Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Adding a sentence to the lead

I do think "Practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) have claimed that the technique is more effective than standard meditation practices." was an improvement as it put things into context. A number of TM websites support this claim. For example "most effective method of self-development" and "The Transcendental Meditation technique has been shown to be the most effective health and wellness program there is. Nothing we know of is as effective for promoting good health and reducing health-care utilization and medical expenses" and "is the most effective mind-body practice for reducing stress and stress-related disorders, including hypertension, high cholesterol, stroke and atherosclerosis" [1] So not hard to support. We could also look at "Practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) have claimed that the technique is more effective than Western health care or other forms of meditation."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to what you are doing here James. Your edit summary says you reverted to an agreed upon version. Where is that agreement? In fact NW prefers his first version and from the NB we have an uninvolved editor saying he prefers the version in place at that time but with a flip of paragraphs which was carried out.

"Suggest flipping the first and second paragraphs so the article doesn't start off with a POV sentence. Other than that I think the lede is pretty good. Brmull (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your actions are confusing and seem less that forthright. I'm reverting to the version per the NB editor. From there if you want to discuss changes please do so, for example if Nuclear Warfare's version is a better version. I will revert only once. Please respect the NB input. (olive (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

If by agreement you are citing a past RfC, there was no agreement on a past RfC. Please do not continue to cite this false information.(olive (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

I've added the sentence preferred by NW, hopefully satisfying everyone.(olive (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

Great and I have added a ref to support it and removed the previous sentence that was not agreed upon. There was no conclusion at the NB you mentioned.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

James. Do you really think such duplicity is not crystal clear? If that's how you wish to edit this encyclopedia, I suppose you can try and do it and see how long you can get away with it.Too bad.(olive (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

"Standard meditation"

What are "standard meditation practices"? --BweeB (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We could go with other meditation practices... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That would read better. I'll make the change. --BweeB (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how to make the edits with the admin block on the article? --BweeB (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's consensus, I or some other admin can make the change for you guys. Are you talking about changing the passage in the intro paragraph that says "... have claimed that the technique is more effective than standard meditation practices"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. --BweeB (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Done (assuming other participants are unlikely to object). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --BweeB (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Anderson meta-analysis of blood pressure RCTs

It's not clear why this meta-analysis has been deprecated and isn't considered high quality research on par with Ospina. According to MEDRS, it is the highest quality source, being a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Further, it includes in its analysis a number of studies outside the scope of Ospina (which only looked at studies through Sept 2005 and which excluded studies on students). One of the three authors was partially funded by TM supporter Howard Settle, but MEDRS specifically says this isn't a consideration: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." TimidGuy (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not independent. Feel free to bring it to MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS. Does this shed light on the situation?

"Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions."

What are your objections specifically?(olive (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC))

@TG: Not quite clear on your point. Is it that H. Settle is mentioned as a financial backer? Or that this study is not mentioned earlier or more prominently in the article? Early morning person (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Doc James refers to Ospina's blood pressure meta-analysis as the highest quality research and argues that it should therefore be the only research represented in the lead. But Anderson is higher quality, because he included more studies -- studies that were outside the scope of Ospina due to being published after September 2006 or due to their being on students. Also, by the way, Anderson didn't repeat Ospina's error (which I can document) of double counting two no-effect studies. Doc James deprecates Anderson because he was partially funded by Howard Settle, but MEDRS explicitly says funding shouldn't be an issue. Here's something interesting: a research review that came out two days ago on blood pressure cited Anderson's meta-anlaysis of TM but not Ospina's.[2] Yet the same review cited Ospina's meta-analysis of Qi Gong and Buddhist meditation. That indicates that the authors consciously chose Anderson over Ospina. And this, by the way, was in the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, an official journal of the American Society of Hypertension, with an Impact Factor of 2.2. TimidGuy (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary of NPOV noticeboard input on lead

Having received direction from four uninvolved editors, we now have a good opportunity to take a step forward in this impasse.

Their main points:

1) Dmcq, supported by a 2nd univolved editor, Aprock: “I would have thought the lead should say what has been established for it for starters which is some health benefits from relaxation, and then go on for what has been claimed but for which the evidence is definitely against and then those thing which are claimed but not enough research done to come to a conclusion." Aprock commented after this: “I agree with the general sentiment here.”

2) Lambanog did not support or oppose the proposed addition, not did he/she support the sentence stating no benefits for TM. “It is not obvious at first glance why the alternative studies presented are on an equal or better footing than the ones currently cited. That said I notice that the meta-analyses relied upon currently have clearly stated limitations.

3) Aprock: Initially objected, but after further information provided, said, “Are you just trying to add content that clarifies that transcendental meditation is equal to ordinary mediation, which is somewhat better than relaxation? If there are good sources that say that, I see no problem with that.” He also commented on an “advocacy beehive,” referring not to the TM Research article, but rather to the initiation of several articles about TM on the site, which has taken place over the past many months, created by various editors. He called for extraordinary sourcing for statements that TM benefits are greater than other types of meditation (which are not being claimed or stated). He concluded with, “You guys do what you will with the articles. As long as no one is claiming magical powers, I'm fine with whatever goes into the articles.”

4) Brmull: “Suggest flipping the first and second paragraphs so the article doesn't start off with a POV sentence. Other than that I think the lede is pretty good.” This comment was made at 05:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC). At the time of his comment, the sentence noting health benefits for TM, suggested by EMP, was in place as the lead sentence. This editor had to have looked at the TM research article to make this comment, since he was advising on the order of paragraphs, which was not presented at the noticeboard.

Summary: Two uninvolved editors, Dmcq, Aprock, agree that the article should 1) begin with a statement of the benefits established for technique; 2) then address what has been claimed but for which evidence is against; 3) then address those things claimed for the technique, but for which not enough research has been done to prove. Dmcq and Aprock supported adding material to the opening section, as long as it is “established” or reliably sourced. A third uninvolved editor, Brmull, supported the added sentence as the first sentence of the paragraph it was in (preceding the current second sentence finding no benefits for TM), but suggested that the order of 1st and 2nd paras be reversed. The fourth, Lambanog, did not support either side.

We have clear direction and I believe that it's our responsibility to implement the advice given. I will be busy for the next few weeks, but I wanted to post this to give everyone the opportunity to think about it. Comments? Early morning person (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Usually one lets someone uninvolved do the summary. We have already had issues with editors misrepresenting the words of others. Have you posted on these users pages to verify what they actually meant?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Doc this isn't true. Seldom does anyone post a summary on NB comments let alone some editor who posted from the NB come to the talk page and post a summary. Amazing comment. If you don't agree with something say so, you don't have to make up 'rules'. (olive (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

Looks like WP:COI issue need to be addressed before we continue here. Regardless I would expect an editor summarizing the word of others to at least ask if they agree with said summary. We have however dealt with this issue before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Doc, not honest and a red herring. Early is asking for comments and input on his summary. You aren't being honest.(olive (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

And this comment from Early which quotes Doc James from the NPOV/NB isn't honest either (Doc's comment in bold)

And your third question, above: “Early morning did indeed add ""Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits associated with TM, compared to health education, relaxation, and other control groups." [34] so I looked at each and every ref and not one supported the stated sentence.” Answer: I would just ask any editor even a little interested in the truth of this matter to kindly have a quick look at the abundant evidence to the contrary in the article, which I have summarized on the TM research talk page here and here. Early morning person (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC) /quotation

Removed tag

I see the

tag was removed. Do we feel all the issues around the reasons for putting the tag there in the first place have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction? --BweeB (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there are still problems in the body of the text but not enough to warrant a tag.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Redundant material?

Anxiety

• According to research reviews, three randomized controlled trials by Maharishi University researchers involving 362 high school students in Taiwan found that TM reduced anxiety compared to simple rest, contemplative meditation, and no treatment.

Cognitive function

• Research reviews report that three studies by Maharishi University researchers published in the journal Intelligence found that TM improves cognitive function. The studies used standardized assessments to measure cognitive functions such as information processing speed, memory, the ability to reason, the ability to understand visual cues, practical intelligence, creativity, and independent thinking. According to a 2011 research review, these "carefully conducted" studies and a fourth on practitioners of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs "provide good support for the use of TM to enhance several forms of information processing in students…."

These two paragraphs were added recently.[3] However I'm concerned that we may be reporting on the same studies multiple times. For one thing, its my understanding that

• Shapiro, Shauna L.; Walsh, Roger (2003). "An Analysis of Recent Meditation Research and Suggestions for Future Directions". The Humanistic Psychologist. 31(2–3): 86–114.
• Shapiro, Shauna L.; Walsh, Roger; Britton, Willoughby B. (2003). "An Analysis of Recent Meditation Research and Suggestions for Future Directions" (PDF). Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research. 3: 69–90.

Are essentially the same paper. The Humanisitic Psychology paper is cited six times. Which studies are we talking about in these paragraphs?   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we may be reporting on the same studies multiple times. I'm not clear though what the policy issue is here. The article is organised by topic, not by scholarly paper, and so a paper with more than one finding can quite properly be referred to wherever it is relevant. Some papers are more wide-ranging than others.

Redundant material? Again I'm not clear as to the policy objection if more than one reference is used to support a statement. WP:CITECLUTTER is an essay only. While it recommends as a general rule a maximum of three citations, it's also clear that this article is very moderate compared with the excesses it draws attention to. But perhaps it can be improved, and I'll look again at these paragraphs over the next few days.

The essay says, "One cause of 'citation overkill' is edit warring". I think it far better to discuss these issues in this way than have the scourging editing that has scarred this article. Spicemix (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about edit warring - nobody has engaged in any concerning this material.

I think that it'd be helpful to start annotating the article to make it clear which studies are being discussed where.

The problem is that we may end up with the same studies being mentioned again and again, giving the impression to readers that they are different studies. That would be misleading. I'm sure that is not the intent, but it's easy to do by accident, especially when many editors are adding material.

In the case of these two paragraphs, is it correct that both refer to this paper?

• So, K.T. and Orme-Johnson, D.W. Three randomized experiments on the longitudinal effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique on cognition. Intelligence 29: 419–440, 2001.

If so, let's make that explicit.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On further investigation, this appears to be a revert of an edit a few weeks ago: [4] What's the story?   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The story is that a good faith attempt (see edit summaries[5][6] is being made to include material in the article that is sourced to the highest standards and will satisfy even the most demanding editors at this page. WP:MEDRS prominently states: This page in a nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals.

If I understand it, the suggestion is being made above that, quite contrary to the WP:MEDRS injunction, a review reference may not always be wholly sufficient, and should sometimes be deconstructed to its primary constituent parts: I think that it'd be helpful to start annotating the article to make it clear which studies are being discussed where. In general this undermines the key Wikipedia reliance on secondary sourcing, and in particular in this case could lead to references being stepped down not only to their primary element of peer-reviewed paper, but even to their pre-primary status as doctoral dissertation.

If that happens it will inevitably degrade the dignity and authority of the review source, and potentially introduce notes of dissension or point of view. WP:MEDRS states, Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. Spicemix (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there are two separate issues here. I raised the issue of multiple references to the same studies, which is an overall problem and also a specific problem with the So & Orme-Johnson paper. But I think we first need to address the issue of this inclusion of this content, since it's been so contentious. Let me start a fresh thread to discuss it (I don't see ny previous threads about it). We can come back to the issue of multiple refs to the same papers later.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So & Orme-Johnson 2001/Shapiro & Walsh 2003

Let me try to summarize the history of this material before we discuss its current disposition

• 2010-02-12 "add another review" [7] TimidGuy
• 2010-02-15 "removed primary research per WP:MEDRS" [8] Tuckerj1976
• 2010-02-15 Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 29#Metastudy Deletion
• 2010-02-17 "As discussed on the talk page, this needs a reliable source of publication to be included" [9] Tuckerj1976
• 2010-02-19 "adding second ref because of concern with the other one" [10] TimidGuy
• 2010-07-31 Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 33#Problems with Research quality
• 2010-09-02 Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 34#Problem text
• 2011-01-06 "add info about anxiety finding" [11] TimidGuy
• 2011-01-06 "join paragraphs on Chinese studies, add tags" [12] Will Beback
• 2011-01-06 Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Archive 1#Chinese studies
• 2011-01-08 "better descriptions of So paper" [13] Will Beback
• 2011-01-08 "name the journal", "published studies are often quite different from the dissertation -- revised, rewritten, retabulated; this is citing the published version, so that should come first", "add detail in first sentence", "Seems silly to name them; add wiki link" [14] TimidGuy
• 2011-02-21 "there are two authors" [15] TimidGuy
• 2011-03-26 "add point from Shapiro" [16] TimidGuy
• 2011-03-27 Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Archive 2#"Cosmic consciousness"
• 2011-04-03 "add another study from Shapiro" [17] TimidGuy
• 2011-08-02 Talk:Transcendental Meditation research#Anxiety
• 2011-10-13 "Anxiety/Cog function sections rejigged per Talk: Anxiety" [18] Spicemix
• 2011-10-14 "Reverted good faith edits by Spicemix (talk): Not a review article." [19] Jmh649
• 2011-10-16 "retry at rejig with missing citations included" [20] Spicemix
• 2011-10-16 "We do not use old primary research to refute new review articles" [21] Jmh649
• 2011-10-16 "removed content in the wrong section" [22] Jmh649
• 2011-10-27 "addition well sourced, compliant material" [23] Spicemix
• 2011-10-30 "addition research reviews Anxiety" [24] Spicemix

If anything is missing please add it.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• So, Kam-Tim (1995). "Dissertation: Testing and developing holistic intelligence in Chinese culture with Maharishi's Vedic Psychology SM: three experimental replications using Transcendental Meditation". Archived from the original on December 9, 2010.
• So, KT; Orme-Johnson, DW (2001). "Three randomized experiments on the holistic longitudinal effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique on cognition". Intelligence. 29 (5): 419–440.
• Shapiro, Shauna L.; Walsh, Roger (2003). "An Analysis of Recent Meditation Research and Suggestions for Future Directions". The Humanistic Psychologist. 31(2–3): 86–114.
• Shapiro, Shauna L.; Walsh, Roger; Britton, Willoughby B. (2003). "An Analysis of Recent Meditation Research and Suggestions for Future Directions" (PDF). Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research. 3: 69–90.

Here are the relevant publications.   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Will maybe you could be clear about what your point is. We could make lists of edits and discussions on any content especially if its contentious. I see you've contacted James. Anyone else you want to contact?(olive (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

See the thread above for the genesis of this discussion. The only editors who've been particularly involved in this are Spicemix, Jmh649, Tuckerj1976, and TimidGuy. Spicemix is already involved in the discussion, and the other two editors are no longer active.

The point here is to discuss material rather than engage in edit warring, etc. I hope that's not a problem.   Will Beback  talk  03:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, its clear we discuss material on Wikipedia, and I'm aware of the discussion above. I don't find lists with out explanation or context particularly helpful. Maybe others do. Perhaps it would be a good idea to notify TG. Maybe he'd respond. Snarkiness noted.(olive (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

I have trouble keeping track of all of these edits over the years myself, so I created this list as much for my own benefit, but I also think it'd be helpful for anyone commenting here.   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this list. It helpfully illustrates the principle "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess." Spicemix (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And you've deleted information as well. None of which brings us towards stable material. I'm hoping Jmh649 can stop by to explain his concerns with the material.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And you've deleted information as well. Perhaps we could have a list. Is a more summary version of a study being conducted in China the extent of it?

But among all the well-sourced material deleted and reverted recently, it's the loss of a debunking description[25] that is most keenly felt. Time will tell if the purpose of this thread is to restore it. Spicemix (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Was there a discussion of the deletion of that material? If we're keeping this material then we should also keep the part that was added as part of previous discussions. Since Jmh649 isn't commenting here I don't know what his objections were, or if he even intended to delete (as opposed to move) the material.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Was there a discussion of the deletion of that material? And prior to that, what was the nature of the discussion on its inclusion? The record shows that the addition was not only non-consensual but vigorously disputed on policy grounds: reaching... far beyond the sources.

None of the research reviews cited, nor the primary source, includes mention of a doctorate or dissertation. WP:NOR says: Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

In this case the original research doubles as debunking. WP:MEDRS says Respect secondary sources... Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk"... the conclusions of reliable secondary sources.

Does this qualifying of review articles with references to student work have any precedent on Wikipedia? Spicemix (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Jmh649 isn't going to respond. I'm going to restore the consensus version from before the deletions.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Does silence imply acceptance of the policy points above? Spicemix (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silence and consensus.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I note that this posting was met with an apparently consensual silence, which turned out to be delusory, but I'm happy to assume good faith here. Specifically, do we agree that according to policy the reference to this webpage[26] should be removed? Spicemix (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Which policy would require deleting that webpage, and how would doing so improve the article?   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the policy objections are set out well enough in my post of 4 November. If the reference can't be justified on policy grounds, then subjective views of improving the article aren't material. Does the qualifying of review articles with a reference to student work have any precedent on Wikipedia? Spicemix (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that WP:MEDRS forbids including a reference to a study which is the basis for a secondary source? If it means that much to you, we can delete that footnote.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is very strict on safeguarding the authority and dignity of research reviews. But this case of reaching back beyond the primary source to student work is novel, and implicates WP:NOR too. Thanks for accommodating these points. Spicemix (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS governs claims about medical issues, not about how studies were conducted. This source certainly does not violate NOR. However, since it's an irritant I'll be accommodating and remove the citation.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the research reviews. The doctoral student reference is removed now, but the text it was supporting, conducted by a Maharishi University of Management doctoral student, is still there. Can we agree on According to research reviews, three studies by Maharishi University of Management researchers reported in 2001 in the scholarly journal Intelligence found that...? Spicemix (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That material was never deleted. You just duplicated it, so I removed the second copy.[27] If there's a good reason for repeating the same sentence twice then we can add it back.   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up. What I meant by my edit summary was the restoration of attribution to research reviews that were removed when you reverted to an earlier version.[28] That edit also removed the research review Shapiro, Shauna; Brown, Kirk; Astin, John (March 2011). "Toward the Integration of Meditation into Higher Education: A Review of Research Evidence". Teachers College Record 113 (3): 495–528, which I can add back in now. Spicemix (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I've merged two related sections to avoid redundancy.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Peremptory deletion of RS content

Two of the three sources cited in the material that Doc James deleted are on the Brandon/Hill list of journals that WP:MEDRS specifically says are high quality sources. Whether there is a weight issue is a matter for discussion, per the arbitration. Peremptory deletion is not an appropriate action per the TM arbitration. Please discuss here with editors on this page.Thanks.(olive (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

You refer to two of the three. What about the third one?   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Doc James has removed content that has three sources, all of which are reliable. If he has concerns with a source despite Wikipedia's position and despite standard editor research which would indicate the sources are reliable, he is welcome to bring that concern here. Removing the content is not the appropriate process for determining suitability of a source for that content. I suggest you check the sources yourself if you have concerns about reliability.(21:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Oh, I misinterpreted you - I thought you meant that two out of the three sources are reliable. I don't have access to those journals. I'll post quotation requests so we can see what they say. Or, if it's easier, perhaps the editor could email them to me. I think that there may also be an issue with giving so much prominence to what are described as "preliminary findings" with weak conclusions.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Information about the journals is readily available online if you would like to check their reliability. We as editors are not in a position to interpret, and do not and cannot play an interpretive role. That's why we on Wikipedia use secondary sources rather than the studies themselves . The secondary sources are reliable and have interpreted the primary sources for us. What we have to determine is if that source is reliable. If you don't think a source is reliable it can be discussed here or taken to a NB. (olive (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

You're right: we shouldn't interpret. But we do need to summarize accurately. That's why I'm requesting quotations - to ensure that the material is summarized accurately.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can either email the reviews or post , but its going to take me a few days. I'm really caught up with family stuff for the next several days. If Spice has the reviews maybe he could get them to you sooner if not, I'll try and get them to you next week.(olive (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

I see Spice has already added the quotes.(olive (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Thanks Spicemix. Unfortunately, it's not clear from those quotes which studies are being cited. If one of you could send me the papers I'd be very grateful.   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Spicemix cannot or will not share his sources.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Medical costs

Are not health outcomes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert of heading:Cost

I didn't realize this heading had already been reverted once or I wouldn't have bothered reverting and would have brought the issue here. I suggest that if this is a real issue rather than a matter of opinion per James' comment "better before" that it be discussed, I won't revert again since I hold myself to 1RR. James do have a reason for using a less descriptive and explanatory heading? If there's a good reason I'm not attached to the heading in place.(olive (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC))

We present topic under neutral headings and do not attempt to advance arguments using headings. We use heading such as "heart disease" not "heart benefits". The same here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Would "medical costs" be an acceptable compromise? If we're going to address costs it might be worth briefly mentioning the costs of TM itself.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes happy with medical costs.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The reviews are on the reduction in medical costs. I'd say actually, that trying to hide what the section says is a NPOV violation. This is a research article. Are there reviews on the impact of cost on the effectiveness of TM? I'll let other editors discuss this further. I have no wish to argue about something so trivial, and I'll be happy to go with a consensus on this issue.(olive (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

I'd be fine with "Medical costs" too.(olive (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Factual accuracy in the lead

I’ve added a tag to the lead because of factual inaccuracies. The lead currently says: Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for the Transcendental Meditation technique beyond relaxation or health education.

Well-sourced facts in the article contradict this assertion, so the lead cannot be factually accurate. Here are some examples:

• The leading source deployed to support the above assertion (the Ospina systematic review) performed a meta-analysis that compared TM to progressive muscle relaxation and found that TM produced a greater reduction in blood pressure.

• A 2009 independent systematic review and a 2010 narrative review reported on several randomized controlled trials on school students that found an improvement in blood pressure and cardiovascular function in the TM group compared to health education.

• A 2007 review said that data from two studies found reduced mortality from all causes over a mean period of eight years in subjects practicing Transcendental Meditation, compared to controls. In both studies, the controls practiced relaxation techniques, and in one study TM was compared with health education.

• A 2007 medical textbook on heart disease said that "TM has been shown to not only improve blood pressure but also the insulin resistance components of metabolic syndrome and cardiac autonomic nervous system tone" in subjects with cardiovascular disease, compared with matched controls given only health education.

• A 2009 review reported on research by MUM graduate Vernon Barnes and his colleagues at the Medical College of Georgia on variables related to blood pressure that found that, compared to an eyes-closed relaxation control group, the TM group had increased cardiac output and decreased peripheral resistance as well as decreased systolic blood pressure. Spicemix (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please specify which citations you're referring to?   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Point 1: ref 3; Point 2: refs 30, 31; Point 3: ref 21; Point 4: ref 20; Point 5: ref 32. Points 2-5 are direct quotations from the article. Spicemix (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Boy, you seem to go out of your way to post unhelpful responses, in this case requiring me to go back and forth to the article to look up these individually. So, it is your assertion that each of these sources is an "independent systematic review"? Please provide your evidence that that's the case. I don't see how a review by Barnes, for example, could be considered independent.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The research by Barnes comparing TM and health education is a primary source not a review, and not cited in the article, though details were added here[29]. Olivo's review of it is independent. Additionally Black, in his 2009 independent systematic review (ref 30), reviews four studies by Barnes comparing TM and health education. Spicemix (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A RfC supports the current text. All "systematic reviews" found that TM is no better than control. Non systematic reviews and reviews by members of the TM organization did find benefits but are not as high a quality of source and thus have issues. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not get rid of the first paragraph in the lead and just have the second paragraph. The first paragraph is not really a lead into the article anyway since it only deals with 3% of the content of the entire article. --Uncreated (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no RfC that supports this text. This is a falsehood James you have perpetuated for too long to maitain a stranglehold on this inaccurate sentence The RfC you consistently reference did not close with consensus or agreement. Please stop citing this RfC or I will have to consider reporting this on an appropriate Notice Board. Thanks(olive (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Yes please report this to the appropriate notice board. Would be happy to comment there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

James to avoid this kind of confusion the next time you cIte the pertinent RfC why not link to it, so all editors can see where the consensus is. (olive (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC))

I think we should make a concerted effort to determine which reviews are systemic and independent, so as to avoid these kinds of arguments in the future.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We can summarize the factual inaccuracy of the statement Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for the Transcendental Meditation technique beyond relaxation or health education. There is no disagreement that the reviews by Ospina and Black are both independent and systematic; if they are not, then this must be shown. Ospina shows a benefit over relaxation, and Black finds improvement compared to health education. This should now be sufficient evidence to have the statement corrected. Spicemix (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What does Ospina say on the matter?   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No where in the Black article [30] does it mention TM is better than "health education". The conclusion of the Ospina paper is "A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients". Feel free to bring it to a RfC again if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah found what you where referring to. This table [31] where they list the studies that they included in their analysis. This is not a conclusion of a systemative review.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What does Ospina say on the matter? Ospina, p.148, says:

Direct meta-analyses showed that compared to HE, TM did not produce significantly greater benefits on blood pressure (SBP and DBP), heart rate, TC, HDL-C, LDL-C, body weight, dietary intake, physical activity, measures of stress, anger, and self-efficacy. A subgroup analysis by study duration showed short-term significant improvement in SBP with TM, but not over the long-term. When compared to PMR, TM produced significantly greater benefits in SBP and DBP.

Ospina thus finds 1) no benefits over health education and 2) benefits over relaxation. Clearly this result is contradicted in the sentence Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for the Transcendental Meditation technique beyond relaxation or health education. Both findings, 1) and 2), are recorded in the body of the article, and on these grounds alone, per WP:LEAD, must be properly acknowledged in summary form. Spicemix (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of the rest was missed Ospina p.148 also finds that "Yoga was nonsignificantly superior to TM® for the outcomes of body weight, heart rate and stress. Compared to TM®, RR significantly helped to reduce smoking." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We are considering the lead statement Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for the Transcendental Meditation technique beyond relaxation or health education. The finding When compared to PMR, TM produced significantly greater benefits in SBP and DBP renders that statement inaccurate. A non-significant finding on yoga is not relevant here. Regarding the finding on RR, there was no study that looked at the effect of TM vs Relaxation Response on smoking. There were studies on TM vs health education and RR vs health education, and on that basis, the authors inferred a comparison between TM and RR. So this is an indirect comparison.

Earlier in this discussion[32] Doc James drew our attention to Ospina's conclusion on p.201. Missing though from this post is the confirmation, also on p.201, that TM vs PMR was a significant result favouring TM. (The indirect finding on TM and RR is not mentioned here.) Spicemix (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So you want to add to the lead "Yoga was nonsignificantly superior to TM® for the outcomes of body weight, heart rate and stress. Compared to TM®, RR significantly helped to reduce smoking. When compared to PMR, TM produced significantly greater benefits in SBP and DBP."? We say "relaxation" per the Cochrane review which is not the same as PMR. We can run it by a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think the yoga finding should be in the article, because it's non-significant. The RR vs TM indirect comparison I'm unsure about, partly because the authors don't mention it in their conclusion, but also because I've never seen that kind of finding in the Wikipedia medical and science articles. If we could find an example in a GA, then I think we could consider it.

The relaxation point is easily resolved. If we look at the quotation in the reference[33] we see not "relaxation" but "relaxation therapies", and that must surely include PMR. Spicemix (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Forest plot

To summarize the recent discussion[34], there is apparently no further support for the forest plot graphic in the lead. An uninvolved editor has laid out its non-significance, and all other editors, including its originator in the article, have added supportive comments.

If there is no objection, then the graphic can be deleted. Spicemix (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I support following through on his suggest as copied here "On that topic, I don't understand why we have an entire lengthy article on Transcendental Meditation research. The article should be two sentences long: "Although a number of published studies have examined the health effects of meditation, these trials are of poor quality. Given the methodologic flaws which are pervasive in the published literature on meditation, no firm conclusions can be drawn about its health effects." That's what the sources actually say, but instead we have a long article which gives the (false) impression that there is a substantial body of meaningful research on the topic."

Basically delete everything here a replace it with these two lines as summary of the science on the main TM page. But might be a good idea to bring it to a RfC first as removing this much content might be controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of the proliferation of TM articles is probably beyond the scope of this thread. But we still have consensus for the non-significance of the forest plot data. Spicemix (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The consensus to remove the forest plot is just as strong as that to reduce the page to two lines.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Today's revert

[35] I saw this wording discussed at arbitration (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Workshop#Response_from_Jmh649.2FDoc_James_to_analysis_by_PhilKnight). I agreed with views expressed there that the summary did not reflect the source well. I am also concerned about the lead sentence – I'd rather we'd stick a little closer to the source wording, rather than extrapolating from it. I believe the summary I wrote is quite neutral – the Ospina review notes some apparent benefits in its abstract ("Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure") combined with caveats about study quality, and Krisanaprakornkit et al. are quoted in the reference as saying "Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety". The study abstract itself contains the following wording, "In one study [the only one in the review that involved TM, and said to be "of moderate quality, with active control comparisons"] transcendental meditation showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms and electromyography score comparable with electromyography-biofeedback and relaxation therapy." The caveats were clearly reflected in what I wrote, as were the apparent benefits:

Practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) state that in its practice and results, the technique is distinguished from other types of meditation or self-development "by its naturalness, effortlessness and profound effectiveness".[2]

Independent systematic reviews have found some apparent health benefits of TM in managing high blood pressure and anxiety, comparable to those of health education, relaxation therapies and other forms of meditation, but state that the evidence to date is inconclusive.[3][4] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation practices in healthcare, as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor.[4][5][6] Part of this difficulty is that studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization, and enrollment of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM.[7][8][9]

I am open to feedback. --JN466 22:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is better to keep the wording similar to the summary "A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients". Maybe create a RfC on what you propose.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There are several editors who have worked on this. Why not wait for them to weigh in. I'm sure we can come to some version that satisfies an accurate representation of the sources and the editors willing to work on this. What say you.(olive (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC))

Sure, there's no hurry. --JN466 23:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Doc James, the studies of TM, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation have a mention in the structured abstract, page v, which reads

Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure.

If the authors mention this result in the abstract, which is the top-level summary of the review, it is not immediately apparent to me why we should not say this. As for the statement you prefer, from a few pages further into the review, one thing that strikes me is that the way you presented it here, the first sentence ("A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results.") reads as though it summarises the TM studies. That's not the case though. It relates to the entire pool of studies, most of which were on other meditation techniques. I think we'd be better off using statements that specifically comment on the TM studies. --JN466 23:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have anything to do with whether TM has actual health benefits. That statement provides no more useful information as to whether TM is useful than 'I asked my two young children about whether TM worked, and they both said it did'. In fact, it would strongly suggest to an unbiased observer that given the poor quality of research on TM, and the reporting bias involved in research on 'New Religious Movement' 'techniques' by members of the 'New Religious Movement', the impact of TM on the conditions it was assessed for was no better than placebo or even deleterious. Nevard (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I have tried to avoid getting involved in the issues concerning the Ospina review. My objection to the earlier edit was that they were justified solely to comments on an arbitration page.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that observations from a previously uninvolved editor, especially one with experience in evaluating content edits, as arbitrators presumably are, should be welcomed. Cla68 (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

All editors are welcome to come to the article talk page and work towards consensus.   Will Beback  talk  08:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's really encouraging that Doc James finds the latest changes reasonable. This can be the start of a new productive period of consensually improving the article.

It sounds obvious, but the article mainly needs the application of policy. We have a huge amount of high quality sources available, fully WP:MEDRS compliant, and they need to be deployed so they have their due weight.

Currently the lead needs a lot of attention. It reads as though it has its own agenda, whereas it should be a summary of the body of the article. Perhaps we can analyze just how many secondary sources and topics are presently in the body of the article but unreflected in the lead, and set about summarizing them.

A year ago the lead went through a convulsion[36] when the opening paragraphs were unilaterally switched. Since that time the article has been at odds with WP:MOSBEGIN, and the reader may feel that the introduction to the subject is a focused narrative and not a general review.

We also need to evaluate a number of assertions in the lead. For example, the statement studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization is given prominence, but as the source is an untested speculation in one paper only[37], it may have undue weight here. Spicemix (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you put your proposed intro here for dicussion? I think there are enough eyes on this article to help produce progress on any suggestion. Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, can you put a proposal together Spice? --BwB (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It could be that just taking things a step at a time will be the best way forward. There are a lot of great improvements that can be made without any policy grounds for disagreement.

I think the best would be to start agreeing on summary text to add to the lead. By my count we currently have five research reviews represented in the lead and 36 excluded. To make a start we could take care of three of these by summarizing the Medical costs section. Could we say Preliminary findings suggest decreased use of health care and reduced medical costs among patients using TM? Spicemix (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is agreement we can add to the above proposal and say, "Preliminary findings suggest decreased use of health care and reduced medical costs among patients using TM, as well as improvement in blood pressure and cardiovascular function in students." The addition will take care of a further three research reviews, and involves primary studies none of which was considered by Ospina. Spicemix (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no agreement. The agreement is that we would have another round of a RfC to determine the best way to summarize the literature. As a show of good faith and because the suggestion was reasonable the last change has remained.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we talk about the issue and hear what the arguments are for not including the summary sentence. The policy underlying the proposal is that there is properly sourced material in the body of the article that isn't represented at the top of the article, where according to LEAD it ought to be summarized. Spicemix (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is key information from top-quality sources being excluded from lead?

Much weight is being given to the Ospina et al. systematic review. There are other equally reliable sources in this article, and Ospina covered research only up to Sept 2005. According to MEDRS, systematic reviews are just one of three highest quality sources of information on health research. In addition, a) academic and professional books are also described as “ideal evidence” [38]), and, b) meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials are described as “best evidence” [39]. Also, MEDRS states that c) narrative or research reviews may be useful in establishing evidence quality [40].

Currently, this article reports findings on TM from five academic textbooks of good quality, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis, two independent systematic reviews, and approx. 20 research reviews, most of them peer-reviewed. These sources are generally outside the scope of Ospina, and more recent (see for ex., Vogel, Black et al., Anderson et al., below), but are not mentioned in the opening section. A quick listing:

Books: a) John Vogel (2007) in Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saunders Elsevier [41] Quotation: “TM has been shown not only to improve blood pressure but also the insulin resistance components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiac autonomic nervous system tone.” Note: Vogel here refers to an Archives of Internal Medicine (American Medical Association) study published after the Sept 2005 cutoff date for acceptance of research in the Ospina study.

b) Braboszcz, Claire, et al. (2009) Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine, Springer [42] Quotation: “This study further suggests that TM practice . . . does reduce emotional distress associated with pain, resulting in enhanced tolerance of acute pain.”

c) O'Donohue, William, et al. (2008). Evidence-Based Adjunctive Treatments. Academic Press [43] Reports three randomized, controlled trials finding decreased drug or alcohol use for the TM group.

d) McGrady, Angele (2010). "Relaxation and Meditation". In L'Abate, Luciano. Low-Cost Approaches to Promote Physical and Mental Health: Theory, Research, and Practice. Springer [44]

e) Walsh, Roger (2007). "Contemplative Psychotherapies". In Corsini, Raymond; Wedding, Danny; Dumont, Frank. Current Psychotherapies (8th ed.) Improved cognitive function and mental health in nursing home residents compared to relaxation, no treatment, and mindfulness training [45]

Meta-analysis: Anderson et al. (2008), "Blood Pressure Response to Transcendental Meditation: A Meta-analysis," American Journal of Hypertension [46]. Note: This study also included peer-reviewed research on TM and blood pressure that was not included in Ospina et al. due to their 2005 research cutoff date. It reported decreased blood pressure in those who practiced TM compared to control groups that included health education. Anderson et al. also included two studies by Barnes et al. that were excluded by Ospina due to their decision not to study adolescent health.

Independent systematic reviews: a) Paradies, Y. (2006), Ethnicity and Disease "A small body of research suggests that TM and group-oriented stress management may be effective in reducing psychosocial stress and its effects for African Americans..." [47]This publication does not advertise itself as a systematic review, but examination of its format and methods indicates that it is.

b) Black et al. (2009), Pediatrics (American Academy of Pediatrics) [48] Reported on several randomized controlled trials on school students that found an improvement in blood pressure and cardiovascular function in the TM group, compared to health education. Note: This study also included peer-reviewed research on TM and blood pressure that was not included in Ospina et al. due to their 2005 research cutoff date.

Narrative reviews: Nearly two dozen research reviews, most of them peer-reviewed, report research finding health and other benefits in TM subjects. Here are 10: Olivo (2009), NY Academy of Sciences [49]; Fekete et al. (2007), Current Opinion in Psychiatry [50]; Epel et al. (2009), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences [51]; Pratt (2010), Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice [52]; Sibinga and Kemper (2010), Pediatrics in review / American Academy of Pediatrics [53]; Varvogli & Darviri (2011), Health Science Journal [54]; Bushell (2009), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences [55]; Lindberg (2005), Geriatric Nursing [56] Bodeker (2002), American Journal of Public Health [57]; Barrows (2002), Medical Clinics of North America [58]. Early morning person (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Early morning person (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely you aren't suggesting placing all of that into the intro?   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I'm not. Only suggesting some appropriate mention. Early morning person (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it is all currently there in the article. Early morning person (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how you assembled this list. Is it a complete list of all research on TM, or does it represent selected research? If the latter, what criteria was used to select them?   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Gosh Will. How is it you aren't understanding. The lead summarizes the article. Early has assembled the sources/content in the article. Those sources.content must be summarized in the lead. You seem to be evading the obvious. Hopefully that's not the case.(olive (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

We all know that the lead should summarize the article. That's not what I'm asking about. TMP has assembled a list here - I'm asking about the criteria for the list. To make it clearer, why would we summarize these sources rather than the article as a whole?   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We should summarize the article as a whole. However, at the moment, a couple of points made by just two reviews (systematic reviews) are being given much weight. I refer to the first sentence of the 2nd para of the article. I assume the reason is that the author of this sentence feels that systematic reviews are so preferable in presenting health information that they supersede all other kinds of evidence. However, as per MEDRS, professional books and meta-analyses are also considered superior sources for presenting biomedical information. This article contains points of interest on the subject of the article from both of these other types of high-quality sources—not to mention at least two other independent systematic reviews. I’m suggesting that in the limited space of the opening section of the article, the main points made by these other high-quality sources also deserve mention. The main points made by the narrative reviews, also recognized in MEDRS as useful in this context, also deserve some mention in the lead, since there are so many of high quality. Early morning person (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems like not all of them are high quality. In your last section you write that "Nearly two dozen research reviews, most of them peer-reviewed,..." Why would we even think of highlighting reviews which aren't peer reviewd?

More broadly, there's no practical way of summarizing dozens of reviews in a reasonable space in the intro. I believe the argument for the current intro was that it focuses on the best quality reviews.

Looking at the quotes above, I'm concerned that we may be picking out those which are favorable and omitting text in the same reviews which qualifies the findings. For instance, a 2011 review was just added to the article without mentioning that the reviewers found the results hard to interpret. We need to avoid being biased towards the pith positive findings by omitting caveats expressed by the same authors.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: the narrative reviews, I am certainly not suggesting that we try to summarise them all, 24 in number, in the lead! I thought that I had made that pretty clear. But I do think it reasonable to give a sense for the even stronger sources--the academic or professional books, the meta-analysis, the other systematic reviews. They are only several in number, and express main points from the article that would seem to be unrepresented in the opening section, and therefore in violation of WP:Lead. Early morning person (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: the 2011 review: Anderson and Taylor did, as you say, raise some technical issues with the Paul-Labrador study, but the quotation added to the article, “randomized controlled trials on TM have ‘demonstrated blood pressure-lowering effects similar to primary antihypertensive medications” does not refer to the Paul-Labrador study, but rather to other studies done previously, which Anderson and Taylor deem worthy of report. (This is indicated by the plural expression, “randomized controlled trials.”) Although the authors of this review raise a few technical issues, they do not dispute the main findings of the study regarding blood pressure and insulin resistance. That is why in the end, they count Paul-Labrador among the studies that "supports the potential clinical effectiveness of mind-body practices in improving indices of the metabolic syndrome." Early morning person (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: your concern about “picking out those which are favorable and omitting text in the same reviews which qualifies the findings”—my experience is that the editors on this article, to their credit, can be counted on to pretty instantly point out any text in the review that qualifies the findings. Early morning person (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of these sources are a joke, or to be more precise, the uses to which they are being put in this article are a very bad joke. I have neither the time nor inclination to go through all of them, so lets just take one at random. EMP claims this source [59] "Reports three randomized, controlled trials finding decreased drug or alcohol use for the TM group." That is an inventive characterization of what the source actually says. What does it actually say[60]?

• "The claims made for TM's positive effects are passionate and enthusiastic, but they beg for corroboration by independent researchers and more rigorous designs and measures."
• "Since the 1970's many studies have investigated the impact of TM on drinking problems, although only one study has recruited a sample of individuals with alcohol problems and used a control group with random assignment (Taub et al, 1994). All of these less rigorous studies describe decreases in consumption of alcohol (see review by Alexander et al 1994). However, all but the Taub study have serious methodological deficiencies in their design and sample....Measures of alcohol use, alcohol diagnoses, and related variables are inadequate. There are few, if any studies of TM and substance abuse that are recent."
• When the authors then describe the Taub study, they aggregate the results for the group assigned to TM and the group assigned to biofeedback, comparing those two groups in the aggregate to the two groups assigned treatment as usual and electronic neurotherapy.

EMP's characterization, then is a gross misrepresentation of the source, directly contrary to the requirements of WP:MEDRS and the TMArbcom

Let's look at another, shall we? The Varvogli article in "Health Science Journal" is a "top quality source"? Since when? Health Science Journal is a brand new journal from Greece with only two years of publication, with virtually no citations by third party sources, and its focus is nursing.[61] The reliability of academic journals is established by their acceptance in the academic community. There is no such acceptance for this journal, at least not at this time.

Similarly "Nutrition & Metabolism" in an online-only publication which describes itself as an "Open Access Journal" [62] that has only been in business a few years and has an absurdly low Impact Factor. This is not a reliable source by the measure of academic acceptance. And again, as Will noted below, the authors make important qualifications about the quality of the single TM study that they found of adequate quality.

As I said, I have neither the time nor inclination to go through all of this. But, it is clear from even a random sampling that these "top quality sources" fail in many instances to meet the minimum standards of MEDRS, and in other instances, it would be charitable to characterize the uses to which they are being put as cherry picking, as it appears that they are being grossly mischaracterized. Fladrif (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Worse than I imagined. Hindawi Publishing, publisher of Nutrition and Metabolism is basically a vanity press in the guise of publishing academic journals. Authors pay to play. [63] This is not a reliable source or reputable academic journal. Fladrif (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I will respond to the above points one by one:

1) Fladrif states "EMP claims this source [64] (The Cambridge textbook of Effective Treatments . . .) ‘Reports three randomized, controlled trials (RCT’s) finding decreased drug or alcohol use for the TM group.’"

But that is not correct. I did not claim that nor does the text of the article claim that. It is the topic sentence of that paragraph, which is not referenced, that refers to three RCT’s: “Three randomized controlled trials on TM have shown reduced substance abuse.” It is the next sentence that cites the source Fladrif refers to, the Cambridge Textbook . . ., both in the text and as a footnote. This sentence says that the Cambridge textbook reports “a randomized controlled trial that included the use of TM. ” So this sentence obviously only references that one study to this source. The next sentence then properly reports the Cambridge textbook’s caution that there is not yet sufficient evidence for meditation’s use as a treatment. Then the next two sentences mention the second and third RCTs on TM, and clearly references them to another source, O’Donohue [65]. Therefore, I see no mischaracterization of the Cambridge textbook here.

If anything, the text in the article understates the results as reported by this source. The Cambridge text reports two significant results for the four control groups in the study: 1) reduced drinking days in both the biofeedback and TM groups, and 2) better scores on a profile of mood states in both these groups. But in the latter, the biofeedback group scored better on only 2 of 6 scores, whereas the TM group scored better on 5 of 6. In other words, the TM group experienced the greatest improvement in mood states among all four control groups. But this is not mentioned in the TM Research article.

2) The Varvogli citation: Is there a policy or guideline that says that journals from Greece or from the nursing profession can't be used, and that they have to have been published for X number of years? But on the latter point, Health Science Journal has been in publication for five years, not two as stated by Fladrif. I have found the following description of this journal on the website of a US nursing college (the section is titled “credible web sources”):

“ICUS and Nursing WEB Journal: A quarterly peer-reviewed e-publication dedicated to the dissemination of knowledge generated in the critical care and emergency nursing practice setting. In 2008, changed title to: Health Science Journal: International Journal of Nursing Research and Review” --

to be found here [66]. Maybe not a heavyweight publication, but neither does it appear to be a joke. However, I will research it further.

3) The criticism of the credibility of Hindawi Publishing’s Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism. I think Fladrif must have misread the impact factor, since he describes it as “absurdly low.” The current impact factor of this publication is 2.35, which is respectable. (By contrast, Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, which is cited 7 times in the TM research article, including the lead, has impact factor of 0.747.) Hindawi has been operating as a high-quality open access scientific publisher since 1997, it is peer-reviewed, and is becoming widely recognized in the scholarly community. It is true that it charges a processing fee for article submissions, but it also raises revenues via subscription fees paid by mainstream universities such as the University of Calgary, an indication of this publisher’s degree of acceptance. See [67] for an overview and [68] for discussion by medical librarians. It is simply incorrect to describe this publisher as a “vanity press.” Early morning person (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

More Vanity Press sources

The Schneider study from Ethnicity & Disease, cited multiple times in this article, is not from the journal itself, but from a supported supplement. Authors pay $270-$300 per page to have a supplement published by E&D. This is a vanity publication, and not a RS. Fladrif (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Humanistic Psychologist" is another pay-to-play journal. Fladrif (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif. I suggest you slow down. For starters you don't seem to understand what "vanity press" means. A vanity press means there is little or no oversight for publication and that may mean authors pay for publication and that alone is the criteria for publication. Second, you are removing content that is RS. This article like other articles under the TM arbitration is subject to the arbitration decisions, which prohibits peremptory deletion of reliably sourced content. If you have a concern with the content or sources please bring it to the talk page rather than remove with out discussion. Otherwise you are in violation of the arbitration.Thanks.(olive (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

I've replaced the removed content. Please discuss and get agreement per the TM arbitration on peremptory deletion of RS content for any deletions of content.(olive (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

Don't condescend to me. Don't threaten me. I know what a vanity press is. A "scholarly" publication that makes authors pay to publish is a vanity press, not a legitimate scholarly source. These are not reliable sources, and do not conform to WP:MEDRS. Authors paying for publication, on-line only journals, no Impact Factor, supplements outside the actual publication paid for by the authors. These do not meet the requirements of RS. Moreover, as I noted above, there is a huge problem with misrepresentation of sources in this article. The sources I have stricken are not by any stretch of the imagination Reliable Sources, their inclusion was wrong in the first place, and the burden falls upon you, who has restored them, to justify their inclusion. Fladrif (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong Flad., and the proper approach is discussion. Threaten you? Condescend to you? I reiterated the aspects of the arbitration. Threatening and condescension were not meant. (olive (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

You're wrong is not a reasoned argument, nor is it a basis for discussion. Fladrif (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to start a discussion rather than delete I'd be happy to comply. I'm rushing now, but will get back later today or early tomorrow.(olive (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

Meeting the stringent requirements of MEDRS may require more than simply having a peer review process in place. See, for example, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The matter may require more investigation.   Will Beback  talk  19:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, peer review isn't the issue. These are all peer reviewed studies, in secondary sources. The publishers are the issue and other related issues like the impact factor. Discussion would be the appropriate way to deal with concerns. I'll be able to get involved later on when I have more time.(olive (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

"The same findings"

• A 2007 medical textbook on heart disease said that "TM has been shown to not only improve blood pressure but also the insulin resistance components of metabolic syndrome and cardiac autonomic nervous system tone" in subjects with cardiovascular disease, compared with matched controls given only health education. A 2011 independent systematic review reports the same findings and says that randomized controlled trials on TM have "demonstrated blood pressure-lowering effects similar to primary antihypertensive medications". This review said that research on TM "supports the potential clinical effectiveness of mind-body practices in improving indices of the metabolic syndrome".

Does the 2011 review by Anderson and Taylor really report the same findings as Vogel, et al., did in 2007? It looks to me like the 2011 review only looked at a single TM study which did not have all of the same findings. Maybe we could reword this to be more accurate.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. Yes, I double-checked Vogel, et al., and they do report the same findings. In making the statement, "TM has been shown not only to improve blood pressure but also the insulin resistance components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiac autonomic nervous system tone," they reference the same study, Paul-Labrador et al., as Anderson and Taylor report on in detail. Early morning person (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So then the two reviews are discussing the same study? That's a problem because we were presenting them as separate findings. That's a concern I've had with this article for a while. If we end up restoring the source (see below) then we should combine the two reviews and make it clear that they are both discussing a single study. In general, we should make sure we know which studies reviews are discussing so this doesn't happen again.   Will Beback  talk  06:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn’t fully explain. Yes, they do report the same findings; yes, they both ref Paul-Labrador; however, Anderson & Taylor also reference other studies. That’s what they refer to in the phrase, “randomized controlled trials on TM have ‘demonstrated blood pressure-lowering effects similar to primary antihypertensive medications.’" Note the plural, "trials". They are referring to RS's published prior to Paul-Labrador et al. I’d dig up the other Anderson & Taylor cites, but it may be a waste of time since the ref to them has been removed from the article. Early morning person (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate text

Practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) claim that in its practice and results, the technique is distinguished from other types of meditation or self-development "by its naturalness, effortlessness and profound effectiveness".

This isn't about the research. Can it be moved or removed?(olive (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Ok. I see this was added as a remedy for a lack if neutrality per comment sin the arbitration, so I'll be happy to back away from this.(olive (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Huh? Arbitration cases aren't about content, so that's neither here nor there. But for the record, many research papers concerning TM have asserted its uniqueness in one way or another.   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the research not about what practitioners have to say. If you'd like to add a similar comment but based in the research I'd be fine with that. As an aside the arbitration is most certainly dealing with evidence that editors may not be neutral, and I believe this edit was an attempt to counter some obvious problems in that area in the lead. (olive (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

But if it's not about research why is it here?

As for the arbitration, we'll see what it brings. I haven't seen any proposed decision - maybe you have. Until it's posted there's no point in speculating on it on article talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that if the content does not belong in this article it be removed. I would agree that it doesn't belong here. Your choice.(olive (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

Sources under scrutiny

I'd suggest that any sources that are being questioned be listed here, with discussion. The recently deleted sources have been stable for a fair amount of time indicating stability in the article so I'd suggest that what be listed here are reasons why these sources cannot be included per policy. If arguments have already been made maybe just paste here. My thought is to try and keep this orderly and in one thread.(olive (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

Seems like a good idea to try keep it organized. Here are some comments by Fladrif on sources from Jan 21, in response to my longish post of Jan 17, listing what I believe to be the strong sources in the article (conspicously missing from the lead). Following Flad's comments is my response from yesterday. Perhaps other discussions from this page also belong here?Early morning person (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of these sources are a joke, or to be more precise, the uses to which they are being put in this article are a very bad joke. I have neither the time nor inclination to go through all of them, so lets just take one at random. EMP claims this source [69] "Reports three randomized, controlled trials finding decreased drug or alcohol use for the TM group." That is an inventive characterization of what the source actually says. What does it actually say[70]?

• "The claims made for TM's positive effects are passionate and enthusiastic, but they beg for corroboration by independent researchers and more rigorous designs and measures."
• "Since the 1970's many studies have investigated the impact of TM on drinking problems, although only one study has recruited a sample of individuals with alcohol problems and used a control group with random assignment (Taub et al, 1994). All of these less rigorous studies describe decreases in consumption of alcohol (see review by Alexander et al 1994). However, all but the Taub study have serious methodological deficiencies in their design and sample....Measures of alcohol use, alcohol diagnoses, and related variables are inadequate. There are few, if any studies of TM and substance abuse that are recent."
• When the authors then describe the Taub study, they aggregate the results for the group assigned to TM and the group assigned to biofeedback, comparing those two groups in the aggregate to the two groups assigned treatment as usual and electronic neurotherapy.

EMP's characterization, then is a gross misrepresentation of the source, directly contrary to the requirements of WP:MEDRS and the TMArbcom

Let's look at another, shall we? The Varvogli article in "Health Science Journal" is a "top quality source"? Since when? Health Science Journal is a brand new journal from Greece with only two years of publication, with virtually no citations by third party sources, and its focus is nursing.[71] The reliability of academic journals is established by their acceptance in the academic community. There is no such acceptance for this journal, at least not at this time.

Similarly "Nutrition & Metabolism" in an online-only publication which describes itself as an "Open Access Journal" [72] that has only been in business a few years and has an absurdly low Impact Factor. This is not a reliable source by the measure of academic acceptance. And again, as Will noted below, the authors make important qualifications about the quality of the single TM study that they found of adequate quality.

As I said, I have neither the time nor inclination to go through all of this. But, it is clear from even a random sampling that these "top quality sources" fail in many instances to meet the minimum standards of MEDRS, and in other instances, it would be charitable to characterize the uses to which they are being put as cherry picking, as it appears that they are being grossly mischaracterized. Fladrif (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Worse than I imagined. Hindawi Publishing, publisher of Nutrition and Metabolism is basically a vanity press in the guise of publishing academic journals. Authors pay to play. [73] This is not a reliable source or reputable academic journal. Fladrif (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I will respond to the above points one by one:

• 1) Fladrif states "EMP claims this source [74] (The Cambridge textbook of Effective Treatments . . .) ‘Reports three randomized, controlled trials (RCT’s) finding decreased drug or alcohol use for the TM group.’"

But that is not correct. I did not claim that nor does the text of the article claim that. It is the topic sentence of that paragraph, which is not referenced, that refers to three RCT’s: “Three randomized controlled trials on TM have shown reduced substance abuse.” It is the next sentence that cites the source Fladrif refers to, the Cambridge Textbook . . ., both in the text and as a footnote. This sentence says that the Cambridge textbook reports “a randomized controlled trial that included the use of TM. ” So this sentence obviously only references that one study to this source. The next sentence then properly reports the Cambridge textbook’s caution that there is not yet sufficient evidence for meditation’s use as a treatment. Then the next two sentences mention the second and third RCTs on TM, and clearly references them to another source, O’Donohue [75]. Therefore, I see no mischaracterization of the Cambridge textbook here.

If anything, the text in the article understates the results as reported by this source. The Cambridge text reports two significant results for the four control groups in the study: 1) reduced drinking days in both the biofeedback and TM groups, and 2) better scores on a profile of mood states in both these groups. But in the latter, the biofeedback group scored better on only 2 of 6 scores, whereas the TM group scored better on 5 of 6. In other words, the TM group experienced the greatest improvement in mood states among all four control groups. But this is not mentioned in the TM Research article.

• 2) The Varvogli citation: Is there a policy or guideline that says that journals from Greece or from the nursing profession can't be used, and that they have to have been published for X number of years? But on the latter point, Health Science Journal has been in publication for five years, not two as stated by Fladrif. I have found the following description of this journal on the website of a US nursing college (the section is titled “credible web sources”):

“ICUS and Nursing WEB Journal: A quarterly peer-reviewed e-publication dedicated to the dissemination of knowledge generated in the critical care and emergency nursing practice setting. In 2008, changed title to: Health Science Journal: International Journal of Nursing Research and Review” --

to be found here [76]. Maybe not a heavyweight publication, but neither does it appear to be a joke. However, I will research it further.

• 3) The criticism of the credibility of Hindawi Publishing’s Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism. I think Fladrif must have misread the impact factor, since he describes it as “absurdly low.” The current impact factor of this publication is 2.35, which is respectable. (By contrast, Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, which is cited 7 times in the TM research article, including the lead, has impact factor of 0.747.) Hindawi has been operating as a high-quality open access scientific publisher since 1997, it is peer-reviewed, and is becoming widely recognized in the scholarly community. It is true that it charges a processing fee for article submissions, but it also raises revenues via subscription fees paid by mainstream universities such as the University of Calgary, an indication of this publisher’s degree of acceptance. See [77] for an overview and [78] for discussion by medical librarians. It is simply incorrect to describe this publisher as a “vanity press.” Early morning person (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hindawi is a commercial publisher, based in Cairo, of hundreds of "journals", for which authors pay to be published. Many of them are on-line only. Some have virtually no content. Most have no impact factor whatsoever. They often have grandiose titles. Hindawi aggressively solicits articles by spam e-mail and publishes a high percentage of the articles submitted. The sources you cite do not indicate that its publications have any acceptance in the academic or medical community for reliability or scholarship. Rather, they indicate that Hindawi has only a bare minimum of editorial oversight, with a staff clearly inadequate to support the number of publications that it churns out - apparently operating as some kind of publishing sweatshop. The level of its editorial oversight is apparently just barely enough to escape being classified as a pure vanity press, existing on the borderline. That does not establish that it is a "reputable publisher, or that "Nutrition & Metabolism" is a reputable medical journal. There is no support whatsoever for your assertion that it "high quality", of that it is "becoming recognized". Becoming recognized is not recognition, and WP:MEDRS requires that a publication actually have a reputation for reliability, not that it is in the process of acquiring a reputation. Moreover, if it is indeed "becoming widely recognized in the scholarly community" it is becoming widely recognized for is inundating anyone and everyone with spam solicitations to submit articles for publication...for a fee and the figleaf of a deluged third world sweatshop staff and "peer review" that isn't really going to keep you from having whatever you want published published. Fladrif (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Health Science Journal is again a brand-new journal from Greece, the focus of which is nursing, published by a recently-established trade school. Authors pay for publication. Again, there is no indication that this journal is accepted as reputable. I note that it is carried in literally a handful of libraries worldwide. While being on a library shelf is no indication of acceptance in and of itself, not being on any library shelves is a pretty good indication of non-acceptance. Further, the point about it being a nursing journal is that WP:MEDRS cautions that we should be highly skeptical when a journal publishes an article outside of the scope of its field. WP:MEDSCI I see no indication that this is an accepted journal that meets the requirements of MEDRS.
• Ethnicity & Disease is another publication that requires authors to pay. It is published by Allen Press, which is simply a printer. The particular source I noted above is not even from the journal itself, it is from a "supplement". Authors pay $270=$300 per page to have a supplement published. There is no indication that this journal, and particularly, that the pay-for-play supplements are regarded are reputable sources in the medical and scientific community.
• The Humanistic Psychologist is another pay-to-play publication. It does not use blinded peer review, unlike reputable scholarly publications. As in the case of Health Science Journal, we have another instance where the publication is printing something outside of its field, raising questions about whether this is a source that should be used.
• Teachers College Record is most definitely not a recognized medical journal, and should not be used as a source for this article.

That's just a start, I suspect.Fladrif (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, Health Science Journal f/k/a "ICUs and Nursing Web Journal" is not listed at either MEDLINE or PUBMED, nor is it listed at ICMJE or CSE, in addition to having an impact factor well below the Mendoza Line. I have heard no reason from anyone why this should be considered a reliable source under WP:MEDRS Nor have I seen any plausible argument why the article at issue should be considered to be within the scope of this publication, which is limited to nursing, and more specifically, critical care and ER nursing. Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Health Science Journal" is indexed in multiple places. [79]. Is nursing outside the medical profession? The country of the journal's origin, the fact that it is a nursing journal, and the journal's age do not lessen its potential as a reliable source. The impact factor is low but this is also a journal that is only five years old. Impact factor is also a less than reliable way to judge a journal. In actuality, given what I've seen of the journal, I'd say the onus must be us to showing why this is not a RS. I suggest the RNB as soon as we are finished with the Hindawi source if you still have concerns. (olive (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

You have this precisely backwards. The onus is on the editors championing the source to establish that it is a reliable source, and in this instance, a source that meets WP:MEDRS. The are no indicia whatsoever that this source meets any of the criteria of WP:MEDRS.Fladrif (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for uninvolved editor input on Health Science Journal[80] at WP:RSN. Enjoy.Fladrif (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And, with respect to Nutrition & Metabolism, I believe we can summarize the consensus at RSN and Project Medicine that it is not a reliable source under WP:MEDRS. While the feeling seems to be that author publication fees are not de-facto dequalifying, the combination here of (i) low-impact, obscure journal; (ii) lack of listing at at MEDLINE; (iii) lack of listing at ICMJE; (iv) lack of listing at CSE; (v) the subject being outside the scope of the journal's purpose; and (vi) author fees, make this a highly questionable source. Only one uninvolved editor appears to think that this is a reliable source. Fladrif (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We still have incoming comments. We can summarize when the posts stop.(olive (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

No, I have included all the comments received. Do you dispute that I have accurately summarized the consensus of uninvolved editors? Who, exactly, are you expecting to comment that hasn't commented already? Is something under preparation to be posted later by some special guest editor that will somehow be so convincing that it will dramatically turn the direction of this consensus 180 degrees? Fladrif (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments were still coming in this morning and the NB had not been open 24 hours at your posting. Summarizing would be premature. Fladrif, I've found your comments abusive in the past, and your allegations and posturing here are not much better. I suggest you assumer good faith. At the moment you are in violation of theTM arbitration.(olive (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

Posted on WP:RSN concerning use of Hindawi

I've posted on the RSN concerning the Hindawi source. I'm happy with uninvolved editor agreement to remove source should it be not considered a RS.(olive (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)) [81], so that the specific content and source in question can be scrutinized here]

Conclusively resolved. [82] Making the appropriate changes to the article. Fladrif (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ill conceived Fladrif and based on multiple misassumptions which you seem fine with. The source may be borderline and certainly discussion here is stalemated so I welcome the input of neutral uninvolved editors on any source. I do not welcome misinformation and mischaracterization.(olive (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

No, it was not ill-conceived. It was the clear and unequivocal consensus of the uninvolved editors at RSN that this source did not qualify for inclusion in an article about medical research under WP:MEDRS. Subsequent discussion on the RSN talkpage and ANI by other uninvolved editors confirm that (i) the matter was resolved at RSN and (ii) there was nothing untoward or sinister about closing the discussion which was digressing into irrelevancy. Accusing others of misinformation and mischaracterization is a personal attack. Fladrif (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)