This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The religion rewrite has been sitting here on talk pages for quite awhile,without changes, so I guess the time has come to move it. I will add the first setion of the rewrite to the old section in a few days.Any changes can be made now before the move or after in the article.( olive 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Let the record show you consistently failed to really address the points I repeatedly made and are an editor with COI suppressing information. By all means, put it there and ignore what I said, more grist for the inevitable mill. Take all the rope you want. -- Dseer 07:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did address your concerns, ad nauseam, but I don't agree with them necessarily and as I said if you don't like it change it in the accepted Wikipedia manner, and with discussion. You consistently attack with the same comments, COI, but you fail to add or change anything. This material has been sitting here for a very long time and still you do nothing but threaten. This is a collaborative effort. Talk is cheap. I don't see any effort on your part to work collaboratively, which make me suspect your motives. As I said this material can be changed now or later after it is added to the article. I will be working on it in a few days,and will add a better reference for the Cardinal Sin material as suggested by EdJohnson to prepare the move from "talk" to the main article.( olive 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Ps when I say work collaboratively I respect the fact that you comment but I refer to the fact that you never change or add anything.( olive 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Roseapple. I noticed the change you made in removing "so-called" from the religion section. I am ok with this but initially I used that wording with the sense that although TM people might understand and accept the language here others might not. I don't mind if everyone thinks its ok.( olive 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

I have deleted for now the following lines from the Cult section.

A fourth, by Kevin Garvey, a member of the American Family Foundation, makes accusations of spousal and child abuse, but doesn't present evidence. ^[1]

• The reference is unclear as is the verifiability of the material cited.

a.The writer of the article cited does not present evidence. b.When I went to look for the material it is unclear as to which of the journal issues contains this particular reference. c.Added to this there is no evidence anywhere else that this is a true statement. There is no way at this point to verify this statement, and there is difficulty in verifying the source.Although one could argue that the source is the concern not the statement, I would like to suggest there is a point where some verifiable truth should be considered.( olive 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

I noticed that the translation of the title of the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France is a loose, not quite accurate translation. It more accurately should read on sects in France. Secte translates as sect, and the French have a word for cult which is culte . I noted this on the "parent page" as well. Since the parent page is part of a French project we should probably be accurate in translation and that impacts our translation here. Some thought on this.

PS TimidGuy .... yes thank you. Shorter title much better I think.( olive 18:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

After attempting in a couple of different places to find a spot for the Kellett reference in this section, I realized the real problem was that this is not published - as far as I can see -and although Kellett was a TM teacher he is not an expert on the areas he is talking about such as religion and cult to name a couple. This is a personal experience and no matter how legitimate the author might feel this is, this still is as far as I can tell not strong enough as a reference as an encyclopedic entry ( olive 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

His web site is prominent in the External Links section, so his point of view is still represented. And that may be a more appropriate place for his web site, since, as you say, it doesn't meet the guidelines. TimidGuy 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good deletion, Sethie. I had noticed this as I went through reorganizing this material but went back and forth in my own mind about whether to leave this part in place - whether it was just me seeing this viewpoint. I think you're right this could be seen as a discredit to Scientology just because of how it is worded. Thanks.( olive 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Can we remove the tags on this article(neutrality and factual accuracy tags) ..... It seems to be in pretty good shape. ( olive 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Is there anybody out there who remembers in which section of the discussion the reasons of this tag were pointed out and were discussed? I am starting to rewrite the displorable german version of the article and would like to see the en:-version as a "route where to go". But they tell me "there is a tag". Sure, there is. But why? And also (thanks, olive) - why still? Or: Which changes should be done so that the tag can be removed? -- Josha52 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag was added well before I began editing the article last September. It's remained a long time because the article was such a battleground for a long time -- a couple years. Right now the article is about the most balanced it's ever been. I've been reluctant to remove the tag, fearing that it will stir incite those who oppose Transcendental Meditation and who feel that it's all a scam. And some who practice TM may feel that the sections on Cult and Religion can't possibly be factually accurate and would rather have the tag.

I think this would be a good model for the German article. If you want, you can go ahead and remove the tag and see what happens. TimidGuy 11:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"And some who practice TM may feel that the sections on Cult and Religion can't possibly be factually accurate and would rather have the tag." think that this is a good point. The tag does not necessarily mean that the article is misleaded in one of the possible directions: It could be just the other way round.

But those who practice TM should not be concerned. The more scientific evidence of positive effects is well documented (Peer review), the more the character of critical arguments will be obvious.

And last: If humans research in a relative field they will always find some different things. To err is human - but proportion is relevant! Those who err are blamed automatically, if the evidences of criticised facts are obvious. Therefore: Still more peer-reviewed evidence! -- Josha52 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed. For the case of re-insertion: Please give actual reasons, so that the article can be further optimized. Josha52 04:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Last time the tag was inserted was January 11, 2006 by DepartedUser. He ceased to edit with this account. See this version of article [ →here]. Reasons where given [ →here] and [ →here]. Josha52 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the information recently added about other forms of meditation, since this article is about Transcendental Meditation. The purpose of this section has been not to describe other alternative forms of meditation, of which there are many, but to mention teachers of Transcendental Meditation who are unhappy with charging $2,500 for people to learn and who have now begun offering their own form of meditation. It's this that makes it relevant to the article. TimidGuy 11:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting here a section that I deleted so it can be discussed.

Doubts about quality of research from Randi In his book Flim-Flam!, James Randi expressed his doubts about the pro-TM research in existence at the time, saying that "a small, pleasant, bearded man from India... has turned unproven... notions... into a pseudoscientific mess". He thought it highly unlikely that there was anything radically unusual about the effects of TM. He quoted Dr Peter Fenwick who said "Both the changes in oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide output... can all be explained by accepted physiological explanations". Randi suggested that some researchers had seen positive results because of their enthusiasm for the technique. Commenting on the need for objectivity in science, he said "You don't put the accused person's family on the jury". He also reported some cases where attempted replication of pro-TM results had failed. An investigation by Royal College of Surgeons experimenters was unable to confirm a drop of 16 percent in oxygen consumption during meditation. They found only 7 percent, making meditation comparable with sleep in this regard. Scientists at Cardiff University in Wales performed tests on meditators and found no indication that meditation boosted short-term memory although there had been a claim to the contrary.

These early criticisms of very early research have been superseded by later research, including many randomized controlled trials. Please read the guideline regarding this point. There have been decades of research since then, including many studies supported by $24 million in grants from that National Institutes of Health. In fact, please read the research section in the TM article. If you find studies that are unable to replicate these later studies, or studies that show results that are at odds with the results reported here, please include that within the research section. TimidGuy 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already read the research section of the article and found it to be insufficient. This is why I added a new section which you removed. Are you saying that there is a guideline relating to superseded criticisms? If so, can you tell me where it is so I can see if my changes are ruled out? As to the many studies funded by NIH, we should not assume that such studies invalidate anything. Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view. Eiler7 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the guideline on Reliable Sources said for a long time: "Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and has that change impacted on any of the salient points of the the source information. Historical or out of date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject." But in the current iteration, it doesn't. When I asked why, one of those who edits the gudelines suggested I put it back in.

But it's just common sense. For example, the suggeston by Randi that researchers see positive results because of the subjects' enthusiasm for the technique. As you probably know, randomized controlled trials are able to control for this sort of thing. It's one of the most rigorous research designs. And there have been many such randomized controlled trials since Randi wrote his criticism.

It would be better not to cite Randi but rather to find the original studies he's referencing. Then we can compare those results with more recent results. If it seems like it's a significant finding, then we can add it to the research section. Note, for example, that the research section currently includes both positive and negative results. That's the nature of the scientific process.

We may have an issue of undue weight if we were to add the sort of prominent section you proposed. There have been hundreds studies, done at over 200 different universities and research institutions, with many being published in top peer-reviewed medical journals. It may be be misleading to highlight a few studies from the 1970s without considering the proper context of the larger body of research. TimidGuy 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the guideline you quoted. Unfortunately, the guideline does not justify the removal of the section as it only gives the general principle. You say "it may be misleading to highlight a few studies from the 1970s". Well, the possibility that a wikipedia article is misleading will always exist. What you need to do is establish that in this specific case, it definitely is misleading. Otherwise the section that you removed will need to go back.

Citing Randi, as a leading critic, seems an entirely valid thing to do. Indeed, as wikipedia is supposed to mirror the world in its treatment of subjects and the general skepticism about miraculous benefits of meditation, we may well have to give greater prominence to critics than supporters. There is a significant difference between the publication of a result and the result being generally accepted by the scientific world.

Just because there are a lot of studies, it does not follow that the results have been replicated. Replication is an important part of the scientific process. There was a big flap about cold fusion but somehow the anomalies could never be reproduced in a different lab. Are there any significant claims as to the efficacy of TM that have been replicated by credible non-believers? If so, then you might be able to claim that the Randi criticisms have been rendered irrelevant. If not, the criticisms are notable. Eiler7 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been many replications. A number of the-NIH funded studies were led by principal investigators who don't practice Transcendental Meditation. Significant research on the neurological effects was done by Archie Wilson of UC Irvine, who doesn't practice Transcendental Meditation. Etc. Etc. The research has been conducted at over 200 universities and research institutions. It is broadly based.

The research is widely accepted in the scientific community. It's not possible to get grants from the National Institutes of Health unless the research is of the highest quality and rigor. You must know that these grants are highly competitive and exceedingly difficult to get. Just the fact that the research program has been funded by NIH over a 20-year period is remarkable. The research has been published in top medical journals, including those put out by the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association.

The researchers are highly respected. Note for example, that Robert Schneider, M.D., one of the leading researchers, was invited to Capitol Hill to address the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. He and other Transcendental Meditation researchers have given presentations at meetings of the Centers for Disease Control. He was honored by being elected a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology. He and other researchers on Transcendental Meditation have been invited by the National institutes of Health to review grant applications. Researchers on Transcendental Meditation serve as peer reviewers for major academic journals because of their track record of publication in major journals.

It's hard to know what more could be done to establish the scientific basis and the credibility of the research on Transcendental Meditation.

And frankly, I have a problem with Randi, who is basically a magician with a high school education whose knowledge of science is limited. (I can give a compelling example of that.) He tends to use straw-man arguments.

Note too that science has its own epistemology. Research is a dialog. Researchers spend years to establish cause and effect. Valid criticism should be on that level of peer-review, not some popular book or magazine or web site. The Wikipedia guideline for Reliable Sources suggests as much: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#In_science.2C_avoid_citing_the_popular_press.

Gotta run to lunch. I hope this helps to answer your concerns about the credibility of the research. TimidGuy 17:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Randi is not basically a magician. He is an expert who was called in by an editor of Nature, the foremost science journal in the world, to help examine a controversial homeopathy result. The reliable sources refers to the "popular press", a reference to tabloids I assume which can indeed be unreliable. Randi's book is not a tabloid. Randi is a serious science writer whose work was praised by Carl Sagan.

There has been NIH funding for Therapeutic Touch research. Science is not determined as valid by the amount of government funding. Governments can be bad at science. The White House was doubtful about global warming. NASA funded Targ's ESP experiments which failed to give positive results. What is your source for the claim that you cannot get grants from NIH unless the research is very good?

I did a google search on "Archie Wilson" but found nothing to indicate that he is a brilliant researcher, just pro-TM sites and other sites. What is your source for the idea that he is credible? Has he published in Nature?

The American College of Cardiology appears to be a medical association. The wikipedia page on it has nothing to suggest that being a fellow of it is a mark of extreme scientific credibility.

I think there are things that could be done to demonstrate the credibility of TM research. Can you cite an edition of Nature with a study that showed that TM is different from rest or sleep? Nature, whilst not infallible, does try to insist on high standards as far as I am aware. Eiler7 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a overview over comparison work. Unfortunately (not yet) NATURE-published stuff. Josha52 13:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josha. Eiler, in the guideline I cited, "popular press" means any publication that's not a scientific journal. It is generally known that NIH grants are competitive, and any scientist would respect the fact that this research has received $25 million in funding over a 20-year period, resulting in publication in major medical journals. NIH is the major funding body for medical research in universities in the U.S. I mentioned Archie Wilson as one example of researchers on Transcendental Meditation who don't practice the technique. Another who comes to mind is Brian Olshansky, who did a replication of the hypertension research. These are just a couple that immediately come to mind. (A search on AF Wilson in a medical index shows 214 publications.) Regarding the honor of F.A.C.C., see this page. [1] Hope that helps. TimidGuy 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparing TM-articles with articles on other let’s say health practices we can see: "History" is almost always put to the end of an article (before controversies). I think this is a good idea. When I ask a encyclopedia soemthing about Reflexology I would like to read first what it is, second which theory stands behind it, third what research has found out. In a later turn I may be interested in history and controversy. I suggested also to change the german article in this way. -- Josha52 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Seems fine to me. Maybe wait and see what Olive thinks. She's been doing a lot of work on the article and may have an opinion. TimidGuy 20:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this makes sense to me. In a sense what is first in the article should perhaps be what is current. History, and Controversies contain some dated material and may only be of interest in a historical sense. I am unfortunately only onîne for short periods so might have trouble making this change .... so my vote is to go ahead and make the change whoever is available.( olive 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

Done. Josha52 03:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for copyright free pictures to be used in Wikipedia: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (what about the picture on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? It could not be found in WikiCommon!) and one of Keith Wallace (I have asked him already). Any idea? Josha52 15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josha. Will give it some thought. Am working on getting some photos of Maharishi. Maybe also a photo of someone meditating! TimidGuy 10:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Got the permission to use picture from here, but: think this would not be a good idea anymore. Because: Uploading to Wikipedia means, that the picture becomes public domain (as far as I Commons understand). Everybody is able then to use those pictures as he likes. Or am I wrong? -- Josha52 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is correct. TimidGuy 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then the only way would be: getting an international permission from the owner. I’ll try. May be you’ll try too. One point of view: Better a picture then none. The other: better no picture then any problems in future. Solution in between: a private picture. Since MMY is a person of public interest there would be no need to ask him. Otherwise it would be an act of courtesy to do so. In Germany a picture which became public domain definitely never could be taken out again from public domain. -- Josha52 19:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems not to be sufficient. Reader may ask why it is expansive in comparison to other techniques. Proposal (please correct bad english):

Now:
"... at the time of instruction, a process which requires a fee after introductory presentations ($2,500 as of 2006),[5] and generally takes five to seven days."

More precise:
"... at the time of instruction. The Transcendental Meditation technique is taught in a worldwide standardisized 7-step-procedure. It includes two introductory lectures and a personal interview (free) and four consecutive 2-hour-instructions followed by an follow-up ten days after. Every course graduate is eligible for lifetime follow-up at any Transcendental Meditation center for checkings of correctedness of meditation practice. Course fee inclusive follow up requires $2,500 as of 2006.[5]"

Reasoning:

1. Standardized procedure is specifc to T.M.
2. Price can only be understood in regard to service.
3. Instruction is not only instruction into T.M. (learning the technique), but verifying the correctness of the practice, learning the mechanics of the Transcendental Meditation technique and learning the mechanics of the development of higher states of consciousness. -- Josha52 08:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josha, for the suggestion. We'd need a reference for that information. And we'd need to be cautious about getting too detailed, because that may make it sound too promotional. I think the part about standardized procedure is good. It's mainly the amount of detail about followup. I especially like specifying four consecutive 2-hour instructions. Otherwise it sounds like the person is learning full time for five to seven days. I may go ahead and make that change. TimidGuy 15:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First section seems to go too much in detail already. As far as I understand the procedure how an article should get structured this section should be a short description of the Lemma.

Therefore parts of this section could go into the section "Procedures and theory".

The section "Procedures and theory" again could be splitted into "Procedure" and "Theory".

"Theory of consciousness" as a part of its own does not seem to be necessary.

Structure would look like this:

(Introduction)

1. Procedure
2. Theory
   1. Maharishi's theory of enlightenment
   2. Research on "higher states of consciousness"
3. Research on the Transcendental Meditation technique
   1. .
   2. .
   3. .

Reasoning: Reader would find more easily those sections of special interest for him. -- Josha52 08:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is good. I agree with your proposal regarding the new organization for procedures and theory. Regarding the first paragraph -- let's see if Roseapple has an opinion. She recently moved some material into that paragraph that had been in Procedures and Theory. TimidGuy 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarity and brevity are always worthy goals! What about the following, with the proper citations:

"Transcendental Meditation, or TM, is a trademarked meditation technique introduced in 1958 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The Transcendental Meditation technique is practiced for twenty minutes twice a day while sitting with the eyes closed, enabling the mind to "transcend" to a state of "restful alertness." A distinguishing feature of this meditation is its lack of effort as contrasted with techniques involving contemplation or concentration. The practice is said to have been taught to over 6 million people worldwide. Research has been done on the effects of this meditation technique on mind and body, ranging from investigating its effects on cardiovascular disease to studying the physiological and psychological correlates of so-called "higher states of consciousness" purported to result from its practice."

Roseapple 20:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Roseapple. I think it reads well. We could put the Maharishi Vedic Science point later in the article. And it does seem like the mantra material should go in the Procedures section. We definitely want to delete the info that is repeated later about being taught two hours a day over a 7-day period. Good job. TimidGuy 15:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I made the proposed change; there may be a better place for the sentence about Maharishi Vedic Science. Roseapple 02:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the structure of the article, to me it would make more sense to read about the research on TM before reading about research on higher states of consciousness. What if the article were organized:

1. Intro
2. Procedure
3. Research on TM
4. Theory of consciousness/enlightenment
5. Research on higher states

Roseapple 02:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Roseapple, for improving it. I agree with your proposed structure. I've long had the same idea. TimidGuy 14:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two numbers embedded in the section about religious controversy (55 and 56). I think they are references left over from a previous edit. Does anyone know what they should link to? Roseapple 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I'll fix it. And thanks for your editing. TimidGuy 19:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Again in the interest of clarity and brevity, I propose condensing the second paragraph in the "cult" section putting it at the end of what is now the third paragraph in that section.

The condensation would read:

Transcendental Meditation, along with other groups such as Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and the Church of Scientology were named as cult/sects in France in 1995, in The Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France generated by the National Assembly of France. (with link to document) Roseapple 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Admin Jossi added much of that qualifying material, seeking to show the weakness of the claim and how the government itself no longer credits it. A good way to handle it would be to condense it as you've done and put the deleted material in the footnote. I know how to do that. TimidGuy 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to condense the last paragraph in the cult section. If the article is going to say Orme Johnson refers to "dissertations done at York University and Harvard" then a reference for those dissertations should be included in the article. I think the paragraph can read simply:

Researcher David Orme-Johnson, who has authored over 100 studies related to the Transcendental Meditation technique (most of them peer-reviewed), argues that the Transcendental Meditation organization is not a cult. He notes that research shows that the Transcendental Meditation technique produces effects in practitioners that are the opposite to those found in people who allegedly become involved in cults. He observes that cults are generally characterized as closed systems, directly opposite to the Transcendental Meditation organization, which submits to the rigors of scientific testing, continues to encourage research by independent universities and research organizations, publishes consistently in peer-reviewed journals, and participates actively in scientific conferences worldwide. Roseapple 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for rewriting this, Roseapple. Seems like we need to include some facet of his main point that the research using measures such as "field independence" show greater autonomy and independence of thought among those who practice TM rather than fostering cult-like behavior. That may be the more important point than submitting to the rigors of scientific testing. (Though that's an important point, too.) I agree that it would be good to condense this paragraph. TimidGuy 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I completely understood your suggestion. When you say that a reference to those studies should be included in the article, do you mean adding that to the research section? TimidGuy 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the article refers to "dissertations done at Harvard and York University" those studies should be referenced specifically, in the article itself, or in a footnote. Wouldn't that be encyclopedia calibre writing? Roseapple 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Will work on it. TimidGuy 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather prefer the specific references to Harvard and York Universities. Although we could specifically reference these studies in the main body of this section, my understanding is that we are "reporting" on Orme- Johnson in an encyclopedic fashion, rather than writing the research paper ourselves. Orme Johnson has been established as a reliable source so we can refer to his comments on this topic noting that he references these universities. The reader can then refer to Orme Johnson should he want to find out more.We could, then, if needed add the studies to"further reading". Referring to universities in general would present exactly the same problem were it necessary to reference what universities we are talking about and what studies. Referring to these schools specifically has impact and as well is more specific. This was my understanding anyway of how this works.( olive 00:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Can anyone tell me what the first paragraph in this section means? Rumiton 12:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the first sentence in the cult section of the article, it's a summary of the rest of the section. Not sure if that's what you were referring to. Roseapple 14:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant this: Critics suggest that the TM technique and related programs display cult–like tendencies, while research studies on the technique suggest human development in practitioners of the technique to be directly opposed to cult-like behaviours and tendencies. Try as I might, I can extract no meaning from it. Rumiton 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that you mention it, the syntax of the second clause is indeed challenging. Will try to fix. TimidGuy 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Originally the statement, "The Transcendental Meditation technique is one aspect of "Maharishi's Technologies of Consciousness, which are the experiential side of Maharishi Vedic Science." was used in the opening paragraph of this article to indicate an organizational point, that is, that TM was one arm of a two armed approach to the development of consciousness as outlined by Maharishi.One arm the technique itself was experiential, the other arm referred to the practical aspects of the Vedic Science such as education, archcitecture and so forth. For me this fits more appropriately in the first paragraph were the reader immediately becomes aware of the overall organizational form of Vedic Science That said if anyone feels strongly about this well, it could be reverted.( olive 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

I wonder if this topic placed where it is now is misplaced. Procedure seems to deal with the actual steps of teaching whereas dhyana is more about theory Would it be better placed under Theory of Consciousness? If no one minds I'd like to try it there.( olive 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

I was going to make the same change. But when I went to put it into the Theory section, I couldn't figure out a way to integrate it. So ended up putting it back in Procedure. In one sense, it's a procedure in that it note the effortless procedure that one uses. But fine to relocate if you can integrate it into Theory. TimidGuy 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I did make the change to dhyana but I feel there is a lot of material in the section I have moved it into. I think we could remove some of it as unnecessary and possibly perhaps too esoteric for those not familiar with the terms and with meditation. Any thoughts on this?( olive 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

ps.I guess I would remove this part if the section is too long: This state is said to be an experience of "am-ness", or "Being", the unbounded pure consciousness that is at the source of thoughts and feelings. I guess I am ok with the length given that material on this state of consciousness really "sets up" an understanding of the other states.( olive 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. I think it works well in that location. I'm really glad you made this change. TimidGuy 10:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the mention of breath suspension because later research found that the respiratory "suspension" was not actually a complete cessation of breathing, but rather a continual slight inspiration of many small breaths. I left the study on the ectrophysiologic characteristics of respiratory suspension periods because that one was describing other parameters during these periods, regardless of whether it was thought to be suspension or a continual slight inspiration of many small breaths. TimidGuy 15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed after changes in the TM intro that there was a repetition of "the"and that the "taught six million" sentence seems out of place .... I made a quick change but am not attached should want to revert in favour of a better, or the older version.( olive 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

I think we need to discuss the recent changes to the lead. In my opinion, they are incorrect and aren't sourced. According to the trademark registry, "Transcendental Meditation" is a trademark held by Maharishi Vedic Development Education Corporatation, which has the exclusive right to determine the meaning of the phrase. The only use it has consented to is as the name of a specific meditative technique taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In addition, all of the scientific literature -- hundreds of published studies -- uses the term exclusively in this sense. This is also true of its usage in popular media such as newspapers and magazines. It's never used to name the organization and always used to refer to the meditation technique. This has been discussed and resolved on these Talk pages in the past. TimidGuy 11:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Trademarks do not give an "exclusive right to determine the meaning of the phrase". They merely give the exclusive right to market products under this name. The name clearly refers in common use to the movement, with the technique being rather unimportant, and the associated structure of organizations being much more relevant, see for example [2] and [3]). The current article is POV, since it does not give these aspects the space and priority they deserve. It gives undue weight to the technique and its mostly completely uncontroversial relaxing effects. How the scientific literature uses a term has no special bearing on Wikipedia. The article needs a new section Movement and organizational structure that must be at least as long as the rest of the article to eliminate the problem of undue weight. The organization is cited, it is suddenly mentioned ("The organization suggests that the technique only be learned from an authorized teacher"), but it is hardly explicitly described in the article. -- rtc 11:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Rtc, for coming here to discuss. I appreciate it. I just can't agree that reliable secondary sources use "Transcendental Meditation" to refer to an organization. If you do a search in Google News on that term, I doubt you'd find a single instance. I've read hundreds and hundreds of media reports on Transcendental Meditation (maybe even thousands), and I don't recall a single instance in which "Transcendental Meditation" was used to refer to anything other than a meditative technique. The sources you offer have been discussed in the past, and they don't seem to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We went through a dispute procedure regarding the Skeptic's Dictionary, and the consensus was that it didn't meet the Wikipedia requirement of a reliable secondary source. We've also often noted that that particular article on the Religious Movements web site was written by two college sophomores in a sociology class and has many errors of fact. If such usage can be found in reliable secondary sources, it seems to me that it's clearly a minority usage. In my mind, the overwhelming evidence of usage based on acceptable sources such as scientific studies and reliable secondary sources in the popular media is as a meditative technique. As it should be, given the trademark. TimidGuy 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way. The current administrative structure for Maharishi's programs is the Global Country of World Peace. Though it's not clear in my mind the relationship between this entity and the many organizations founded in Maharishi's name. It seems that the Global Country is primarily responsible for the teaching of Transcendental Meditation. Most of the other organizations, such as Maharishi University of Management and Maharishi Ayurveda Products International, don't seem to fall under the oversight of the Global Country. But I don't really know. TimidGuy 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence can never have a positive weight, see Karl R. Popper, David W. Miller: A proof of the impossibility of inductive probability. Nature 302 (1983), 687–688. You can find sources talking of transcendental meditation as a movement easily if you only look for them. The organizational structure needs to be described at length in the article. And again, a trademark does not prescribe how a word should be used. If you don't know about the organization, you need to research sources and work it out. -- rtc 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies accept that evidence can have a weight, and they disallow WP:Undue weight. These sources don't talk about Transcendental Meditation as a movement. They refer to the informal usage, which mostly dates from the 1960s and 1970s, of Transcendental Meditation movement. This means "movement to teach the Transcendental Meditation technique." If you want to write about the organizational structure, the obvious place would be the Global Country article, since it's the primary administrative organization. TimidGuy 16:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I could get an opinion from the legal counsel for the trademark holder. In my experience, he's very concerned about how the word is used. TimidGuy 16:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I can understand your concern on the organization of this article. Believe me all of the editors who worked on it discussed this same point. What you see now, is pretty much the product of many discussions and includes a lot of outside assistance including a mediation.

You make an important point, in bringing up the idea of the TM movement and “common usage”. In a sense, what I discovered as I worked on this article was that essentially there was no “Movement”. That is, that common usage was just what the words say and mean. In casual conversation someone might say, “movement”, but in fact this organization is extremely complex and large and, that the term “movement” even in the beginning became a term of convenience. Even when searching for sources, if we found the term movement we generally discovered that something more specific was meant. As we put together this article and edited all of us including opponents of TM realized we had to tease out as it were what the organization really included and somehow delineate boundaries and organization structures to clarify our material. We then had to fit it into a certain size as advised by Wikipedia standards. Even as I write, editors are still trying to cut the article down while maintaining NPOV. In a nutshell, and highly simplified, what we have here is a teacher and a technique. Most of the research was done on the technique itself, although, there certainly is research on these other aspects. So as we put together the article we looked for a way of organizing the teacher, the technique, the technologies and so on, and in the process discovered that the teacher has pretty much in some ways taken care of this himself. We find in the literature a two armed approach to the technologies one, the technique and possibly advanced aspects of that technique the TM Sidhi program –experiential, that is done for the intrinsic merit they have on the individual’s so- called consciousness. The other arm of the technologies for consciousness were and are called Vedic Science, and are the practical application of the technique and other technologies such as an approaches to education and agriculture to name two. These days the umbrella name for all of this is the Global Country of World Peace, but that could change tomorrow dependent it seems on a new addition to the practical side of things. Included in that name –“Global Country” is a system of “government” complete with hierarchy, which runs alongside any relative government and is said to be a government of consciousness. I personally am not interested in judging any of this, nor should any of us be, since that would inject some POV, but have found it interesting to decipher the puzzle of how all of this could be organized in an encyclopedic format.

We used the same article title that has always been there and defined it as the technique to make very clear what was being written about. The rest of the article is absolutely about the technique as you noted. After many, long discussion we realized that not only was this the way the whole thing began but also this was the easiest way to write about it. The Vedic Science aspect the other side of the organization is linked and has been in the stages of development for a while. The advanced aspect of the TM technique, the TM Sidhis program has also been linked. There are hundreds of studies on the technique and some on the other technologies. On this page we have unwound the TM technique studies from the huge ball of studies that includes all of the studies. This keeps the article shorter than it could be and as the other pages for example, Vedic Science, develop, these other studies have a home there. We have also not included individuals in the organization. Yes, there is a kind of hierarchy as there is in any organization. I sure wouldn’t want to be the president of anything but someone has to do that job. Happy it’s not me…but for the most part and for our purposes these people can be included in the material about what part of the organization they administer. For example Bevan Morris is President of MUM, the university, and I think PM of the Global Country. A page on Dr Morris would probably note this. There are many levels of administration in many countries and we haven’t touched on that in this article. A school has a head master but that would I think be included in the school area. They all belong in my mind in articles about the aspect being administered or to the person him or herself. If we hadn’t made these judgments and analyzed the organization in this way at some point, the article would now be as long as the knitted material in ‘’Like Water for Chocolate’’ as it trailed miles along a dirt road and would be just about as unwieldy.

There is no POV in this article. Were that the case the criticism section would have been removed by someone along the line, as would any other negative material. The article about TM and those linked to it, you see, are instead might I say the results and somewhat heroic effort on the part of all of the editors who have worked on it, those for and against TM, to explain and define a large and complex organization. What we say in common usage is fine I always think, but what we can squeeze into an encyclopedia has to be as clear and as concise as we can make it, and is quite another matter. In the end we have TM the technique, and links and possible links to what came after the technique.I do think one could add something about common usage ... where is the question. So there’s another way of looking at the whole thing. Best wishes.( olive 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

There are no Wikipedia standards that advise to "fit it into a certain size", especially not if that would mean that highly relevant aspects are lost. The undue weight by strictly keeping the organizational questions in the background is definitely there and it must be fixed. Weight is not measured by the number of publications available on some aspect. If "there was no 'Movement'", how come that it was initially called "Spiritual Regeneration Movement"? If "this organization is extremely complex and large", shouldn't that be described, and be described more in detail? Shouldn't something complex and large that has an inherent relation to the topic be described appropriately and explicitly? -- rtc 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Article size for details on sizing articles. Dreadstar † 00:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size is not an excuse for undue weight. If you want to follow that guideline (which is rather unimportant and can and should be broken if it hinders appropriate presentation of relevant issues), delete half of the article which talks about the method, which can be said in fewer words, and add text about the organization instead. These are really lame excuses. -- rtc 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that it should, and yes, I think we should indeed follow that guideline. I'm sure the content can be adjusted so that it does not violate WP:UNDUE and yet fits within the size guideline. WP:CIV, please. Dreadstar † 00:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me just clarify that I'm not so certain that you are correct in your assertions that the current article violates WP:UNDUE to begin with, that is exactly what you and the other editors here need to discuss. Dreadstar † 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to sort out the issues. Would really like to resolve the question of Rtc's addition saying that the term "Transcendental Meditation" also refers to the organization that teaches the Transcendental Meditation technique. If that were so, then tell me whether you think this is a correct sentence:

Transcendental Meditation has taught the Transcendental Meditation technique to 6 million people worldwide.

That sounds like a malformed sentence to me. Yet in 1970s informal usage, the following would make sense to me:

The Transcendental Meditation movement has taught the Transcendental Meditation technique to 6 million people worldwide.

So I don't see, from a linguistic perspective, how "Transcendental Meditation" can refer to the organization that teaches the Transcendental Meditation technique. TimidGuy 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I did not offer excuses for anything in this article but explained as clearly as I could how the article came to have its present format and the reasoning behind this. I also do not offer any arguments either way. The structure of the article was formated on some rather specific guidelines developed as I mentioned from numerous discussions, and with the input of several editors. You may want to check these out if you have an interest in this article. We were asked in several instances to carry on editing that would shorten the article as well. The strongest request came from our mediation. This did not come from the editors working on the article. My sense is that the editors who have worked on the article have tried to comply with this without losing material added to the article by numerous editors over a relatively long period of time in "Wikipedia time".: ) Although the Spiritual Regeneration Movement was indeed the name of the early organization, my understanding is that the leader of the organization no longer uses this term but had renamed his organization many times since. I am not questioning that either. The present article has used a method of organization used by its leader, and which includes the diverse wings or arms of the organization.This is how the large and complex organization is explained here - is organized here. Thats all. If you want to make a comment about the common usage of a particular phrase, I don't see why that can't be discussed. Of note I think is the idea that the term "movement" when referring to an organization as a synonym for organization is not incorrect. Using the term TM movement as a naming, and somehow organizational method doesn't really make sense given the extensive background and understanding that underpins this article. My sense is that great effort has been made to understand and organize this material, and although I can't speak for the editors who have worked on the article, I feel that all further insights are welcome.( olive 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

Hello again rtc, I guess I am unclear as to what exactly you want in the article. All of the aspects of the organization have been accounted for already either in the article or through links. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you feel is missing.( olive 03:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

An article should not account for aspects through links. An article should be complete in itself and refer to other articles only for specific information that is unrelated to or too detailed for the context of the article topic. Also, the article describes many facts. Such stating of pure facts it stricly forbidden in Wikipedia; they may be described only as part of a position that holds a point of view in relation to the context of the article. What I exactly want is a neutral article that describes the organization behind the method in detail and that attributes facts to positions that makes use of them for argumentation. In its current form, this article is basically an advertisement of the TM organization for its method, with a little bit of criticism added to make it Wikipedia compliant. -- rtc 04:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking with this discussion, Rtc. I've twice noted that there's already an article about the organization that teaches the Transcendental Meditation technique. I think that if you have information about the organization that you feel should be presented in Wikipedia, that would be the place for it. (Hope you have reliable secondary sources for this information. There are a lot of errors, half truths, and falsehoods on the Internet that form a sort of canon on the critic sites. We've had to deal with and expose and correct many of these in discussions over the past year. Given your familiarity with scholarly sources, I'm encouraged that you won't simply reprise these.)

Could you give an example of a fact that you feel is wrongly presented? Thanks.

The one neutral person who read this article, Ed Johnston, said that he felt it was neutral and balanced. TimidGuy 11:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a neutral person. All facts about scientific studies are wrongly presented, because they are all described outside of any description of an argumentative position on the issue. An argumentative position is a point of view held by a person or organization within the context of the article topic. These scientific studies all fall outside of this context (they fall into the science context, not into the Transcendental Meditation context, that is, they treat TM as an object, from outside), and they are brought into this context only by the TM organization to promote certain of its interests. The article completely hides this fact and instead holds the view of the TM organization, describing these scientific studies as is without any attribution. Please further note that truth is not a criterion for Wikipedia! That is, we must also describe positions that hold errors, half truths and falsehoods, without saying that they necessarily do. That is what neutrality really means. If X says that the moon is made of cheese and X is relevant for the respective article topic (and in doubt he is), we write into the respective article that X holds the position that the moon is made of cheeses, regardless of what we as article authors think about that. -- rtc 11:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess my opinion is that facts can speak for themselves.

Regarding the issue of half-truths, falsehoods, and errors. Please let me give an example of each that was taken from a critic site and inserted into the article, and that I subsequently researched and corrected.

• Robert Kropinski was awarded $138,000 in a suit aganst WPEC. Every critic site says this. What they don't say is that an appeals court overturned the award. That's why it's a half truth. To my mind the other half of the truth is important and relevant, and I represented it after an editor had inserted the half-truth in the article.

• A study by Canter and Ernst found that only 10 of 600 studies on TM were properly controlled studies. I term this claim by Rick Ross, which has been reported in the media, as a falsehood because it can so easily be checked by looking up the abstract online. When this was added to the article, I found the abstract and showed that it was a complete misrepresentation. The study, which I obtained, is now accurately described in the article.

• In Malnak vs. Yogi Appellate Judge Meanor said that the puja was an issue. This error and half truth is repeated on many critic sites and was inserted into the article. Meanor was the lower court judge (error), and Appellate Judge Adams wrote that the puja wasn't an issue (the other half of the truth).

I'm not sure what purpose would be served by describing these half-truths, falsehoods, and errors, as you say. Seems like they should simply be corrected. TimidGuy 15:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; facts must not speak for themselves. Letting the facts speak for themselves is original research and POV. (You demanded reliable secondary sources from me, so, how come that the article is based almost completely on primary journal sources then? Isn't there some kind of inconsistency here?) Facts should be described only within the description of an argumentative position on the topic. The position of the critics must be represent fairly, regardless of whether it contains falsehoods according to your judgement. We as encyclopedic authors must not intervene into the discourse around the article topic. Represent the critics position and their interpretation of studies, etc. as is please, regardless of how false you think they are. So it is incorrect that it "Seems like [half-truths, falsehoods, and errors] should simply be corrected" and the remains be rid of their association with and attribution to the argumentative position that presented them. Do not let the facts speak for themselves. Describe how the TM organization interprets the situation, however false that interpretation may be, and describe how the critics interpret the situation, however false that interpretation may be, and describe that it is the TM organization's respectively the individual critic's position that you are describing. -- rtc 01:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can be more specific about the primary journal sources you believe the article is based on. It looks to me like the article follows WP:NOR Primary, secondary and tertiary sources as well as WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Perhaps a specific proposal for additions or changes to the article would help too.

You are completely correct that Wikipedia articles must present all significant views, and cannot synthesize or provide any unpublished analysis. Examples of where this is happening in the article would be helpful. Dreadstar † 03:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is happening basically everywhere. All of the cited scientific sources are primary sources. It is not sufficient for an analysis to merely have been published in a 'reliable' source. It needs to have been used for argumentative purposes within the context of the article topic by a secondary source. And it should always be described as part of the position that uses it for argumentative purposes. So "A number of studies have reported finding a positive correlation between Transcendental Meditation technique and various health benefits, including reduction of high blood pressure, [...]" is not neutral. A neutral way to present this would be "The organization teaching TM refers to a number of studies that ..." Apart from that, the space that these scientific results occupy suggests that there is anything unexpected about them. That is not the case. These results are completely uncontroversial and there is nothing unusual at all about them. Most relaxation techniques have such results. What is controversial is the TM organization's interpretation that TM has far superior results than any other method. Neither is this interpretation even mentioned, nor any criticism on it. -- rtc 07:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems odd to me. I gave examples of half-truths, errors, and falsehoods in the article that were corrected and you're saying that those should be represented in the article? It's not a matter of interpretation. They were wrong. In regard to your suggestion that the article represent the critics' interpretation of the studies: Science has an epistemology of its own -- apart from argumentative context. That's the whole idea behind science, to separate truth from subjectivity. If there are studies that show varying results, they can be mentioned (in relative proportion). If there are metastudies, they can be mentioned. But any criticism of studies should itself be peer-reviewed. If there are studies rebutting the results of particular studies, they can be mentioned. One of the most interesting and relevant features of Transcendental Meditation is how thoroughly and widely its been studied. This is groundbreaking research. The approach of looking at brain-wave coherence, for example, was pioneered by TM researchers and is now widely used by neuroscientists. It seems important in an article on Transcendental Meditation to present this research.

I completely agree with you that the sentence you note isn't neutral. I'll fix it. We've tried to avoid using the word "benefits" in the article. I think any discussion of the relative benefits of Transcendental Meditation compared to other techniques should be done in the context of presenting scientific studies. If there are studies that show that another technique works better, seems like that could be mentioned. TimidGuy 11:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Science has no epistemology on its own. This is a dangerous ideology. Science is no different from the rest! Further, it misses the point to say that "any criticism of studies should itself be peer-reviewed". The article should, as I have stressed several times already, describe studies only as part of an argumentative position. The main argumentative position on the topic is the position of the TM organization, and this organization argues with all the studies that are currently 'just the facts' stated. That is, the article holds the TM organization's point of view, without attribution, as is. The TM organization's position is really a context defined by secondary sources that are not peer reviewed, and consequently, criticism of this position (not of the peer reviewed studies, which is a layer below) need not be peer reviewed either. Yes, I am saying that "the article [...] should [.. represent] half-truths, errors, and falsehoods", however, it should do so within the respective position with attribution. It should look like "X says that Y. Z disclaims Y and says that it's a half-struth. X denies that the counter-argumentation of Z on this issue is correct" and so on. Do you see what I mean? Describe the discourse that happens between positions of critics and proponents, even if some of these positions make false claims. That is neutrality. Truth and falsehood of the described claims are completely irrelevant for neutrality. Attribution is the key. -- rtc 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never said that both points of view in a controversy shouldn't be represented. But I thought that my examples were so obvious. I originally gave them to show the unreliability of a lot of the information on the Internet. They were factual errors. Judge Meanor was not the appellate judge. That was my point. The sort of discourse you describe is exactly what has been done with the religion and cult sections. I'm very aware of the need to represent the position of critics and proponents. That's what's been done.

Regarding the science -- I guess I don't agree. I don't agree that it's necessary to present this as an argumentative position. I think the Wikipedia guidelines and policies accept peer-reviewed science as being an acceptable source for Wikipedia content. TimidGuy 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No way. WP:SPOV was explicitly rejected. As I said, scientific publications have no special status and may be described only as part of an argumentative position that makes use of them within the context of the article topic. The TM Organization's POV may only be described and must not be adopted by the article, regardless of whether it "supports" its POV with scientific studies! (but as I said above, support is impossible; evidence can have no positive weight; Karl R. Popper, David W. Miller: A proof of the impossibility of inductive probability. Nature 302 (1983), 687–688! There is no way to establish, prove, verify, warrant, make well-founded, make reliable, ground, support or legitimate any claim whatsoever) -- rtc 15:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at the research section, I definitely think the wording could be more neutral. That's probably not what you're looking for, but something that we should work on even as we discuss this. I won't have time to work on it today. Maybe Olive will. Sometimes Roseapple shows up and does good editing. TimidGuy 15:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading this discussion but have to admit to not understanding most of the points rtc is trying to make. Neutrality in how the research is presented could be improved, and I could give that a try, but that doesn't seem to be rtc's main issue. Roseapple 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I realized why I don't feel comfortable with this. It's an artificial construct that can be used to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There's no incorporated entity by that name. To me, this creates a situation that is fertile ground for Original Research.

There are many different organizations founded in Maharishi's name in many different countries around the world. If a reliable source has lumped them together under one rubric, then fine. But if an editor cherry picks information gathered from web sites and spins it together to state something about an entity that's an artificial construct, to my mind that's a problem. (Of course, I'm not suggesting anyone here intends to do this. And again, I'm not sure this article would be the venue.) TimidGuy 12:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have some final thoughts on this... famous last words. These discussions have been good for me since they have helped me remember and clarify in my own mind what and how we worked on this article. I am clearer about our process.

• Like TG I realized this phrase is artificial in that it is used " on the street" as it were but in reality does not exist as a true name for anything. You noted it is common usage for an umbrella organization. One of these umbrella organizations and maybe the one that most clearly contains the other programs is as noted earlier, The Global Country of World Peace.
• Transcendtal Meditation, however is not an organization but is a form of meditation as the name implies. That's what this article is about.Many editors over a period of time came to an informal consensus on that. That is, this article would focus on the technique, the information that could be gatheresd on that technique and that would help create an article that was neutral
• Rather than describing the technique as something inside an organization, I believe it might be more accurate to say the organization developed around one man, and this fundamental technique. Eventually he introduced other "technologies for consciousness" and supporting programs in his efforts to better the human condition . I am not arguing whether this all works or not but just that this is what happened . TM - the technique came after or with the man. The organization was a collection of the programs that grew from that source.
• Spiritual Regeneration Movement was an official name for the organization in its very early and less complex days in North America. That name is no longer used.
• One could certainly write about an umbrella organization like the Global Country, and its structure and I think there is a Wikipedia site for that.
• The links are the way, again by consensus, that editors felt the TM technique could be connected to and placed in context of a larger organizational structure. To include all of this in one article would have been impossible . The material is too extensive. The editors went to links to tie this material together.
• My fundamental concern is that in dissolving the precise meaning of terms and the boundaries this precision creates we open the door for a mish-mash of material, difficult to place and potentially creating confusion. The many editors have already dealt with that kind of confusion and by informal consensus decided how to approach this article. What you see now is the product of the collected efforts of a group of editors who operated within the guidelines of a general agreement on how to proceed with greatest ease and for greatest clarity. ( olive 18:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

I just cannot say how much I disagree with this. The TM techique should explicitly and extensively be "connected to and placed in context of [its] larger organizational structure", within this article. Nobody demands "To include all of this in one article". But the essential points need to be described appropriately, not just passively linked. I think that this "informal consensus" you mentioned needs to be rejected, utterly. Just being afraid of "mish-mash of material, difficult to place and potentially creating confusion" is not an argument. Such arguments are the death of all encyclopedic progress. Problems occur all the time and need to be solved, avoiding them at the cost of a severely biased and far from neutral article is not a solution. Such arguments seem foul to me. And BTW, to the best of my knowledge, the Spiritual Regeneration Movement still exists as a branch of the World Plan Executive Council. -- rtc 01:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points . There is no fear here however,that's not the issue. An encyclopedia that is group=edited depends at some point on consensus. In this case the article was often frozen so that progress was almost impossible. One compromises in such a context, not because one is compromising oneself but because the article is the "thing" here and it must be alive and capable of change.The article has developed as I mentioned over many months with the input of many editors . To think otherwise would be a mistake. As well, I in no way feel this article is either biased or non-neutral.Almost every aspect has been gone over, micro-managed in a way to make sure the sources were impeccable.Outside editors have viewed the article as well so its not secret in some way. Yes, there is material out there on the technique that has not been used but much of it on closer scrutiny does not stand up to Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Be sure that such material was checked by both supporters and non - supporters of TM. Placing the technique in context of its umbrella organization in this article is problematic not impossible but problematic. As well, consensus on a contentious/controversial article such as this one is mandatory.This encyclopedia depends on the group and group process so whatever you suggest will have to be dealt with in this way ....At the risk of sounding sappy .... the Wikipedia way. Although both World Plan Executive Council and Spiritual Regeneration Movement may exist "on paper" neither is active. I can check on that. If you are really interested in working on this article I suggest you check the archived discussions. This will give you insight into how the article was formed.( olive 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

P.S. As I read this over I realize that what is needed is very specific information rather than generalized information on what your concerns are.( olive 03:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

I doubt that WPEC still exists as a corporate entity. If SRM ever existed as a corporate entity, I doubt that it still is. It would indeed be interesting to have an article that described all the various organizations related to Maharishi that have been founded. But it would take a huge amount of research. TimidGuy 14:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am confused by some of your points here, rtc. I have never understood Wikipedia to be a platform for introducing arguments.I have understood it to be a vehicle for gathering and organizing information through a group editing process. I clearly feel that you have a very specific point of view here, and I am, give Wikipedia policy/guidelines not comfortable with that. I believe this article was written to show not both sides of an argument but to show a representational amount of information on any particular topic.I believe the article does show opposing views on different topics, but the very slight adjustment that happens to indicate the back and forth discourse between two positions does I think border on OR. I agree with the Wikipedia guideline you present that emphasizes verifiability. More specific references about your concerns are always helpful.( olive 15:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

If you understand Wikipedia to be no platform for introducing arguments, why are you advocating the status quo of the article? The article does exactly that; it introduces a POV argument by holding the TM organizations Point of view, as is. It does not describe its position, it adops it. I am, given Wikipedia policy/guidelines not comfortable with that. It is clearly beyond the border of NPOV. Describing "back and forth discourse between two positions" on the other hand is what NPOV is all about. OR concerns only the content of the claims held by the positions that are described. That is, a WP article must not introduce a new position. OR does not apply to the presentation of the relations between the described positions. This should be obvious, since otherwise we would be allowed only to make verbatim copies of existing encyclopedic articles from third party sources. Claiming that my imagination of the article is OR in this regard I can thus only reply tu quoque: The current version of the article does also make a decision on what should be described and with which relations, by "stating the facts". So the article in its current form is OR in this regard, too, just with a result that is not neutral. After all, WP tries to create a new encyclopedia, so it's not just natural but even necessary that original research occurs about certain aspects. We must keep the Original research just at the correct aspects (selection of sources, correct description of respective relevant positions and their relations, due weight, etc.; however, not inventing and holding new positions.) -- rtc 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I really can't spend all day here. Am working under deadline. But maybe start a new thread to try to focus this. It seems like the key issue is fairly simple: how to present the scientific research. I don't see anything in the policies and guidelines that require it to be contextualized the way Rtc suggests. WP:V makes it clear that research is a reliable source: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." The research section doesn't violate WP:SYNTH because it's not combining points to draw a conclusion. It's simply stating what the studies themselves conclude. There's a lot of debate on the Talk pages whether research is a primary or secondary source, but the consensus right now seems to be that it lies outside this framework. And anyway, even if it were considered a primary source, which it's generally not, it still meets the guideline of how that's presented. If the research is somehow skewed, then fine to present studies that contradict it, as long as they aren't given undue weight relative to the other research. TimidGuy 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

...   ..   .  .
.  . .  .  .  .
...  .  .  .  .
.    .  .  .  .
.     ..    ..

It is combining points to draw a conclusion, just not in an explicit way. It does so very cleverly by suggestion. It draws the conclusion that TM is very good for health and everything and has no side-effects. Let's not argue whether this is true; what is relevant is that this implicit conclusion is there. Articles should make such conclusions explicit and attribute them. That is what I have stressed all the way. I agree completely that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the [best] sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." However, this is no article about history, science, medicine or any other academic topic. This is an article about TM, and TM is not taught at academic universities! (The universities that are under the tutelage of the TM organization are not academic.) -- rtc 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think TG makes a good point in that we could take a look at what seems to be a central issue - the research and the wording of its presentation to make sure that there is no POV. As a note: From my understanding of Wikipedia drawing any kind of conclusion or OR is not permissible. I don’t believe this article as a whole argues an implied view of TM. Conclusions are the territory of the reader. Several outside neutral editors have viewed the article and have found it to be neutral. As an aside, Maharishi University of Management is an academic institution, is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission is a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, and is a member of the Iowa Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.( olive 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Why are you ignoring what I wrote? I said that, on a certain layer, OR (though not OR in the sense of what WP:NOR talks about, which is that no new position may be invented) is not only permitted, but inevitable, and occurs anyway, just currently not in a way that results in something that is neutral. This article has an implied view of TM, and very clearly so, in the research section, an artcile can be neutral "as a whole" only if it is neutral in all of its parts. Conclusions must not be the territory of the reader. Writing an article from such assumptions is the seedbed of POV! All conclusions must be made explicit and be attributed, and, if that is not possible, the material has to be deleted as original research completely, because of implied synthesis. All these memberships and accreditations do not help MUM from being no academic institution in the sense that I understand the word academic. If it were academic, all of its regular teachings would also be available at at least one independent academic institution. However, the MUM has certain non-standard regular teachings in its curricula that are not taught at any academic university at all. I said that there is no such thing as a neutral editor. Stop to justify the status quo of this highly problematic article and start to think about how these problems can be solved in a satisfactory way. NPOV is not an issue of formulation and the wording of the presentation of the research is not in any way at all what I am criticizing. Since you are an intelligent person, you have very well understood that. And you have well understood that I cannot and will not accept the current form of the article, and that by no means you get rid of my criticism by twiddling with the wording a bit. Having the Wikipedia advocate the TM organization's views, and even advocate it so openly, is something that can simply not be accepted at all. But what sense makes this discussion if all editors except me have a conflict of interest about the issue. -- rtc 03:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Rtc. I appreciate your sincerity and your the great care you're taking to clearly explain your position. Which, if i understand it correctly, is that the article draws and implied conclusion by presenting the scientific research, and that this is a violation of WP:SYNTH. I guess there are a number of points I feel a reasonable person could disagree with. One is that this material is drawing an implied conclusion. The studies themselves draw the conclusion. The science section is not in any way assembling points and drawing an original conclusion. (The editing we're doing is not in response to your claim, and an attempt to resolve it; rather, in drawing our attention to this section, you helped us to give closer attention to these sections and realize the wording could sound more neutral. Thank you for that.)

In addition, I think that you're stretching policy. It's a matter of opinion whether a particular conclusion is implied. And a matter of opinion which particular conclusion might be implied. That would never be a solid ground for making a case for wp:synth.

I don't think you've made a strong case that there's a problem in the article. TimidGuy 11:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course "The science section is not in any way assembling points and drawing an original conclusion." It is correct that it is not explicitly assembling points. It is also correct that the conclusion it draws implicitly is not original. It is the conclusion that the TM organization officially draws, here. I do not ask the research section to be erased. I ask for the conclusion to be made explicit, attributed to the TM organization and sourced with the above URL. This is certainly not asking for too much! -- rtc 12:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't read it the same way you do, and don't see it as drawing a particular implicit conclusion. In my mind, because this section is just presenting facts and not drawing a conclusion, it leaves it open for the reader to draw his own conclusion. You've drawn a specific conclusion. But how do we know every reader would draw the same conclusion as you? I think an intelligent person could read this and draw a very different conclusion. In fact, in reading it I would conclude that the research is inconclusive. It suggests that the results vary regarding the medical research and that Transcendental Meditation may or may not be effective. It suggests that all the results related to cognitive function are due to the placebo effect. It cites a (non-refereed and poorly designed) study that says that Transcendental Meditation causes problems in some people. A person could draw a very different conclusion than you. In my mind, that's what makes this neutral: it presents the facts and leaves the reader to draw his own conclusion. TimidGuy 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the reader can draw various conclusions, he will prefer some conclusions over the others, depending on the way "just the facts" are described. The reader might still make a different decision if all major conclusions would be explicit and attributed to the their proponents. I think that neutrality is exactly the opposite of how you understand it: The conclusions should be presented and the reader should be left to choose some or none of them. Wikipedia articles must be written such that it is neutral given the average reader, not just the intelligent reader. The average reader will draw a biased conclusion that he would not have drawn if the possible conclusions were described and attributed. The intelligent reader might conclude that there are several possible interpretations, as you described. I, however, conclude that the article is under the firm control of people with a conflict of interest, that it is not neutral and that it needs to be changed. So that is the conclusion I drew on my own, and I think that it is a very valid conclusion. -- rtc 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know . . . to me it doesn't make much sense to guess what readers are thinking. Who knows what conclusion they will draw? I think that the research section presents a relatively accurate picture. Much of the research shows positive results, some of it doesn't. Metastudies generally say that Transcendental Meditation is more effective than relaxation, some say it's about the same. The metastudies don't cover many areas of the research where there is a substantial body of studies. The article pretty much ignores the brain research, which is perhaps the most fascinating.

How can one draw any sort of meaningful conclusion about such a large and diverse body of research? This article has presented some representative studies. It indicates that there's a large body of research. It indicates that this research has been published in top journals. It omits facts about how widely this research is respected in the scientific community and how respected the researchers are. You can see past discussions in which I recite a litany of the important role they play as peer reviewers in the field, the role they've played when invited by the federal government and its agencies to give presentations and consultations.

I don't know what conclusion I'd draw regarding this research. I guess I'd conclude that it's formidable. I guess i'd conclude that the results are mixed -- as with all research. I guess I'd conclude that it pioneered a number of areas. The marketing guys typically cite studies showing the effects of Transcendental Meditation. Why not? Ideological opponents typically make lists of the studies that didn't show results. Why not? And goobers like Robert Todd Carroll generally dismiss the research without ever having looked at a single study. TimidGuy 11:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not me who brought up the (nonsensical, I agree) argument with what the reader is allegedly thinking! I suppose I have to get some radical skeptics and throw them at this article to destroy this WP:OWNing by a tight-knit group of people who all have a conflict of interest on the issue. -- rtc 05:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Rtc. I'm sorry if you feel that I own the article. But the fact is, ideological opponents are often trying to insert material in the article that doesn't meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've done my best to try to make the article conform. It hasn't always been easy and has caused a lot of sleepless nights. (Which are really bad for my tennis game.) Luckily, in every case we finally ended up getting a consensus. In one particularly difficult instance, we had to resort to a dispute procedure. Note this guideline: WP:CANVAS. TimidGuy 11:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

rtc, you're verging on a bad violation of policy- which anyway won't work. Desist. ––– Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it a violation of policy to commit a violation of policy to fight the massive violation of NPOV policy here? -- rtc 07:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a violation of policy to violate policy. Don't do it. ––– Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is specifically for the "Transcendental Meditation technique", it may be appropriate to change the article's name to reflect that focus. What does everyone think about doing that? Dreadstar † 07:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreadstar. Great idea. This conforms with Wikipedia policy on trademark usage, which specifies that trademarks always be used as an adjective in Wikipedia articles. (This is something I need to be more diligent about in this article and related articles.) TimidGuy 11:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea.( olive 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Have recollected that at one time I think we did discuss change (possibly with Sethie and Tanaats) concerning the name of this article, but kept the original title because there was concern this would cause the general public some confusion. Should we leave this for now?( olive 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

I definitely wouldn't want to cause confusion to anyone, the renaming was based on what I understood to be the correct title for this, and to address the underlying disconnect between the technique and the organizations, groups, companies, etc., that may have been the root cause of the recent dispute over the article's contents.

I'm fine with the current title, as I don't believe it's actually a corporate name, or the name of a movement or any other group or organization. Transcendental Meditation is a process or style, like Yoga or Karate or even better...a specific style of Meditation! It's actually mentioned as a form of meditation under Meditation/New Age. So yes, on further investigation, I think TM is a fine name for the article on the technique/style. The various groups, orgs, companies, or whatnot should be properly addressed according to their notability in articles of their own. Dreadstar † 01:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok! thanks for your input and thoughts on this - Sounds fine to me .... so onward!( olive 01:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

So instead of getting rid of the reduction of topic to the technique, which is not neutral, you're supposing that is should get a pseudo-justification by renaming it? -- rtc 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Dreadstar † 06:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Crowley's Aunt .... the German study was discussed several months ago and was found to be a poor reference and not usable since the study itself was not properly conducted. I'll see if I can find the archived material on that for you. I also noted that the links you provided on "studies" don't work and that the reference section seems to be completely skewed. This article has also been criticized for its length so I will compress the "studies" information you added. Although there is no way of checking the links now as should be done, since they are not working, I will though leave the material in place pending a link check .( olive 02:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Thanks Olive. I think the links are incorrect and the ref section "screwed" because when my table was removed the person doing so did not remove it completely - this might have this effect. if that is so I can "repair" it - without adding the table back in - if that is ok with everyone?

I provide this link to the article http://www.behind-the-tm-facade.org/transcendental_meditation-harmful-abstracts.htm. This is not where I accessed it as it seems that the access I have to it is via the ATHENS network. I am sure you are aware this is university affiliated only but if you have access to ATHENs then simply search by the article title and publication.

I have to disagree though about not listing the adverse effects of TM on 62% of those studied. Other positive studies clearly list the benefits including relatively - for a non "expert" supposed physiological effects such as those on Cortisol and thus indeed psychoimmunphyisiology. Thoughts? Crowleys Aunt 02:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Olive. My apologies, the article I have used - on closer reading - refers to a wide range of meditation techniques not just TM. On that basis it might be wise to remove it. Perhaps its due to my dislike of religions using scientific evidence to support metaphysical concepts and for that I apologise. Clouded judgment and all that. Perhaps I need to mediate ;-) 02:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Crowleys Aunt

Yes I just checked that study, and the effects are generalized for several meditation types so not really usable on a article specific to one form of meditation.... very nice working with you ( olive 02:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Hi Crowley's Aunt: This is material from an archived piece of information that indictates the problems with the study. This pretty much sums it up . I am not a scientist so cannot comment on much else but other editors may be able to. Thanks for your efforts on the article. This information was a dialogue between John Knapp and Dr. Nelson and originally posted by user Sparaig who introduces the two comments from Dr. Nelson to John Knapp. Hope this helps to clarify ( olive 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Here's a couple of newsgroup comments by Roger D Nelson of PEAR, who read the study and gave an informal review of it in the sci.skeptics newsgroup just over 11 years ago, wearing the hat of someone who had performed a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on meditation for the NIH. Note that he was talking to John Knapp, whose website was the source for the Skeptic Dictionary entry and that John still hasn't changed his website to reflect their conversation 11 years ago:

"I not only have read the study, and commented on it subsequently in posts that you apparently have not taken the opportunity to read, I am competent to do so, both by professional training and by experience. The latter includes having reviewed, comprehensively, the scientific literature on meditation, including Trancendental Meditation, for the Office of Alternative Medicine, NIH. The German "study" is not scientific by any reasonable standard, particularly including that of peer review. Had it been available at the time of my review, I would have listed it as a report of negative results. While the study would have merited little attention, I probably would have noted that its sampling procedures and analytic approaches permit no generalization, and I would have indicated that selective reporting occurs, apparently for the specific purpose of providing descriptive anecdotes to therapists. The general conclusions drawn by the study authors are not supportable. "

and as well, another comment:

"No, John, I am a greybeard, with a 1972 doctorate in in experimental psychology concentrating on perception, neurophysiology, and cognitive capacities. Of course that includes an excellent classical education in experimental design and statistics. It was, however, my 15 years of experience at Princeton, developing sound research and analytical strategies for the study of anomalies linking consciousness and physical systems that prompted an invitation to participate in the OAM effort to determine what research had been done in its purview, and to attempt a first resolution of the implications thereof, in order to design a useful program of prospective research in alternative medicine. "I have already posted the relevant information from the resulting review of meditation that bears on an assessment of the merits of the German study. That study is not what you claim and imply it to be, namely a reliable ("prestigious" is a term you have used) source for the generalizations that you specifically make to the effect that trancendental meditation is harmful. At best it is what it was designed to be, namely a recounting of problems suffered by parents, spouses, and a small number -- 27 as I recall -- of meditators. I have no investment in TM, but I do have a strong interest in proper reporting and wise use of science and its authority. To attempt to generalize from a study conducted as this one was, by asking each troubled person to please put us in touch with other similarly troubled people, with implications that meditation, or even TM , is dangerous or harmful, is ludicrous on the face of it."

Roger D. Nelson, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) C-131 E-Quad, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544

Thanks Olive. having doing some-work in the "philosophy" of science, the criticisms of the studies methodology seem valid although it would have been nice to have actually read the study. I shall go of for a nose. I hate bad research. Crowleys Aunt 02:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello rtc I apologize for not replying sooner. Rather than ignore your last post to me, I should mention that I responded to the best of my ability to what I understood your concerns to be. On rereading your post I wondered if much of the confusion comes from a different interpretation of words - of defining certain words. I would like to try and explain what I mean by that.

• I believe we are using the word “conclusion” in different ways. As I understand your meaning, you believe the editor writing has a point of view and so adds material based on that. The material itself, then becomes the conclusion of that POV. However I do not mean conclusion in this way. For example, the sentence, Fire swept through Greece destroying villages, homes, livestock, olive groves, and killing people, is relatively straightforward. However there is an implied point of view here, not from the information we read, but from a mind set we as human beings bring to this information. Most of us would assume this is very bad news, tragic in fact. There is nothing in the lines from the point of view of the“language” of the line, however, that indicates that point of view. This is a statement of fact without frills. But we as a race have a general point of view about loss of life, so most of us see this statement as negative.
• I believe the studies on TM technique display the same kind of implied POV, that is, we as human beings might consider for example that high blood pressure is not a good thing for most people in fact it could kill you, so a study that shows that the condition can be helped implies that this study is a good thing. This kind of view is unavoidable because it belongs generally, to the race as a whole. The article contains both a so- called positive view, and so-called negative views each in proportion to the overall body of work on each side, as per Wikipedia guidelines, but these determinations are not the implied views we all as human beings have . An editor, has to exercise some judgment in the selection of the material and Wikipedia has developed numerous guidelines to direct this - reliable, verifiable and so forth. An editor however, can't make decisions based on implied views that come out of the generalized views of the whole race. All the editor can do , it seems to me is take two side of the research and show both, weighted in proportion to the amount of material in each area. As I said, here in this article, both are there weighted in amount according to the overall body of studies on either side. There are two levels of point of view here . One general and not controllable since this belongs to whole race in general, one specific related to the material itself.
• When I talk about the reader drawing a conclusion, I mean for example, that if a student comes to the lines about the fires in Greece, he or she sees the facts, that there is a fire and it is destroying property and people. If the student is writing a paper on the tragedy in Greece than he selects material from the encyclopedia and then draws it together to form a conclusion of his own based on these facts. If a conclusion is contained within the encyclopedia and the student uses that conclusion in his paper than the student’s conclusion is not his own, is not his own original research, not really his own paper. As an encyclopedia, as I understand it, we are allowed the facts but not the conclusions or the original research. The student or reader however is the one who draws conclusions and creates new information –original research. But again I want to say that certain information is implicitly positive or negative dependent on a worldview we as a race have. This is what I mean by “conclusion”, different from what you may mean.
• Rather than suggest that a few people control this article, check the archives, editors created this article over time many who definitely did not like TM and wanted to indicate that. That’s fine. The article developed with the input from all editors. One learns a lot from discussion and arguments.
• To say that the editors “twiddled” with the words on this site would be very much a misunderstanding of what I, as one editor, did. One of my academic backgrounds is in English Literature and language. I am very aware, possibly because of that background of the impact a single word has. For example, if we insert the word “tragically” in the lines, Fire swept through Greece tragically destroying villages, homes, livestock, and olive groves, and killing many people, the line is no longer neutral. There is a point of view here drawn from the writer’s own viewpoint. As soon as you commented on the studies section, several editors I noticed, and I was one, went to look for this kind of small word (that has big implications). As an example, “benefit” had been included in one place. An editor changed that meaning - ladened word to “effect”. This changes the whole tone of the line. The material is now more neutral even though the change would seem to be small. These editors came in immediately to make these changes and did so without argument. I don't think we can underestimate the value of this detailed kind of editing( olive 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

I see a lot of words but not a single argument against making the conclusions explicit and attributing them to a position, as mandated by WP:NPOV. But I understand that it would destroy the advertisement effect, and hence you won't do it, but continue to try to reply with so many words which say so little. -- rtc 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe show what part of the policy explicitly requires this. I don't think your reading of this policy is in accord with that of most editors. Scientific research is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. It need not be attributed to a position. You haven't made your case. TimidGuy 11:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right. There are a lot of words here. I was responding to what I believed to be an honest concern, based on what you seem to believe to be an implied point of view, in what appears to be verifiable, neutral research studies, your insistence that conclusions be part of an article, and your perceived view of the superficiality of micro-editing. Excluding the desire to include conclusions in an article, these no longer seem to be concerns. Fair enough. Nowhere in WP:NPOV do I find "making the conclusions explicit and attributing them to a position", nor should I as an editor have to present an argument "against" a guideline that does not come out of the Wikipedia guidelines, that if fact in terms of Wikipedia does not exist, nor should editors in my opinion be attempting to argue against Wikipedia guidelines, here, even if they do exist. Published, peer-reviewed, scientific research is a reliable source.The act of researching and finding conclusions is the primary source. The peer-review and subsequent publication becomes the secondary source. This material is peer reviewed in reliable publications, and so is appropriate Wikipedia material. I can't see that your arguments stand. ( olive 15:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

"The peer-review and subsequent publication becomes the secondary source."—do you actually seriously believe this? How can anyone seriously distort the concepts of primary and secondary sources in such a ridiculous way? Please read secondary source! The part of the policy you are seeking is WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. In its terminology, the article is "discussing the facts on which a point of view is based", but it does not say "which competing opinions are based" on them, that is, it does not say anything about the overall interpretation of these facts. How can the "reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints" if they are not described? -- rtc 12:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that that Wikipedia page on secondary sources says anything about scientific studies. There is a difference of opinion on whether they are primary or secondary. I've often seen Olive's point on the Talk pages of the guidelines and policies. Another view seen there is that they like outside this framework. But Wikipedia guidelines make it clear that they are a reliable source that can be cited. TimidGuy 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm moving the new section here so we can discuss it first. There are serious problems with it.

=== Interpretation ===

The TM organization summarizes the research as

A remarkable body of research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs confirms the benefits of this powerful technology of consciousness. ^[2]

Individuals independent from the organizations come to different interpretations. The sociologist Barry Markovsky assumes that the research is sponsored in great part by the TM organization itself. ^[3] He also notes that "much of the TM research is very non-controversial, and the much smaller volume of potentially controversial stuff that has been published is tucked away in 3rd-rate journals (or worse)".

Peter Canter noted that there are general methodological issues with clinical research about the effect of Transcendental Meditation ^[4]

The source for Markovsky doesn't meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In general, critic sites are disallowed. See for example wp:v. And he's utterly wrong. As the article notes, much of the research has been funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The research by Canter is already mentioned in the article. His generalization of his metastudy on cognitive function to all TM research is crazy. There are many highly rigorous randomized controlled trials that have just the sort of controls that he says are absent. These include studies this article talks about, such as the ones published by the American Heart Association and the American Medical Association.

Why deliberately put misinformation in the article? TimidGuy 11:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how this material can be included in this article. Some of this has been discussed before and then as now the material on Markovsky was not Wikipedia compliant, and in general, Canter's comments don't make sense.I believe that whatever we include in the article should undergo the same scrutiny that has been applied to the studies already present in the article , and in addition be placed according to their prominence in terms of all research on the TM technique to comply with WP:Weight.( olive 16:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Hi TG/Olive, hope you are both well.. Before dismissing the paper entirely would it be possible to have a look at it? The references seem to not be working. I am assuming from your comments guys that this was linked to the summery from transnet? However, lets be honest Markovsky is not a member of that site but a well known academic Sociologist. I think the original paper may have been published in "Social action? I think given the controversy surrounding this article it might be Wise to view the original article in its entirety. This would be the best way to not adding - fuel to the fire, if you know what I mean. thoughts? Sorry I am unable to look my self but I am at home at the moment - rather then campus - and ATHENs is being a real pain in the rear for me at the moment. :-/

Crowleys Aunt 21:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit. I believe this is the Article and Publication details. Evaluating Heterodox Theories Evan Fales, Barry Markovsky Social Forces, Vol. 76, No. 2 (Dec., 1997), pp. 511-525 doi:10.2307/2580722 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowleys Aunt ( talk • contribs) 21:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I now have access to athens it seems. Perhaps if you can both do this from your university it might be possible to discuss this? I have the miss-fortune to have to go to London tomorrow but will print and take a copy with me and we can discuss perhaps here? Perhaps the person who orginally added it to the article might like to comment? Crowleys Aunt 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the problem comes from the cited source as you mentioned - what was then Trancnet

I think there was a lot of discussion on this too in the past, and I'll check the archives. I was just starting then on Wikipedia, and a lot of this, well, I just missed it.I'm not sure if I can get the paper quickly but I'll give it a shot. TimidGuy is much more of an expert in the sciences so he may have some other insights.( olive 02:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

PS It looks as if the paper is on Scientia Institute...I assume it is complete but not positive about that.( olive 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I think there is another issue here that has to do with misinformation or lack of truth. One can so easily check the funding agency for research and sees that NIH played a strong role here. Its worth noting the number of universities that researche the TM technique on their own . I doubt of the TM organization was supporting their research. Markovsky is making a claim that isn't correct. He also claims articles are tucked away in third rate journals but gives no example . Since he was wrong on the first claim , I can't think that he is reliable on the others, and in any case he doesn't supply support for these claims, something I would require even a first year student to do. Is there a point where if we know the information is false or very questionable, that we just say , hey, how can we put this stuff in - the source of the comments himself is not reliable in this paper in many places and his information cannot be verified.I don't think we need this in the article anyway in terms of weight. There are verifiable entries on less positive research results on the TM technique the number of which are weighted proportionately to the number of overall studies on the technique so that the section seems to comply with WP:Weight. Just some thoughts-wordy as usual : ) ( olive 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

The journal report that Crowley refers to criticizes research on the TM-Sidhi program which is different from TM and has its own wikipedia article. Roseapple 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong that "critic sites are disallowed", and it is wrong that positions that are false according to your judgement may not be put into tht article. The information that "The sociologist Barry Markovsky assumes that the research is sponsored in great part by the TM organization itself" is true. Barry Markovsky actually says that. You are censoring the article! WP:NPOV means that also false positions and interpretations must be described if they are relevant. So stop owning the article! You have a conflict of interest. If you were interested in NPOV, you would search for better criticism instead of censoring it completely. PS: WP:V has to be read with a grain of salt anytime it is misused to justify something that conflicts with WP:NPOV. -- rtc 06:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To ask me to get consensus here is simply a bad joke. Everyone who is active here except me practices TM. Don't you see the very absurdity of this situation? Should I get the radical skeptics? I think it may be necessary to do so—not to push my imagination of the article, but simply to destroy the editor collective and consensus here. Consensus is bad. The goal of Wikipedia is not consensus, but a good article. Consensus is not even a means to an end. Permanent disagreement is. Consensus is a sign of crisis. PS: WP:CON is mostly nuts. -- rtc 09:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RTC? I think I understand your frustration but I think that Olive and TG are working within the confines of academic citation - in other-words they believe that if they support their arguments with peer reviewed papers any "counter argument" needs to come from a similar source. In the case of Markovsky, he is an academic and will thus have made his argument originally within those confines - either in journal, book or conference paper. All you need to do to support his inclusion - when WP:CON is being used - is to find the original source for his quote/argument. I can't spend much time on this but if you do not have the access to do this simply email Markovsky at his faculty. i am sure either he or his secretory would be more then happy to supply the Crowleys Aunt 09:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do they "support their arguments with peer reviewed papers"? No! They judge peer reviewed papers and reject anything they do not like. " WP:V clearly says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Note the emphasis! This is in direct contradiction to "I think there is another issue here that has to do with misinformation or lack of truth.". It explicitly says that positions some editors judge as false may be described, if they are verifiable and attributed correctly. Talking of falsity as misinformation is a blatantly false interpretation of falsity. Even a false claim can still contain a lot of truth and falsity alone does not make it misinformation. Misinformation means misleading, such as taking the position as a fact instead of attributing it to its proponent. Yet, what is being done here, openly and explicitly, is to evaluate the sources according to their truth. Plus, since TM pracitioners are doing this, they are very critical with anything that is critical on TM and do not apply the same scrutiny to Pro-TM stuff; and, they are looking for Pro-TM articles but not researching any critical articles (or, if so, only moderately critical ones). -- rtc 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Crowleys, for noting that the information originally comes from the article by Fales and Markivsky in Social Forces. We'd want to get the original article to make sure it's accurately represented on the critic site. And thank you for again making the point that peer-reviewed research should ideally be criticized on its own level. As Roseapple notes, this article by Fales and Markovsky is related to very controversial research on the so-called Maharishi Effect. This merits inclusion in the article on the TM-Sidhi program,which covers the Maharishi Effect. They are criticizing an article that appeared in Yale University's Journal of Conflict Resolution. That journal refused to publish their critique. I don't know why, but of course I like to think that it was because it lacked validity. So they changed the angle to challenging heterodox theories and published it in Social Forces. If we add it to the article on the TM-Sidhi program, we'd also need to add the article that it's critiquing. And we'll need to add the forthcoming rebuttal of Fales and Markovsky when it's published. I've seen a prepublication version, and it's quite impressive.

Regarding the Canter. I would argue that it violates NPOV. At your encouragement, I reread this policy. It says that significant views must be represented. Canter's isn't a significant view. How could it be if it's factually wrong, and easily shown to be factually wrong? It's not a view that's widely held. He coauthored a review of 10 studies related to cognitive function. (Nine actually; he made a bizarre error of counting one study twice, which I haven't yet brought to his attention.) Of those 10 studies, he is critical of four of them because those who participated in the study were subjects who had already planned to learn the Transcendental Meditation technique. He is factually incorrect when he generalizes this to other research on Transcendental Meditation. There are dozens of randomized controlled trials that were recruited subjects in the usual way who had no prior knowledge of or interest in learning Transcendental Meditation. If we were to include the point by Canter, I'd want to balance it by listing a couple dozen citations. But I feel including this is a violation of NPOV for the reason mentioned and a violation of WP:UNDUE.

Regarding the research section as a whole, I don't think it violates NPOV. I think it reflects a relative balance of the studies that have been published on Transcendental Meditation. Many show positive results. Some don't. That's indicated in the article. You need to make an argument for why this selection isn't representative.

I feel like the article overall shows balance, though in my mind the criticism is somewhat overrepresented, but I can accept that. If you look at the popular media, 95% of the coverage is completely positive. But there are indeed significant opposing viewpoints in regard to religion. And these are nicely represented. This is Wikiepedia at it's best. The cult view is much less significant but merits inclusion. Anyway, these are obviously subjective areas. It's good to have both points of view. But science isn't similarly subjective, as you're trying to make it. The research can be rebutted by research. We just have to be careful not to give undue weight to the relatively small number of studies that don't show a positive effect. If you feel something significant has been left out, add it. I'm not going to do so, because as I've said, I feel like the current proportion is a representative balance.

Thank you, Bishonen, for encouraging us to discuss rather than edit war. It's nice to know that you're keeping an eye on things. TimidGuy 10:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I was in a hurry when I originally responded regarding Canter. And repeated the mistake just now. My criticism is regarding his first point, but he makes additional points and notes the various metastudies that I've mentioned. Whether Canter's editorial merits inclusion would need to be discussed. We'd need to clarify that he's exclusively talking about clinical research. And we'd need to note his qualifying points in which he says that the recent hypertension research shows results. Also, we'd note that given the publication date of this, it doesn't include the most recent and most significant studies. This discussion could go in the medical section. Again, it's nothing new. I've alluded to it many times. And it's the sort of scientifically based discussion that's appropriate. Even if we didn't reference the editorial, as I've noted before, the metastudies can be referenced. Sort of dueling metastudies. TimidGuy 11:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." ( WP:V). I can only repeat it. Please stop making judgements like "How could it be if it's factually wrong, and easily shown to be factually wrong?" They are not relevant here. The calm and friendly voice of what you write is only surpassed by such grotesque violation of your own standards that "peer-reviewed research should ideally be criticized on its own level" -- rtc 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:TALK: "Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it."

I am "comparing contradictory facts." That is explicitly a purpose of the Talk page. TimidGuy 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi TG - I have also read the pre-published reputable to Fales and Markivsky also - not as impressed as you although I have seen worse :-). The problem is this - and its the problem with citing WP:CON am afraid - because it will be coming from a TM organization member and university - and it is a "contentious point" - you would not be able to refer to it in any critique of the Fales and Markivsky argument. Indeed, under WP:CON you would need to remove a lot of research from this article. As you know, I am not a "troll" - but I think you know that anyway :-). But care does need to be taken when citing WP:CON to often. Perhaps it would be better if instead you used the fine sort of argument you have done above :-)

You know, as an academic, you would would "mark down" a student essay - at any level - because they have attempted to cite from WIKI to suport an argument. The is for a number of reason as I am sure you are aware. I have this strange hope that one day it will be possible to use WIKI in a dissertation for example without penalty - but I doubt.

RTC - I really do understand where you are coming from because all of the remaining editors are associated with TM - greatly lessening the neutrality of this article. However, in fairness to both TAG and Olive they have made position statements regarding this and do not hide the fact. however, as a mediation technique - and I wish not to discuss whether it is a religion as this is irrelevant - and with the scope that it has and it's built in easy "Bliss" (TAG/Olive I genially to not mean that as an insult :-) ) they will, most possibly unconsciously put a positive "spin" on TM. I think this maybe case although I also believe this is despite their desperate attempts otherwise. However, you will not win any argument by "throwing insults around" Especially to TG who has - at least with me proven both polite and capable of putting together a good argument. I think if you are reasonable in return and used the same methodology you would be far more successful in your endeavors. By the way RTC, I do not practice TM, I do meditate but use a system a lot older then TMs - or indeed the system/s from which TM is derived :-)

So yes, it does need neutrality, however throwing insults around is not only rude to people who seem nice and are certainly polite but is not the way to "win" your argument. The only way to do so using the same methodology.

Thats it, I have wasted far to much time on this, first though: TG I have read Fales and Markivsky, it far from a bad article although I can genuinely understand why A TM practitioner would be upset by it. However, I honestly think it does not belong in this article as it presently stands - but in the Sidhu one. However, for me this causes a problem: I would have considered the registered trademark TM to represent the whole organization not just the mediation method. If this is not the case I think you might need something at the top of the page pointing people to references of other parts of the organization cited in WIKI - this I think would help clarify things for people. Just my personal thoughts. Crowleys Aunt 18:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Crowleys, for your comments. I don't think I indicated any place that I was upset with Fales and Markovsky's article or said it was a bad article. And I don't think I indicated any intent to cite something that hadn't yet been published. I said that when it comes out, it should be cited if the critique of the JCR article is put in the article on the TM-Sidhi program. I have to admit that I'm amazed that you have the article by David Orme-Johnson and Bob Oates, since they haven't circulated it and are intending to get it published. I guess I was impressed with it because they tested each of the alternative hypotheses offered by Fales and Markovsky against the data and showed that they these hypotheses couldn't really explain the phenomenon. And it made me wonder why Fales and Markovsky didn't themselves test the hypotheses. Anyway, all that's unrelated to the article on Transcendental Meditation. I'll be the first to admit that the Maharishi Effect research is controversial. And certainly have no problem with representing that controversy in the article on the TM-Sidhi program.

I don't understand where you say that i'm using Wikipedia to support an argument. I was accused of violating wp:v, and offered a reference to a guideline that shows that I'm using the Talk page properly. Gotta run to a meeting. Only read your comments quickly. Hope I didn't do them an injustice in my response. TimidGuy 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Meeting's done. I have to admit I don't understand your points related to wp:con, and don't understand where you say I'm citing it too often. I don't think I cited it at all.

Yes, the registered trademark is the name of the technique, not the organization. The organizations have changed over the years. I believe the current organization that offers the Transcendental Meditation technique is the Global Country of World Peace. Fine to put it in the article someplace. TimidGuy 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

TG. My friend don't be so much on the offensive :-) When I say argument, I meant that you put your point across well, as to why the item in question should not be put in - rather then using wp:con. I think it was a compliment as to how this debate should be run. Don't shoot those - despite their own views - who are trying to support your reasoning :-)As to the wp:con, I am suggesting that it used a lot - not necessarily by your self - to remove criticisms of TM. My point is that WP:con can also be cited to remove a lot of supporting evidence for TM if that research has come from some part of the TM Corporation - TM after all is not a religion but a company by it's on admission. Would it not be better for TM if instead of citing wp:con arguments were used as to why the information was incorrect? This would greatly stop the accusations of bias. Use logic and acadmic argument. Which is, I think I said you do. :-) Crowleys Aunt 21:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One last point abstract to David Orme-Johnson's critic of David Orme-Johnson has already been circulated - if you know where to look, I qoute:

Evaluating Heterodox Theories (EHT) is a thinly disguised attempt to censor research on the Maharishi Effect – the objectively measurable peace-creating effect associated with large groups of meditation experts. The EHT paper does not recount the data in the original research study which EHT is attempting to criticize, data showing that as daily attendance fluctuated at a peace-creating assembly in Jerusalem over a 60-day period, crime, traffic accidents and fires in Israel, and warfare in neighboring Lebanon, also fluctuated with strong inverse correlation. Nor does EHT recount any of the data in 50 other studies on the same phenomenon, most of them covered in 23 published scientific papers on the topic. Instead, EHT attempts to dismiss the whole concept as a ‘heterodox theory” not worthy of the usual rigor associated with a scientific critique. In the social sciences, however, such an approach has little validity since there is no well-developed “orthodox” theoretical structure against which other theories can be judged as “heterodox”. In its theory section, EHT asserts that if a theory is discredited, then the data which supports the theory is discredited, which in fact is the opposite of the practice in science, in which theories are created, tested, and modified according to the data. EHT invokes Bayes’ Theorem as a seemingly objective means of evaluating a theory, but since only subjective opinions are entered into the equation by EHT, only subjective opinions come out of it. EHT claims that the primitive term of the theory-- “pure consciousness”-- is vague, when in fact the means by which anyone can directly experience this state of quiet inner wakefulness is operationally defined by the Transcendental Meditation technique, and a large body of research over the last thirty-five years has provided objective physiological definition of the state. EHT claims that the research on the Maharishi Effect theory did not test one of its most obvious quantitative predictions, which is that the effect will increase as a square of the number of people practicing the TM and TM-Sidhi programs together. In fact, the study in question did empirically evaluate this issue both in the original paper and in published debate on the theory. EHT asserts that “prior knowledge” makes the Maharishi Effect theory improbable, but in fact: 1) the basic theoretical tenets of the Maharishi Effect comprise the “Perennial Philosophy,” the most ancient and ubiquitous knowledge of the human race; and 2) the central proposition that EHT finds heterodox--that individuals directly interact at a distance by other means than the classical sensory modalities--is currently the focus of several active research programs. EHT criticizes the work of physicist John Hagelin showing parallels between the structure of natural law described by modern science with the structure of natural law described in the most comprehensive and ancient knowledge of consciousness, the Vedic Tradition. In fact, Hagelin is an award winning Harvard PhD in theoretical physics whose technical articles are on the leading edge of modern science and are among the most frequently quoted in physics. This background, together with the fact that for over thirty years Hagelin has personally explored consciousness using the subject technologies of the Vedic Tradition, and has engaged in hundreds of hours discussions of consciousness with Maharishi, the world’s foremost authority of consciousness, as well as with other leading scholars, makes him uniquely qualified to formulate an integration of consciousness with modern science. Hagelin’s work is in the tradition of other great physicists, such as Schroedinger, Planck, and Einstein, who saw the deep implications of their discoveries for a unified understanding of the physics and consciousness and he greatly extends their efforts in this regard in scope, rigor, empirical testing, and practical applications to improve society.

   The empirical aspect of EHT intends to offer several alternate explanations for the data presented in a paper on the Maharishi Effect published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution in 1988. Whereas the predictions of the study were lodged in advance with outside scientists in Israel and the United States, and is based on daily fluctuations in crime, accidents, and warfare amenable to mathematical analysis, the “explanations” suggested by EHT are all post hoc, and consist of a handful of unrelated events. EHT points out a holiday that the study did not account for, for example, but quantitative analysis shows that this holiday did not account for any of the variance in the data. Furthermore, EHT’s listed events do not meet the minimum requirement of an “explanation”. What needs to be explained in this study is the strong relationship between daily fluctuations in crime, accidents, warfare and other variables, on the one hand, and daily fluctuations in the size of the coherence-creating group located in Jerusalem, on the other. EHT points out several events that happened during the study, such as Prime Minister Begin resigning, but does not even attempt to show how this event could explain either aspect of the data, not to mention the strong relationship between them. In a footnote, EHT says that the authors of the Israel study would not send them the original data, when in fact they were sent all the data in graphic form, which was also published as an appendix when the original paper was reprinted in a research anthology in 1990. Moreover, the EHT authors were told that they would also be sent the data in spreadsheet form as soon as they publicly retracted false statements that they had made about the research in television interviews and in the popular press. Finally, EHT maintains that if it discounts one study that it has discounted them all. Replication is the very essence of the scientific method, and EHT has not effectively discounted even this one study on the Maharishi Effect, much less any of the other 50 studies directly on the phenomenon, or any of the 600 studies testing ancillary tenets crucial to the theory. Often replicated evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that large groups of peace-creating experts, meditating together, are associated with a measurable influence of peace and orderliness in the surrounding society. Nothing in EHT undermines that evidence-based conclusion." (End Quote)

However, staying strictly to wp:con, it could not be cited as a response to the article in question because Dr. David Orme-Johnson,works for TM. This is especially so as the word of it's introduction seems value laden and, it might be argued, lacks the sort of neutrality one would expect from an academic paper. Crowleys Aunt 21:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

However, this seems somewhat silly and reflects the dangers of not using argument - as you do - and quoting wp:con :-) Crowleys Aunt 21:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Crowleys Aunt 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Crowley's Aunt.Thank you for your attempts at conciliation. I wanted to mention that in actuality,this article was built on the input of many editors over time, several of whom had very negative views on TM.At times in my early days here, even a word change was actively discussed on both sides and only placed or replaced with agreement from both sides. I know that the last two major changes /rewrite sections, religion, and cult were rewritten based on discussions and permission if you will of the editors not friendly to TM of that time.

Unfortunately I can't agree that this article is in any way more positive than negative in terms of Wikipedia policies.Some sections are in fact overly weighted in a negative manner such as the section on court cases. This material is given an excessive amount of space that belies the fact that in the, 50 years or so history, of the TM organization there have been only two or three such cases.

I would like to suggest that perhaps a fundamental point in adding material such as Markovsky's to the research section may be that the section itself is about scientific studies - studies that indicate TM is useful studies that indicate that it isn't, but all scientific studies. Science in the west is considered to be objective. Wikipedia policies suggest a way of ensuring objectivity, in as much as it is possible, and asks for peer-review, and publication in recognized publications. The studies listed in the article fall within these guidelines. This is to my mind, Wikipedia policy more than it is an academic format. Markovsky, though, is not citing studies. He is commenting , critiquing if you will the studies themselves, and in some cases his information is clearly incorrect. He is stating opinions. Thats fair enough by Wikipedia standards. But why does this critical essay belong in a section that lays out research studies?

apologize of this is redundant.... and also moot I guess in this article but thought this distinction would help us place this material... or not... at some point.( olive 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I wanted to add that I feel it is important to establish as much as I am able, a clear view of the history of this article . I realize this may seem defensive but in fact is simply an attempt at clarification and accuracy.( olive 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Hi Olive, I am afraid that if it fulfills WIKI criteria then it can be inserted - whether that is right or wrong in academic terms is not the issue. Personally, I don't care. I became involved in this having watched Hagelin being introduced in a meeting - slightly related to TM and the presenter using his background in physics as if it somehow validated his TM influenced thoughts on consciousness - which it obviously does not. This then reminded me of that horrendous bastardization of science "What The Bleep" - which personally I think Hagelin did himself a great disservice being involved in. Part of my background is - at a post graduate level - "science". I aware that that the "general public" tend to be divided into 5 categories, those that will believe anything a scientist tell them, those that will analyze what scientists tell them, those that try to analyze what scientist tell them but don't have the ability to, those that don't care and those that think the earth was created in 7 days :-P. It is the first and second category's that worry me. every single TM studies results can be be analyzed, and develop different conclusions - as is the case with most research to be honest. Equally, in some cases while the research's results are perfectly valid the outcome of the changes found may not have the results indicated. Take for example the notion that TM mediation - and most mediation for that matter, "reduces circulating levels of corticosteroids. The assumption drawn by the general public might well be that this is a good thing, that it will reduce psychosocial stress and in-turn negate the "harmful" effects of high levels of corticosteroids on the immune system or "repair mechanisms" in preventing "activation" of the so called "oncogenes" (forgive me if I don't go into the direct physiological mechanism but I am sure you know what I mean)Yet the field of Psychoimmunolgy from which this arises is hardly conclusive in its findings. And indeed, it is not only the general public that fall into this trap - Orme-Johnson's abstract above shows a great lack of understanding of areas not only of the article that he is criticing, but indeed "academic" "logic".

You have made a position statement so I shall also make one, intuitively - if you like on a "spiritual" level - I enjoy, and at lest in some parts agree with, Hagelins views on consciousness. Indeed, I was very pleased when he first started to discuss his theory in public and was not surprised when he was castigated by the scientific community (my heroes include Feyerabend, Kuhn and Lakatos) However, I do not believe - as much as I wish that i could - he has "proven" it in a scientific sense and I am not convinced he or anyone else can. Yet, the way that he his "rolled out" at conferebnces for the general public, his Doctorate in Physics metaphirical waved like a flag, they may well believe that this is the case.

Anyway, my point is that for that reason, I think the TM article needs even closer scrutiny. But I'm tired now and you to are waring me down by "taking it in shifts" :-P

To be honest, I right now I don't care if a large population of people are doing a form of mediation that Buddhists - for a long time, - and Hindu teachers believe has great spiritual and psychological dangers. Nether do I care that people pay $2500 for a mantra while they could just as easily use "OMM" or a number of various others. Neither am I presently concerned if people believe they can "fly" or influence reality at a distance by - oddly - lack of thought or that TM Cite vedic science yet it is a "bad piece of karma" to charge for teaching, or indeed, that you need to be a Brahmin to teach in the first place ( I am glad that TM is not a religion for if it was Maharishi Mahesh's rebirths for a long time to come would be very interesting.

Indeed, as Cary Grant once said, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" :-P Crowleys Aunt 00:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Crowleys Aunt 00:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Crowleys Aunt 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is in fact that this article is Wikipedia compliant. I have never suggested that an academic format is somehow pirmissable over Wikipedia policy or guidelines.I'm sorry that this has worn you out.:( . Not my objective.... and TG 's schedule is unknown to me so we are not taking shifts  :)... just trying to clarify.( olive 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Sorry Olive, I was being facetious - no offense taken I hope :-) Crowleys Aunt 02:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Olive/TG Sorry, one further point if when you say above the "Markovsky", article you a re referring to Evan Fales, Barry Markovsky (I'm getting a tad confused with these to be honest so perhaps my fault but I have found no other article by markovsky on his own regarding TM. If this is to do with some comment he made in Transnet - well to be honest I don't read that and think it can't be cited anyway as we have already agreed under wiki rules), then I believe - as you have said TG - it has no place in this article. I do believe it makes some valid points about scientific methodology and the operationalization of terms but this is only in reference to the "science" used to explain the mechanisms involved in the proposed outcomes of the Sidhu program, not the type of research cited here regarding, in the main, TM and it's changes in circulating corticosteroids.

Equally While it is true that there is certainly a lot of research conducted by TM "practitioners"(?) anyone can see that there is equally a lot of independent research. Equally, correlations between lowered plasma corticosteroids and mediation have been long recognized and researched (although as I have already said the "health" benefits of theis are still not confirmed). So, I would suspect - without looking at it of course, markovsky would be wrong in this point - if he his referring to TM mediation and individual physiological responses. Does that make sense? Crowleys Aunt 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Makes sense indeed. Thanks for your comments, Crowleys. At this stage, it doesn't seem like there's any point in dispute. If anywhere in Wikipedia suggests that it's been proven that consciousness and the unified field are the same, we need to change that. If I ever get a respite from the discussion here, I'll make the changes to the Hagelin article that you and I agreed on. : )

The abstract that you posted of the article by David Orme-Johnson and Robert Oates must have been a very early draft. The current draft that accompanies the paper that's being submitted is quite different stylistically. I look forward to the time when you can see the whole article. It's great that you have a background in science and that you seem to have a sense for the research that's been done on Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy 11:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have started a new thread just for ease. The last one was becoming unwieldy. These are only my personal views.

• Should not discuss on talk pages Wikipedia policy Guidelines -"consensus is a bad joke","WP:CON is mostly nuts".
• Have to best of ability tried to understand rtc's view of the research section, tried to explain my position, and have nothing more to comment on.
• Clarify that inclusion of studies are in fact peer-reviewed.
• Clarify that positive research is balanced with negative research in proportion to amount of research in each area. No one says I have to like negative material or not, and incorrect to assume that an editor likes everything in an article. On the contrary. The material is there because that helps to provide a neutral stance taken by and created by the editors of the article.
• Verifiability trumps truth..... yes.... I am not suggesting otherwise. I am discussing the point that if in discussion we find that Markovsky's points are not verifiable and misrepresent the facts, do we need to include th material since the article already has good verifiable non- positive research. I am also not attempting to keep this out of the article, I am discussing it. As a point,in the same article we are citing 21 million dollars worth of funding from NIH. How can that in any logical way be construed as TM organization funding.
• Crowley's Aunt makes some good, constructive points on how to proceed as does TG -for example reread the papers and find a more reliable source.At that point in my view we can decide if we need the material as per WP:Weight.
• TG has provided excellent information and points, and does so in a calm and friendly way despite less than civil comments from another editor. This kind of personal judgment, is not appropriate in light of Wikipedia WP:CIVILITY which includes "we have every right to demand civility ". This is a personal attack against an editor and would suggest another form reply when commenting on these pages.( olive 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Hi the subheading discussing that TM is a cult. The counter argument is made from a member of the TM company but this is not cited - can this be added somewhere. Also, the citations given for his argument lead to his personal website. I believe that the decision had been made - quoting WIKI guidelines - that this type of citation was unacceptable. Shall not remove personally, but I think it will need to be removed unless citions can be found from other sources.This should be easy as the the article says that the person involved has written hundreds of article on this. However, I would suspect it would be best if this counter argument came from another external source to the TM movement. Otherwise I would suspect that it would need to be reworked to something along the lines of: "TM Company members state however that TM is not a cult. They state that a cult for example.... etc, etc." I am sure it must be easy to find papers from outside of TM group of companies however, that put forward the argument that the group is not a "Cult". Thoughts? Crowleys Aunt 01:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that David -Orme Johnson is an expert in the field we are writing about. Wikipedia makes a point about such a situation:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ( olive 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Olive Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Policy shortcut: WP:SELFPUB

Olive, for that to be relevant David Orme Johnson would need to be an expert in the Field of "Cults". Has he published extensively in this area? Also, qouting from WIKI

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;

The Issue is obviously contentious - I think the fact alone that in France TM is officially classified as a cult - and the article can only find one counter argument - from a website of a member of that same organization.

Obviously it is self serving.

Realistically, TM cannot cite someone from within its own organization to support its argument� and not mention that that person is a member of that organization,

Equally, Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder, has said of this:

1. f your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
2. If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
3. "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Questionable_sources

It surely must be possible to find other sources to support that TM is not a cult? Crowleys Aunt 03:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd thing that I've noticed about Wikipedia. If there is a norm, and something is published that contradicts the norm, it's easy to cite that published contradiction, but difficult to find something that articulates the norm. Hence, in that case it's virtually impossible to comply with NPOV. The only real source that section has is the book TM and Cult Mania from 1980. That book was contradicting the norm, which was broad interest in and acceptance of Transcendental Meditation. But there has been no book written titled Transcendental Meditation is Not a Cult.

David's comments are squarely in his field of research. And he is explicitly using that research to rebut the specific cultic claim of mind control. I believe this falls within the specific exception that the policy states. It would be fine to mention that he was formerly on faculty at Maharishi University of Management.

I wonder if you read the footnote regarding the designation by France that it's a cult. There is mitigating material there that had previously been in the article. Basically, France itself no longer takes that list of hundreds of cults to signify anything. TimidGuy 11:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." I think this means sources of extraordinary quality and objectivity. A sensationalist author flogging a book arguably would not qualify. Rumiton 12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rumiton. Good point. I see that there's a lot of discussion of the use of "cult" going on in the Heaven's Gate article in reference to the Wikipedia guideline on Words to Avoid. We need to address that in this article at some point. It's interesting that that guideline highlights the cultural context in the technical use of the term: a group that has a "high degree of tension with the surrounding society." You'd think if that were the case with Transcendental Meditation, it would be covered in the media. But I've never seen Transcendental Meditation referred to as a cult in the popular media, and I've read hundreds of articles on Transcendental Meditation in the last five or so years. And 95% of the coverage is positive.

Seems like in the English-speaking countries there's not the same concern as in Germany or France. Which makes me wonder if the reference to the designation by France is even relevant to this article in the English Wikipedia. Also, there's the problem that the French report uses "secte," which can also mean "sect," a more neutral term than the word "cult." TimidGuy 15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we add something like: David Orme-Johnson,psychologist and former professor at Maharishi University of Management....( olive 15:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Hi all - personally I'm not bothered whether TM is a Cult or not - to be honest "cult" is not a term I'm especially keen on anyway, as I personally think a lot of "mainstream" religions have cultish (is that even a word?) tendencies (although that is purely a personally thought of course). Its equally not my area of interest to be honest and I often thought that "cults might be a good thing (keeping nice middle class teenagers busy for a few years and away from any "real" "harm" as it were (might help them stop boring everyone talking about their dissertations as well). However, we are not simply talking about 1 source using this classification but three that have been cited - one of which is - at its core an, "advanced" "western" country. So, I think that we cannot deny that the "accusation" at least exists. It is difficult to justify ::"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." I think this means sources of extraordinary quality and objectivity. A sensationalist author flogging a book arguably would not qualify." as we are also talking about a a country and a separate organization - and indeed, a lot of critique sites on the web from former TM teachers who make similar claims - none of whom seem to be "making a living" or soliciting for funds by doing so.

However, if no one outside of TM has made a counter claim - and is a specialist in "cults" or at least the psychology or sociology of "cults" then it is certainly necessary for the TM company to respond to this accusation. I have no difficulty with this, My issue is that it presently appears that this person is not linked to the TM company - which is obviously untrue. Equally, this person is not an expert in "cults" and is certainly thus not in a position to counter these claims - unless of course has published in this field and I am unaware of it? It seems difficult to to see how the citation can be kept in except along the lines - TM corp has responded to this accusation stating that:....". Equally, the reference to Orme Johnson's website would need to be removed as a citation on the basis that "critical" sites are not quoted as considered unreliable - even from those who are "experts" IE the former TM teachers. I think this is dangerous territory, for to allow Orme Johnson's site - which is clearly a pro TM site, by a TM practitioner, a "former" TM employed academic" and someone still actively promoting TM -will easily allow the the Citation of critical former TM teachers who are equally "experts" in the filed.

On this basis, I simply cannot see how this can be kept in. I do understand that there is much criticism of TM in the article and for this to exist you must be applauded and I honestly don't want to add to this, but in the interest of consistency - and WIKI guildlines I don't think it can be kept in. I do however, like Olives suggestion as a point to move off from - as I believe that the points made my Orme Johnson are reasonable counter arguments but not to sure how. Thoughts? Crowleys Aunt 19:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Crowleys. Seems like we have a compromise here -- that is, specifying David's relationship to the university. Keep in mind the reason why David's site meets the exception and critic sites don't: David has authored close to 100 publications in peer-reviewed journals. The exception stipulates peer-reviewed publication. TimidGuy 20:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi TG, sorry you misunderstand me I don't think that saying that Johnson, is a "former" employee of the TM university is "enough". he is obviously not an expert in cults. Equally, despite the fact that he is a "published" researcher does not necessarily mean that his website can be included. _ If, for example, I was a published researcher in the "The Radiological Pathways involved in Pulmonary Embolisms Diagnosis" - for example - it does not mean that I can then "put up" a website saying I believe that that people "at risk" from PE following hip hemiarthroplasty should be given only - and always - heparin rather then low-molecular-weight heparin and expect that to be cited as a "reliable" reference. Equally, returning to radiological diagnosis for a moment if I was to research and publish a paper that concluded multi-slice spiral CT was a preferable diagnostic pathway for suspected PE rather then the more traditional V/Q Scan or Angiography - this would not mean that any website I put up stating that a Shimadzu 7000 TX Spiral CT was the best machine for the job, be reliable if I had close connections to Shamadzu.

If Johnson has published a paper in either a Psychology or Sociology journal on "Cults" then his inclusion might be relevant as a cited reference but in its present case this cannot be relevant. Apologies for the confusion TG - my fault entirely.

I think it might be more reasonable to say that Orme Johnson - former TM university lecture, TM researcher and TM advocate has responded to this criticisms by saying... But again even here I think you have difficulties because to support this you might have to cite his website which is unashamedly "pro" TM, not peer reviewed and thus not a "reliable" source. Although personally I would not be against this - providing his association with the TM organization and his position on TM is mentioned - I think that it "opens the floodgates" to those arguing that former "critical" TM teachers websites can be cited. i would not be one of those to be honest - simply because this is likely to be my last contribution to this subject - life and all of that. But I do think you run this risk Crowleys Aunt 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Crowleys Aunt 21:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Crowleys. You make some good points. Sorry about misunderstanding you. I guess I'm willing to accept that risk. He fits the exception so well, his arguments are supported by cited research, and he's published in peer-reviewed journals -- something that can't be said about the critic sites. He's an expert in psychology, which seems to fit the criterion of "relevant field." The first time I used this source, someone deleted it, but a Wikipedia Administrator reinserted it. Actually that happened twice. Still, your observations are useful. It's just so difficult to create NPOV here, for the reason I noted above: that it's much more likely that someone will publish a contradiction to a norm than it is for someone to articulate the norm. I'll do some research but an not hopeful of finding anything. I suppose it's possible that one or more of the studies on field independence might have mentioned cult in the Discussion section. I could check on that. That would be an ideal source. Thanks for urging me to look further.

In any case, we really do need to address additional issues with this section at some point: the articles in the journals mentioned here don't say why it's a cult but rather are topical. One of the journals mentioned in this section, for example, simply has two articles about the effort to use group practice of the TM-Sidhi program to help create peace in the Middle East. The first article talks about the effort in a critical fashion, and the second article is a rebuttal by researchers explaining the Maharishi Effect. Also, there's also the problem that cults are specific to cultural context. The French government listing of cults included the Mormons, but here in the U.S. we have a Mormon Senator making a strong bid for President. That would never happen in France. And finally there's the issue of WP:WTA, which says to avoid the use of the word "cult." Lots to think about, but so little time. Inertia will probably win the day here. : ) TimidGuy 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. To define "Cult" is very difficult. Its not a clear defined term. Its not a label which everybody really understands at once. Its something else then "red" or "blue". Its more a rubber-band-label. So long before we find further sources which say "TM is not a cult" another work has to be done: to find out and to describe what those sources really mean with the label "cult". Otherwise the statement is more like "TM is a hocklypuzzlybepperlebud". Find a source , which says "TM is not a hocklypuzzlybepperlebud"!

WP says, that articles have to be understandable, simple and, as far as possible, devoid of special language. So: First tell the people, what those sources really mean in each case with this rubber-band label "cult". Then it could be more easy to find a source which says the opposite: not saying "TM is not a cult" but rather saying "TM is not this what those, who use the term cult mean with cult." -- Josha52 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josha. Yes, this is exactly what WP:WTA advises. TimidGuy 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you all for much for throwing-light on a "discussion" myself and some colleagues were having. You have greatly clarified things. Again, thank you for your time and my apologies for my somewhat "roundabout" manner of investigation. Crowleys Aunt 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of good discussion and clarification of material- always good for an article ... Many thanks for input( olive 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

I am grateful, Crowleys, that you urged me to look further. I've found that David Orme-Johnson published an article in Cultic Studies Journal. And I've come across another article that may be a good source. TimidGuy 11:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the point about cults in France. It only creates confusion; a "cult" is defined within a cultural context - its clear that "cult" in France means something different than it does here. And the Commission basically negated its earlier point anyway (refer to above discussion). Roseapple 02:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The final section of this article contains material on TM Independent and Natural Stress Relief. This makes either the material in the article or the link recently added redundant.We are trying to keep the article as trim as possible .... and its really long... so either of these could be deleted but the article doesn't need both.Editors might want to discuss here instead of engage in an edit war. ( olive 14:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. Good point. This sort of link spam is disallowed. Wikipedia Admin ElC, who reverted it twice, has the power to block this IP if the person continues. TimidGuy 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you TG-completely unfamiliar with link spam until now. ( olive 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Read over WP:EL and Wikipedia:Spam for more info. Dreadstar † 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes did that ... thanks( olive 21:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

My understanding of Maharishi's terms for states of consciousness is that although glorified Cosmic Consciousness describes God consciousness , the term Maharishi uses to name the state as opposed to describing it is God Consciousness( olive 01:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

PS If he has changed this in the last while I am not familiar with the change and the point should or could be checked.( olive 02:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

OK....I think the term Glorified CC is accurate.( olive 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC))... Just talking to myself!

I think we should go with what the source says. Haven't checked to see what that is. TimidGuy 11:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I did check on this but could check with another source. Apparently GC is used interchangeably with GCC . I'll see if I can find more info.and possibly an official statement about these terms.( olive 14:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Sorry TG when you said source I thought you meant some member of the organization who could verify this one way or the other. However as you noted the source or reference cited in the article should indicate which term to use.The source uses the term or state as "God Consciousness" so we should stay with that .( olive 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

We really need to examine the recent editing by an anonymous editor. I hate to revert all of it. I've posted a note on this person's talk page asking him/her to hold off doing any more editing until we can bring this into conformity with NPOV. It's not serious, but it definitely needs cleaning up. TimidGuy 11:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello anonymous user: Some of your edits violate Wikipedia neutrality policies: WP:NPOV. Others may be problematic in terms of Wikipedia style. I thought I’d mention some of them for discussion, but these changes should probably be reverted later today.

• The phrase, “some people” is generally not used as an opening statement because it is too general and not supportable. The religion section particularly deals with the controversies that exist with TM and religion, and must according to Wikipedia policy on neutrality, deal with both side of an issue to be neutral, so that is stated in the opening paragraph, and lines.
• Cardinal Sin: I think we could leave in one more Sin “believes” but too many becomes non-neutral. That is, we are metaphorically hitting the reader over the head with the suggestion that Sin believes this but it may not be fact. This information comes out of a pastoral statement and clearly Cardinal Sin believes this material, but has also thought about and considered the ideas. So its fine for the section to say this. Remember the section must show both sides of the story.

• Kelly Zellers and Pamela Perrewe in their discussion of “The Role of Spirituality in Occupational Stress and Well-Being,” in Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance. No these people are not TM teachers. They are non-TM researchers and their view is that TM is a method for stress release –a coping strategy, and as well they say in this article that TM in their minds, and according to their research does not constitute a religious practice. This is an important point, and indicates the possible diverse effects of TM, and that these effects are recognized by non-TM teachers. Such people are considered to be more neutral than TM teachers, since TM teachers have a vested interest, and probably a belief in what they are teaching.
• Yes, Mahrishi does say TM is a science but he also describes himself as a spiritual leader. This line should probably have a citation tag added so, its good that you bring this topic up with your edit. However, Maharishi never calls himself a religious leader as far as the research I have done and it was pretty extensive. In this section, although outside – TM people may believe TM is a religious practice, there is absolutely nothing in the TM literature that indicates this. Spirituality is very different from religion. In the research I looked at, spirituality is considered to be a fundamental of the human condition a search for something higher, but does not necessarily include religion. Religious practice can however be spiritual . Religion seems to be defined as the container or holding place for spirituality with guidelines for behaviour and for practice. It is not however spirituality itself. Tm, then, may be spiritiual but according to my research is not religious or a religion.

This section of the TM article is highly contentious so as editors its important to stringently abide by the Wiki policies and guidelines to help maintain a neutral tone and presentation of ideas. Best Wishes ( olive 14:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive, for examining the changes to the religion section.

I went ahead and deleted the parenthetic addition from the section on theory of higher states of consciousness. It seemed like unsourced commentary, and the specialized language such as "Unified Field of Natural Law" is somewhat problematic. Here's what I deleted, in case the anonymous editor would like to discuss:

(in spiritual terms, one might call this source of creation "God," in scientific terms, one can call it the "Home of All the Laws of Nature" or "The Unified Field of Natural Law.")

Of course, something like this could be added. But it would need to be sourced, and it would need to use understandable language. It's not at all clear that "Unified Field of Natural Law" is scientific terminology, for example. TimidGuy 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the original version of this section and am putting the altered version here:

Issue of cost

The TM Movement states that over 40,000 teachers of Transcendental Meditation have been trained and qualified to teach the technique around the world, and certified teachers are usually available to teach in every major city. The non-profit educational TM organization offers the seven-step TM Course with a lifetime followup to insure maximum progress.

In response to what they feel is a high course fee to learn TM, a small number of former TM teachers illegally offer instruction on their own. A few other former TM teachers critical of the organization have published what they claim to be TM mantras. Among organizations offering legal competing techniques, TM Independent says it is their goal to make TM available in England at an affordable price. Natural Stress Relief states that the technique they offer is comparable to, but is not, Transcendental Meditation. ^[5]

There are as yet no published studies that show that any practice other than the TM technique, as learned by a qualified and actively certified TM teacher, will produce the same, scientifically documented benefits found to result from practice of the TM technique.

The TM organization strongly recommends that the TM technique only be learned from an authorized teacher. ^[6] The fee in the U.S. is currently $2,500. ^[7] .

There's a problem with unsourced material and also it leans toward POV editing. A first step would be to find sources for claims such as 40,000 teachers. The part "available to teach in every major city" seems promotional and a violation of WP:NPOV. Same with "insure maximum progress." TimidGuy 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I did not make all of the edits in this section, I did make some of them. For example, as president of Natural Stress Relief, Inc., I removed an apparent claim that competing organizations such as us, founded by renegade former TM teachers, were "illegal". I would ask that such changes be restored to the current article. The Natural Stress Relief organization has worked hard to comply with all requests sent us by Maharishi's lawyers. We are legal in every sense of the word. We share with the lawyers a concern that NSR always be presented as comparable with, and competing with, but not the same as Transcendental Meditation. In fact, the ways in which NSR differs from TM (such as its freedom from religious and cultish overtones, and its low price) are precisely the reasons NSR is attracting so many clients around the world. Also, if scientific research is an issue (and it should not be), we have conducted and are publishing such research. I can provide details if it is felt to be relevant to this editing issue.

I'm concerned, in fact, that most of the relatively recent edits of this section have moved it steadily toward the party line vigorously promoted by the Transcendental Meditation organizations. For example, back on Dec. 16, 2006, TimidGuy removed the portion of the following shown here in bold face:

Some TM teachers feel that the course fee of $2,500 (USA) to learn TM is unreasonable, in view of Maharishi's longstanding claims that the technique is everyone's birthright and that everyone should practice it. They are also alienated by the emphasis on destroying and rebuilding all homes having entrances facing to the south or west, his forbidding the teaching of TM in England, among other policies, all repeatedly stated in his weekly press conferences. Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer instruction on their own.

If we are concerned with POV, then it is vital to inform people curious about TM that it has a policy in favor of rebuilding all homes having entrances facing to the south or west and arbitrarily forbids the teaching of TM in England. The high cost of instruction and the appearance of being a religion or cult are not the only critical issues that ought to be covered in this article.

Note:

The complete Vastu regulations are a lot more stringent than merely changing the orientation of building entrances. A memo from the "International Course Office" in 2005 concerning buildings used for teaching TM ends with the following:

"In addition, the building should fulfill all of the standard parameters for good Vastu, such as:

"a) avoiding a wrong slope to the south or west;

b) avoiding a body of water in the south or west;

c) avoiding a sunrise delay of more than 12 minutes;

and

d) avoiding the vicinity of high tension power lines, sources of pollution, and graveyards."

I urge that the issues discussed above, which objective readers may well find hard to understand or even objectionable, be included in some form or other in the article. David 18:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, David. I'm inclined to leave the current version and not refer to your product as illegal. Regarding my earlier deletion, I was following WP:V. Everything, as you know, must be sourced. Yes, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda does favor rebuilding homes. If you have well sourced material, you can add that to the article on Maharishi Sthapatya Veda. TimidGuy 19:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, thanks at least for leaving in the information that there are former teachers who oppose some of Maharishi's relatively recent policies strongly enough that they have set up competing techniques. I fervently hope that someday the TM movement will return to being true to the infinite intelligence and bliss that caused it to come into being. When that happens, I will work to ensure that NSR merges back into TM.

I have no good references to public material detailing the Vastu rules (they seem to be kept secret at the Raja level), but I think it would be a very good idea to mention them in this article. After all, everyone who learns TM is bombarded by mail telling them about Sthapatya Veda, astrology (auspicious days), questionable projects in various countries, and other stuff they didn't bargain for, all in the name of TM! David 10:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a nice appreciation for the technique. Regarding the mailings, I guess I've never received such a mailing. This article is already quite long -- I can't see how we could possibly talk about all these things in the context of this article on a meditation technique. The consensus in the past among a number of different editors (opponents, neutral, and practitioners) was to have separate articles on topics such as Sthapatya Veda, Maharishi Vedic Medicine, and the Global Country of World Peace. TimidGuy 11:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi David.... I think its important given the structure of the articles to put any info you want to add on the appropriate page...We have had many discussions as TG mentioned in the past about the length of this article- TM, and about very clearly delineating TM, the technique, from any other programs. Of course we are working on a highly contentious series of articles as the tags note so we have had to be incredibly careful about referencing everything . You can probably appreciate that if we open the door .... we meaning all of us... for material that isn't referenced or that does not comply with Wiki policies and guidelines we open a Pandora's box of potential problems. ( olive 16:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

olive, of course I don't want to create an edit war. The reason for adding objections to the behavior of the TM organizations to this article, rather than to a more specific one, is that this is the overall article describing TM. The article should be balanced, and it is not balanced at present. It is weighed heavily toward the party line pushed by Maharishi and the Movement leaders who slavishly echo his policies (when pressed hard for answers to questions like "why is the course fee so high?", they confess that they don't know or don't think it should be so high, but that Maharishi wants it that way, so that is the way it should be). There is no mention in the present article about all the strange, quasi-religious, and esoteric components, forbidding teaching in England, Vastu regulations, and all the other aspects of TM that turn many people off.

I suspect that the contentiousness you refer to comes from heavy ego involvement with TM, which is paradoxical, since TM, practiced long enough, actually eliminates ego. In its place, TM brings awareness of the unbounded fullness of life (transcendence), and with it a wider comprehension, inner bliss, and increased friendliness. Few of the participants in the edit wars at Wikipedia show such qualities. Should we allow an unbalanced article due to fear of people who may be acting out the release of stress due to TM, or of such an edit war itself? For myself, I don't believe that such capitulation is in the spirit of encyclopedic balance.

It may be relevant that all of Maharishi's pre-1980 statements were full of good humor and tolerance of other points of view, while many of his statements of recent years are full of rancor, irritation, intolerance toward the attitudes and beliefs of others, elitism, and obsession with esoteric theories that isolate him and his movement. I have wondered whether Maharishi forgot to continue meditating due to the success of his activities in the 1960's and 1970's. This is one of the problems he warns us about at the end of the TM course. David 11:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, David. From my perspective, your definition of "Transcendental Meditation" is at odds with the way that it is universally used in the scientific literature and popular media. You describe a range of things as "aspects of TM," but "Transcendental Meditation" is a registered trademark that refers to a specific meditation technique. TimidGuy 15:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can single me out for this criticism when the whole article is filled with things that are peripheral to the technique itself. In fact, the technique itself is not actually described anywhere in the article. If it were, we would know from the article even in the abstract what one does when one practices TM (picks up a mantra, observes it as it refines, etc.). Most people who look up TM will want to know about more than just the technique: they will want to know about any controversies associated with it or the organizations that teach it, who invented or developed it, whether it is new or comes from a tradition, etc. Or maybe I didn't understand what you meant? David 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, David. Sorry if I wasn't clear. You seemed to be suggesting that this article talk about Vastu, for example. I don't understand how that's related to a meditation technique and why that wouldn't be in the article on Maharishi Sthapatya Veda.

In my mind, it's all about sources. This is what the sources say. This is what the scientific literature and popular media talk about when they cover Transcendental Meditation. They talk about the effects of the technique and the research that's been done on it. Occasionally they talk about First Amendment issues related to teaching the Transcendental Meditation technique in schools. That's in the article. On rare occasions they mention cult. That's represented in the article. The article says it comes from Maharishi. There have been law suits related to the organizations that have been covered by the media. The article mentions those.

David , I think you make a point in noting that the article is not just about the technique. My understanding is that the article is moving towards material that references the technique rather than some other programs.I think the key word is related to the technique not just about the technique, rather than related to other programs or about other programs. For sure there is material that is still in the article and needs to moved or discussed. The court case are for example not about the technique and the question that will arise is where should they be? The article is in a state of flux and is moving in the direction of removing anything not related to the technique as a way of delineating material and clarifying what is the technique, research on the technique and so on. I can't see that it makes sense to add material that undoes this process.... not just TM editors but many others agreed on. This is not a personal thing just the movement of the article as it changes. ( olive 20:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Hi David. Yes, we are all concerned about making the article neutral. You might check the archives should you decide you want to see what editors are responsible for what.

• In actual fact, the editor who stressed the need to move information on the practical aspects of MVS, of which I’m sure you know Sthapatya Veda is one, to a stub on the topic was User:Tanaats, The stub was then developed to include a wide range of material. Placing this material on the TM page would have created an enormously long article. Tannats is not a TM supporter. He has made that very clear.
• During mediation, the mediating editor advised that the article was still too long, despite the move previously, of material to a MVS site/article. How can we turn around and start to put MVS material back into the article as you suggest.
• I want to make it clear that no one so far is arguing about your right to include well-sourced material in the appropriate place.
• Editors with numerous backgrounds, and divergent views on TM decided on the article’s actual organization. What you see is the result of months of those discussions.
• The article is about the TM technique, and I, and I believe, other editors have been involved in the attempting to move whatever does not comply with this organizational format.
• Assuming that TM supporters somehow created the article would be hugely incorrect, and as well does not credit all of the non-TM editors for their considerable efforts on this article.
• With the input of User: Crowley’s Aunt, I am again going over the article “with a fine toothed comb” attempting to locate any non-neutral material, and or material that is not Wikipedia compliant, such as inappropriate links, non-neutral words and so on.
• I can’t argue in any way about, nor to my understanding is it appropriate to assume the mind set of any editor, mediator or of Maharishi himself. My understanding is that the article is for actual discussion of the article, and should not become personal. You can of course include well-sourced material of this nature if it is relevant to any of the sections on the TM page or on any other pages.
• I wanted note again that this article has been so contentious that the only way of dealing with the diverse views and discussions is to apply in a stringent manner Wikipedia standards for policies and guidelines. Anything that does not comply can be discussed.

• I wanted to mention Wikipedia:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy.

These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.

( olive 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

And speaking of sources, the only sources that we have for the section you added that mentions your product are commercial sites, which aren't allowed under the guidelines. They're only allowed as sources in articles about themselves. TimidGuy 16:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If we changed the title of the last section to "Organizational Issues," then named the organization and wiki-linked to the article about the Global Country of World Peace, it might help. That article is where controversies about the organization, such as David has mentioned, should be explained.

Having links within the TM article to Natural Stress Relief and TM Independent are "links mainly intended to promote a website" and " links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." They should be citations below, rather than links within the body of the article. See WP:EL Roseapple 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am actually inclined to leave these links alone - Natural Stress Relief and TM Independent since they are not just commercial links but also have information about the technique. Wikipedia suggests that there are some instances when an occasional exception can be made for leaving this kind of link in place. I would vote to leave these links in place at this point.( olive 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

I added Hararit and Yachad (kibbutz) to the article as TM communities in Israel and TimidGuy removed it, saying: "there are too many such communities to list in the article".

I want to be sure that i was understood correctly: these are villages, which are completely TM, not a community in a city.

I am not an expert on TM - i just write articles about Israel. Can anyone give me examples of other similar communities? I created an article about Hararit and i want to categorize it properly. -- Amir E. Aharoni 12:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for deleting. Thanks for coming here to discuss. My rationale was that there are a number of notable communities worldwide, including Maharishi Vedic City in the U.S. Also, the focus of the article is Transcendental Meditation as a practice. Maybe we could add these to the External Links section. What do you think? I'm delighted to hear that there's an article on Hararit. I know some people who have lived there. TimidGuy 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I created Category:Transcendental Meditation settlements and i put Hararit and Maharishi Vedic City in it. I was very surprised to see that there was now category for Transcendental Meditation, so i created it, too on the way - Category:Transcendental Meditation. You are welcome to take a look at those categories and correct me if something is wrong.

If there is a significant number of human settlements which focus around TM, you can write an article about it and link to it from this main article. If there are only Vedic City in Iowa and those two villages, then i think that they can be simply mentioned here. -- Amir E. Aharoni 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great work. I don't know much about Wikipedia categories. Thanks much. Will consider your suggestions. TimidGuy 16:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone please take a look at the Vedic meditation article?

It looks like it's related to TM, but it reads like an advert for a particular TM group, or maybe a splinter TM group.

There aren't any links to it from other articles. -- Amir E. Aharoni 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I hadn't known about it. And after I read the description, it seemed to me that it was different from Transcendental Meditation. Since no sources are given in the article, I deleted the part that said that Vedic meditation is also sometimes called Transcendental Meditation. It does seem like it's basically an ad. Looks like someone has just removed the links to commercial sites. TimidGuy 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed!.That first paragraph has been a thorn in my side for awhile. As I read it over again today, I thought .... Why not dump it? .... doesn't serve any purpose really.... just hums and haws around the topic .... why not just jump right into the topic in the next paragraph. Thoughts?( olive 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Great idea. TimidGuy 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Rracecarr 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)