Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Other subpages:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/religion
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/promotion of studies
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/341 studies

Lead: Changes in meaning of article

Recent changes made by Doc James in the lead change the overall meaning and context of the article. This is a massive change to any article and should not be carried out with out equally extensive editor involvement , discussion and agreement. Britannica is a tertiary source and questionable.(olive (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

As discussed previously TM refers to both a technique and a religious movement per the majority of source. I think I quoted the EB and OED last time. Thus we use it in this article to refer to both.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel the lines between TMM and TM are beginning to blur here. There were discussion in the past about the main thrust of this article and from these discussions was born the article on the TMM. Undoubtedly, there is a connection between NLP and TM, but perhaps the bulk of the text on NLP, TM as religious organization, etc. would be best placed in the TMM article and let this article focus more on the TM technique. I know we have had this debate before, but on reading thru the article again today, and trying to look at it from a "new" reader's respective, I think there could be confusion in the readers mind. Perhaps we could all think together how best to tackle this. --BwB (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The are multiple sources that do not refer to the TM technique as a religious movement. I don't think we have to go there. The TM movement article was split off as a possible antidote to an article that was becoming increasingly bogged down in content that was only peripherally related the technique itself. It doesn't seem to make sense to once again begin adding remotely related content to this article. This would give us two articles with pretty much the same content. Although I didn't agree with the split, there was consensus for the split. Consensus is not binding over time of course, and can give way to another consensus.(olive (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

On this sort of article Wikipedia uses terminology as it is used by the general population per reliable sources not how terminology is used by a small specialist population.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please link me to the "extensive" discussion that indicates this change to the lead has agreement. If you can't, revert. You are making up your own rules. Or perhaps you can cite the policy or guideline that says this "On this sort of article Wikipedia uses terminology as it is used by the general population per reliable sources not how terminology is used by a small specialist population". This has nothing to do with a "small specialist population". You are changing the meaning of an article with out discussion and further you reverted a good faith attempt to compromise on that change. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "small specialist population".(olive (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

I'd like to see the "extensive discussion" on your change. I certainly missed it. Is another encyclopedia a reliable source? (olive (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Editors routinely make significant additions to articles without prior discussion.[1]

If this is another dispute over whether this article is over the technique or something more then perhaps the best solution would be to move it to "Transcendental Meditation technique". That'd make the scope of very clear.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The standard here since the arbitration and been to discuss and then add with discussion. Doc James changed that yesterday with unilateral edits. The change he made today changes the scope of the article.That is a serious edit. That isn't fine with me since he did it with out other editor input, and reverted my attempt to use his idea but not to change the article. Moreover he claims discussion took place when it didn't. That's not fine with me either. Finally I am not Kbob so its no use using an example of his editing to insinuate that I should consider what Doc did was fine... Its not. This is about the TM technique article except there is no more TM technique article anymore. Doc changed it. That's not fine either. This change needs to be discussed. I don't agree to changing the scope of the article. Do you?(olive (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

I don't see that standard being followed. Just today, Keithbob added a large amount of material to the MMY bio. We've asked before if editors here wanted to make that a standard, but there's never been agreement.

We've certainly discussed the "technique vs. movement" issue before. I'll go check the archives.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The standard was being followed here at least until Doc's edits of yesterday. Since Doc has changed that and you seemed to agree, I guess the new standard will be add whatever you want. There was never a discussion and especially consensus that discussed making a change to the opening sentence of the lead so this article would become about TM movement. A discussion about TM and TM movement is a very different issue. I'm sorry Doc couldn't reply for himself. (olive (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

I don't see any sign of that standard, and I don't see you complaining about Kbob's far more significant edits to MMY. Maybe there's more than one standard? I'm sure Doc will respond too.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There've been countless discussions that touch on the issue of "technique vs. movement". Here's a recent one:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 32#Another good source

Here's one from last year:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23#TM and TM technique

Let's try to avoid discussing the same points over and over.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring what I'm saying. The edits Doc made change the scope of the article. Is that OK with you and the other editors. Was there consensus for that. I didn't see Kbob's edits and at this point they're not what I'm dealing with. Is he changing the scope of the MMY article? Since this discussion is going the way of ignore the real questions and throw out a red herring or two, I'll leave you to it. (olive (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

How has the scope changed? It is true that the phrase "Transcendental Meditation" is used to refer to both a technique and a movement. That has been the case since before Wikipedia began.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I edit boldly and will continue. What I have added is referenced to the EB. I presented this before here. Many other references can be found for this usage. This article should contain and deal with both.

I agree if people wish to discuss the technique in lenght it can be summarized here and further discussion can take place in a sub article. BTW TM is used primarily to refer to the religious movement in scholarly texts.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Then wondering why Will felt the need to create the TMM article if this article was going to continue to be the catch-all for TM as a technique and TM as an organization. Maybe Will can comment on this. --BwB (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sub articles are often created when content goes past what a single article can hold. Look at the page on Obesity for example and you will see dozens of sub articles dealing with specific aspects in greater detail.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion and agreement requested from all editors for recent addition to Lead

Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to both a spiritual movement and specifically to the form of mantra meditation practiced by this movement. They were introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008).

References

Discussion

• There was no consensus for this addition.
• The sources, 9,10, are tertiary and non compliant.
• This is not an honest description of spiritual movement.

You are in effect hiding information in the linked, "spiritual movement" suggesting that TM in the opening line of the lead is a religion. That TM is a religion is a contentious point that has been explored later in the article. In the lead placed as it is, as a definitive point, this is a POV and a violation of NPOV.

• I wil remind Doc James that all editors here are bound under the TM Arb Com and agressisvely ignoring other editors while adding what constitutes POV content, does not jive with the arbitration. Nor is this the wild west.
• If all editors agree that this content is fine then the content is fine in my mind.
• This needs to be discussed and agreed upon by all of the editors here.(olive (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC))

Consensus isn't required for additions. Tertiary sources are allowed. See WP:PSTS. I've removed the link to "religion" - perhaps we can find a better link, but in the meantime we can leave it unlinked.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "spiritual movement":

• Setting aside speculation that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's spiritual movement may lose steam after his death, his followers say that it will only grow stronger and has in place a well-knit system of kingship.
  • Maharishi's movement will only grow stronger, say devotees. The Hindustan Times. New Delhi: Feb 14, 2008.
• He brought his spiritual movement to the West in 1959 and in 1968 the Beatles went to India to meditate with him.
  • Beatles' Maharishi passes to other side. ED HARRIS. Evening Standard. London (UK): Feb 6, 2008. pg. 26
• But the most famous teacher of them all was the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who took his Transcendental Meditation world tour on the road in 1958 and set in train a spiritual movement that at the height of its fame was to sweep up some of the most famous people in the world, among them The Beatles, Mike Love of The Beach Boys, Donovan, Mia Farrow and later the comedian Andy Kaufman.
  • the ultimatestressbuster; [1ST Edition] The Independent. London (UK): Oct 10, 2007. pg. 20

Et cetera. There are clearly multiple sources to support calling TM a "spiritual movement".

I have reworded the opening sentence of the lede today, with the emphasis being on the TM technique. I did not see this discussion on the talk page before making the edits. Sorry if caused confusion. --BwB (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between "spiritual" and "religious" in many peoples mind. --BwB (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of sorry BWB made this change since we are in the middle of discussion, but then Will made changes as well so I guess we just go with what we have.

We have sources that define TM as a spiritual movement. We have sources that defineTM as religious. TM is fundamentally a technique. We have an article to dump in anything that refers to movement. We have a pretty robust section on the religion debate. This article is about the fundamental technique. The wording must indicate that. If we want to say the TM refers to the technique and the movement fine but it can't be given the kind of weight that will change the focus of the article so that it becomes another TM movement article. This is the TM technique article. There is no agreement to change that focus.(76.76.228.132 (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC))(olive (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

Sorry... didn't realize my automatic login wasn't automatic today.(olive (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

This why I changed the first sentence to begin with TM technique. As I said above, I changed the article text BEFORE reading the talk page. I am happy to continue discussion here. --BwB (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the "Transcendental Meditation". The first thing the article should do is define that term. It applies to both a spiritual movement and a meditation technique. It's logical to do that at the outset, not wait until the end of a long article. In and of itself, it doesn't change the scope of the article which has always been "Transcendental Meditation".   Will Beback  talk  21:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This article has been about the technique, as the opening line stated, "The Transcendental Meditation or TM technique is a form of mantra meditation..." adding "and to the spiritual movement that teaches it" redefines the article, as does leaving out the word technique. I don't agree to changing the scope of this article to include TM "movement" content, and potentially expanding the scope of the article beyond technique. We have an article that does that. We don't need another one. I don't agree to the wording that opens the door for indiscriminate adding of content that may only peripherally refer to the technique, and I especially don't agree to any of the above based on the edits of one or two editors. Adding content that as I said changes the potential scope of an article , whose scope has been stable for a long time requires discussion and input, so let's give editors time to think about it and check in on the issue.(olive (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

We have sources that say TM is a spiritual movement. Until we move this article to "Transcendental Meditation technique" it will need to cover both topics. "Transcendental Meditation movement" was split off as a sub article, but that doesn't mean the parent article should ignore its existence.   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Another TM movement article is redundant. I'll take it to mediation.(olive (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Another? No one has suggested writing a third article. I'm not sure what you're talking about. This seems like a lot of turmoil over sourced material that no one says is wrong.   Will Beback  talk  03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The article used to have this information in the lead:

• The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM, is a form of meditation that was introduced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, an Indian spiritual teacher. It has become a worldwide movement, with over six million people having learned the technique. [2]
• Transcendental Meditation is an ancient form of meditation which has its foundation in Hinduism. Transcendental Meditation is commonly referred to as TM, which is also an organization that promotes a widely recognized meditation technique which was developed in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a disciple of Guru Dev. [3]
• Transcendental Meditation or TM is a trademarked form of meditation developed in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati. It is also the name of a movement led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, which claims Transcendental Meditation is reminiscent of and possibly derived from Hindu tantric practices. [4]
• Transcendental Meditation is also the name of a movement led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. [5]

I'm not sure why it was removed, but the current version seems like an improvement.   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy deleted the movement from the lead here:[6] He issued a legal threat over the matter on the talk page.[7] Hopefully there won't be any legal threats this time.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to focus on this lead and rewriting it rather than what would seem to be red herrings. TG made the edit with the express permission of an editor editing at the extreme other end of the spectrum from himself. Your edit implies there was no agreement for his edit. You are really assuming a legal threat and not assuming a comment about the nature of the issue, that is, that the use of the name is a legal issue rather than one editors generally can deal with? And should we dig through archives looking for, out of the multiple incarnations of the lead, versions that support each of our positions.

To start: In the writing of this lead we must make it clear immediately that this article is about the technique, and what the name of the technique is.

Transcendental Meditation or the Transcendental Mediation technique (TM technique) is a specific form of mantra mediation introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008)..

Is there any disagreement for using this specific information?

I'm not familiar with the legal aspects of using the accurate name, so can't really comment on that aspect.(olive (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I though that the reason to have the TMM article was to focus on the organization teaching TM and related techniques, programs, etc., and this article would have the focus on the TM technique. There is substantial amount of text in the TMM article about it's cult, religions, spiritual nature. Why do we now have to repeat all that stuff in this article? The TMM lead contain the following text -

"The TM movement has been described as a spiritual movement, as a new religious movement, and a "Neo-Hindu" sect, and characterized as a religion, a cult, a charismatic movement, a "Sect", "plastic export Hinduism", a progressive millenialism organization and a "multinational, capitalist, Vedantic Export Religion" in books and the main stream press,[8][9] with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.[10]" --BwB (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Doc would like to present his rationale for his edit to the first sentence of the lead and how he sees the relationship of this article to the TMM article, since it was his edit that seems to have stated this debate. --BwB (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the writing of this lead we must make it clear immediately that this article is about the technique,

"Must?" According to whom? Dogmatic assertions like this don't make editing easier and promote a contentious atmosphere. Let's aim for "Consensus building" and avoid "Feuds and quarrels". If we "must" do anything in the lead, it's to define the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation". Is Olive asserting that "Transcendental Meditation" is not used to refer to a spiritual movement?   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Will ... that's not what I meant ... I was talking in a generalized "we" as in a more technical way.. that is, that the content of the article per WP:Lead needs to be explained immediately:

The first paragraph should define the topic without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic...

I've been asking for discussion and agreement from the beginning of this discussion so I think we can move on with out talking about feuds and quarrels.

I outlined above an opening sentence for the lead and asked if you agree with it. If you don't, would mind writing something you do agree with. (olive (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

The current text, as edited by Bwb, is:

• Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to the specific form of mantra meditation[1] and to the spiritual movement that teaches it.

Olive's proposed text seems to be omitting something. Maybe as a compromise, we could have something like:

• Transcendental Meditation or TM refers to a mantra meditation technique introduced in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and to the spiritual movement that teaches it.

The dates of the Maharishi's life seem irrelevant to the intro, and referring to India puts too much attention on one country, which is illogical since it's an international phenomenon.   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Omitting something? This is a first sentence. I am establishing what the article is about. I am referencing the stable version of the article in which the article was about the TM technique. What am I omitting in the opening sentence?

Your version describes the scope of the article as, about a technique, and, the movement. It doesn't specify the official trademarked name of the technique. That's a concern for me. We have an article that describes the movement, do we need another one?

What is the primary subject matter of this article? This question needs to be addressed probably, before we can go on.(olive (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

I would say it is the TM technique. --BwB (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic of the article is "Transcendental Meditation", including all of its aspects. Full descriptions of some aspects have been split off into daughter articles. The purpose of the lead sentence is to define the topic, not to set the scope of the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact no that isn't the topic of the article. You split off TM movement as the mother article and took step to make sure it was regarded as such. Is TM movement now a daughter article. TM movement was meant to include all of the aspects according to you. A radical change in the scope of this article is a serious issue. I see once again this discussion is going around in circles. I'd like to get outside input, (formal mediation) because of the contention and size of the change being suggested.(olive (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

I think this concern is based on a mis-perception of how daughter or sub-articles work. Let's say we have a biography of Woodrow Wilson. Eventually, the material on his presidency grows so large that it is split off into a daughter article. "Presidency of Woodrow Wilson". The original article still has the same scope and topic as before, but now instead of a complete discussion of the presidency it has a short summary with a link to the daughter article. It would still mention in the lead that Wilson was president.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

TM movement is not a sub article. It became the master article to which you linked or connected all of the other TM related articles. I hope you're not denying that. Now... we don't need another TM movement article we need a TM technique article which this one was until an editor changed that focus with out consensus... and yes as far as I'm concerned ... that kind of huge shift requires consensus because it will affect the entire article. If we can't come to some agreement I do think we need outside help.(olive (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

(undent) I added qualification to the term clarifying how it is used out in the real world. Thus an improvement to Wikipedia. We do not need consensus to make these changes. We at Wikipedia do not get to determine work meaning but are to reflect the meaning of terms as found in high quality sources. If you feel that outside help is needed you are more than welcome to try one of the notice boards or other dispute mechanisms and I will be happy to comment further there.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"How it is used in the real world... and improvement to Wikipedia"? What policy or guideline are you citing? We aren't talking about sources here we are talking about the scope of an article. Why do you think you have the right to change the scope of this article after multiple editors with multiple views have agreed to have this article be on certain information. (olive (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Where was there a consensus to exclude mention of the movement from the lead? Looking through the talk page archives, this seems to be a perennial topic. Only a certain group of editors have ever disagreed to it, but they've done that routinely and vociferously. Over and over it's been added and then deleted. If folks want to keep fighting over this, that's fine, but let's not act like there was a sacred consensus that has been violated.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You mischaracterize. We are discussing the opening lines of the lead, not the lead as a whole, and I/we are discussing the scope of the article that changes as any writer knows when you adjust the opening sentence. Discussion of the lead as a whole was never under discussion except perhaps by you. And please keep your comments about other editors whomever you are referring to out of the discussion. Certainly we can deal with this here, now. (olive (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

My edit is below which placed TM movement in the first paragraph, and which includes TM movement while not changing the focus of the article. [8]. This was an attempt to create a compromise with both you and Jmh649 which was ignored. Does this suggest to you that I was trying to exclude TM movement from the lead?(olive (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Is there anyone "here, now" who disputes that the term "Transcendental Meditation" is used by sources to refer to a movement?   Will Beback  talk  06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We are trying to discuss the scope of this article. Can we stay focused on that please. My feeling is that this article's primary focus in the TM technique and the TMM article focuses on the organization that teaches TM and related programs. We are not arguing whether or not the media refers to the organization that teaches the TM technique as "TM", but this article's primary focus is the technique, and this needs to be clearly established in the opening sentence of the lead. --BwB (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't how this thread started. Olive complained about using tertiary sources, the link to religion, etc. I think those issues have been addressed. If editors want to start a discussion about limiting the scope of this article to only the technique then we should start a fresh thread for that. However I don't think there's much chance of getting a consensus to artificially censor neutral, well-sourced material from the article, so long as it is relevant to the topic of "Transcendental Meditation".   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's interested can see very well what the last two threads are about...let me reiterate. Changes were made in the syntax which change the scope of this article. "Technique" was used in the opening line to clearly delineate "technique" from "movement" We have now also a "movement" article. Use of technique in the opening lines has been a stable aspect of the article and defines the article. So far there is no agreement on how to include technique and movement. I will post another version later. Others could as well. Hopefully we can come to some agreement.(olive (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Thus article discusses both the movement and the technique and it should continue to do so. The lead was just edited to reflect the rest of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding a version of the lead that gives emphasis to "technique" as most of the article refers to the technique. Content that did not was moved into the TM movement article, and do we need another TM movement article? Any thoughts on this version posted below?(olive (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to a specific form of mantra meditation called the Transcendental Meditation technique movement introduced and developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The meditation practice involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes. Transcendental Meditation may also refer to the Transcendental Mediation movement, the organization responsible for teaching the technique."

I think what we have now is much better but you could try a RFC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an aversion to the word "movement"? Some editors here have spent the last three years fighting against its inclusion in this article.

Olive's proposal is much less complete that the existing text, and ignores the sources. What sources would Olive propose to support her proposed text? Is the sole function of the TM movement to teach TM? Does it not include other goods and services, etc?   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well interestingly enough I did use the phrase TM movement in my edit to the article but when I mentioned this earlier it was ignored.[9] Lets add that in shall we. Does that satisfy? And I didn't add the sources for this part of the discussion. I think its clear we had the sources in place for this content.

I did remove "India", and information about the Maharishi per Will's suggestion.

What is the objection to removing Transcendental Meditation and/ or TM technique? Could someone explain? Its a bit if a mystery.((olive (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

The current text is:

• Transcendental Meditation is used to refer to a specific form of mantra meditation[1] and to the spiritual movement that teaches it.[2][3] They were introduced in India in 1955[4][5][6] by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008).[7] The meditation practice involves the use of a sound or mantra and is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes.[8][9]

That seems accurate and succinct. I'd get rid of "is used to refer to" and replace it with "refers to", but otherwise it's OK.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion

The topic of TM as a religion is very interesting. We touch on it in many different section but a full discussion probably needs a section of its own. Bromley "Most scholarly assessments warrant that TM displays mixed qualities of therapy and religion."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article had a religion section which was integrated into the article...Creating another religion section would mean dismantling parts of the article and moving that content back into the new section. This is a big change. It needs editor consensus.(olive (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

There is a religion section. Transcendental_Meditation#Religion.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh ... I thought we'd discussed moving it and integrating it, and actually did it.... Bromley's comments can be added there then. We should consider WP: Weight though(olive (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

On what this technique is based is of prime significance and thus belongs in the lead. Should be in both places really thus restored it to the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

James, that's just an opinion. There are other editors here. Why is your opinion worth more than their's? Moreover you refuse to even discuss but revert unilaterally to your content based on that opinion. I'm afraid I don't understand you're editing style given the circumstances and events surrounding these pages.(olive (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

A short reference to the origins of the technique seems appropriate for the lead, especially since we have a whole section devoted to it.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

and thank you both... It actually felt like some collaboration went on there...Perish the thought.. :o)(olive (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

Onward and eastward.   Will Beback  talk  11:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey! That phrase has copyrights!! --BwB (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Broomley ref in the lead should be presented as fact unless we have equally good literature that disagrees. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Order: TMM before TM technique?

Doc has reordered the sequence of topics in the article, putting TMM before the TM technique. I disagree with this move now while we are still discussing the overall scope of the article. This move puts the TMM before the TM technique. Even in logical historical terms, the technique came before the TMM. Maharishi was teaching the technique before the event that spurred the creation of the SRM. I want to change the order to Lead, History, Technique, Movement, but thought to bring it to the talk pages first, since there is ongoing discussion of the scope. If the primary focus of the article is about the technique (my opinion), then the "Movement" section would come after the "Technique" section. It seems Doc is of another opinion and has acted on that opinion. --BwB (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The movement and the technique are inseparable. One has to join the movement to learn the technique. Thus the movement should be discussed first.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No Doc...Where do you get your information...One doesn't join a movement to practice the technique. And no they aren't inseparable. Research, as one obvious example, is not on an organization, its on a technique. I will continue commenting above(olive (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

You mean the TM technique is not copyrighted and one can learn it independent of the movement?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mixing up a lot of terms. I own a Mac computer. The name is copyrighted. I don't belong to the Mac organization. Ownership of the computer like ownership of the technique do not mean I have joined some kind of organization. I can learn how to operate the Mac from a person who has specialist knowledge on how to operate the computer properly. I can learn the technique from someone who has specialist knowledge in teaching the technique. In neither case do I join anything. So no... TM technique and TM movement are not the same thing.(olive (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Argument from metaphor? So far as I can tell, no one belongs to the "Mac organization". I searched and can't find any references to such a thing. As for Apple Computer Inc., I don't see much resemblance to the TM movement.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Geoff Gilpin reports that the movement officials call meditators "Citizens of the Age of Enlightenment". Other sources say:

• Today, the movement has around four million members who practice it globally,...
• ...the movement, which claims more than five million practitioners in 130 countries today.
• ...the movement which has some five million followers worldwide, according to its web site.
• ...by the late '60s, his movement boasted a million members ...
• He was the head a movement with five million followers worldwide, all seeking a higher consciousness through transcendental meditation.
• ...where he had set up the headquarters of a movement that is said to have six million followers worldwide.
• The Transcendental Meditation movement claims six million practitioners worldwide, and centres in more than 100 countries.
• Maharishi, now believed to be 90, still directs the movement, which claims more than 6 million adherents,...
• Last July Maharishi brought 2,000 people from all over the world to his Dutch compound to mark 50 years since he began teaching transcendental meditation, a movement that claims 6 million practitioners since it was introduced.
• The movement now has more than 4 million practitioners, half here and half overseas, said Enloe Willingham, the director of community relations for Heavenly Mountain.
• Started four decades ago, the Transcendental Movement says it has five million members and about 1,000 teaching institutions.
• The maharishi is the originator of the transcendental meditation movement, which has more than 4 million followers worldwide.
• Since then, the TM movement claims millions of converts.
• The movement claims three million members worldwide, a million of them in the United States.

How many sources do we have that say TM practitioners are not part of the movement?   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Which source says you "join" the movement when you learn the technique. I'm not sure what your point is. TM the technique is not the same as the TM movement. A technique is not an organization. That's just logic. (olive (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

With all due respect to your "logic", we're here to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, not to apply our own logical conclusions. These sources indicate that the TM movement includes meditators. So yes, when you pay your fee and undergo your initiation you become a member of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent) If you wish to propose changes please provide source. We have the EB that supports the usage of TM as a spiritual organization. Do we have reliable sources saying TM is not an organization?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation filed on opening paragraph of lead

Jmh649 agreed to be part of a mediation. Anyone else who wishes to be part of the mediation would be most welcome. Please add your names. [10](olive (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Isn't Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transcendental Meditation 2 about the lead too? I don't see any point in having two separate mediations for the same block of text. Could you explain?   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Different part of the lead, very different issues. I've left it up to the mediator or whoever accepts to either combine them or to view then separately.(olive (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Formal mediation is for issues that are unresolved after previous efforts have failed. It's not the first place to go. I suggest an RfC or informal mediation instead.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.(olive (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

RFC: Lead sentence

"Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" are used by journalists and scholars to refer to both the meditation technique and the movement. Should the lead sentence of this article reflect both common usages?   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from involved users

The lead sentence should make clear what the article is about. There is an article on TM movement. This article has been about the TM technique. Stylistically, placing both TM movement and meditation technique in the opening sentence must mean that the article is about both. In fact it hasn't been about both. Although there is content on TM movement, the article itself has not been on TM movement. Further, TM as a meditation technique is the most common usage. Literature on research on the TM technique dwarfs other literature. The primary issue here is what this article is about, once that has been established what goes where will proceed logically. The decision for deciding what this article is about can't be a unilateral one, but should be considered by all editors interested working on this page. And again before considering the sources... what is this article about? (olive (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

As well. The technique has a trademarked name. Should that name be used. If not, why not? Right now the official name of the technique has been omitted from the opening sentence of the article. What purpose does it serve to exclude the name of the technique?(olive (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

We at Wikipedia do not dictate word usage. We are here to reflect the usage of the scholarly community at large. So yes TM should refer to both the movement and technique. To do otherwise would be contravene WP:NPOV. If the article historically was not about both this is something that must change. As it stands now though it does appear to deal with both adequately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So Doc it seems you've decided this article is to be about movement and technique, is that right?(olive (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

I have no idea how writing an article about a technique violates NPOV, or for that matter how writing an article about two topics is more neutral than writing an article about one. (olive (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view on a topic. Artificially limiting a topic to only certain points of view would be a violation.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the trademark issue: The details of the U.S. trademark filing have limited applicability to a worldwide movement. It is a very narrow self-description whose sole purpose is to fulfill certain legal requirements to prevent competing uses of a word or phrase. FWIW, the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Electronic Search System reports that the current trademark on "Transcendental Meditation" covers " G & S: EDUCATIONAL SERVICES-NAMELY, CONDUCTING COURSES AND SEMINARS ON PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT."[11] (Anyone interesting in verifying will have to conduct a fresh search - there's no ability to directly link to a record.) There is no mention of a specific technique. Even if there were, Wikipedia articles are not constrained by U.S. trademark filings.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a trademark I'm talking about common sense. The technique has a name...what is the objection to using it.(olive (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

I don't understand. Is the technique not called "Transcendental Meditation"? If so, that is also the name of the movement or organization, according to sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a servicemark, not a trademark. What is servicemarked is not the technique. What is servicemarked is the use of the term "TM" or "Transcendental Meditation" for the teaching of the technique. Taking at face value the claims of the Maharishi that the technique is thousands of years old and not his invention, the technique is not capable of being legally trademarked or servicemarked. Accordingly, anyone can teach the technique - so long as they don't call it TM. So, the argument based on the trademark has this exactly backwards; for purposes of trademark law, TM is not the technique; it is the method teaching of the technique, which is the TM Org and Movement. That being said, the argument based on trademark/servicemark misses the point entirely. Fladrif (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation technique is the name of the meditation, and the official name.[12] Using TM to mean either movement or technique blurs specificity. I have to ask once again what is this article about. We have a TM movement article. Do we need another TM movement article? If Yes, why?(olive (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

To answer your question what we need is a TM technique article. Thus you would be happy yes? I will create one.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the page you linked. In big letters at the top of the page it says, "The Transcendental Meditation Program". The url is "http://www.tm.org/meditation-techniques" - plural. According to this official site, it would appear that they call it a "program" covering more than one technique. Be that as it may, we aren't here to report just the official version. We're here to report all points of view, giving weight according to their prominence. This article isn't titled "Transcendental Meditation technique" or "Transcendental Meditation techniques" or "Transcendental Meditation Program". What it is called is "Transcendental Meditation", and sources say that phrase refers to the type of meditation taught by the Maharishi and to the movement founded by him. Therefore we should reflect both usages in the lead.   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "reflect"? --BwB (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Include" may be a more direct way of saying it, as in "we should include both usages".   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved users

I'm an outsider, having become aware of the differences here through Doc James' RfA. The solution which seems obvious to me is to have two articles:

• Transcendental Meditation methods (or techniques or program or methodology) where the first line says For the organization and movement, see Transcendental Meditation movement.
• Transcendental Meditation movement where the first line says For the techniques of Transcendental Meditation, see Transcendental Meditation techniques (or methods, methodology, program etc).

This has probably been considered. What are the objections to it? --Hordaland (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hordaland:There is a TM movement article that was split off of this article... and this article had been designated as the the technique article or methods article. One concern is that this article will become another TM movement article, and of course Wikipedia doesn't need two.(olive (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

That's why the 2 names suggested above. (I know there is a TMM - I linked to it.) I don't see why there has to be a parent article to those 2 suggested. Most people will be looking for the one or the other of them (first). Is that the argument -- that there has to be a parent article? If so, it can be very short and summarize the other two, seems to me. Hordaland (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I realized you had linked to the article after I'd already hit save. I think simply renaming this article would solve a lot of problems... there would be two distinct articles with your solution. I don't think having a parent article is an issue in this discussion. The issue for me is to make sure that the articles aren't duplicated as could happen if the opening sentence of the lead refers to both TM technique and TM movement equally. I think its fine to have TM movement mentioned in the lead as I've said several times, but placement is important. And TM movement does link back to this article.(olive (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

Well then, you and I are in agreement. Where's everyone else?  :) Hordaland (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes think that is a great idea. I have moved much of the content to a subarticle. Some of the content overlaps and deals with both the movement and technique.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving further material

I have split up much of the material. Anything else which should be moved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)