Talk:Transcendental Meditation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bon courage (talk | contribs) at 06:57, 6 January 2024 (→Reversion of date with out summary comment: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:57, 6 January 2024 by Bon courage (talk | contribs) (→Reversion of date with out summary comment: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Other subpages

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Transcendental Meditation research was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transcendental Meditation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

TM-Sidhi program was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transcendental Meditation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Transcendental Meditation was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 31, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Transcendental Meditation movement Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hinduism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Yoga Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (link)
TimidGuy (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (link)

State of the research

I'm adding this so we can begin to look at potential updates to the research on TM. I had requested above we not make changes until Doc James is back on Misplaced Pages or 6 months to give him a chance to be part of this. I can't enforce this of course, but I am complying with this and hope others will too. I can add results from newer research if wanted.

Problematic sources

•Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2017)

Louise HartleyAngelique MavrodarisNadine FlowersEdzard ErnstKaren Ree

Withdrawn

From the review. This Cochrane Review has been superseded. See 'Meditation for the prevention and management of heart disease'. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

•Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (2006)

T Krisanaprakornkit 1, W Krisanaprakornkit, N Piyavhatkul, M Laopaiboon•"

Limited to two studies and only one on TM (Review of one primary study). Authors consider the review limited in scope/more research needed.

• Meditation practices for health: state of the research. (2007)

Maria B Ospina, Kenneth Bond, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Lisa Tjosvold, Ben Vandermeer, Yuanyuan Liang, Liza Bialy, Nicola Hooton, Nina Buscemi, Donna M Dryden, and Terry P Klassen

Archived Archived for historical reference only

More recent review/clinical updates

•Transcendental meditation for lowering blood pressure: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2017)

SooLiang Ooi, Melissa Giovino, Sok Cheon Pak

•First-line Psychotherapies for Military-Related PTSD (2020) /Clinical update (2020)

Maria M. Steenkamp, PhD1; Brett T. Litz, PhD2,3; Charles R. Marmar, MD4

Sedlmeier et al.

The source Sedlmeier et al. (2012) was quite seriously misrepresented insofar as it claimed an analysis of 163 studies found that TM performed better in several categories. The source is clear that cross-technique category analysis is based on a far smaller subset of those studies due to the paucity of data. More seriously, in the same paragraph the study finds that TM performed poorly by comparison in numerous other outcome categories; this finding was left out completely. There was also no mention of the authors' primary comparative finding that "the three categories we identified for the sake of comparison, TM, mindfulness meditation, and the heterogeneous category we termed other meditation techniques, do not differ in their overall effects." I've amended accordingly to properly represent the underlying source. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't access the source, so can't really discuss this with you in any meaningful way. I'm fine with what you've added at this point, and take your word for what the source says.I'm not sure when the objectional content was added, I'm just not very Misplaced Pages active so missed it. I can check the history if I have time.

There is a source in the health effects section that is debatable which is being used for a historical perspective, but which I do not consider to be MEDRS compliant. As I noted on my edit summary it can be removed if there is objection to it. This:

A 1997 journal article noted the technique promoted a state of relaxed awareness, stress relief, and access to higher states of consciousness... Alexander et al. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Further concerning Sedlmeier et al ( quoted from the Health Effects section).

A thorough comparison of the three kinds of meditation was difficult, due in part to the small number of studies that used a given category of dependent measure. Again, we only included results that could be calculated from at least three studies. On the basis of these data...there might indeed be differential effects. Comparatively strong effects for TM...were found in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and being helpful in learning and memory and in self-realization...For mindfulness meditation, such comparatively strong effects were identified in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, and improving attention and mindfulness...(other meditation techniques) yielded a comparatively large effect in the category of cognition...TM yielded noticeably larger effects than mindfulness meditation for the categories negative emotions, neuroticism, trait anxiety, learning and memory, and self-realization. The opposite results were found for negative personality traits and self-concept, where the effects of mindfulness meditation were larger...For most of the specific categories that could be analyzed, we found quite a variation in effects. These results indicate that different approaches to meditation might have differential effects. To date, it is difficult, however, to deduce any consistent differences therefrom

The salient point from the review is that different kinds of meditations will have differential effects. Is that what our lead is saying? Perhaps the Health Effects section of the article is more comprehensive per the review. If I have bit of time I could rewrite this for the lead and see what others think. Alternately I'm not against removing the whole thing. The research wasn't conclusive and after reading some of the responses to the review, Orme Johnson, there may have been issues with the review itself although the authors don't agree. I prefer adding trouble free sources; I'm not sure this is one. And sorry, I realize I haven't included any real solutions. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no problems with the source itself, only with its (mis)representation in the earlier version of the page. The source is a reputable and widely cited academic journal published by the leading professional association in the United States for the subject. The section you quote above is one of two quotes from the source that I just added to the page; the other is in the ref named "Sed12a" (currently citation 12). That section says:

The global analysis yielded quite comparable effects for TM, mindfulness meditation, and the other meditation procedures...So, it seems that the three categories we identified for the sake of comparison, TM, mindfulness meditation, and the heterogeneous category we termed other meditation techniques, do not differ in their overall effects.

Cambial — foliar❧ 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware the source is highly reliable, has an excellent impact factor and so on; I'm not sure we are accurately representing what the source is saying.

The review itself may have issues such as missing over 25 TM studies which it could have included but did not. I believe Orme Johnson points this out while the authors believe the issue would not change the review findings. None of this however, disqualifies this as a poor source, although what I am saying is that it's not a trouble free source either, I may have not made that clear. I'm fine with using the source but we do have to accurately represent it.

The article is about TM and so we should be discussing TM and not other forms of meditation. At the same time I believe it is appropriate to note how TM compares with other meditation forms, if and because we are using this source. How would we word that? From my understanding TM is best in some instances while other forms of meditation such as Mindfulness are better in others. We either make clear the differential effects or don't use this source, in my mind at least. I'll try and get back to this later. Thanks for your input! Littleolive oil (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You and I are not qualified to judge whether this source is troublesome. It's authored by seven specialists in the field, refereed by other specialists, and published in a leading journal. As a meta-analysis it's pretty much the highest-quality type of source available.

The phrase Transcendental Meditation and other meditation techniques performed equally when viewed overall as diverse but interrelated is not a coherent clause in English.

The source concludes that TM and other categories of meditation technique do not differ in their overall effects. It thus supports that Transcendental Meditation performed no better overall than other meditation techniques. It also finds that comparative data for specific dependent variables have little data to support them: A thorough comparison of the three kinds of meditation was difficult, due in part to the small number of studies that used a given category of dependent measure. It concludes that for specific variables different meditation techniques might have differential effects but that it is difficult...to deduce any consistent differences therefrom. It thus does not support the claim you inserted that while specific forms of meditation were more effective in differing psychological situations; in fact the source specifically denies that it is possible to draw any such firm conclusion from the data. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

We are certainly qualified to note that there are aspects of this review which are contested which makes this troublesome-probably not the best term- but don't confuse that opinion with refusal to use the source. This is troublesome: "A thorough comparison of the three kinds of meditation was difficult, due in part to the small number of studies", yet the researchers ignored and admitted to not using 25 more TM studies. They say that only three studies is an issue but later in their reply to Orme Johnson say that more studies wouldn't have changed the outcomes. They are contradicting themselves here and that is troublesome! But again please note that I am not disputing its use.

Second. The review sites two findings: One, that in a global analysis, that is, diverse but interrelated aspects, TM and other meditation forms perform equally. Second, the review notes that certain kinds of meditations impact certain psychological situations. (There is a caveat but this doesn't mean we ignore this aspect of the review which was a substantial part of the review. We just include the caveat. We can't make a decision to ignore a substantial part of a review.

Our present wording, "no better than" implies that none of the meditation forms were effective. So I'm not attached to that wording. "Equal too" might be more accurate. We have to be clear that several meditation forms were/are effective and not imply that they perform poorly. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No, they didn't "admit" to not using 25 other studies. They make clear the methods used for searching and for assessing the methodological and evidentiary value of the studies found. In their reply to two researchers from the TM private establishment Maharishi International University, the study authors point out that they did not include studies with severe methodological problems such as the failure to include a control group. It's appropriate and not in any way troublesome for professional academics to ignore useless studies with obviously faulty design.

Applying their study design to studies listed by the Maharishi researchers, the authors note:

This leaves three studies that we should have included (Dillbeck, 1982; Kember, 1985; Martinetti, 1976). We calculated the mean weighted (by sample size) effect size of these three studies and found (r =.17), that is, an effect that is smaller than the average effect size we found in our original analysis for TM studies (r =.27).

They are not contradicting themselves; that seems like a view formed from a failure to read the original study and a partial reading of the replies (i.e. merely their abstract). When the authors point out that adding all of their suggested studies that we would have included according to our criteria would probably not have made a substantial difference in our findings, they are referring to the statistical weight of the the three studies, of fifty-three suggested by the Maharishi researchers, that would have been included after removing studies with severe methodological problems or otherwise not appropriate to the evidence base. It is evident the Maharishi researchers did not pay sufficiently close attention to the study design described in the meta-analysis – a design based around meditation techniques in general, not specifically around TM.

If you think your opinion that the analysis is troublesome means that we need to treat the study differently than we would treat similar analyses in other fields, I'm happy to raise at the relevant central noticeboard on reliable sources to get a wider view.

Your claim that the review notes that certain kinds of meditations impact certain psychological situations is incorrect; they make clear that it is not possible to draw statistically significant conclusions of what the differences on specific dependent variables between meditation techniques mean for any specific technique . You say We can't make a decision to ignore a substantial part of a review. - we can decide to not include in the lead those aspects where the author's have explicity stated it is not possible to draw a conclusion from the data. Indeed it's appropriate to make that choice, as the lead summarises the article.

You state above that you can't access the source, so can't really discuss this with you in any meaningful way. I agree that without access to the statistical analysis that forms the vast majority of the paper your partial reading does not make for a meaningful discussion. I've amended the text to make clear that the study finds an observable effect: it does not make value judgements about "poor" or "good" and does not compare to other interventions. I've quoted the relevant parts quite extensively in the citations. I cannot facilitate access to the paper without breaching copyright rules, so perhaps we should leave it at that. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with your arguments or the bad faith supposition, of course, but the change you made is fine.Littleolive oil (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps indicate what you think indicates a bad faith supposition with a diff and or quote, rather than making such a claim without evidence, which is uncivil. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This "If you think your opinion that the analysis is troublesome means that we need to treat the study differently than we would treat similar analyses in other fields, I'm happy to raise at the relevant central noticeboard on reliable sources to get a wider view."

At no time did I say this (bold) or imply it. I won't argue this further I don't have the time or interest, but I do feel that it's not a great idea to make this kind of supposition. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not a bad faith supposition, nor could any reasonable and fluent person make such a reading. If that is the sum total of your ostensible evidence of bad faith supposition on my part - of which there is none - I think that closes the matter. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying what the source says

In the article which I edited:The authors' analysis of a subset of these studies, those that studied specific categories of outcome, found that TM might perform better in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and improving markers of learning, memory, and self-actualization, but perform more poorly in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, improving attention and mindfulness and cognition, in comparison with other meditation approaches.

The source says: A thorough comparison of the three kinds of meditation was difficult, due in part to the small number of studies that used a given category of dependent measure. Again, we only included results that could be calculated from at least three studies. On the basis of these data...there might indeed be differential effects. Comparatively strong effects for TM...were found in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and being helpful in learning and memory and in self-realization...For mindfulness meditation, such comparatively strong effects were identified in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, and improving attention and mindfulness...(other meditation techniques) yielded a comparatively large effect in the category of cognition...TM yielded noticeably larger effects than mindfulness meditation for the categories negative emotions, neuroticism, trait anxiety, learning and memory, and self-realization. The opposite results were found for negative personality traits and self-concept, where the effects of mindfulness meditation were larger...For most of the specific categories that could be analyzed, we found quite a variation in effects. These results indicate that different approaches to meditation might have differential effects. To date, it is difficult, however, to deduce any consistent differences therefrom

...found that TM might perform better in reducing negative emotions, trait anxiety, and neuroticism and improving markers of learning, memory, and self-actualization, but perform more poorly in reducing negative personality traits, reducing stress, improving attention and mindfulness and cognition, in comparison with other meditation approaches is not what the source says. See bold.

The source compares TM in this instance specifically to Mindfulness meditation not other meditation approaches See bold.

When using scientific sources I think we have to be very accurate in terms of language- to follow the source accurately. I don't think we can extrapolate. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you read the source in full you will see the comparison they make is to two other categories: mindfulness meditation, and a heterogenous group of all other techniques. The performance is comparative to all these other groups. No extrapolation here; just relating what’s in the source. While using sources we should reflect what they report: not do so while trying to add whatever positive spin for TM that we can think up. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The content states a very specific comparison to Mindfulness Meditation.

TM yielded noticeably larger effects than mindfulness meditation for the categories negative emotions, neuroticism, trait anxiety, learning and memory, and self-realization. The opposite results were found for negative personality traits and self-concept, where the effects of mindfulness meditation were larger,...

Not sure why you insist this is a positive spin on anything. TM seems, according to the source, to be stronger in some areas while Mindfulness is, in others, but this isn't a positive spin on Mindfulness? While "more poorly" is actually accurate grammatically it is very awkward sounding so it could be changed. No interest in this kind of accusatory discussion so will not contest your changes further.Littleolive oil (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

And by the way you and BonCourage are adding inaccurate content. I wonder why. Your choice, I won't fight either of you on this kind of editing. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't think I 'added' anything, just made a citation of a Cochrane source respect WP:V. That's what the source says right? Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you point to the content

Could anyone point to the section of the review that specifically indicates this edit:

"There is no good evidence TM is of any use for reducing anxiety."

The review, author-conclusions states,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,...

I see two conclusions in reference to TM: One, that a small number of studies doesn't indicate conclusions for mediation therapy in general. And two, that TM compares to other kinds of relaxation therapies.

We could say," A 2006 review indicates no conclusions could be drawn on meditation as therapy, including TM, because of too few studies investigated.

The date is pertinent as is the reason the review cannot draw conclusions.

I'd note per MEDRS,WP:MEDDATE that this source, at 2006, is outdated. There are more recent, pertinent, MEDRS compliant sources than a source that is 18 years old, with two studies and only one that pertains to the topic of this article, and that states, no conclusions could be drawn.

There is no evidence, per this review, that the small number of studies reviewed can lead to evidence that meditation therapy is effective in anxiety reduction. The review does not say is of no use. That is an extrapolation, and not accurate per the review we are looking at.

Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If the source says evidence does "not permit any conclusions to be drawn" that equates to "no good evidence" (in part because the default assumption is 'no effect'). Per WP:MEDSAY it's best not to include the gubbins about what the document type is. Cochrane reviews are exempt from WP:MEDDATE because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes; this is set out in WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree and have updated the article to reflect this. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Add: per your comment on Cochrane: There is much research now on meditation techniques that indicate reduction of anxiety. This review is poor in terms of the reviews and also in date. Maybe take look at the state of the research in meditation techniques. A lot has changed in almost 20 years. The same is true of anything we might call Fringe. What was fringe 20 years ago may now be mainstream. That's the nature of science and research. Salk research on the polio vaccines would by our standards have been considered Fringe at one time, but now with research is no longer so. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Really? This is a page specifically about Transcendental Meditation. From a quick look the research scene is moribund (mindfulness is the new kid on the block). Which are the WP:BESTSOURCES on TM and anxiety? Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you look deeper. And if you're in a looking mood you might want to check the Mindfulness article, a conglomerate of mindfulness related content rather than anything clearly delineated. The Effects of Meditation article is wracked with non- MEDRS sources and is clearly a mindfulness-dominated, POV article. I don't edit Misplaced Pages much anymore. Too Busy. And I don't try try to add new content or update this article in terms of research. There is a point where the fight isn't worth it. There is research being done on many meditation techniques from what I've seen. New kid might be a red flag, though; how much is MEDRS compliant? I am busy again for quite a while but I'll see about adding content on the state of the research on this article topic. It's not a competition. Meditation has become mainstream and there has to be room to accurately describe any forms that have verifiable, reliable sources. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Also: Health effects section is organized to indicate the history of the research given this meditation has a relatively long history in research and the article follows that history. So the date of the Cochran review should be added back in. Right now there’s a bit of a gaping hole where research date was removed. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of date with out summary comment

Bon Courage. You've reverted with out any reason given. As I said here, the section is organized by date. You've removed the date. We do have another option. The review we are discussing has only one study on TM. Th authors conclude that with only that one study and whatever issues that study had no conclusions could be drawn. So per our own MEDRS guidelines this isn't a legitimate review since we are looking for replicated results. The whole thing should probably be removed. Further and again the review itself is outdated.

I have to wonder why you're insistent in removing the date and ignoring context. I refuse to get into some weird edit warring situation so if you honestly and with out bias feel it is appropriate to exclude the date when information has been ordered historically and since you also seem to have no reason to make that deletion I will leave the edit. I can't argue with what is illogical. If you do have a bias do you really think our readers are stupid enough to wonder about the bald statement now in the article which makes no logical sense. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

See above where I put "Cochrane reviews are exempt from WP:MEDDATE because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes". So the assumption is what Cochrane says is current. I'd suggest you actually engage with points made. The rest of that section needs to be made compliant with WP:MEDSAY too. If you think that Cochrane rewiews are "not legitimate" that is not something Misplaced Pages can fix. Bon courage (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah well. You've sidestepped the points I made-red herring. You reverted the date of the review with out reason- no real edit summary given. And noting the information is not describing the source; this is supposedly a reliable source and this is just content. You've twisted WP:MEDSAY. Why are you afraid of adding a date? You've decided the research is moribund. I'm sure it is in this article because editors trot along and remove whatever doesn't suit their positions as you have done. You've worded the review inaccurately. I have no problem with adding whatever the review says but I do have problems with what appears to be illogical at best and biased at worst reading of the review. I'm no stranger to this kind of argument, and I know the only way too deal with it is to walk away. Should I add more research of which there is quite a bit, as the research on all forms of meditation increases yearly when this is what one deals with? You win! I don't deal with bullying or arguments that sidestep the issues. There's no point. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Olive, it is really impossible to respond meaningfully to that. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: Cochrane is not the only reliable;e source. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

What, for TM & anxiety specificall? It's not obvious that's the case. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories: