Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Consensus requirements should not apply here

Consensus requirements should not apply here, since any non-TM organization POV are consistently overruled out by intervention of Transcendental Meditation hardliners, promoters and TM Org members.

This is is very similar situation to the Scientology entries issue. Furthermore, known TM Org URL's should be blocked, as should IP's of biased TM promoters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyBrahman (talk • contribs) 19:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Betty. In actual fact many of the recent additions to the TM article were added by editors obviously not supportive of TM. I suggest that you might want to recheck the recent discussions if you want to have an accurate picture of what goes on here. I notice you haven't edited here since 2007. Much has changed since then. Consensus is a critical part of the decision making process on any Wikipedia article and is in effect here. Thanks (olive (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Hi Littleolive oil and thank you for your concerns. You are correct I haven't edited here in a while. However I have observed this entry since it's beginning and have observed a number of disturbing trends across time, an almost cult-like adherence to Transcendental Meditation POV used in their marketing of their products (TM being merely one of their many products) and a concerted effort to edit or revert non-TM Org POV. This has disturbed me since clearly such biased POV and calculated attempts at editing and/or reverting other contributors is not only wiki-vandalism but a clear affront to the spirit of the Wikipedia. Recent similar examples include the Scientology organization and their attempts at controlling certain entries. While time prohibits a full delineation of the activities that are going on under numerous TM-related entries, rest assured such activities have been noted by a number of users. Just because non-TM followers are in the minority here is no reason users like myself should be prevented from posting relevant information which improves the Wikipedia. --BettyBrahman (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Betty. I missed your above post in the last days and had posted something below as a kind of update. I did want to specifically address some of your points myself, but apologize if any of these points are redundant. The fact that you haven't been editing is certainly not a criticism in any way but simply a suggestion to check the archives for information since I believe things have changed here in the past few years. If you find material you believe is POV, I would strongly suggest you post here, so it can be discussed and if POV, removed. POV either for or against TM is not accepted as Wikipedia Neutral Point of View information. Any opportunity to dig POV material out of the article is excellent. I want to make sure we are defining POV in the same way. WP:POV means as I understand it, material that the editor enters into the article and is his/her opinion. This POV is not sourced, referenced, material that supports TM for example or alternately doesn't support TM. Our job as editors is to write an article that reflects how TM is viewed and understood in the mainstream press and literature, giving priority to majority views and less emphasis to less notable positions... to the point of probably not entering tiny fringe points. Checking the Google news archives is one good way of doing that. We also don't have to add our opinions and can leave it up to the reader to come to conclusions about the technique themselves. That's writing for an encyclopedia which is different than original research WP:OR or synthesis of material. And of course whatever we have to say about the writing of the topic, our personal opinions, can be stated on the talk page to a certain extent, but shouldn't be used in the article. I think I understand what you mean by Wiki vandalism , but Wikipedia:Vandalism is probably defined differently. Thanks. Working together as Kbob says below I'm sure we can identify and remove any POV material.(olive (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Hello Betty and welcome to the article. I am sorry but I have reversed your additions. However I am happy to discuss them here on the talk page with you. Wiki as you know is a collaborative effort and a team of editors have been diligently working on this article for some time. Please join us in an intelligent discussion and concerted effort to improve this article. You have cited a valid research study however you also added several sentences exhibiting point of view WP:POV and original research WP:OR both of which are disallowed on Wiki. Please click on the links so you can read the Wiki guidelines concerning these topics and then you will understand more about why I have reverted your additions. I think together we can find a proper location and wording so that this research study you have referenced can be included in the article in a neutral fashion and with appropriate weight WP:WEIGHT and in proper context. One last point is that Wiki guidelines also prohibit personal attacks and accusations about other editors, so please consider this policy as well WP:NPA. In a nutshell what the policy states is that we should discuss only the article and avoid making conclusions, accusations or comments about other editors. I hope this information is helpful and that we can work together with all the editors to continue to improve this Wiki article. Best Wishes, --Kbob (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob! I'll be glad to discuss them as I make some appropriate additions over the next couple of weeks. Clearly there is a need for improvement in this article as it is horrendously biased in it's current state. Unfortunately I'm afraid rectification of the inadequacies here may be difficult given the long, on-going edit-battles that have been waged here for years. It is my hope that I can improve the quality of the article and present some views which are currently disallowed by the on-going state of TM Org bias. --BettyBrahman (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Betty, I'm glad that you will be working on the article. Please keep in my that Wiki is about neutrality and no point of view and working together as a community of editors. It is not about any single person's agenda whether it be pro or con Transcendental Meditation. This kind of understanding and attitude is most helpful when working on Wiki articles. Peace! --Kbob (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, apart from the research section - and one section which I don't understand at the moment but which I shall comment on in a sec - the article is not (at least once more) not the "pro" TM. Research section still needs looking at though. The7thdr (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation teaching centers

I is confused, what does anything in this section have to do with the sections title as it has now been re-edited?

I quote:

Beginning in 1968 a number of well known musicians and celebrities, such as Donovan, members of The Beatles and The Beach Boys as well as Clint Eastwood, Deepak Chopra and Andy Kaufman, reported using the technique. In 1975, enthusiastic meditator Merv Griffin invited the Maharishi to appear on his highly rated talk show, thereby aiding Transcendental Meditation in becoming a “full blown craze” during that era (according to Time Magazine) and eventually becoming a global phenomenon with centers in some 130 countries.[14] [15] [16] In that same year the Maharishi began teaching advanced mental techniques, called the TM-Sidhi Program, that included a technique for the development of what he termed Yogic Flying. [17] 23:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)The7thdr (talk)

Nothing... sheesh... give me a few days and I'll fix it ....good catch.(olive (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes, good eye, 7th. Not sure how that happened. There is a similar section in the Maharishi article and its called Popularity so for the time being I have given the section that same title.--Kbob (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good Kbobb. I think the title "Popularity works very well here. Bigweeboy (talk) 00:44 , 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a miss-match, of popular history and "real history". As a general popular history I am afraid it is completely incorrectly weighed only towards positive, none controversial history. Reading this, seems that everyone loves TM and that the "Sexy Sadie ", incident, etc never happened. This needs reworking and correct weight being applied.If a ref to popular history such as the "the Beatles loved TM" then incidents such as the "falling-out" need to be included. Looks like an extract from a TM brochure at the moment. I did suggest this was likely prior to this section being added. The7thdr (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag

The tags added in the last few days have been added without foundation. This article is not untended and is under close scrutiny and any sources that are seen by the editors here as being weak can be adjusted and changed. In other words please specify the source that is a concern rather than add tags to the article. (Copied comment TM-Sidhi article).(olive (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm guessing the David Orme-Johnson refs - from his website. And to be honest would agree, but have said this before. Would be nice if the person adding the tags clarified however.The7thdr (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm still fairly new to Wiki, can someone briefly explain "Tags" and why there is a concern here? Thanks, Bigweeboy (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)