Canada:  Social change, collective consciousness, and the TM-Sidhi program." Psychological Reports 1995; 76:1171-1193.
* Hatchard, G. D., A. J. Deans, K. L. Cavanaugh, and D. W. Orme-Johnson. "The Maharishi Effect: A model for social improvement. Time series analysis of a phase transition to reduced crime in Merseyside metropolitan area." Psychology, Crime & Law 1996; 2(3):165-174.
* J. S. Hagelin, M.V. Rainforth, D. W. Orme-Johnson, K. L. Cavanaugh, C. N. Alexander, S. F. Shatkin, et al. "Effects of group practice of the Transcendental Meditation program on preventing violent crime in Washington, DC: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June–July 1993." Social Indicators Research 1999; 47(2):153-201.
* Orme-Johnson, D. W., M. C. Dillbeck, C. N. Alexander, H. M. Chandler, and R. W. Cranson. “Effects of large assemblies of participants in the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on reducing international conflict and terrorism.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2003;36 (1/2/3/4):283-302.
* Davies, J. L. and C. N. Alexander. “Alleviating political violence through reducing collective tension: Impact Assessment analysis of the   Lebanon   war.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2005, 17: 285-338.
One of these reports five separate studies, and another reports two separate studies. I've noted that parenthetically. We can perhaps write that there are 14 peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect, or 19 separate, peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect. Perhaps for simplicity, we can say the former. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

text: More importantly, these are not independent sources.    Orme-Johnson's website lists him as "a certified teacher of the TM program". MC Dillbeck has a position at the Maharishi University of Management. these studies should be taken with a very large block of salt - We wouldn't trust the Vatican's studies on the effectiveness of prayer, for the same reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair that is an opinion of yours that they are not independent. All that is being done here is that a list is being composed of peer reviewed journals that published research on the Maharishi effect. It is a fact that these different journals published the research. If you can find a reliable source that somehow says that these studies are not independent etc cool. But that does not change the fact the these peer review journals decided to publish the research. --Uncreated (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: per WP:MEDRS "Many medical claims lack reliable research about the efficacy and safety of proposed treatments or about the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find while unreliable sources are readily available. Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentioned in other articles."Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Maharishi effect is Sociological in nature, not medical so I am not sure why we would apply MEDRS to this research. --Uncreated (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That people believe that the 'Maharishi effect' exists is clearly a subject of possible interest to sociologists. Its existence or otherwise isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again that is a personal opinion and OR. If you can find a source for it and a relevant article awesome.--Uncreated (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I think you will find that Sociology does not fall under Natural Sciences. Sociology is a Social Science not a Natural Science. --Uncreated (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find that the consensus of wikipedia is that all scientific articles are subject to the same definition of what a reliable source is. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: you have used a page to support your argument that explicitly says that it does not apply to the Social Sciences. Could you please site another wikipedia source.--Uncreated (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In case there was some confusion...
Wikipedia's science articles are not intended to provide formal instruction, but they are nonetheless an important and widely-used resource.[1] Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides, and high-quality non-specialist publications. Although news reports are sometimes inappropriate as reliable sources for the technical aspects of scientific results or theories, they may be useful when discussing the non-technical context or impact of science topics, particularly controversial ones.
The scope of this page is limited to the natural sciences, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, geoscience, physics, and interdiscliplinary fields. For articles about medicine, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). This page does not address reliability in context of the social sciences, biographical detail, social or political impact or controversy, or related non-scientific issues, even when these are presented in the context of a natural science article.
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources for a given purpose, or ask at a relevant Wikiproject such as WikiProject Science, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Biology, or any of the more narrowly targeted science-focused Wikiprojects.
--Uncreated (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Despite your assertion, it is clear that those studies are not social science. They are talking about fields, and effects on brain chemistry, and the creator of TM says it is quantum theory. This is firmly in the realm of natural sciences, and a fringe portion thereof. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the published research which you are disputing all deals with measuring changes in Society. To quote one of the sources used in the article on the Maharishi Effect "The Maharishi Effect is a hypothetical societal benefit resulting from a "significant proportion of the population" practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique." Now if you can find a source that says the Maharishi effect is something else great otherwise its OR from your side.--Uncreated (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Studies in peer-reviewed journals

message: Its cool if you want the article to conform to Medrs but the research section only contains facts from sources describing transcendental Meditation. Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi Programme are two different techniques, so it seems odd to me that you would remove content about research on the TM Sidhi programme and replace it with content about the TM Teachnique which like I said before is a different technique. --Uncreated (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote : "It is based on, and described as a natural extension of the Transcendental Meditation technique" Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: University is a natural extension of ones education after attending highscool, but one would never use research about a highschool to describe a University. I am not advocating that we keep the research that was deleted, just the the research on TM is not applicable to the TM-Sidhi Programme. --Uncreated (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the research section?