Talk:David Orme-Johnson

Painting

Added the fact that david is an accomplished artist. You can see examples of his work on his web site. --BwB (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. I removed "accomplished" because that's a value judgment.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just thought to give a more rounded view of the man. --BwB (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've wikified this a little so we now have some general sections. Should make it easier to add information.(olive (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Will. I couldn't figure out why the article wasn't formatting correctly.(olive (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

I'd put that in there when the only secitons were books, papers, references and links. Now that you've added those other headings (thanks!) the table of contents makes sense.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability?

Nice article. The tone is spot-on. Perfectly in accord with BLP in terms of understatement. I wonder about notability. I don't think he's ever been covered in the mainstream media. I guess I've always assumed that merely being a researcher who's been quoted a few times in the media didn't meet notability requirements. TimidGuy (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to to see this article actually, because I wouldn't have considered OJ notable. There are many scientists with multiple papers to their names but not sure Wikipedia is the place for them. I worked as a lab assistant for one of the top scientists in the world in his field who at that time had published about 100 papers, but there is no article on him, and I can't see how there could be. There was very little mention of him in the press or in other secondary sources. Hagelin for example may be more notable since some of his research was in an area that from Einstein's time has enjoyed more popular exposure, but in addition his run for president and the fact that a scientist of this calibre was runniong for president generated press. It would be interesting to see what other editors think about it.(olive (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Most of this article is taken from mainstream press sources. In addition to the sources used, I came across dozens more that quote him as an expert on TM. That meets the standard for notability for academics, WP:PROF. Does anyone know of other biographical resources for this person?   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seem fine to me. I didn't realize there was so much on him and should have checked your refs on the article. I'll blame that lapse on missing lunch ... have to blame it on something, I guess. The other bio material is on his own website, but I would think your sources are enough, and better at the moment, at least. And I do agree that the tone you've established is very good, very neutral. Now I wonder if there's any press on a botanist, I know of.(olive (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks. Didn't know about wp:prof. TimidGuy (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also like the way you've used a citation index to highlight his most frequently cited papers. TimidGuy (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's just Google Scholar, which is an imperfect citation index. Still, it's a way of picking a reasonable number of papers to include.

Regarding his reply to critics, I hope we can keep that paragraph balanced.   Will Beback  talk  16:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fairly new to Google Scholar and hadn't realized that citations figured into their search results. That's good to know. Maybe we shouldn't say the most cited papers if it also uses other criteria. Regarding his reply to critics, do you think the sentence I added is too long? Should we cut the visual inspection part? He emphasizes that in the paper, but the reader probably wouldn't have a clue what it means. TimidGuy (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

JAMA

• In 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) nominated Orme-Johnson to be an expert presenter on the effects of meditation as a relaxation technique on chronic pain and insomnia at the NIH technology assessment conference held in Bethesda Maryland. The conclusions of the conference were reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which stated that "A number of well-defined behavioral and relaxation interventions now exist and are effective in the treatment of chronic pain and insomnia." [2]

I'm not sure why we're including that last sentence. Does it refer to Orme-Johnson? Did he report the conclusions? It seems a bit off-topic and it sounds like we're just picking a sentence from the abstract.   Will Beback  talk  03:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it's relevant to say that the results were reported in JAMA but not sure about including the quote from the abstract. TimidGuy (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the relevance of the JAMA reporting? Presumably the citaiton would include the name of the journal. Did Orme-Johnson write the report? It appears that there were a couple of dozen presenters. While it's noteworthy that he was chosen, I don't see how the report of the conference is in itself important.   Will Beback  talk  17:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points, I have cut back the sentence as indicated above.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

100 papers

He says on his website that he is author of over 100 papers, so we don't need to link to every one of them in the citation. We can just link to the assertion. Further, we alrady have a link to his website which contains lists of all of his papers, so we don't need to put in exhaustive links to each page.   Will Beback  talk  20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see it either way. But that gave me the idea to expand this sentence so that it reads: "He is the author of over 100 papers investigating the effects of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique in areas such as psychophysiology, health psychology, intelligence, creativity, rehabilitation, behavioral psychology, and higher states of consciousness." Seems like it would be nice to give this specific detail in the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's excess detail for the lead. Those are all essentially derivatives of psychology. If we're looking to expand the lead the next most important thing to add would probably be his leadership role at MUM.   Will Beback  talk  16:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If we expect the article to eventually have subsections on research in each of these areas I think the summary of the sections would be fine in the lede. I'm interested in seeing the lede have a line or two on OJ outside of the TM organization. I'll check and see what there is.(olive (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

Why would the article have subsections on each of those areas?   Will Beback  talk  17:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If Orme Johnson did enough research in each of these so- called subtopics on psychology, then the research section could be divided into the sub sections on these subtopics. Not sure why that is puzzling. Maybe my syntax didn't make sense. If so sorry about that.(olive (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

I guess I'm not sure what you're proposing to add to the article. Could you explain?   Will Beback  talk  18:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, will I see your point on the links. I will adjust it to just the one ref that he has 100 papers. I also think it would be good to create some subsections to the Prof Career section. Maybe one for professional positions and a separate section for research.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of splitting the career section? Where would information that isn't about jobs or research go?   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that we create some subsections within the Professional Career section. For example the John Hagelin article has 7 subsections under Prof Careers. I think that the DOJ article has sufficient content that we might consider creating some subsections especially in the area of research.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The two subjects don't seem directly comparable. Hagelin is far more prominent than DOJ, and in more different fields. Regarding the research, let's make sure we're basing what we write on reliable, 3rd-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we have an ongoing criteria for including papers? I see that more keep being added. There are now 12 on the list. That seems plenty, especially since a complete list can be found onthe subject's website.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't get too much of a good thing, baby! --BwB (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah we could. :o). weight must be considered. It would be a good idea to establish a criteria for numbers and kinds/ categories of OJ's papers.(olive (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

I agree the list should not be endless and we should consider criteria and weight-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, I included the papers for which OJ was the lead author and that were most-frequently cited by other scholars, per Google scholar. Why were the other papers added?   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Retired?

I see that in 2005 the subject still lists himself as being associated with MUM, and in 2006 he listed himself as being attached to the "Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention, Maharishi University of Management". Perhaps "retired" is the wrong word. Maybe something like, "retired from active teaching" would be more accurate.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That seem reasonable. --BwB (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Orme-Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090802064555/http://www.psychosomatic.org:80/about/index.htm to http://www.psychosomatic.org/about/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)