Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Ospina/Bond report

I'm pasting here a recently added paragraph so we can discuss:

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the NIH, commissioned a meta-analysis of the state of meditation research from the University of Alberta. The university reviewed 813 studies, a number of which were Transcendental Meditation studies. The conclusions of the analysis was: "Many uncertainties surround the practice of meditation. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results." http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf

I don't know that we want to give their broad generalization, since their findings varied from technique to technique. I've skimmed the section on the TM studies on hypertension, and from what I could tell, the researchers generally found that TM reduces hypertension. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, this study wasn't published in a journal, and is only now being published in segments in academic journals. The peer review process for this government report didn't follow the usual procedures, and I think it would be better to cite the published versions when they come out. TimidGuy (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That is hardly a fair or accurate reading of the conclusions of the study. The study found no statistically significant reduction in hypertension from TM:

"All but one study221 were medium- or long-term trials (more than 3 months). The study with the shortest duration221 (3 months) was the only trial that reported statistically significant changes in SBP favoring TM®. The medium- or long-term trials did not find statistically significant differences between TM® and HE for changes in SBP. A subgroup analysis based on the duration of the studies (Figure 4) showed that greater homogeneity (p = 0.64, I2 = 0 percent) was observed for the studies that assessed the medium- and long-term effects of TM® and HE on SBP. After excluding the short-term study,221 the direction of the effect changed to a small, nonsignificant reduction of SBP in favor of HE (WMD = 0.70; 95% CI, -2.29 to 3.68)." (p115)

Fladrif (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Fladrif. Don't I know you from somewhere? : ) You may have misunderstood what it says. All of these are comparisons with health education (diet and exercise, etc.), which has itself been shown to reduce blood pressure. In other words, Transcendental Meditation is about as effective as health education. TimidGuy (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wandered over out of curiosity. I don't misunderstand. Table 28 (p129) shows the comparative results for the various treatment alternatives. Health Education has no statistically significant improvement over No Treatment. Another part of the report (p 187)concludes that the referenced studies show that TM provides no greater benefit than NT (no treatment) in reducing blood pressure, though other studies show an improvement versus WL (waiting list). TM is listed, along with progressive muscle relaxation, health education, waiting list and no treatment, as having 0% probability of being the "best" intervention for hypertension.

"Direct meta-analysis showed that compared to NT, TM® did not produce significantly greater benefits on blood pressure (SBP and DBP). However, there was significant improvement in LDL-C levels and verbal creativity with TM®. When compared to WL, TM® produced significantly greater reduction in SBP and DBP. Before-and-after studies on TM® for patients with essential hypertension indicated a statistically significant reduction in SBP and DBP after practicing TM®. The heterogeneity present for the comparisons evaluating blood pressure changes and cortisol levels suggests that there were important clinical differences among the studies; however, the small number of studies precluded subgroup analyses." (p187) Fladrif (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to include this analysis. It is from a reputable university, commissioned by NCCAM, distributed by NCCAM and is important information in evaluating the TM research. This is especially true given that the University of Kentucky meta-analysis was included with no disclosure as to the fact that the funding was in part from a large contributor to the TMO. Judyjoejoe (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Additions of this size in a contentious article deserve discussion and agreement by multiple editors. With discussion it may very well be that this informatio0n is added , but should not be be added because of one editor's opinion, and especially since this discussion is already under way. I would suggest just joining in the discussion rather than edit warring.(olive (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Here's my vote. There are 9 paragraphs in the main article -roughly a quarter of the entire article - about studies alleged to show various health benefits from TM, with no questioning whatsoever of the provenance, methodology or the characterization of the conclousions of those studies. The History pages for this article show that any criticism of the studies or their conclusions were systematically removed by editors with - no offense - serious conflicts of interest with respect to the subject matter. Here is an independent government-funded report which analyses a variety of studies, including some of the same studies cited in this article, subjects them to statisical analysis, and puts the results into a broader and neutral context. I know that [User:TimidGuy] is a big advocate elsewhere of WP:NPOV. It would seem to me that this is exactly the sort of thing that should be included if this article is ever going to achieve anything even remotely approaching neutrality.Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fladrif. TG and olive appear to be trying to squash relevant published research. Rracecarr (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Olive. I think you need to give a reason for continually removing the new material other than "please discuss". You can't just revert people for no reason. It seems unreasonable to object to the edit because "Additions of this size in a contentious article deserve discussion." It is just one small paragraph, and it seems quite reasonable. If you object to it, you should present reasons for your objection on the talk page. It is unfriendly to flatly revert others' best attempts at improving the article. I won't participate further in this edit war, but ask that before reverting a third time, you provide some justification. Rracecarr (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But as you can see from the discussion above, it's hard to know what to say. The report says various things. And I don't think it's fair to include a generalization that applies to all 800 studies, especially since the report indicates that TM reduces hypertension. Plus, the report didn't follow the normal peer review process. And two of the reviewers recommended it not be released. One of those reviewers happened to select a specimen of TM data to check on accuracy and found many errors. (He was concerned and got in touch with some of the study authors. His peer review is here.[1]) The report is in the process of being revised and published in segments in academic journals following the normal peer review process. I have heard, though, from one of the authors that they're not going to submit the hypertension segment for publication. I've been asked not to give the reason. So it's complicated and not obvious. And it's egregiously wrong to include the quote that Judy inserted, since it doesn't reflect accurately what the report says. The abstract says that TM lowers hypertension. Rather than edit war, let's get some consensus regarding these issues.TimidGuy (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just want to add that I really hope you'll take a look at the Walach peer review that I linked to. It's pretty damning. TimidGuy (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The peer review you linked to appears to be biased and mostly silly. The fact that it's even available online suggests that it was written not to try to help the authors improve their study, but to attack the study's credibility. Reviews are not usually available to the general public. They are a private part of the process of producing high-quality research. Rracecarr (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On what basis do you allege that the report "didn't follow the normal peer review process?" Even on a Talk page, one is required to comply with WP:RS. Fladrif (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, by normal peer review process I mean being sent out for peer review by an editor, and then the editor makes a decision on whether to publish in a journal. The report itself describes its peer review process, in which the authors themselves decided whether or not to follow the recommendations of the peer rieviewers. And even then, the authors didn't follow the procedure they themselves outlined, as is described in a critique published by David Orme-Johnson in the same journal that published the first segment. TimidGuy (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Review by an editor is not what is meant by "peer review process". Peer review, properly understood, was clearly followed in this case, and after peer review AHRQ published the report. You cannot seriously contend that two reviewers - with conflicts of interest no less - should have had veto power over publication of this report? Fladrif (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple edit conflicts

TG and Olive are asking for discussion and agreement (as they so clearly say, and as they have every right to do) before or if adding the material. AGF Rracecarr. This as you well know is a contentious article and discussion is necessary and preferred to edits based on opinion that do not yet have agreement.I have every right to revert edits based on opinion. The onus is on you if you are adding to clearly illustrate why, and again opinion isn't good enough. I note Judy's addition is not really accurate so discussion is definitely necessary. I have to rush away right now but would like to continue this later.

You might want to read the study... TG has provided a link...(olive (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

and as TG says there are real concerns with this study so just not sure how that could or should be dealt with in the article.(olive (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

(arbitrary unindent) I think it the study should be mentioned, and rather prominently per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MED/RS. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Olive, TG and I have all reverted twice each now (uncharacteristic of TG--not really living up to his name at the moment). It is funny that TG and Olive are paying lip service to the idea of getting "consensus" before making the change when 4 (count them 4) editors have expressed support for the edit (me, Judy, Ronz, and Fladrif), and only Olive and TG have dissented. I think that constitutes consensus. Therefore, I will revert one more time. Rracecarr (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rracecarr, what makes the peer review silly? Please explain. I think it's serious. It's online because he was very concerned. Yes, it would have been private if this report had followed the ordinary peer review process, but it didn't. At least 2 of the 10 peer reviewers said that it shouldn't be released. He finds very specific errors related to the TM studies -- coding errors that would affect their score on the Jadad scale. Ronz, I hope will address some of the points I've raised. TimidGuy (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Racecarr, please tell me on what basis that's your preferred wording. Per the discussion above, why mention the general conclusion and not the specific conclusion that TM reduces hypertension? You're really not addressing the points raised, but, as usual, are simply edit warring. You're right -- it's very unusual for me to revert a second time. But I did so because the wording is not apt. It's characterizing all 800 studies and ignoring the specific results. TimidGuy (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the wording, suggest something else. Or heck, just change it. But don't just continue to completely remove it. I think it's clear that this study is too relevant to simply suppress. Rracecarr (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. However, I don't think the sentence you just added accurately reflects the one in the abstract. The abstract says:

Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure.

You just added:

Regarding the Transcendental Meditation technique, the report concluded that it "significantly reduced blood pressure."

Seems to convey something a little different. Rracecarr (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. That was my point. The report says various things. Did you read the discussion above? You'll find that exact conclusion in the abstract. TimidGuy (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Timid Guy, I don't see the researchers concluding that TM did significantly reduce BP. They couldn't do that because of the poor quality of the studies. Judyjoejoe (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) I also object to including Orme-Johnson's criticism of the study. He disputes absolutely everything that is critical of TM research and is a strong promoter of TM on his so called truthabouttm website. Judyjoejoe (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion has been mischarachterized and while I could ignore it ... I'm fed up with the kinds of comments made here. Whether this material stays in or not is one issue, but describing this discussion as above isn't fair. I reverted first in the middle of a discussion in which Racecarrr wasn't here and neither was Ronz. There was no consensus. Saying there was is untrue, and saying Ronz was here at any point when I reverted is another untruth. Asking for discussion is an accepted standard on Wikipedia as any fair editor knows, and reverting material under discussion is a nasty tactic as well. In terms of saying that asking for discussion is some kind of squashing tactic is an ad hominem attack as is consistently falling back on a so called COI. Consensus and agreement is not reached while simultaneously reverting. Recently on this article, under the direction of Ronz discussion and subsequent edits were made in a collegial environment that satisfied everyone involved. Characterizing TG and me as has been done here is not only unfair its just lacking in truthfulness. I will continue to ask for consensus /agreement reached through discussion because that's the way its done on Wikipedia, when its done right.(olive (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Agreed, discussion is the proper way to do it. Not revert and then discuss. Of course I'm guilty of the same thing, but if you want to lecture me on how "it's done right" you should do it right yourself--that is, when something that is not outright vandalism is added to the article, bring it up on the talk page and then revert it, if that's the consensus, not the other way around. Rracecarr (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish... I edited and then went to talk to comment and hit four edit conflicts before I could comment. I reverted a non consensus change to the stable version of the article. Changes had been made that were relatively large without any kind of agreement. Check WP:BOLD(olive (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

So it's your policy then to automatically revert any edit which hasn't been cleared ahead of time on talk? Rubbish yourself. Rracecarr (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. I was acting according to WP:BOLD, and reverting to a consensus version... Anyway, sorry about the rubbish part... feeling frustrated.(olive (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't mind in the least. However, I don't understand the distinction between what I asked--if your policy was to automatically revert any undiscussed edit--and your explanation that you were just reverting to the "consensus version". How can any edit ever be according to consensus if it isn't discussed first? If every undiscussed edit gets reverted, isn't that contrary to the very policy you've been quoting, i.e. WP:BOLD? The truth is, your reversion didn't have anything to do with consensus, or with WP:BOLD. You simply didn't like it, so you reverted it. Fine, I do that all the time. But let's not pretend that our actions are motivated (or even supported) by policies which don't apply. Rracecarr (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The article was in a stable position and is that way because of different discussions/agreements/consensus of many editors over time with varying degrees of interest in the topic. The article is and has been highly contentious which means that certain standards for editing have been generally accepted to keep edit warring to a minimum. One of those is to discuss changes before they go in so all editors have input. This means that editors coming into the article need to discuss and reach agreement with all other editors before adding something ... If they don't then there is a possibility that another editor will come in and revert to the stable position - the consensus position determined over time. I was reverting to the stable position and asking that any additions to the article especially of that length undergo scrutiny from all of the editors. If you really knew the edit history of this article and both my and TG's editing history you would know that we are both truly neutral editors. There are things in that article I don't like, and some that are not Wikipedia compliant... but they are the best negative sources we have so we don't argue removing them because we are aware of Weight. We have both removed large amounts of positive material from this and other related articles and have had by email serious arguments with editors trying to add that positive stuff. So no, you're wrong. Like doesn't enter into it in terms of editing. What I like or don't like means zip. I reverted because the editors as a group needed time to deal with the information. Its a Meta study with problems surrounding it, and some seeming contradictions within the study. That's the true situation.(olive (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

It seems that the research section of this article is already biased http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Neutrality_tag such that adding this study would then require some further additions and deletions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Weight#Undue_weight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.236.240 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Judy, you can't delete David Orme-Johnson's critique just because he has a point of view. His critique was published in a peer-reviewed journal -- the very journal that published the first segment of Ospina/Bond. It was presented as a counterbalance to their meta-analysis and reflective of the wide criticism that it received. it meets WP:V]. Further, according to WP:NPOV, it's important to include all points of view in the article. Also, how many times do we need to say in a single paragraph that the report says that the research is low quality? I think once is enough. Why do you feel a need to say it twice? And on a different note, they moderated their tone somewhat in the published version of their article, based on the feedback that they received from many quarters, including the coauthors of the published version. Here's their conclusion: "Most clinical trials on meditation practices are generally characterized by poor methodological quality with significant threats to validity in every major quality domain assessed. Despite a statistically significant improvement in the methodological quality over time, it is imperative that future trials on meditation be rigorous in design, execution, analysis, and the reporting of results." Note that they say "most clinical trials" and that the research has improved in methodological quality over time. I believe we should use the published summary. They also say, "Only 40 clinical trials (10%) were considered of good quality based on a Jadad score �3 points." We need to find out if TM studies were among those rated good. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

TimidGuy and Olive - I realize that one is required by Wikipedia to assume good faith on the part of editors, and that it is considered bad form to accuse other editors of bad faith. But, the intellectual dishonesty being displayed here by the two of you is just staggering.

Go ahead and tattle to Dreadstar or whatever other admistrator you prefer if you want. Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The conclusions of this study is not even relevant or applicable to TM: "..Many uncertainties surround the practice of meditation. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality..." as clearly TM does have a common theoretical perspective. Also, by generalizing across many disparate studies, the conclusions lose any ability to be address any technique specifically.65.248.236.195 (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The authors themselves actually make a point similar to the point I added from David Orme-Johnson: "The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation." p. 1210 in the published version of Ospina/Bond. It's another example of how they tempered their approach in the published version. TimidGuy (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Asking that Wikipedia process be followed on a contentious article is not intellectual dishonesty,WP:BRD and your definition of intellectual dishonesty I would label as difference of opinion. Agreement is not mandatory, and unlikely on any article. That's why we have discussion pages. Although I think the new section junks up the article because it is long and not definitive in any way, as long as the wording is appropriate I can see leaving it especially with some rewriting. I will not, however, allow the article to be high jacked as happens when there is no true discussion and agreement, and constant mischaracterization. That's a intellectually honest as I can make it(olive (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

• The IP's comment above is well taken. The article, to this point, had been pared down to only information dealing directly with TM...a group agreement/consensus. I'm unclear as to where this study fits if it fails WP:Reliability or WP:Verifiability as concerning TM itself. Is it possible the whole thing be moved to the more general Mantra, or should the study be cited in a "see also" section. If the study is left in the main article does the wording reflect the relatively indefinite quality of the study conclusions as concerns TM.

• And we can't use the study two ways: Judy says: "I don't see the researchers concluding that TM did significantly reduce BP. They couldn't do that because of the poor quality of the studies." she also says."I think it is important to include this analysis. It is from a reputable university, commissioned by NCCAM, distributed by NCCAM and is important information in evaluating the TM research." Is the study poor or not as refers to TM? It can't be great as a study when it is used to refute something and then terrible when used to support something else.

• Fladrif's comment that the study is broad and therefore useful for our purposes may be completely incorrect. Its very "broadness" may too broad to reference TM directly enough for this article.

Some points for consideration.(olive (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

I do appreciate Fladrif's careful research of this topic. Hopefully we can sift through everything, and all come to some agreement.(olive (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

This "ospina" study was not done on TM. It at most used less than 40 or 50 (~5%) TM studies, and maybe far less. Any conclusions drawn from it are not at ALL applicable to TM and have no business at all being included in this article on TM. Also, the research section of the article needs to be more reflective of the published research done on TM. This addition is irrelevant to TM and simply confounds and confuses the article.65.248.236.220 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The study is legitimate and so are it's findings. It comes from serious researchers at a serious university. It is fine the way it is. On an additional note I see OJ is being used to critique it yet again? Once more, his close ties to TM need to be mentioned The7thdr (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like very much to hear what the editor above has to say. Serious researchers at serious universities does not guarantee

that a meta study is appropriate in an article as specific as this one. Lets take a serious look point by point at the concerns with the study in terms of whether it is appropriate in this article as opposed to a more generalized topic/article.(olive (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

If OJ's study was published in a peer reviewed journal, then the study must be considered seriously. We can't dismiss the paper out of hand. If a Catholic writes an article on the Catholic Church and it is published in a reliable publication is that article dismissed. No its not. The standards are WP:Reliable, WP:Verifiable and in scientific studies that translates as peer review in respected journals.(olive (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

peer review is sufficient criteria for being a reliable source for wikipedia, but peer review by itself doesn't make a study relevant for inclusion in any given article - the results of this study are not at all applicable to TM specifically, and should not be included in this article - and a peer reviewed author's philosophical beliefs are also irrelevant65.248.236.212 (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a little late getting into this discussion but wanted to add my two cents. After having read the above discussion I think the central issue is whether or not this study is an appropriate study to reference in this TM article. In my opinion the pivotal point is that the study draws a meta-analysis conclusion based on a wide range of different kinds of techniques for self development, some of which are not even meditation techniques, no less the specific technique of TM. Yes, one can go deeply into the report and find sections that are specific to TM and where some commentary has been made out of the context of the whole, but even then the conclusions and methodologies seem to be debatable as illustrated in this comment section. The TM article seems highly contentious as evidenced by the vast length of this entire talk page, and also very topic specific. Therefore my point of view is that this study is more appropriate for inclusion in other articles that discuss more general aspects of self development techniques and doesn't belong in the TM article. If the study should be broken up into sections ie one on TM alone, and then peer reviewed, then we would have to reconsider the whole thing at that time. But for now, in its current form, it doesn't seem right to me. I will continue to follow the talk here and add additional comments and opinions as appropriate and try to be helpful. I am sure we can all reach some kind of neutral consensus on this issue and proceed in a coordinated and harmonious fashion as this is, after all, what Wiki is really all about. I commend all of you for your enthusiasm and commitment to this process and its outcome. --Kbob (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Ospina/Bond caveat

Pasting deleted text here:

The authors of the study acknowledged that the evaluation scale that they used may not have been appropriate for studies on meditation, which would have affected the rating of quality: "The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation."

Rracecarr, I object to your deletion of the statement by Ospina/Bond in their published review. A major point of the report was that the research was weak as determined by the scores on the Jadad scale. If the researchers themselves say that the Jadad scale isn't the best measure for research quality of meditation studies, shouldn't that be mentioned? It's not some minor caveat -- it goes to the heart of the study. I can put Orme-Johnson back in if you prefer, but it would be much better to cite the researchers themselves. TimidGuy (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is standard practice in scientific writing to conscientiously enumerate all possible sources of error. That does not mean that that particular phrase, out of the entire paper, is notable in this context. As I indicated in the edit summary, I'm sure we could mine all the earlier referenced papers for the same kind of thing. Why do you focus on trying to cast doubt on this study, while suppressing much bigger problems, i.e. conflict of interest issues, in the other articles? As for the fact tag you added, that information is in the complete report, pages 116-117. Rracecarr (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess what has to be determined here is whether the concerns enumerated in the study caveat significantly impacted the study outcomes. The authors indicate that they did. This is a definitive statement "Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation." Not sure why Rracearrr objects to the caveat. (olive (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Olive, your "definitive statement"-- "Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation." -- is simply a fact about the Jadad scale. It is not about deciding whether a treatment is effective. It evaluates the quality of the methods used to study the treatment, which is the main thing the reference does. That's why the blood pressure bit shouldn't be in there at all. The chief result of the study is that the quality of meditation/health research to this point has been generally poor. The phrase you quote does not need to be in the article--it has nothing particular to do with the study in question. If people want to know about the Jadad scale, they can click on it. Rracecarr (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Rracecarr, this issue is extensively discussed by the study's authors in the paper I cited. It's not simply part of a list of enumerated possible errors -- it's one of the focuses of the paper, i.e., how to properly assess meditation research. TimidGuy (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

TG, I can't fully address that without access to the paper. I am basing my comments on the full report.Rracecarr (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Taken in context the statement refers to the scale in reference to the study, as being unsuitable "The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation." I wouldn't say this is the chief result of the study, however if it was, then the study has no place in an article on TM, but is instead a comment more appropriate in a general article on meditation. You contradict yourself. If the study is too poor to indicate its results in terms of blood pressure , it also is too poor to indicate anything else in terms of any of the specific forms of meditations mentioned. We can't have it both ways. As well although the study could be included in a general article on meditations as an example of the poor research in the area, it proves very little in terms of a specific form of mediation such as TM especially since there were a limited number of TM studies used.Further, there are considerable other peer-reviewed studies on hypertension on TM which makes the meta study suspect in terms of reliability and verifiability on the topic,(olive (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Olive, with all due respect (which is what one says before exhibiting a complete lack of respect), you are piling BS on top of BS. The study is not too "poor" to indicate results in terms of blood pressure. It's not ABOUT that. It's about the quality of other studies. If all the studies relating to blood pressure suck, how is it supposed to conclude anything about blood pressure? That doesn't mean the meta study is bad. It means the result of the meta study is that the blood pressure studies are bad. "Limited number of TM studies" is a load of crap as well. If you would actually read the document, you'd see there are more TM studies used than any other single type of meditation, and far more TM studies than studies of other types of mantra meditation. I'm sick of wasting time here now, and will take another break from this page for while.Rracecarr (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Racecarrr I am noting your explanation on blood pressure and saying not that it is but if it is. Read what I wrote if you want to comment accurately. High blood pressure - maybe try TM :O).(olive (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm starting to rethink the wording that I used in the segment that Rracecarr deleted. I do think we need to address the issue of appropriateness of the assessment and get a bit more of the flavor of the published version of the study, in order to create more context for the reader. I think it's wrong to have a flat statement the way it is now. My suggestion is that we don't quote the AHRQ-released version, that we use proper summary style the Wikipedia recommends, and that we combine the conclusions of both versions of the study, as well as briefly noting the qualifications and in a few words mentioning the double blinding obstacle as an example. And we do need to find out if any TM studies were among the 40 that were rated good on the Jadad scale.. TimidGuy (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the beginning I can deal with the inclusion of this material as long as its reworded somewhat. We have to be consistent too as to how we use the study. I do think the study best belongs in a more general article on mediation forms but its possible to leave it here ... so TG I think you're idea is fine, and your suggestions will I think make the inclusion more compliant(olive (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

I will make the point again, hopefully somehow more clearly this time. This AHRQ ("Ospina") study included only a very small subset of TM studies in its data collection and subsequent analysis (likely 5% or less, not that even 90+% on TM would make it sufficiently accurate in applying any of its amalgamated conclusions to TM). As a result of combining a wide variety of disparate meditation practices along with with a variety of physical exercises (yoga / tai chi / qigong), the results of this paper are so generic as to be wholly unusable in almost any entry, and are definitely not relevant to, nor in any way descriptive of, the medical studies done on TM. Keeping any conclusions from this overly generic study here is factually incorrect to the point of ridicule. It needs to be completely removed. Thanks to others for weighing in on what seems like a black and white scientific issue. What am I missing here? Does anyone here have a background in (or even a facility with) either science or logic? I would love to entertain attempts at valid scientific argument against this clear point.IP65.248.236.212 (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As per my multiple clearly outlined talk posts for deleting the ospina report from this article (that one editor has agreed with and no one has given any compelling logical or scientific reason to argue to keep it in), I will be deleting the ospina study from the main page sometime in the next couple of days. And since wikipedia apparently doesn't like usernames with IP addresses in them, I have changed my username to wahwahpeddle9 (from IP65.248.236.212) and will reflect that history in my new talk and user pages.Wahwahpeddle9 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

HOLD IT, SPORT! (Pardon the shouting.) No, you should not delete.

A number of editors have strongly weighed in here in favor of including the paragraph on this study after TimidGuy first deleted it. Your rationale for deleting is based on a factually incorrect premise: (1) The Report was not restricted to a "very small subset" of TM studies; it included 230 TM studies (by far the largest set in the study), of which it found only three were of good quality; (2) the conclusion that the sorry state of the current literature (including every prior favorable study cited in the TM article) makes it impossible to draw any valid conclusions about the medical effects of meditation applies with equal force to those 230 TM studies, and provides appropriate balance to the medical claims advanced by the other studies cited in the article. If you wanted further relevance, one could check the tables and footnotes in this report and the UK report, and identify which the studies cited in this article were considered by the reviewers to be "of good quality" or not of "good quality". I'm not proposing that the article should do that, or that it should get into anything beyond the general conclusions as is done in the current version of the paragraph. It would be inappropriate to do so under WP:MEDRS. This report is a notable and relevant reliable secondary source on TM-related medical research, and should be included. That it might also be included in other meditation articles as well does not justify its exclusion here. Fladrif (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Malnak

Here's what the appellate court decision says regarding the puja:

To acquire his mantra, a meditator must attend a ceremony called a "puja." Every student who participated in the SCI/TM course was required to attend a puja as part of the course. A puja was performed by the teacher for each student individually; it was conducted off school premises on a Sunday; and the student was required to bring some fruit, flowers and a white handkerchief. During the puja the student stood or sat in front of a table while the teacher sang a chant and made offerings to a deified "Guru Dev." Each puja lasted between one and two hours.2

The teacher sings the puja, not the student. By the way, the court entered into the record a correction from Steven Druker regarding the puja. I guess we'll need to get that document. TimidGuy (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The student brings the fruit and flowers, the teacher makes the offerings.TimidGuy (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Someplace on my computer I have a court document that lists the undisputed facts in the case. I sure don't remember the students making ceremonial offerings as being one of them. Where was that from? I deleted it for now. The Adams footnote is ambiguous. I agree that it may not have been accurately presented in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Read on. I supplied a link to the full text of the decision in the footnote:

"We are not persuaded that the reasoning employed in those cases requires reversal in this case because of the factual differences between a benediction at a non-instructional high school commencement exercise open to the public and the teaching of SCI/TM which includes ceremonial student offerings to deities as part of a regularly scheduled course in the schools' educational programs." [emphasis added]

And, of course, a longer discussion of the issue would include the extensive quote from the District Court in footnote 2, but that is clearly too long for this article.

For a comprehensive description of the puja, see 440 F.Supp. at 1305-08. The district court described the activities of a chanter at the puja ceremony:

The chanter . . . makes fifteen offerings to Guru Dev and fourteen obeisances to Guru Dev. The chant then describes Guru Dev as a personification of "kindness" and of "the creative impulse of cosmic life," and the personification of "the essence of creation," . . . .

The chanter then makes three more offerings to Guru Dev and three additional obeisances to Guru Dev. The chant then moves to a passage in which a string of divine epithets are applied to Guru Dev. Guru Dev is called "The Unbounded," "the omnipresent in all creation," "bliss of the Absolute," "transcendental joy," "the Self-Sufficient," "the embodiment of pure knowledge which is beyond and above the universe like the sky," "the One," "the Eternal," "the Pure," "the Immovable," "the Witness of all intellects, whose status transcends thought," "the Transcendent along with the three gunas," and "the true preceptor." Manifestly, no one would apply all these epithets to a human being.

440

F.Supp. at 1308 (footnote omitted)

The district court concluded:

(T)he puja is sung at the direction of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a Hindu monk. The words and offerings of the chant invoke the deified teacher, who also was a Hindu monk, of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In the chant, this teacher is linked to names known as Hindu deities. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi places such great emphasis on the singing of this chant prior to the imparting of a mantra to each individual student that no mantras are given except at pujas and no one is allowed to teach the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation unless he or she performed the puja to the personal satisfaction of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or one of his aides. . . . Needless to say, neither Hinduism nor belief in "the Lord" constitute a dead religion. Both of these beliefs are held by hundreds of millions of people.

The Adams footnote wasn't ambigouus, it was simply false. Adams is characterizing the argument made by appellants. He did not conclude that the puja fell outside the establishment clause prohibition. Fladrif (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you use the phrase "uncontested fact"? That makes it sound like an undisputed fact in the case. It wasn't. It's from a footnote and is not listed among the undisputed facts in the case. Interesting that the document contradicts itself. The fact is, and we can probably locate this fact in the secondary literature, that it's the teacher who makes the offering. The student just observes. The main text of the opinion has it correct. TimidGuy (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make up the language. I used it because that is the precise language used in the decision by the Court of Appeals:

"We agree with the district court's finding that the SCI/TM course was religious in nature. Careful examination of the textbook, the expert testimony elicited, and the uncontested facts concerning the puja convince us that religious activity was involved and that there was no reversible error in the district court's determination." {Emphasis added]

The "footnote" to the COA opinion is quoting part of the main text of the District Court opinion, which the COA praised as "exhautive and well reasoned". This is not mere marginalia. Fladrif (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that fact about offerings should be characterized as uncontested, because the appellate court themselves said something different in their opinion. By the way, it's not inappropriate to delete the attribution to Markovsky. Please restore that. TimidGuy (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What you think is pretty much irrelevant. It is what the court found. You don't get to argue with the court's findings.WP:NOR And before you edit this again, I suggest you read the opinion first. Your edits this afternoon have been uniformly wrong, and suggest that you haven't, at least not recently.Fladrif (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you admit that the document contradicts itself? TimidGuy (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC) If so, then which fact is uncontested? Why choose the one you prefer, and which contradicts every other source? TimidGuy (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No. There is no contradiction whatsoever in the Court's decision.Fladrif (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The original case and appeal found that TM/SCI were religious in nature under the first Ammendment and establishment clause for the most part because of entanglemnet with Government agencies. Judge Adams goes on to note:

Under these circumstances, and recalling Justice Frankfurter's admonition that an individual expression of opinion is useful when the way a result is reached may be important to results hereafter to be reached,1 I am impelled to state my views separately.14

Because of the original case the, appeal, the subsequent comment by Adams and the further comments in several law reviews the case is much more complex than simply stating this is what the court may have said. Including the first part of the case is relatively simple but this should not be included without noting the further comments by the judge and the law reviews on the topic. I'd like to look at this further as I've just arrived and am not sure what has gone on so far here.(olive (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Sheesh .... that last edit summary got away on me before I could correct it .... should read "add format"....(olive (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

No, it really is that simple. The court's holding is really quite straightforward.Fladrif (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The court decision is simple. There is much auxiliary information which will have to to be included for the topic to be dealt with in a neutral manner.(olive (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Don't piss on my shoes and try to tell me it's raining. There is nothing neutral about this article. It is an advertisement for TM. There is one, and only one, US Court of Appeals decision on the issue. There is no contrary decision by a court of competent jurisdiction. The article already contains plenty of disclaimers on the religion issue. it needs no more. 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladrif (talk • contribs)

Your tone and words are offensive. Please be civil. On the contrary I happen to know this case quite well and am attempting to clean up non compliant edits.

• The first, piece-together quotes constitutes a form of WP:OR
• The second quote is out of context. As well Wikipedia frowns on excessive quotes . The quote is excessive because it is elaborating on a point in a short segment that would be better used for the rest of the judge's comments, that is, that the decision was also determinative of government entanglement.Note that this is a primary source and its use if used at all should be limited to only necessary information to outline the case. A long out of context quote is unnecessary.
• By auxiliary material, I mean the judges opinion which is not part of the determinative aspect of the case, and secondary sources. I have to rush off now but will continue.(olive (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, why do you contend there's no contradiction? In one place it says the student makes the offering. In another place it correctly says the teacher makes the offering. If we include both points, which is absurd, we should juxtapose them so that the reader can clearly see the contradiction. On the other hand, once we identify secondary sources (which Wikipedia prefers over primary sources such as the appellate decision), then we need not include the incorrect version. Let's continue this in Olive's thread below. TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking both of you together:

• I find the actions of both of you offensive. As I noted the other day, the bad faith that the two of you have exhibited in this article is just staggering. I cannot conceive how the two of you are permitted to edit this article in light of your history here and you WP:COIYou are making edits to this section which are flatly false, acting like a tag team, and then having the temerity to threaten me that I'd better not exceed the three-revert rule.
• I see from your most recent edits that you've apparently come around to face the facts as to what the court's holdings were. That at least is an improvement from the reversions and misstatements that you've been making in direct contradiction to the plain language of the decision.
• The quotes are neither out of context, nor excessive - they are the central findings that is determinative of the court's decision that (i) TM is a religion and (ii)that state sponsorship is involved.
• There's no contradiction whatsoever. The court says that (i) the student is required to attend the puja; (ii) the student is required to bring the listed items; and (iii) the teacher then uses the items in the ceremony which he or she conducts. There is no contradiction in finding that this constitutes a "student offering". Not to be flip about it, but if I'm told I have to bring a goat to the temple, and to attend a ceremony in which the priest slaughters it on an altar while reciting prayers in a language I don't understand, where is there any "contradiction" in concluding that its "my" offering? Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. We'll see what the secondary sources say. And according to the guidelines, we should prefer secondary sources -- just for this reason. TimidGuy (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's your interpretation that there's a contradiction in the court's holding. It is inappropriate to strike the quotes simply because you think there is a contradiction. I daresay that the court did not think there was any contradiction. It is incumbent on you to produce an independent, unbiased verifiable secondary source to support your position.Fladrif (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We also have the district court findings to consider. From what I understand, they described the puja accurately. Apparently the appellate court originally wrote that the student performed the ceremony and made the offerings, but then granted a motion from the defendants to correct the text to say that the teacher performs it. This document should be part of the court record and can be obtained. Despite the appellate court's granting the motion, it's obvious that there are still inaccuracies. Since the puja is an important element in the case, hopefully the secondary sources will clear this up. TimidGuy (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a potential solution to your obvious discomfort. I do not read the sentence as suggesting in any way that the student conducted the ceremony.T he point of the second finding was not who conducted the ceremony, which is what you seem to be hung up on. The District Court observed that the Defendants' own experts disagreed as to whether the puja was conducted on behalf of the student or on behalf of the teacher, but assumed for purposes of the motion for summary disposition that it was conducted on the teacher's behalf. The Court of Appeals decision suggests, but clearly does not rest on, the conclusion that the ceremony was conducted on the students' behalf. The point of the second finding is that a ceremony that it found to be religious was being conducted as part of the regular public school curriculum. See if my edit makes you feel any better. 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladrif (talk • contribs)

I have secondary sources so will be dealing with your points TG.

The issues for me here are:

• We have three pieces of information dealing with Puja when in fact there is extensive information contained in Judge Adams'comments on the case which are revealing and should be included.
• We also have secondary sources. Secondary sources are preferred so they should be included.
• Thus, three pieces of puja information is redundant and should be pared down to comply with WP:Weight. Right now most of the weight in this part of the TM article is focused on the puja.
• As well the subsection on Malnak is starting to carry a fair amount of weight in the article as a whole.. Since court cases against the TM organisazation only number three -four? in the entire history of the organization this size subsection is not appropriately weighted in regards to the TM organization as a whole and so is getting close to violating undue weight in the article as well.
• We probably need to choose one piece of information on puja... probably the one given by Judge Adams in his summary of the case.
• I would remove the second long quote which is just an expanded description. This kind of detail isn't necessary in a subsection of this length and isn't needed in the article. If a reader wants to find out what the puja is perhaps we can add it in a "see also".
• The third statement on puja as worded in the article is actually WP: OR. The statement is given in the court case as a rebuttal to the appellants comments concerning graduation ceremonies. We know that this is also the the kind of statement used in the summary by Judge Adams, it is however not the statement Adams made but has another context. Making the connection between the summary statement and this statement is classic WP:OR. Whether the statement is true is not even an issue at this point.(olive (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Awesome! Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry TG I hit an edit conflict so my post may be in the wrong place.

Fladr. Thanks for this change. I think its still OR but the accuracy of the statement itself may be improved.(olive (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Sigh. How does one respond to comments like this? There's not enough information. There's too much information. Quoting is wrong. We need more quotes. No, we need different quotes. A summary of a court decision is original research. Going back into the record of a court decision isn't original research. We need to explain the puja. No, we need to take everything about the puja out, and let people look it up for themselves. I suggest you actually read the WP policies you so glibly cite, as well as WP:COI, then take a very long, hard look in the mirror. In the meantime, I suggest that you stop editing the article.Fladrif (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. Your statement above is a complete miscahracterizations of what I've attempted to discuss here, and of what I've said which I don't really appreciate. I am making suggestions and rather than attack me, perhaps you could address the points I'm making. I'm quite familiar with the policies, and because I am dealing here with a contentious article I prefer to use them stringently rather than adapt them in some way. I am correctly noting possible concerns with WP:Weight. Why for example are you insistent on having three references to the puja in a subsection on a topic that is a very small part of the TM organization. The information is also redundant. I am asking for a choice ... choose one. I also correctly note Wikipedia frowns on excessive quoting... if we don't need the quote why is it there. I have never asked for more quotes to be added. If you want the information in the quote why not add it to a "see also" or rephrase it.

"The court also found state action violative of the Establishment Clause because the puja involved "offerings to deities as part of a regularly scheduled course in the schools' educational programs".

This statement is cobbled together from two different sections of the document. The quoted part comes from a reply to the appellates argument. The rest from other parts of the document. This statement above isn't what Adams said, although we know what he meant. If this was research paper of some kind we could make this staement . Its not and in this environment the statement is unencycopedic because it is OR.

To be encyclopedic the statement would have to read something like,"appellants note that even if the puja is religious its effect is insignificant whereas Judge Adams notes that this reasoning does not require reversal because of differences between a benediction at a commencement exercise "and the teaching of...." (olive (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

No, I have not micharacterized what you've tried to discuss here. Your intellectual dishonesty is beyond the pale. You have no legitimate objections to this portion of the article as written, and your arguments and "concerns" are entirely specious. It's telling that you admit that truth isn't an issue with you. You simply don't want there to be an accurate description of the holding of the court anywhere in this article. The same could be said for the vast majority of your edits to other portions of the article. As for your specific objections which you want me to address: Use of a court decision as a primary source of what it held is perfectly acceptable, and violates no Wikipedia policy. It is, in fact, the best source for what the holding was. You have allueded to, but have yet to cite, any secondary source whatsoever which would indicate that there is any inaccuracy in this section of the article. If you want an independent, secondary source on the question of whether TM is a "religion" within the meaning of the First Amendment, try "Note, Transcendental Meditation and The Meaning of Religion Under the Establishment Clause", 62 Minn.L.Rev. 887 (1978), wherein it is concluded, after an extensive review of the literature on TM and TM/SCI, and even prior to the Court of Appeals decision in Malnak, that no TM class in public schools could pass constitutional muster. Describing the decison's holdings is not original research, and your arguments to the contrary are simply nonsense. Quoting the decision in manner done here is hardly excessive, violates no policy or guideline, including WP:Synthesis, which you seem to be alluding to without correctly citing or understanding. There is no undue weight in the description and quotes from the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the puja ceremony, given the centrality of those findings to the Court's conclusions. Your own suggestions for "fixes" are wholly inappropriate, and in fact do violate, in ways both blatant and subtle, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:COI among a host of others. Your arguments are totally without merit. Stop editing this article. Fladrif (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have indeed mischaracterized me, and what I am doing, and I would request you stop attacking me and try to hear what I am saying. Until recently although I had copy edited the Malnak section I had very little knoweledge of this court case. About a month ago I started to research it, and found that there is a lot of imformation and contradiction as the secondary sources indicate. Your addition of the puja material slants towards informtion that is one side of the debate and according to TM people I have spoken too the puja as it is used in modern times is used in a seqular fashion. I felt you had an agenda in putting in what is in my understanding of weight three pieces of information on puja where one would do. I note the policies correctly whether you agree or not, but I do adhere strictly. I note also that I removed information from my user page for reasons pertaining to off wiki harassment.

If you were to look carefully at both my edits over time and TG's you would see that what we are above all neutral editors.We have removed countless edits from pro TM people, and have left in negative-to-TM additions even when the source is poor in order to create balance. This article is the result of many hours of work from editors holding both pro and negative TM stanses.To think it comes from two editors is a huge misunderstanding of how such an article is created.

I have secondary sources and am putting together material that says what is being said in the article right now but from the more compliant secondary sources along with the other mandatory, neutral-creating information. I am attempting to create something that will satisfy both you and the Wikipedia policies, and is as truthful as can be given the inaccuracies in the sources. It will take me a little time to do. Once we look at the subsection I suspect it will be too long as pertains to WP:Weight so at that point, someone may want to pare it down.(olive (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Markovsky

I am adding attribution of the quote "stealth religion" to Barry Markovsky as is appropriate. The statement was not a general comment but specific to one person.(olive (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

In fact I've always been uncomfortable with this section. Tacking the two together - the public schools and Markovsky's comment is in fact a non sequitur, so it should be changed. The whole section should be rewritten, actually.(olive (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

I believe the entire sentence from Markovsky is out of context. It is not appropriate to have one individuals opinion sited in the section or in the article, whether the person is a professional, author, scientist or whatever. I'm sure someone could find quotes from teachers, principals, school pyschologists etc that say TM in schools is the greatest or from a priest that says TM is not a religion. Should we also list all of these other quotes and personal conclusions? I think not. So why do we have this one? Therefore, I propose that this Markovsy sentence is out of context and unduly weighted and should be removed. I also think the section could be rewritten, its a bit disjointed right now and doesn't really flow. Maybe a new version could be written and commented on here? --Kbob (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well actually, Markovsky is legitimate since we are quoting from a newspaper article as a source in which he comments. He is also a sociologist so could be considered a professional in a field related to this section. We did have comments by priests and rabbis in that section that came out of references to books and newspapers, but they were removed because of issues with length. The section may need to be revised once we deal with the Malnak section, but I personally would like to deal with that first before we do anything else or complicate the procedure with a rewrite. (My thoughts on it at least.)(olive (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Suggestion

I'd like to suggest that rather than continuing to edit war which is only creating a strangely,jumbled connection of phrases, that the Malnak v Yogi be completely rewritten. The court document itself contains contradictions some of which whether they are in the actual court document or not can be shown with a little research to be inaccurate. This means they shouldn't be included necessarily but probably violate WP:Verifiability. If there is such contradictory information included here than perhaps to be accurate both sides of the contradiction need to be shown. As well, if we are discussing the case and there are obvious contradictions then those contradictions themselves are noteworthy aspects of the case. As well we have journals which are secondary sources that need to be included and are more compliant than the primary source which is the court document. I would suggest two versions. I could write one and Fladrif could write the other . We could post them here and discuss and edit them here, then when all are satisfied put it back into the article. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Olive, I second this motion and think it is a good idea. Getting to specific language would help to focus this converstation and help to move it towards some kind of conclusion.--Kbob (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion with the addition that the section remains as is in the article until a final edit is agreed - assuming that final edit is different. The7thdr (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this too. I'm working on parts so will just extend that. I'll post it here and then we can work on it. With the addendum: That we add pieces as they are agreed on. Otherwise we could have an entire rewrite that is fine except for a small piece, and never be able to add anything.(olive (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Quality of TM research and Ospina-Bond/Jadad scale

Since this issue has been discussed in recent days I did a little investigating. The Ospina/Bond report found that 22 of the 400 clinical studies in their review were of Good quality or better on the Jadad scale. Of those, three are on Transcendental Meditation (reference numbers 220, 221, and 282). In addition, the study by Paul-Labrador published in 2006, after the 2005 cutoff date of Ospina/Bond, was rated high quality on the Jadad scale by the University of Kentucky meta-analysis published in 2008. Further, that meta-analysis identified three additional TM studies that were rated of acceptable quality on the Jadad scale. Also, the revised version of Ospina/Bond published last December in JACM said that there were 40, not 22, studies that rated Good or better on Jadad. There's no way of knowing whether those 18 studies that had their scores adjusted upward included TM studies, but that may very well be the case. So there are at least 7 studies on TM that range from acceptable to high quality on the Jadad scale.

The Ospina/Bond report only included randomized controlled trials, because this is thought to be one of the more rigorous research methodologies. Please understand that, with the exception of the pharmaceutical industry, the majority of clinical studies in general aren't randomized controlled trials, because such studies are very difficult and expensive. A typical randomized controlled trial on TM with 100 subjects costs $2 million and takes four years to from inception to publication. In addition, probably only a small percentage of randomized controlled trials that aren't pharmaceutical rate high on Jadad. The Ospina/Bond report gives the impression that the Jadad scale is the norm for clinical research. It's not, except in the pharmaceutical industry, which can easily afford to drop $50 million on a trial involving over 1,000 subjects.

This information is offered in support of my suggestion in a thread above that the Ospina/Bond paragraph could be revised. I would write it something like this:

In 2007 the National Institutes of Health released a report that assessed research on meditation using the high standard of the pharmaceutical industry, that is, the Jadad scale. The report found that 40 of the 400 clinical studies assessed rated good quality or better on the Jadad scale and that there was a statistically significant increase in the quality of research over time. The report found that at least three studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique out of the dozens that were assessed rated good quality or better on the Jadad scale. The report stated that it found a statistically significant reduction in blood pressure associated with practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like too much original research to me. And why say it "...found that at least three studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique out of the dozens that were assessed rated good quality or better on the Jadad scale" instead of the more accurate - as you point out yourself: "...found that dozens of studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique that were assessed rated poor quality or worse on the Jadad scale". Please, if MUM is going to try this one at least get your resident published researcher to put something up on his website first so that you can quote it - which will no doubt happen shortly. I know you are going to say assume good faith - but the pure and unadulterated intellectual dishonesty and corporate spin when discussing this article is truly appalling and goes against the spirt of WIKI. The7thdr (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would guess the issue is that although I haven't seen what TG is taking about, if the source says there are three studies than that is what we have to put in ....Original research would be the instance if the source says there are three studies and then we do the math and come up with the number of not so good studies...I'll try and check that. Note that TG is making suggestions its not in the article, and can be edited easily here. (olive (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

And while we are on the subject of honesty, I think we need to add who the funder - and who paid the SALARY of one of the researchers - of the slightly more positive 2008 study was i.e. HOWARD SETTLE founder of Settle Foundation for an Invincible America, and who recently said:

"would like to take this opportunity to speak to all of the Sidhas in America and throughout the world about the extraordinary gift that Maharishi has given us in the form of the Invincible Assemblies.

"Maharishi has given us the opportunity to create an invincible world-a world without enemies-a world of peace, prosperity, joy, happiness, and profound bliss.

"The formula to achieve this incredible goal for mankind is so very simple, and it is completely within our grasp. Maharishi has given us the technology to achieve the impossible through a procedure so easy and blissful that it defies imagination-and yet it is true, and it has been tested and proven.

"The technology, of course, is an Invincible Assembly in every nation-a Super Radiance group of Yogic Flyers in every country.:The7thdr (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is 7th. I guess you're saying that Howard Settle supports Maharish Mahesh Yogi's peace initiatives. First what proof do you have that he paid the salary of one of the researchers .... not sure what you're talking about but I'm not up on that ... and second if the work was peer reviewed in a respected journal, the study is Wikipedia compliant. Of course private institutions, funded by one or more individuals carry on research all of the time. You'll remember as well that all universities rely on endowments to carry on the business of the university that often includes researcher and those endowments come very much from individuals. Honesty doesn't enter into it that I can see, and actually please deal with the edits and not the editors (olive (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi Olive, with reference to "First what proof do you have that he paid the salary of one of the researchers" please read the deceleration of conflict interests section of the original paper - handley found on one of your own corporate websites if you don't have access to ATHENS:) [2] The7thdr (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 7th. This is a declaration of no conflict of interest, and states Anderson has no connection to any TM groups.Right? Settle had no input at all, so that whatever was found in the Meta analysis would have been published whether positive or negative to TM. (olive (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, and this will need to be included in the article - if no one else dose I will do so shortly. I am trying to keep out of this but it is proving difficult to be honest Olive. TM is a "product" and care needs to be taken when discussing "products in WIKI. While we are on the subject I am more than dismayed by the recent edit by TG to the Ospin/Bond section. At present it states:

Regarding the Transcendental Meditation technique, the report concluded that it "significantly reduced blood pressure."(p. v in the abstract) Its effect on blood pressure was found to be statistically equivalent to that of health education."

I have never in my life seen such selective editing to place a "positive spin" on a commercial product outside of that products advertising literature. The study actually says:

" TM® had no advantages over HE to improve measures of SBP,

DBP, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients..." Perhaps it would be wise to edit the article accordingly? At least than it would reflect the truth? I am assuming that multiple users at MUM use the LO/TG Wiki accounts. looking through the history of this article the most recent incarnation of TG is slightly more zealous than previous incarnations.It might be worth noting this :) The7thdr (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Whew ! what a lot of assumptions you make. 7th, TM is a mediation technique. Whether you like the technique or what is connected to it is actually immaterial, it must be considered a meditation technique. Sheesh.... I am one person 7th... not schizophrenic as far as I know...I've met TG and he looks pretty normal too, and is one person...rotfl... That is hilarious

(olive (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

:)I don't dislike the meditation technique Olive - its certainly much older than its registered trademark - many thousands of years older as you well know. Its the blatant self promotion and intellectual dishonesty of this article that troubles me - something that has developed to a state where i now need to become involved. As to your second comment, TM is not simply a mediation technique. Is TM a registered trademark Olive? Is it part of a corporate, profit making, company? The7thdr (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

7th you've just got to do better with AGF...still laughing.Good one.(olive (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

I try Olive :) The7thdr (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to put a few things in context. Transcendental Meditation is a service, not a product. Also it is the name ‘Transcendental Meditation’ that is trademarked not the process of TM. A proprietary process would require a patent which, for TM, does not exist at this time. The TM org is in fact a corporation but it is a not for profit, educational organization and is recognized by the IRS as a non-profit. TM has been the subject of hundreds of research studies and the topic of thousands of news articles, radio and TV spots. It therefore certainly deserves to be described in Wikipedia as it meets all the Wiki requirements of notability. As editors our job is to create and maintain a description that is neutral and provides information with an appropriate weighting. We are here as a community to create something greater than ourselves so any time we can leave the personal stuff at home it will help the process. Peace!  :-) --Kbob (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested versions of Malnak v Yogi

I am including one version of a rewrite. Much of the first part is what is in place now. I attempted to compact the puja material and added what seemed to be the clearest and most consistent summary of the case from one of the secondary sources. I am in no way endorsing this version at this point, but thought we could take a look at it and see what everyone thought. Of course anyone else who wants to add a version should.

Since the puja from what I understand is used in a secular manner, and since the student doesn't understand it, its merely for the teacher, including a translatio0n of part of it here seems misleading... so I 'm not excited about using any translation. However, the court document does say this so if everyone agrees, we could include it.(olive (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Version 1

In 1979, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the United States Court for the District of New Jersey that a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation (SCI/TM), was religious activity within the meaning of the Establishment Clause, and that the teaching of SCI/TM in the New Jersey public high schools was prohibited by the First Amendment. The court ruled that although SCI/TM cannot be defined as a Theistic religion, it does deal with issues of ultimate concern, truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions, a broadened view of religion as defined by the court. From careful examination of the textbook, the expert testimony elicited, and the uncontested facts concerning the "puja", (a ceremony performed for each student individually, in which the teacher sang a Sanskrit chant and "made offerings to a deified Guru Dev" Malnak 4), as well as application of the Nyquist or Lemon test, the religious nature of TM/SCI was decided. The Nuquist or Lemon test helps determine if government involvement is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in affirming the ruling of the district court left several questions unresolved that included: a judgment that dealt with TM/SCI together as one unit, and left unanswered whether TM taught without the puja and SCI would constitute an establishment of religion, and that the use of a textual analysis of the chant was ambiguous in that such a analysis could also be used to invalidate for example America the Beautiful or the Pledge of Allegiance. (Marjorie Gilman Baker, Seton Hall Law Review,1979, p.614-629)

All but the last paragraph seems relevant. The7thdr (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The secondary sources commented on the case and its outcomes. The initial case was somewhat seminal in that its judgments were based on past definitions of religion that were Theistic yet as with Judge Adams the definition of religion was broadened. The broadening left some areas unaddressed in terms of the case. Going to the secondary sources and taking this as a summary gives a sense of what those unaddressed areas were. The first point concerning a single unifying religion is absolutely not relevant to TM , and I debated about using it but it was part of the group of questions unresolved. I was thinking of the context for the other two points I'm happy to remove it . The other points refer directly to TM so I would like them to stay, but am open to discussion.(olive (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm unclear what the last sentence of the first paragraph means. ("The religious nature was also largely determined by apparent involvement of government.") Roseapple (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If there had been no government involement in the teaching of TM/SCI in the New Jersey Scools there would have been no case

The case turned on two general areas. One that the text, puja, and testimony seemed according to the court definition to be of a religious nature, and second the so called "Lemon" test or Nyquist test which was used to determine government involvement.

"To pass muster, the action in question must: (1) reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion...and that the government aid given to teach the course and the use of public school facilities constituted excessive governmental entanglement with religion. (Malnak 10).

I should probably clarify that.(olive (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Although several law review articles have observed that the Court of Appeals' opinion does not directly address whether the teaching of TM alone, without SCI or the puja ceremony, would pass constitutional muster, it is factually incorrect to assert that the teaching or practice of TM alone was not a part of the judgment affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The District Court permanently enjoined (i) the teaching of SCI/TM, the concepts of the field of pure creative intelligence, creative intelligence or bliss-consciousness (ii) use of the SCI textbook or its equivalent or (iii) the practice of TM or the puja ceremony in any public school in the State of New Jersey. Thus the injunction affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which is still in effect, bars the practice of TM (with or without SCI or the puja ceremony) in the New Jersey schools. The District Court Opinion is reproduced in full at Malnak v. Yogi 440 F.Supp. 1284 (DNJ 1977), and the Order at Malnak v. Yogi (Order and Judgment, Dec 12, 1977) Fladrif (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am in no way saying that separating them is factually correct I am citing a journal and the comments made there, and I'd have to recheck but I think Adams makes somewhat the same comment although not sure and going out of town so no time to check that. Anyway, a comment from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. When I get back I'll find the quote and add it here so we can look at it.(olive (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

I think the wording I use makes it clear that this was one of the questions left unresolved ... but if not it could be reworded as long as it sticks to what the source said(olive (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Rereading your post now that I'm not rushing I see you may have the source so I won't put it here since I have to type it and that will take time. If you don't have this source (Seton Hall Law Review) let me know and I'll put it here. And thanks for the other links ... I do have them, though.(olive (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

I've made some more changes in order to help clarify, so anyone who thought the last version was OK should re look and rejudge. I hope its somewhat clearer. I would take out the "fruit, flower, handkerchief" part since it seems like a detail not needed... but not attached.(olive (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Olive Oil, I made one small addition to your suggested copy. Generally I think its pretty good except one point: It's my understanding that the word 'puja' is a generic term for some kind of thanksgiving ceremony. However in this instance, you are giving it a clear definition --a ceremony performed for each student individually, in which the teacher sang a Sanskrit chant and made offerings to a deified Guru Dev--. I am assuming that this definition of the TM puja is cited in the court case. Shouldn't we put that sentence in quotes or in some way indicate its source? --Kbob (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I did just add quotations for the part that is quoted exactly. Everything in the first paragarph is from the court document so the whole first paragraph will be sourced to the Malnak case. Since the word puja is used in a specific way in and from the document, I think it would be appropriate to source it. If and when we add this section to the article we can add refs then.(olive (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

New addition SRM

This information is historical in nature so I've moved it into the history/origin section. Its reference to religion is oblique but not specific to the organization as it defines itself today.

I would request that additions be added with discussion here and agreement as has been the tradition in the past here because this is a contentious article.(olive (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm removing "others" and also MMY since I suspect the actual incorporation was not MMY but some of the TM teachers if the time. At any rate we could put back in MMY if he did this himself, and if not we should clarify who the others are since "others" itself is a bit on the weasely side. I think there may be other information here to place this in context so I'll look at that later.(olive (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

I have to strongly disagree with these edits. They are entirely improper, and are based on an approach that reliably-sourced information may be removed simply because it doesn't square with one editor's personal (and mistaken)understandings to the contrary.

• The name of the corporation is "Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation". That was properly sourced in my edit. "Your sources" are wrong. The accuracy of my edit is confirmed by a check of the primary source, the California Secretary of State's database. Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation
• The fact that it was incoporated by Yogi and others is also properly sourced. It is what the District Court found, with citations to the record. What you "suspect" is no basis for removing the information. There is nothing weasely in accurately presenting the information.
• This is not oblique to the TM as a religion/religious practice question. It bears directly upon it. The District Court stopped just short of calling the defendants in Malnak liars, but was quite clear that their representations and personal understandings as to the non-religious nature of TM was unpersuasive, and that the incorporation papers of SRMF were an incontrovertable fact as to the religious nature of TM.Fladrif (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I had another source which said Spiritual Regeneration Movement so I made the change. All the literature I have ever seen also calls it Spiritual Regeneration Movement including some law journals. If you feel your source is more accurate no problem, its not an big issue. "Others" is weasel wording, and that is what I was referring to I went to remove it, but then didn't have the source to know who the "others" were to make the statement more explicit. I doubted Maharishi himself did this himself since at the time he would have only been in the country a short while and was not an American citizen so I thought leaving it in would be inaccurate. I did not consider any of these big controversial edits and also felt that if you had further information you would just put it in place.(olive (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

"stopped just short of calling the defendants in Malnak liars," is a very personal opinion. Nothing in the court case says that, especially in Adams' case. Of course that is my reading of the situation which is why neither my view nor yours has any credence here.

If the source says TM is religious than we can say that. If the source says the corporation is religious which is what your quote says that's all we can say . We can't use that to "reflect" on the article in anyway ... that's OR, and creates a jump in logic and possible POV. If this belongs anywhere it belongs in the origin section as a historical point. That's would be how I see it. Including this in the court case section would be to select this one of the many points that came up as discussion points on the case. Since it doesn't directly relate to the technique I felt it wasn't really well placed in that section. But these are points for discussion and not definitive as far as I'm concerned. (olive (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Misleading and Misplaced

The information on the Spiritual Regeneration Movement may be on several levels somewhat misleading and misplaced. The comment and quote is about the corporation not the technique. We've tried to keep the article clearly about the technique in the interests of clarity and brevity. This decision was made by multiple editors.

The source I have, "The Minnesota Law Review", describes SRM as a spiritual movement, the corporation as a religious one but whose purpose is to teach the technique to those who want a spiritual life. So there is considerable ambiguity there in terms of the organization itself.Is it spiritual or is it religious.

The technique though is never described as religious.

Spirituality and religion are clearly delineated in some of the literature cited in the TM article. It is the court case under the First Amendment, Establishment and Free Exercises clauses that define the technique with SCI as religious in nature, and we know that definition was expanded and not based on a Theistic definition. Defining the TM techniques as religious in any other context I would think is misleading. I think this requires some discussion as to how to place this information if at all. I won't remove it pending discussion, but on closer examination of the source I'm not sure it should stay in this article.(olive (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

The technique certainly is described as religious by numerous sources, including by Yogi until he decided to try to recast TM as a science instead of a religion beginning in the mid-1960's. Even TM's current literature describes is as the practical application of SCI, which the courts have found to be a religion. The article cited from the National Center for Science Education's journal, compares SCI with Creationism as attempts to disquise religious beliefs and practices as science in order to introduce them to the public schools. There are numerous points in Malnak, both at the District Court and Court of Appeals decisions, the characterize the practice of TM alone as a religious practice. For example:

• "Once a belief-system has been credited as a "religion" through an examination of its "ultimate" nature, its teachings on other matters must also be accepted as religious" (Malnak, Concurring Opinion fn 40)
• "There is some indication that SCI/TM has attempted a transformation from a religion to a secular science in order to gain access to the public schools. See Note, Transcendental Meditation and the Meaning of Religion Under the Establishment Clause, 62 Minn.L.Rev. 887, 912-13 (1978). Even if this is true, the issue of its religious nature remains a legal question, and the judgment of the Court today represents a conclusion, in effect, that the attempted transformation is not complete." (Malnak, Concurring Opinion, fn 45)
• "The TM course trains students in a method or process of meditation. For some, it is a religion; but for thousands of people throughout the country it is a mental exercise, often engaged in by enthusiastic adherents of such formal religions as Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. Clearly, TM should be deemed a religion for purposes of the free exercise clause: if the government sought to forbid it as an activity, the free exercise clause would stand in the way." (quoting Larry Tribe's treatise on Constitutional Law)(Malnak, Concurring Opinion, fn 46)
• "For a comprehensive survey of the literature for and against TM, and the distinctions between TM and SCI/TM See Note, Transcendental Meditation and The Meaning of Religion Under the Establishment Clause, 62 Minn.L.Rev. 887 (1978). The Minnesota commentator expresses considerable doubt that any TM course could pass constitutional muster. Id. 938-48" Malnak, Concurring Opinion, fn 54)

The suggestion being made here, that because TM's proponents disclaim to be a religion, TM should be described in this article solely as a technique, with no reference to (i) the nature of the organizations teaching it or (ii) the theoretical underpinnings is wrongheaded, and contrary to WP:NPOV It is an inappropriate approach for an encyclopedia article, and I strongly disagree. I would also remind certain editors of WP:COI. Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears the sentence in question has been placed twice both in the origin section and in the Relationship to religion and spirituality section. I think it should be placed once and in my opinion should probably go in the origin section since we are dealing with the history of the organisation that teaches TM.--Uncreated (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact that is not the suggestion being made here. Let me clarify. The split off of multiple topics connected to the TM organization was made in the interest of brevity and clarity. This was supported by comments from mediator who came in felt the article was too long. The decision was made to clearly delineate the TM technique from other programs since it can stand alone. This made it easier to make decisions, so that if there was information about the technique alone, then it went into this article, if it wasn't just about the technique it went somewhere else. The split had nothing to do with TM and religion. There is a section about the response of religious leaders to the TM technique. This was at at one point was very much longer than it is now, and was reduced for some reason so that comments by clergy practicing TM and feeling it was not in conflict with their religions or was religious was reduced to a few lines.

You comments above are exactly right. TM/SCI in context of the Malnak v Yogi case and in consideration of the Establishment and Free exercise clauses as this pertains to five New Jersey high school is religious in nature. This is one judgment, of one court case and one instance we are citing. We can't extrapolate from that, that in other contexts TM/SCI is religious. That would be OR. And the TM technique alone was never said to be religious in and of itself in the court case. My inclination to clearly separate the technique from anything else is not because I think one way or the other about it... and believe me you don't know what I think about it, but to adhere to the principle put in place many months ago to keep TM technique information in this article and other information somewhere else. I am not arguing whether there are other contexts in which the technique may be considered religious or not religious. I am dealing with a very specific inclusion/situation/reference in this discussion and in this article. You might note in the archives that a very antagonistic editor to TM requested maybe demanded that some of the theoretical underpinning material be removed, and it was.

As an aside the TM technique exists independently of SCI. Millions of people in the world have learned the technique and most do not know about or care about SCI. Again this isn't something we add to the article its just a note.

As a Catholic I could edit articles on Catholicism. Disconnecting every editor from areas they are knowledgeable in would mean no articles would be edited by experts in that field. Therefore COI must and does refer to edits not the editor.

It appears the sentence in question has been placed twice both in the origin section and in the Relationship to religion and spirituality section. I think it should be placed once and in my opinion should probably go in the origin section since we are dealing with the history of the organisation that teaches TM.--Uncreated (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Note:

Uncreated. I moved your comment so that I could answer it in sequence but could also leave my comment to Fladrif in logical sequence. The lines left in the court case section is my fault. When I moved the material I didn't delete it in the original section.I will do so now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.(olive (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

QUOTING( so the thread doesn't get further confused): TM/SCI in context of the Malnak v Yogi case and in consideration of the Establishment and Free exercise clauses as this pertains to five New Jersey high school is religious in nature. This is one judgment, of one court case and one instance we are citing. We can't extrapolate from that, that in other contexts TM/SCI is religious. That would be OR. And the TM technique alone was never said to be religious in and of itself in the court case.

I'm not extrapolating, and this isn't original research. You said above that no one claims that TM alone is religion. That simply isn't true. I listed examples, some of them taken from the decision, and others from outside the decision, all of which would qualify as Reliable Sources. As for the broader approach you suggest: If I may analogize, recent articles have referenced studies showing the same kinds of health benefits from Gregorian Chant as are claimed for TM - lower heart rate, lower blood pressure, reduce levels of stress hormones, etc... [3] Someone might well decide to learn Gregorian Chant simply for the health benefits, and or to start a lucrative business teaching it to others, touting those same health benefits. Let's suppose the Catholic Church decided to reincorporated as an educational nonprofit to teach Gregorian Chant (only allowing the students to learn chant after attending Mass in Latin, telling them it was just a nonreligious ceremony and the words of the chants were meaningless). The Wikipedia article on Gregorian Chant would properly note the religious origins of the chant teaching organization, and the religious nature of the practice itself, notwithstanding the protestations of the GC advocates that they aren't promoting it as religion, and that a lot of people happily chant without thinking of it as a religious practice. Nor would it be out of bounds to cite properly sourced examples of legal, social and religious commentators who consider GC to be a religious activity, regardless of whether or not the "Scientific GC" organization genuinely thinks of itself as entirely secular. What would be out of bounds is what you are suggesting - that the article be restricted insofar as possible to the organizations "official line" on that topic.

One more thing. WP:COI applies to the editor, not to the edit. Editors with a COI are proscribed in what editing they may do. The COI problem here is not that a Catholic can't edit an article on Catholicism, a Hindu an article on Hinduism, a TM practitioner an article on TM etc... The COI problem here is that you and TG, paid employees of MUM, are editing this article, where you have a direct financial interest in the subject matter, explicitly advancing a corporate viewpoint of your employer. That's a significant problem. Fladrif (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If in fact Olive and TG do work for MUM...from your reasoning Fladrif wouldn't that preclude them from editing the article on MUM and not the article on TM?--Uncreated (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They have stated on their Talk and/or User pages that they do, and I take them at their word. From my reasoning, the resulting COI would apply to all the TM-related articles, not just to the MUM article. Take this up at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Article:_Transcendental_Meditation.2C_Users_TimidGuy_and_Littleolive_oil. Fladrif (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. You have taken up the COI issue on the COI Notice board and I suggest you and we leave it there. This page is for discussion of the article. I'll attempt to address the other issues you raise here later.(olive (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Re: WP:COIN: Neither Littleolive oil nor TimidGuy have replied to that thread to give their views of the matter. Their side should be heard before a decision is made, but one may be made even if they choose not to participate.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Maharishi?

Throughout this and all of the other TM-related articles, MMY is referred to as "Maharishi" as if it were his name. "Maharishi" is an honorific, not a name or a title of office. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles, I propose that he be identified as "Yogi" in these articles for short, not Maharishi, just as Gandhi is not identified as "Mahatma", and popes and the Dalai Lama are not identified as "His Holiness" in the articles about them. I'm sure there are many other examples. Fladrif (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only part of his commonly-used name that is a family name, as opposed to an honorific he gave himself, is "Mahesh." Some critics (that would be me) sometimes use that in lieu of his commonly-used name. As for referring to him as anything other than "Maharishi" here, which is how he was known in popular culture, I think there's really no practical alternative that would bring with it any clarity as to who's being described. There are lots of "Yogis" out there, and certainly "Mahesh" would only be meaningful in context, but if you say "Maharishi" most people familiar with pop culture of that era would instantly know who you're talking about. It's either this guy, the branded products he originated, or the clothing brand. Mike Doughney (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're correct that "Mahesh" would be the preferred form per the Wiki Manual of Style, rather than "Yogi", which I now understand on further reflection to also be an honorific. As for "Maharishi" v "Mahesh" I don't think that popular culture references should trump the Manual of Style in an encyclopedia article. Fladrif (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yogi was used by the courts as his last name...why would we not use it? Do we have a source as to what his legal name is? Could it be actually that his legal name is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?--Uncreated (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The casename and the Federal Courts' convention of referring to him as "Yogi" is why my initial instinct was that "Yogi" was the correct way to go. I am conviced that it is improper to use "Maharishi" as a short form under the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but I am susceptible to being convinced either way as to whether "Mahesh" or "Yogi" is the name that should be used instead. Fladrif (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think we should simply deal with what most references say. Using anything else might be confusing. In discussing the court case it might make sense to use Yogi because that is as Fladrif says references the case name.(olive (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

I am also OK with using Yogi, but only in the section/context of the court case. In all other areas it is clear that Maharishi is the proper term, because that is the name by which he is recognized and known throughout the world. It is also the term that is used to reference him in thousands of news articles and TV shows over a 50 year period. There are many other examples of this protocol being used currently on Wiki..... Looking for information on Roger Nelson and Robert Allen Zimmerman? Well you won't find anything in Wiki under those names. However, you will find their 'real' names in their respective article titles and used consistently throughout their article's copy. That's right! We are talking about Prince and Bob Dylan!  :-) The purpose of Wiki is to provide accurate information to the public in a format that is easy and accessible. The term Maharishi accomplishes this for our readers. So why not just leave it as is?  :-) --Kbob (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorporation

I've found the incorporation document so have been able to get rid of the more general "others' and replace it with a more specific reference. I have also included the "Primary" spiritual purpose as a more complete understanding of the document. I'm not attached to any of it so can be removed if any one objects. I tend to think its all too much information here and would be better placed in an article on a history of the TM organization or in the MMY article but that's another discussion and not attached either way.(olive (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Yogic Flying.

I am about to add information about this and the TM-Sidhi (actually, I think this should be added back into this article to be honest and cannot understand why it is seperate at the moment, As the TM website says "Yogic Flying is a natural extension of the Transcendental Meditation program, and accelerates the benefits. It is a specific and unique meditation procedure practiced after a TM session."

Anyway, before doing so - and without the usual 16 page discussion :) - does anyone have any ideas as to the best way of adding this? The7thdr (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7th. There is an article on the TM-Sidhi program as you note, of which Yogic Flying is part. It was split off as were other aspects of the TM organization because this article was becoming too long and too complex .... This was not my decision but I do support and abide by it since there is now an extensive system set up to deal with the huge mass of material that makes up the TM organization. If you want to add plesaepleaseplease respect the work that has been done on this articles by multiple editors and discuss it here first. Many thanks for your consideration.(olive (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi Olive, as has already been noted the it was mainly one editor that made this decision TG - and the neutrality of that decision has already been questioned on many occasions. It is clear that Yogic flying is part of the TM technique and needs to be put back into this article - as does mention of the using Tm meditation to "bring world peace". This isn't really a discussion of whether it should be introduced but how - that is why I have raised it here first. Your impute in this would be valued of course

Other issues that seems to have "vanished" that need reinserting are, but I will list separately so as not to inundate in one section:

Issues of costs

Ex-TM teachers offering cheaper alternatives

The manner in which the mantra's are issued - by age, etc

Examples of the Mantras

Academic criticisms that most TM medical research is conducted by TMs or funded by part of the organization.

I shall attempt to address these over the next few weeks but any help from anyone would be appreciated. The7thdr (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

7th. I am surprised by the fact that you have come into this article and now without any discussion or respect for the other editors here are adding whatever you please. I will assume good faith and suggest that you are not doing this because I am under scrutiny right now on the COI notice board, and you think I won't revert you. You're right I won't revert you because I'm too busy tonight but when I have time I will deal with each and every edit its position and its weight and ask that you enter into discussion about concerns, I as another editor on this article have. You are not a one man editing team, this is a contentious article and editing practices here need to be collaborative as they have in the past. You might go into the archives and see how Ronz handled his concerns and questions. Thanks 7th.(olive (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

And no, actually Yogic flying is not part of the TM technique, but is a technique of its own, has its own article that includes criticism, and research, and was not created somehow by TG on his own. Material on Yogic Fling needs to be in that article or if that article is to be merged with this one a wider consensus than one editor's opinion is needed(olive (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I too will assume good faith olive but could I point out that "You are not a one man editing team" works both ways. Anything I have added is from reliable academic/ published sources and very relevant to the sections added. For goodness sake, Professor Hadden was always being criticized as being "pro" - and an appologist for - so called "New Age Religions and "Cults" - including TM. You should be well aware of that as a member of an organization that attempted, to get an "Accredited" university to remove material from it's website about your organization you did not like:

"Several TM members have written to the webmaster of the Religious Movements Homepage and expressed strong disapproval of the sociological perspective as well as the content of an earlier version of this page. When asked for assistance in checking the accuracy of the contents of the page, Mr. Hadden was advised to take the page down. Any treatment of TM as a religion, they argued, was tantamount to bigotry. http://web.archive.org/web/20060831081613/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/tm.html#25 "

I will always maintain good faith but will not be "bullied" by any corporate entity. The7thdr (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The web site you mention was created by students for a class.... It is in no way compliant and one would have to check any information. I'm not saying what you say isn't correct. I'm saying ...well if you've ever had students... and this was a sophomore level class.....not even an upper level class or graduate student class...(olive (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I won't be around the TM article for awhile have lots to take care of but will catch up with everything later.(olive (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi LO, I think you will find that the page was put together under the supervision of Jeffrey K. Hadden, who I know you were aware of. The site in general is listed in a number of academic and known academic published resources as a sound resource - it is also found on the facility website of an accredited - and independent - university. I would like to use this rather than a published, secondary resource where the same information is available but may be more difficult for the causal reader to find - such as the published works of professor James R. Lewis, for example. I also find material supervised or written by Professor Hadden, to be far less value laden than many others in this field. The Sociology of Religious Movements, is a recognized academic resource as I am sure you are aware. Again, I referenced it back to website because the resource was easily available there. However, I have now found that large parts of the work is available in Google Books previews and would have no difficulty referencing directly there if you would like? I would like the reader who does not have access to an academic library to be able to find the resources easily themselves. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eCKbw8QuhEkC&dq=Bainbridge,+William+S.,+1997.+The+Sociology+of+Religious+Movements.&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=mIGpSebjPNTIjAem8IzbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result The7thdr (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7th, I appreciate your contributions to this article but would have to agree with LO that since there is already an separate article on the TM-Sidhi program (Yogic Flying) it does not seem appropriate that we have duplicate info here. Especially since the TM Sidhi article was a spin off of this TM page. I also note that the TM Sidhi article was created in Nov 2006 and that quite a few different editors have worked on the article since that time (see discussion page) so I'm not sure why you feel that it was all done by Timid. You are right to say that the TM web site states that the TM-Sidhi technique is an 'extension of the TM technique', but it is only one of several Advanced Techniques and related programs that the family of Maharishi organizations offer. This is the reason why the TM-Sidhi page was created and it seems to me it would be best to maintain the integrity of both these pages as they are currently set up, don't you agree? --Kbob (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kbob. I think you would be correct except, that it seems strange to me that an article about TM, contains no mention at all of the progression of said technique and where it leads to. It is the same that LO and TG have always maintained that any mention of the peace palaces and the use of TM to generate world peace should be included because this is part of the "yogic flying" "program" yet this is clearly incorrect as stated by the Maharishi himself who, according to TM stated: "...in 1960 that if just one percent of the world’s population practiced the Transcendental Meditation technique, there would be an end to war. In 1974, scientists noted a growing number of cities where one percent of the population had learned the Transcendental Meditation technique. They looked at crime statistics in these “one percent” cities, they found that when a city reached the one percent level there was a decrease in the crime rate. At the same time, matched control cities maintained an increase in crime rate—as did the United States as a whole. They named this phenomenon the Maharishi Effect." And yet mention of the Maharishi effect has always been excluded from this article as it is part of the Yogic Flying article. Yet here we clearly see that the Maharishi - and indeed the TM movement itself - makes no such distinction. Have a separate article if it is needed, but is clear to me that this needs to mentioned here. To exclude it simple leaves the reader without a full picture of the technique or what is considered it's potential "side-effects. I am sure that if I was doing something, i would like to know if it had a side effect of generating world peace - wouldn't you?  :-) The7thdr (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Maharishi effect refers to the fact that "research scientists named this phenomenon of rising coherence in the collective consciousness of the whole society the Maharishi Effect". So the definition defines an effect. Initially this effect was said to be observed with those practicing the TM technique. At that time the TM Sidhi program had not been instituted. The material we have advocating leaving in the TM Sidhi Program refers to research that was done later on the more advanced TM Sidhi Program. What we have are two different techniques creating a similar effect, and research referencing the second technique rather than the first, the TM technique. Therefore it would be misleading to put studies on the research of the TM Sidhi program into an article on the TM technique. References to the Maharishi Effect and the TM technique that are made in the literature are historical in nature. Research citing a Maharshi Effect is these days only done on the TM Sidhi program. Any research included would have to be checked to make sure which technique is being referred to and then that study placed in the appropriate article. Whether a reference is made to the TM technique and the Maharishi Effect as a historical reference is a different issue.(olive (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

And to clarify. Yogic flying as a technique was not being referenced in the first days of the Maharishi Effect as that program had not been created yet.(olive (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Olive, not to sure what you are trying to say here to be honest. But right now your own website says:

"However, the effects of Transcendental Meditation are yet more far-reaching: the source of human intelligence is also the fountainhead of Nature’s intelligence – the Unified Field described by quantum physics – which underlies and governs everything in the universe. By enlivening this most fundamental level of Nature during Transcendental Meditation, a person automatically creates a powerful influence of harmony and coherence in their environment. Extensive scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that when even a small fraction of the population is practising Transcendental Meditation, improvements can be measured in society as a whole, as indicated by reduction of negative tendencies and growth of positive trends.

"The scientifically documented benefits for the individual – Enlightenment – and for society – Invincibility!"

"Invincibility for society

* Improving the environment and creating world peace

TM seems to clearly state - and "prove" through research, that practicing TM will bring world peace and "invincibility". Now, this is certainly noteworthy and needs to be included here in some detail. As to the Yogic Flying itself, well, as there is presently a separate article then just a brief mention would make sense here :-) The7thdr (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to a brief mention of the TM-Sidhi and Yogic Flying programs and a link to the other article if its in the context of other advanced programs of TM. Also, just to clarify LO's point. She was saying that only a small number of studies on the Maharishi Effect were conducted with subject's using the TM technique. If we could determine which studies, then we could consider referencing them in the TM article. But if the research was conducted with subjects practicing the Yogic Flying (which is one of the mental techniques included in the TM-Sidhi course) then it seems like that research would only be appropriate to mention on the TM-Sidhi/Yogic Flying article.  :-) --Kbob (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi kobi - if we take official TM websites as conformation - which I think we would have to say are the final authority, then it seems TM - via the Maharishi Effect - can can bring world peace - which is nice: http://www.t-m.org.uk/benefits/index.shtml. http://maharishi-programmes.globalgoodnews.com/maharishi-effect/. As to research on just good old no flying TM, four TM websites refer readers to: Scientific Research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation Programme—Collected Papers 98, 166, 317-320, 331, and 402. (cited: http://maharishi-programmes.globalgoodnews.com/maharishi-effect/

However, the more I study this the less convinced I am that TM as a "movement" considers TM and TM-sidhi programs as separate and I grow more convinced the two should be far more closely linked here in WIKI. But that is for later perhaps :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey 7th, well here we are at our computers even on the weekend! Thanks for the research. You are correct, the two are often included in the same sentence on the TM web sites but it appears they are two taught in two completely different courses and practiced seperately. I think the TM-Sidhi course is several weeks long while the TM course is just one week. Also, one must take the TM course first and after mastering that for some time they take TM-Sidhi. Maybe Olive could confirm this or I could look on the official site for a reference. So I we agree they are related but they are different and each one has its own history, scientific research, course of instruction etc. In any case, do you have a sentence or two that you want to suggest for inclusion in the TM article? --Kbob (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found a reference. http://www.tm.org/sidhi/ You have to practice the TM for two months then take TM-Sidhi. The TM-Sidhi course has 14 sessions plus two weeks "in-residence".

I noticed that the words TM-Sidhi program are already mentioned (though not explained) in the Lawsuits section. So I went ahead and created a link to the TM-Sidhi article. --Kbob (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats very good Kbob. Thinking about it I think the following would be best:

A new section entitled "Advanced Techniques" or something similar, that VERY briefly mentioned that Basic TM" can be supplemented with The TM-Sidhi program and what ever (It would need one of you TM experts to describe if there is anything else in this section. This would be something like: "After 14 weeks TM training the pratctionor can go onto learn advanced Techniques under the TM-Sidhi program" Or something like that with a link. That way we could give the reader a far better overview :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I'll think about this too, where it might go and what it should say. Give me a day or two to come up with something. Thanks. --Kbob (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have a proposal. First let me review…. We agree (I think) that the TM course and the TM-Sidhi course are two separate courses. They are separate mental techniques with separate course structures, timelines, course fees etc. For this reason there is a separate WIKI article for the TM-Sidhi technique. However, since the TM-Sidhis have also received a lot of publicity and is one of the primary 'advanced' programs of TM, it makes sense that it could be mentioned in the TM article with a link to the TM-Sidhi page. I suggest we put it in the Origin section like this: (new sentence in brackets)

In the early 1970s, Maharishi undertook to establish one Transcendental Meditation teaching center for each million of the world's population, which at that time would have meant 3,600 Transcendental Meditation centers throughout the world. [Then in 1975, Maharishi began teaching an advanced mental technique called TM-Sidhi and which included a technique for the development of something he termed Yogic Flying.] In 1990, Maharishi began the coordination of the teaching of the Transcendental Meditation technique from the town of Vlodrop, the Netherlands, through an organization he called the Global Country of World Peace. This group reports that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its introduction.--What say ye, Olive and 7th? --Kbob (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it Kbob. It needs to be brief and this seems to fit the bill. I cannot be sure of others of course. Alas, i would suspect that once i agree it is good a multitude will say "nah" perhaps I should keep my thoughts to myself ;) The7thdr (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To make it flow from the rest of the article, I suggest adding one more sentence at the beginning saying that various kinds of advanced training in TM is offered beyond the initial 7-lesson course. Then the brief paragraph on the training centers and on TM Sidhi makes sense in that context as places for advanced training and one of the types of advanced training. Oh, and it looked from olive's edit summary that she intended to take out the part about the first two lectures being free, but neglected to do it. Should that bit come out? Fladrif (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Including this information as Kbob suggests would be fine in this section, and I agree with Fladrif that a sentence is needed to add context. Maybe something like the below putting together Kbob's and Fladrif's suggestions. (olive (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

In 1955, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (born Mahesh Prasad Varma), an Indian ascetic[7], began teaching a meditation technique that he said was derived from the Vedic tradition[8] and which came to be called Transcendental Meditation. Initially the TM technique was taught individually as a basic technique but later various other techniques became available. For example, in 1975, Maharishi began teaching advanced mental techniques in what he called the TM-Sidhi Program and that included a technique for the development of what he termed Yogic Flying.(Shear, Jonathon, Editor. The Experience of Meditation:Experts Introduce the Major Traditions. Paragon House, St Paul, MN, 2006.)

FYI: images on commons

• File:MaharishiMaheshYogi-04.jpg
• File:Picswiss UR-28-18.jpg
• File:MERU, Vlodrop, Holland (thumbnail).jpg

--JD {æ} 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

MUM Lawsuit

I'm wondering why the MUM lawsuit is here on the TM page and not on the MUM page. Has there been discussion on this point already? If so, would someone mind giving me a breif overview? Thanks in advance. --Kbob (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree Kbob...I asked the question some months ago but there was no response. Does any editor here have a logic as to why it should be in the TM article and not the MUM article.--Uncreated (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Because, to quote directly:

"Their separate suits, filed on February 24, 2006, allege that the twice-daily practice of Transcendental Meditation, which the university requires of all students, can be dangerous for people with psychiatric problems."

But I see no problem with putting it in the MUM article as well now you mention. I think we should extend the role played by the MUM facility though in that article. i will get working on it later if you like. The7thdr (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving it. We can discuss how it should be written over there.(olive (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes, good quote 7th. Only I still have doubts as to its relevance on the TM page because the lawsuit was against MUM and not the organization that teaches TM and the main thrust of the suit was that MUM was negligent in protecting their son from a mentally ill student. So I feel it belongs on the MUM page and not the TM page. --Kbob (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree and it should not be moved - reminds me, must add the thing about how the mantra are assigned here in a bit - The lawsuit was in two parts, one, regarding MUMs lack of care as an educational establishment - never denied. Two, and the second that TM maybe dangerous for those with mental illness. The second part of the case rests on whether this is true or not. Again, it was never denied and there is research in the article that already discusses this issue. It is thus highly relevant. Please do not move. but again, I am happy for it to go in the MUM article also, but it would need more information on MUMs inability to care for its students - as described in the lawsuit The7thdr (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK we have agreed that we disagree. I will further outline my position in just bit. In the meantime I honor your request to leave it in. In general I think it will be easier for everyone if we discuss changes here and then post suggested copy and after it is agreed upon, enter it in the article. This includes any new content regarding the mantra. Can we agree on this also? Thanks. --Kbob (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone else Kbob, but yes, that sounds like a very good idea :) Now, I'm off for a while; meditating to do - really :) The7thdr (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 7th, have a good meditation. --Kbob (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:) Thank you Kbob. Namaste The7thdr (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One of many discussions:Religious

I will remove religious from the section on procedure. In this section and in this context using the adjective religious is POV.

• The ref is a project page not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia since its purpose it seems is to ask questions for student use...
• Even so the ref/page doesn't mention the puja as religious so we can't extrapolate for Wikipedia purposes that the puja is religious because TM/SCI has been deemed religious. That would be WP:OR,and WP:Synthesis actually
• That TM/SCI was judged religious is only within context of one case, to quote the page referenced "whether something is a "religion" for Establishment Clause purposes " and doesn't mean we now say in general TM/SCI is religious and by extension so is the puja. To make those jumps is more OR.(olive (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Olive, I wondered about that word; why it was there. Good analysis. --Kbob (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Olive, it'd be better if you didn't make that edit without discussion first. The question of whether TM is religious, and whether the movement is a new religious movement, is certainly debatable and reliable sources can be found. In a quick search I found this:

• That the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation and the teaching thereof, the concepts of the field of pure creative intelligence, creative intelligence and bliss consciousness, the textbook entitled Science of Creative Intelligence for Secondary Education--First Year Course--Dawn of the First Year of the Age of Enlightenment, and the puja ceremony, are all religious in nature within the context of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the teaching thereof in the New Jersey public schools is therefore unconstitutional. [4]

Also discussed here: [5] A court of law is a reasonably reliable source, and this court said that puja is religious in nature. Is there a different source that provides a contrasting view? It'd be better to provide all the significant viewpoints on this matter.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly... this does not say the puja itself is religious. It says the TM/SCI program is religious and it says this only in context of the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause and a court case whose judgment only applied to five schools in the state of New Jersey. In other schools other states TM is allowed in the schools and does not have this prohibition. This is a very specific case and we can't apply it generally unless we have a specific source for it. In that case we might add it but I would be against adding it in the teaching section which is a simple explanation of the procedure. The issue is OR ... We can't extrapolate that the puja itself is religious because a court case comes in with a judgment saying TM/SCI is religious. Further the court case never says TM itself is religious, and the puja is only a part of the TM technique .... The jumps in logic are too great here, and very clear and I assumed that once these were pointed out 7th would understand.

7th made several edits that I consider to be problematic in terms of content and sources and weight. I am willing to discuss them all without reverting, although I mistrust his motives as I have aright to given what he has said to me. But I am not willing to forgo policy and then have the other editors here attack me as they have. Policy is what allows the editing to continue here so that the place doesn't turn into a free for all for anyone with an agenda. In my estimation this particular edit was a one word edit with a clear OR problem. I removed it, and would prefer it stay removed unless it complies with policy, but I seldom edit war and I won't now.(olive (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

On Wikipedia we don't decide which POVs are correct and which aren't - instead we report the dispute and give all sides. As Yogi Berra said, "When you come to the fork in the road, take it." In this instance, it'd be appropropriate to say something like, "the puja ceremony has been described as 'religious' by a New Jersey court, but TM officals dispute that characterization". Do we have a source for that viewpoint?   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to shock User:Littleolive oil and at least partially agree with her. At that particular point in the article, whether the ceremony is or isn't "religious" is out of place, and I'm inclined to think that the better practice is to avoid the characterization at that point. That the court found it to be a religious practice, and the commentary of other reliable sources that the ceremony is religious, together with the opposing claim of the TM trademark holders that it isn't, belongs in the later section on the relationship of TM to religion. That said, I can't agree with her analysis that characterizing the decision as a finding that the puja ceremony was religious is an extrapolation or original research. Nor can I agree with her approach in continuing to edit this article in the manner she insists on editing, which seems directly contrary to the recent directives to her WP:COIN. Is User:Will Beback or some other Administrator going to have to continually moderate these articles to enforce the decisions there? Fladrif (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The NJ court isn't the only reliable source that describes puja as a religious ceremony: "...it retains certain cultic features such as the puja (Hindu religious ceremony),..."[6] I exect that there are more as well. What source do we have that says puja isn't religious?   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the NJ case was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court decision is binding within its jurisdiction, and has been used as a precedent in at least twelve cases, some in other districts.[7] So it is inappropriate to characterize it as a narrow decision that applies only to five schools in NJ. Until another court decides differently this is the "law of the land".   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand this was a narrow decision. The appeal was for the New Jersey schools. So no its not the law of the land as I understand unless the land happens to be in New Jersey. If other schools apply the case to their schools that should be noted, as well noting that TM has been taught and is used in other schools in the country with no concerns. So what is happening is that there are two sides to this story and both need to be presented . The issue is, a source is needed and second does that section need to be neutral, and, how does a short section like that stay neutral. Should this controversy added to the controversy section or should it be splayed all over the article.(olive (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Again, I understnad that that that is your understanding, but the case has been used as a precedent in many other courts so it is widely held. Unless you have a source that says it only applies to five NJ schools itn's OR on your part to insist that that is the extent of it. Furthermore, the circuit court decision isn't the only source that characterizes it as a religious ceremony. On the other side of the equation, what is the source that disputes it is a religious ceremony?   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't work on this anymore. I have to teach tonight, but let me see what I can find for sources so we can create some balance. Thanks.(olive (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Fadrif.. if my editing practices where as you say they are I would have been blocked and banned a long time ago. I've never even been warned. The source I removed was a a student project site and it did not mention puja as religious. It must, to be a compliant source or it is synthisis and OR. It has to... we can't just assume something like that. Whatever we think we know is the truth... Find a source that says puja is religious in nature, then the discussion is different. Saying its Hinduism so its religious is also a tricky OR point. We can say its Hinduism and show the source . We can say its religious and show a source that says its religious, but whether we can say its Hinduism and then say its religious is a tricky point ... and no I'm not saying this to try and slant things. I've spent a lot of time working on policy pages and this kind of finely tuned reading comes up again and again ... the best thing is to find a source that say outright its religious.(olive (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

To clarify... I'm not saying we go with this subtle reading of OR... its just a discussion point, but a source that clearly states and supports what is being offered for inclusion would probably be more compliant and best.(olive (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

You haven't been warned? Surely you can't be serious. WillBeback has warned you at WP:COIN and again here.

Find a source that the puja is religious? Multiple reliable sources have been repeatedly cited in the article and on the talk pages. (Here, for example). The Circuit Court in Malnak found that the puja was a prayer and and an offering to a deity, and that the religious nature of the puja was so obvious as to warrant no further discussion:

The puja chant is an invocation of a deified human being who has been dead for almost a quarter of a century. An icon of this deified human being rests on the back of a table on which is placed a tray and offerings. During the singing of the chant, which identifies the items on the table and in the room as offerings to this deity, some of these offerings are lifted from the table by the chanter and placed onto the tray. It cannot be doubted that the invocation of a deity or divine being is a prayer. Engel v. Vitale, supra, at 424. The religious nature of prayer has been recognized by many courts, e.g., Engel v. Vitale, supra;22 DeSpain v. Dekalb County Community School District, supra, and the proposition needs no further demonstration here.

I am at a loss to determine what more would be necessary to satisfy your demands. Your insistenace that no reliable source has concluded that TM is a religion or that the TM puja ceremony is a religious ceremony appears to be totally divorced from reality.

Malnak is not a narrow decision. The court barred the teaching of TM (with or without SCI or the puja ceremony) It has been cited and followed repeatedly, including by other District and Circuit Courts and by the US Supreme Court, for example in the decisions barring the teaching of Scientific Creationism in public schools. The argument that the reasoning of the Court of Appeals did not address whether teaching the TM techique without a puja ceremony and without instruction in SCI is at best an academic one, because TM is NEVER taught without a puja ceremony or without instruction in SCI. The "Creation Evolution Journal", published by the National Center for Science Education, has explicitly compared TM and Scientific Creationism as two examples of avowed religions making a deliberate decision to attempt to recast themselves and their religious beliefs as "science" in order to obtain governmental support and access to the public schools. Price, Robert M., "Scientific Creationism and the Science of Creative Intelligence", Creation Evolution Journal Vol 3 No 1 (Winter 1982)pp 18-23Fladrif (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, I am in agreement with Olive and Kbob. The wording was wrong. We have established already a legal source which defines it as a religious ceremony - so we obviously already have a resource. But, in the spirit of WIKI perhaps we should use at least another academic source that describes it better as:

"The teacher used them in a ceremony which was presented as expressing gratitude to the the "tradition of knowledge" from which TM sprang, but which is, in essence, a religious initiation ceremony" Bainbridge, William S., 1997. The Sociology of Religious Movements. P188

Yes, I think you are right, religious initiation ceremony sounds much better than religious ceremony. Well spotted Olive The7thdr (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that last edit by 7thdr...like Fladrif said whether TM is religious or not...that is not the place to characterize it...better to be left in the religion vs spirituality section.

In the interest of balance i am looking for academics who do not consider TM or the Puja to be religious. Certainly in the court notes it mentions there were two academics who did not think the Puja was Religious.

"Defendants also rely on affidavits of two professors of religion. The affidavits are virtually identical and will be treated together. Neither professor practices Transcendental Meditation and presumably has never witnessed a puja; both professors state that they have read the English translation of the puja chant which appears above. Each professor concludes that in his opinion the Puja is not a religious ceremony."

Also to contrast the findings of the court I understand that Laurence Tribe [8] as a constitutional lawyer does not believe TM to be religious...I have found a pdf of a book "Law and Religion in the United States" which maybe will provide source to contrast with...however i have to read through it so it might take me some time.--Uncreated (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Larry Tribe argues that TM would properly be regarded as a religion for purposes of the Free Exercise Clause, but that anything that is "arguably non-religious" should not be regarded as a religious for purposes of the Establishment Clause. That is a different thing than concluding that TM is not religious. Fladrif (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.This would be OR. Conversely, we can't say that because the court decision is that TM/SCI is of a religious nature that this judgment extends outside of the conditions noted by the court, that also would OR. In fact in Wallace v Jaffree the Quiet Time Program" renders moot the Malnak case because students can and do practice meditation during this period as well as pray dependent on their inclination. Carter Phillips possibly the most experienced appellate attorney before the Supreme Court today also describes the puja as non religious. These are all points to keep in mind seems to me when we get to the reception section of the article.(olive (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

In Wallace, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether a one-minute "moment of silence" (during which a child could pray, meditate, or anything else or nothing at all - so long as it was silent) was a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Appellants withdrew their objection to that part of the Alabama statute, and the decision was therefore confined to the mandatory prayer prescribed by other sections of the statute. It hardly moots Malnak. As is often observed, there is lots of prayer in public schools - usually just before an exam. Wallace prohibited the official state-sponsored prayer; the teaching of a religious practice in public schools directly violated the Establishment Clause. Fladrif (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wallace v Jaffree

Actually for all practical purposes the Wallace v Jaffree case does render the Malnak case moot. In practice there are schools receiving gov't assistance who have implemented TM into their quiet time programs. Carter Phillips say this ... and I'll link to the letter. (I have a copy of the original identical to this one except for letterhead)[9] (Although I do agree with Fladrif on one point and that is that there is a lot of praying going before exams.)

Even if it were to be assumed that the TM program is a religious practice, its use in the context

of a "Quiet Time" program is constitutional. No Court has ever ruled that a school policy, which provides for a period of quiet for its students to do what they deem fit, is unlawful or

---

April 9, 2007

Page 4

unconstitutional. Indeed, it is quite clear that students could engage in religious or non-religious activities during a neutrally implemented period of voluntary quiet, without raising an issue under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Wallace v. Jaffree, confirmed the constitutional right to a voluntary period of meditation in the classroom with a clearly secular purpose in the pre-existing State legislation when it struck down the proposed new legislation, which impermissibly sought to promote religious prayer: "The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the school day. The [pre-existing] statute already protected that right, containing nothing that prevented any student from engaging in voluntary prayer during a silent minute of meditation.

(olive (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Olive, thanks for that, but can we keep this within that discussion? This multiple section thing only helps to lose already discussed topics elsewhere - it also leads to much "archiving" The7thdr (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I did move this because the thread was becoming very long and there was a specific reference to the Wallace case which I thought we could split off. I thought this might be easier ....If not it can be added to the last thread on "Religious"... no worries.(olive (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Thank you, appreciated :) The7thdr (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't moot Malnak. First of all, a legal opinion letter from one of TM's attorneys arguing that TM instruction should be permitted in public schools is not a reliable source; it's a piece of paid advocacy. Second, Phillip's reasoning is fatally flawed. Wallace cannot be read as permitting instruction in TM in public schools as a part of the "TM Program". Wallace may be read as permitting a school to designate a "quiet time", during which a student may voluntarily engage in clearly religious activity such as praying. But, it sustained the prohibition against teaching the religious activity (in that case a state-sponsored prayer). If, as Malnak concluded, instruction in TM involved religious activity, Wallace would not permit that instruction either. Phillip's letter argues that Malnak doesn't address TM alone - focusing on the Court's findings with respect to SCI and ignoring those on the puja ceremony, without which one cannot be instructed in TM. But if one assumes that TM is a religious activity (an assumption that Phillips concedes is necessary if his argument that TM is wholly secular fails) the teaching of TM would be barred under Wallace, just as the teaching of the State-sponsored Alabama prayer was barred. Wallace does not reverse, distinguish or limit Malnak in any meanigful way.Fladrif (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Carter Phillips is not as far as I know connected to TM nor is it paid advocacy. His letter is a legitimate and professional opinion by a lawyer who is highly regarded in the appellate court and that I placed here to add perspective. I linked you to an online site for ease since my copy of the letter is a pdf file. His letter itself is not usable in this article because it is a primary source. Then fact that the letter is used on that site does not imply in anyway a connection to TM. I will discuss Wallace v Jaffree later.(olive (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

No. He wrote the letter as an attorney for the TM Organization in support of the "TM Program". You claim to know all about these cases and legal issues, but you didn't know that Sidley Austin is counsel to MUM? Or, ironically that Sidley lists its representaiton of MUM as part of its "Religious Institutions" practice? (Ouch!)[10] He did not write it as a disinterested observer. He was paid to write it by TM. It is definitely paid advocacy.Fladrif (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fladrfi. Is there any chance at all that you can post without deliberately attempting to insult. I claim to have knowledge of these court cases which I do, but will never claim of anything that I have all of the knowledge... Do you want me to start listing off what I think you don't know. This law firm is not the legal council for MUM which is very different than if they have acted for MUM...and no I didn't check to see if they had at some point acted for MUM. Are you really going to insist that a law firm with this kind of standing, with this stature, is acting in a dishonest way somehow. Would you like to say that to them and see what they have to say. Surely you know better than this. And why in any case must you make an issue of this. I am attempting to present material that supports one side of an argument for the sake of perspective, but I noted clearly that I don't think its compliant. This is debate and mature discussion in an attempt to arrive at a neutral article . What are you attempting to do. Is your attitude in any way neutral. Your aggressive combative attitude is beyond my comprehension.(olive (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Sorry you take it that way. I didn't say he was being dishonest - I said that he was being an advocate on behalf of his client. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with him being paid to do that, but the letter simply has to be viewed in that context. You positively asserted "Carter Phillips is not as far as I know connected to TM nor is it paid advocacy." I suspected, when I first read the letter, that he had to have been paid by TM to write it, because he says that he was asked to write it, and sent it to multiple schools at which the TM Program was being proposed. Cash-strapped school districts simply don't hire firms like Sidley or attorneys like Phillips to give them that kind of advice. So, I checked, rather than posting something based on my mere suspicion and reasoning, no matter how well-founded it might be. And, I found that it was widely reported in the mainstream press that Phillips provided his opinion as an attorney for the TM Movement; and Sidley's own web site lists TM-related organizations as among its clients. So I know from reliable sources that he is connected to TM as one of its attorneys, and his legal opinion in support of it is paid advocacy. On what basis to you claim to know the opposite

I have only one agenda here. I have no stake, and frankly no interest, in the subject-matter of this article, pro or con. But, having stumbled upon a wreck of an article dominated by factions with all kinds of agendas, I hope to bring half-an-ounce of rationality to it and to the discussion, so it looks more like an encyclopedia article, and less like an advertisement for, or a diatriabe against, the subject matter. Sorry if I've stepped on some toes along the way. Fladrif (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fladrif. We may seem to differ because of semantics. MUM like any university in the US has internal legal council. Carter Phillips is paid period, for what he does. I doubt he made up a position on TM but rather probably scrutinized the court cases and gave a professional opinion. He was paid for the scrutiny as he is paid for anything, but probably not to skew an opinion. I thought you suggested that he would have skewed his opinion because he was paid which seesm highly unlikely given his and his firm's profile.

That the article is a wreck is an opinion. Surely you realize that many editors have been here who are neutral and have made comments, helped correct things and thought the article was ok. I can't imagine that a good researcher which you obviously are has not gone into the archives and seen that this article was hammered out by numerous skeptics along with TG and I, and a few others, and that the article is not the result of two editors' work but many. You assume my agenda but believe me you don't know what my agenda is partly because on Wikipedia I have one agenda and that is to be neutral. Should I also not assume you have an agenda when the entries you make are attempts to show that TM is religious . This is what I know about TM . Some people think it has religious aspects, some don't and there are sources for both . We have to show that and we have to do it in a way that reflects the overall sense of the mainstream sources. That's it. Its that simple . Perhaps we can put our perceived agendas behind us and continue on.(olive (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Uncreated - my usual quick reply, but you know me :). Olive said: "Find a source that says puja is religious in nature, then the discussion is different." She may have been right, so I did. Hope this helps. Namaste The7thdr (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay so maybe I will refert to Fladrif's edit then.--Uncreated (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope this makes sense - my intentions may not be as bad as some of you seem to think. Once read please delete as it may break the topic here somewhat :)

The Buddha noticed Sigala, a house holder, clasping his hands and turning in the four directions as well as the sky above and the earth below. The Buddha knew this was a ritual to ward of demons and asked Sigala:

"Why do you perform this strange ceremony?"

"Do you think it strange I should protect my home against bad luck and evil" I know you Buddha, you believe incantations are of no use, but i know that by performing this rite I am honoring my father; keeping his instructions sacred"

"You do well, Sigla, to honer your father and keep his instructions. I do not see anything wrong with you following your fathers instructions or doing his rituals but I don't think you understand the meaning off them. Let me explain, "To Guard your house with mysterious ceremonies is not enough and you must guard it to with good deeds. With good deeds you should turn to your parents in the east, your teachers in the south, your wife and children in the west and your friends in the north. Above you, give thanks to life, and below all who serve you. This is the real protection your father gave you and when you perform this ritual it will remind you of it"

Then Sigla looked to the Buddha and said:

"I never knew what I was doing but now I know"Italic text Sigalaka Sutta

Now, that meditation awaits. The7thdr (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Um...cool 7thdr, I miss understood your previous entry...however I am unsure why we have added that sentence in since I seemed to understand that Fladfrif, Myself both thought the addition of that material in the procedure section was not necessary. Perhaps we could come to some consensus about its inclusion? As I understand it at this point Fladrif, Myself and olive think it should come in the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section and 7thdr thinks it should be mentioned in the procedure section. Does anyone else have thoughts?--Uncreated (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. With all due respect 7th, I'm not sure that there was any real consensus about that entry before you entered it. Did you have the impression it was agreed upon? Also I'm not sure it belongs in the section on Teaching Procedure. I have several reasons for thinking this way. 1)The opening sections of an article are for general information not detailed specifics especially those that are not widely known or widely accepted and are disputed/controversial. 2) To give them such prominence is in effect creating a bias towards one side of the controversy 3)The same information is also included in the Relationship to Religion section and therefore redundant and giving it even more undue emphasis. What do you think? Can we find some common ground on this? PS thanks for the Buddha parable. I think everyone here has good intentions. --Kbob (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as contentious:

Olive stated if there were sources that said it was religious then it would make sense- there are. 3 editors see it as religious and have quoted sources to confirm it is - which it is. TMs founder mentions TM and "god" many times in his literature - this makes it religious. The ceremony is obviously religious - which a puja is (you would know this if your origins were anywhere in India). The "ceremony clearly is religious - this is what a puja is. Stating otherwise is clearly not only untrue but silly. For some reason some members of TM dislike people knowing this. I am sorry that this is the case but it changes not the facts - and the evidence which can be supported by reliable sources - not one bit. The7thdr (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Addition: Must go, but to be honest feel it needs to be said that I am finding this strange that we are even "debating" whether a puja is a religious ceremony. With all due respect, in India this discussion would be seen as not only nonsense but insulting to a long religious tradition. Imagine this, a new form of "western" meditation is formed in India based on Gnostic Christian foundations. As part of "learning" this meditation, it is necessary for a new member to take part in a ceremony called "holy communion, which involved a priest, a prayer, taking a sip of wine and a wafer, etc. Obviously a religious ceremony to anyone in the west. To call it otherwise would not only be untrue but would be to clearly deny - incorrectly it's Christian origin and the religious nature of the ceremony. The7thdr (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point 4 editors (Myself, Fladrif, Olive and Kbob) do not think the "Teaching Procedure" section is the place to talk about the Puja/TM being religious. The thought is that it should be raised in the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section. 7thdr will you go along with this?--Uncreated (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I have explained why :) It is well sourced, it is a religious ceremony. I agree that discussion as to whether TM is "stealth" Hinduism, Guru (ism?) or any other "isim" should be left in that section. But this is not what is being discussed here. What is being clarified is that the "initiation" ceremony to level one of "Maharishi Maheshism" or what ever name you which to give it, is a religious ceremony. This it is, without question. The7thdr (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what I said was that if the source was good then another discussion would ensue. That discussion is whether the adjective should be there at all or should be somewhere else. Thing is, if we put religious with a source in this section we also to be neutral need to put in a source that says its not religious, because both positions exist. Then the focus of the section starts to shift from being about procedure to dealing with controversy on the puja. In my mind we aren't discussing whether the puja is religious but whether the sources say it it is, what the organization says about it because the organization's position should be noted, and whether there are sources which say it isn't religious which there are. This isn't a personal discussion on what any of us think, but should be about encyclopedic entries. I want to mention again that by Wikipedia standards mention of god in the literature does not mean we can jump and say its religious. The literature has to say its religious otherwise we are playing around again with synthesis and or OR. There are delineations in some literature about the differences between religious and spirituality, and this is why we have to be accurate here and just cite what the source says. And we also cannot not make the jump from god in literature to then puja is religious. These are synthesis/OR and not allowed . But what we can do is find specific references, then decide where if anywhere they go . These aren't my personal opinions on theses matters about "religious", "not religious" .... its just encyclopedic policy/guidelines at work. (olive (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Olive, if you can find a "reliable" none TM source that clear states that a puja is NOT a religious ceremony, I would be happy to discuss it :). I am sorry for not answering you directly of late, but you have stated on a number of occasions regarding the way I have "treated you". It is perhaps a clash of "personalities that I cannot see and would not like to "upset" you, or to bring personalities into the discussion. The7thdr (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And Olive, it is not "synthesis" by any editor, it comes from a number of reliable source, all referenced. I repeat, it does not discuss whether TM is an "ism" it points out that the initiation ceremony is a religious one, The7thdr (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Slow Down

Dear Friends, I would like to make a suggestion that we all slow down a bit here. It is great that everyone is so passionate about making this article the best it can be. But different editors have different perspectives. An elephant is an elephant but it looks different depending on whether you are standing in the front or the back. The issue of TM and religion is a large issue that has been discussed at length in the past. It deserves the same careful consideration again now. There are also several editors involved and some of us have to work for a living. :-) So if we could take our time and move slowly and deliberatly I think we will have less conflict, make more progress and enjoy ourselves more too! I suggest that if there was any question regarding the conclusion of the COI discussion on the noticeboard re: Olive and Timid that that be handled in a seperate section. We might also consider breaking the topic up into smaller peices for clarity. I would also like to suggest that we have a gentlemen's and gentlwomen's agreement that for the time being, we discuss and then post new copy suggestions here on the discussion page first and get consensus on the wording and placement before putting them in the article. This will help to avoid any editing wars as no one feels good when their edits are reverted. What do you think? Peace! --Kbob (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Uncreated (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

TM/SCI

I know Malnak vs. Yogi is a point of continued discussion, so I wanted to clarify a few points about these two different courses so that they can be understood for future discussions. Firstly TM is a meditation technique that is taught in 6-7 classes over the period of a week. SCI on the other hand is a theoretical 30 lesson course taught over a month(s) that does not include any instruction in meditation. I believe that at MUM the two course are combined and taught concurrently to incoming students, but I'm not sure of this. It is also my understanding that in the New Jersey school of the 70’s (Malanak v. Yogi) the two courses were also taught together. However, this was and is not the case for the millions of people who have learned TM and have never taken the SCI 30 lesson course at anytime. Students at public charter schools who are practicing TM as part of their daily 'quiet time' also do not take the SCI course. --Kbob (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you need to find reliable sources to back up your understandings on these points. It would appear to be correct that basic instruction in TM does not include the full SCI course as taught as MUM, or the SCI course and textbook that was used in the New Jersey schools. It should be relatively easy to find a reliable source to confirm that. But, other reliable sources state that basic instruction in TM always includes some instruction in the principles of SCI, and always includes the puja ceremony. (See, for example, the Price article I cited above) Unless there is some reliable source that supports the proposition that there is no instruction whatsoever in the principles of SCI as a part of basic TM instruction, or that mantras are given out without a puja ceremony, I don't know where this discussion about a distinction between TM and SCI can lead. It's not possible to be a little pregnant. Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems Kbob is supplying background information for us rather than saying that any of these needs to be added. Not sure if that's how others read this. TM is never taught without the puja as far as I know. I don't think we need to advance that idea in anyway, and I don't think that's what Kbob was suggesting but he can correct me if I'm wrong. TM is not SCI. I actually don't think we need to t to prove that the two aren't interconnected. One is simply a technique, the other theoretical. I have never seen literature anywhere that suggests the two are in anyway interconnected. And the TM organization never suggests this. As a runner I can run easily without knowing anything about the underlying mechanics of running. A course in sports medicine and kineseology will help me understand running but isn't needed to run and conversely, I can study sports medicine and kineseology without running. There is no reason for us to interchange or connect the two. What we can say is that the TM organization says TM and SCI are two separate kinds of study/practice ... not sure of the wording... if there is some need to make this point(olive (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Fladriff, I was just providing general information for future discussions. I will look at your Price article and see if I can find some further references as you suggested. Good joke about being a little pregnant. :-) --Kbob (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

COI clarification

Thank you Kbob I think you make some good suggestions. I would like to clarify one suggestion as I understand it. Discussion on COI does not belong here on an article talk page, but should be on the COI Notice Board. Discussion here should be about the article and not the editors.

I want to make this clear to any editor who has concerns about my COI status. Conflict of Interest was never proven nor was POV editing. When I say I have never been blocked banned or warned that was a general comment about my editing practices which were what was under scrutiny. The COINB is not a tribunal but as I understand it a place of discussion for concerns for COI. I was not blocked or banned there, either. I was brought there by editors here whose behaviour towards me leaves me no reason to trust any of them in the least in terms of their agendas. In discussion on COINB, Will Beback suggested as a final point that I not edit the MUM article. I intend to take that suggestion simply out of respect, although I have not been on MUM faculty for two years. I will teach one class in the spring. (Not sure how that is a COI since I am just doing what University academics do). I will edit the TM articles as I have always done and as every other editor edits. If we as a group decide to establish certain editing guidelines for ourselves I will of course agree to that. As noted earlier at the point when Judyjoejoe added material to the article with no agreement and when Rracecarr refused discussion, the article is contentious and a general strategy was evolved over time for all editors coming here that included lots of discussion before making controversial edits. Kbob’s suggestion is excellent but hardly new. I do not have a history of edit warring or any other history that is disruptive. If I am harassed any more I will take this further. I rest my entire reputation as an editor here on my editing history and am not afraid to have it scrutinized at the top level of Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

This is not to say I haven't done some edit warring in my time, but its not extensive nor is it the way I generally deal with disagreements ... to clarify my above statement.(olive (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Well clarified The7thdr (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, so if there is further discussion on this we'll do it on the Notice Board.  :-) --Kbob (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with the article

There are so many threads ongoing here and multiple discussions. I'd like to nail down any agreements we come to here so we can all clearly see them, and to do that as separate discussion points.We seem to have reached a consensus on one point of discussion, and should act on it so we can at least begin to deal with something else and make some progress. If we don't do this and continue to argue every point even after consensus has been reached then the next step is to go to RfC and possibly mediation. We can't do that for every single point we discuss. So I would suggest that where there is obvious agreement we make the change and get on with the tougher discussion points.(olive (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes good idea. Let's have sections for each small item so we can make some progress. :-) --Kbob (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of word "religious" in teaching section

We have a four to one consensus to remove religious from the the teaching section. With respect to the dissenter the word should be removed.

Since no one has commented here, I'll give this one more day and then remove the words. Any changes in opinions should be noted here.(olive (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Olive, you have 3 to one and two that have not commented. The three dissenters are all "zealous" TMers. Answer my question as to how this is contentious. Do not ignore my arguemnt, as keeps happening, by pretending that what is being discussed here is whether "TM" is religious. This is not what is being said. The7thdr (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So, answer my comments in the relevant section - please add this yet another "new" section back to that section. Also, do not remove anything - until it is discussed. Three TMers saying "take it out" without discussion is not agreement. The7thdr (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a copy of Fladrif's comments giving his support, to not characterize the ceremony as religious in the Teaching Procedure section. --[I'm going to shock User:Littleolive oil and at least partially agree with her. At that particular point in the article, whether the ceremony is or isn't "religious" is out of place, and I'm inclined to think that the better practice is to avoid the characterization at that point. That the court found it to be a religious practice, and the commentary of other reliable sources that the ceremony is religious, together with the opposing claim of the TM trademark holders that it isn't, belongs in the later section on the relationship of TM to religion. That said, I can't agree with her analysis that characterizing the decision as a finding that the puja ceremony was religious is an extrapolation or original research. Nor can I agree with her approach in continuing to edit this article in the manner she insists on editing, which seems directly contrary to the recent directives to her WP:COIN. Is User:Will Beback or some other Administrator going to have to continually moderate these articles to enforce the decisions there? Fladrif (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)] end quote. --Kbob (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mr. 7th , It appears we have a consensus as 4 editors (Fladrif, Kbob, Olive, Uncreated) agree that the characterization of the ceremony as religious in the Teaching Procedures section is not appropriate and therefore we would like to remove the Bainbridge quote. This decision does not have any bearing on the Religion and Sprituality section as it currently stands. That is a separate discussion. As a courtesy to you and WillBeback we are bringing up the point here in a new section for clarity and transparency. Your point of view and editor comments are valued and respected, however, sometimes we have to move ahead with the majority. Does this make sense? Please give us your thoughts. Thanks. --Kbob (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Fladrif made his comments I have advanced the discussion on this topic - at no time have LO, Uncreated, or yourself been able to answer my comments. Instead on each occasion they have been deflected and and then "lost". I shall try again: The7thdr (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kbob, sorry for my short reply, but I am involved in a number of articles at the moment - and also trying to have a life ;)

No, I have explained why :) It is well sourced, it is a religious ceremony. I agree that discussion as to whether TM is "stealth" Hinduism, Guru (ism?) or any other "isim" should be left in that section. But this is not what is being discussed here. What is being clarified is that the "initiation" ceremony to level one of "Maharishi Maheshism" or what ever name you which to give it, is a religious ceremony. This it is, without question

If you can find a "reliable" none TM source that clear states that a puja is NOT a religious ceremony, I would be happy to discuss it :). The7thdr (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And Olive, it is not "synthesis" by any editor, it comes from a number of reliable source, all referenced. I repeat, it does not discuss whether TM is an "ism" it points out that the initiation ceremony is a religious one —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ADD: Sorry, can't seem to get rid of the bold text and replace it with italics. If anyone could help. It looks a little "rude" at the moment :) By the way, i am not against removing it, but I would like a discussion regarding these points. Perhaps it is me but I am confused why this is an issue regarding the ceremony. But am open to explanations :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to refocus the discussion otherwise we will have a lot of difficulty making progress. One way of doing that especially as we approach a consensus is delineate the points that are contentious. That's what I've done here. What has been agreed on is that the word "religious" does not belong in the section on the Teaching Procedure. We discussed source initially and you 're right the source now is probably compliant.This is not the source I originally commented on. You've changed the source since then.

The concern is not about whether puja is religious or not. The concern is that this is not the place to make that comment/ addition. The place to do that is in the reception section. There are those who believe the puja to be religious and those who don't. We can't create a simple section on the teaching procedure if we start to add all of that material and it must be added to be neutral. None of our opinions count here . What counts is a majority. If Fladrif had not weighed in to remove the word religious I would have asked for further discussion. As it is I didn't make the change but gave everyone a chance to look at it and change their "view "if they had the inclination. We can discuss until the cows come home whether this is religious but in the end the issue has become whether this is the place . I'd like to deal with this small addition now so we can get to the more difficult discussions. 7th you have to realize that you made additions to a contentious article without agreement or discussion, you have to expect that those points are now up for discussion. 4 to one is a majority. 3 to 2 is not and we would continue the discussion. I include a quoyte from a recent although draft version of a leaflet put out by Inform a UK charity that is supported by the British Home office and Churches to give information on movements potentially religious. I can certainly paste the entire document here. It is awaiting final approval so is not yet online. The document notes the puja comes out of the Vedic tradition which as you know predates any organized religion and never calls either TM or the puja religious. This document is completely neutral. This is one source but this isn't the issue here as I said.(olive (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

To learn the meditation technique, students attend both group and individual training sessions and witness a formal Vedic ceremony of gratitude (called a puja). Students are given a mantra to use for silent meditation. They are told that their mantra is chosen for them specifically and for best results should never be revealed to anyone. After instruction, practitioners are advised to meditate every day for two 20 minute sessions, sitting with the eyes closed. Practice of this meditation technique does not require or necessarily imply any other beliefs or lifestyle changes.

To reiterate my comment above, I agree with olive on this one point at least - characterizing the puja ceremony as religious or not is something that doesn't belong in the Teaching Procedures section, it belongs in the later section on relationship to religion where both sides of the question are explored more fully. 7th, that's where your source and citation belongs, not here. And no, I'm definitely not one of thoese "zealous TMers".

Unrelated to that immediate question: Olive, I don't know of any source, reliable or otherwise, that would seriously argue that the Vedas are not religious texts or that they predate organized religion. I'm not going to go to the trouble of researching outside sources, and instead rely on the old standby of those too lazy or busy to do any research, and say "every schoolboy knows...", and the new standby of citing WIkipedia.Historical_Vedic_religion, Vedic_period, Vedas The Vedas are universally understood to be handbooks for the priesthood of the Vedic religion, prescribing the prayers to its 33 (by traditional count) gods and rituals of that religion. It is certainly true that they predate Hinduism, which considers them to be among its most sacred texts, but it does not predate organized religion - it is an organized religion. But, I am prepared to be corrected and enlightened. What reliable sources seriously contend that the Vedas are not the religious texts of an organized religion? Fladrif (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Many sources even Wikipedia note that the Vedic culture predates organized religion and that Hinduism came out of the Vedic tradition. Organized is the operative word. This is one of the issues with the puja. To say the puja is Hindu is probably incorrect. The tradition predates Hinduism and is the remains of this older form of what might be termed religion. The puja these days and as it is used in the TM organization is said to come out of the Vedic tradition but is used as a preparation for the teacher so that he/she remembers where the knowledge he is about to impart came from.... so there is a long list of masters/teachers mentioned. As I understand it, this helps the teacher stay with the exact teaching of the technique so that every student has the same teaching of the technique, and some creative TM teacher somewhere doesn't start adding his own stuff. If you are listing off generations of teachers who have taught before you you might be less likely to play around with adding bits yourself. I'm not debating whether its ok to add your own stuff, just that its not TM. So if one learns TM from a recertified TM teacher then you, and your uncle living in Africa are learning the same thing, exactly. This means that every TM meditation learned this way can be checked by any TM teacher anywhere. Its unlikely a student would know Sanskrit so wouldn't understand, and is only meant to be a witness to the puja itself rather than being and active participant. Its a preparation and reminder for the teacher to just do it the way its always been done. Anyway I guess that's off topic.

I guess I'm a sticker for detail here so my leaning when discussing puja would be to not say religious simply because for Westerners "religious" means modern, organized and possibly a Theistic religion, whereas where talking about the remains of something older than that. So using "religious" in this instance has connotations that aren't really accurate. It is not unlike a celebration of Christmas which has its basis in very ancient so-called religious practice that certainly predates Christianity. Christianity has "over laid" a belief system onto the old practices. Others without knowing it are celebrating something secular that comes out of an ancient series of customs but just enjoy the celebration without knowing or caring where the traditions themselves came from. If this were research paper we could describes the Vedic traditions and the gradual evolution of it, and describes how some pujas have become secular leaving behind the tradition they came out of. Its not though and doing so even in the interests of accuracy would be OR so the best we can do is show a fair representation of what is said or not said, and matching weight to the weight indicated by mainstream reliable sources.(olive (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

I understand you're not suggesting that this belongs in the article, and I understand the point you're trying to make that the TM puja isn't a Hindu puja, but from an earlier tradition. But, I'm befuddled when you say that even the Wikipedia articles on the Vedic Period say it predates "organized religion" and "organized is the operative word". The Wikipedia articles on this subject - and there are a lot of them - all seem to say exactly the opposite. The culture of Vedic Period involved an extremely well-organized religion, some elements of which were later incorporated into Hinduism and a number of other modern religions. Aren't the Vedas a record and codification of the gods, prayers and rituals of that religion? Doesn't it specify different prayers and different rituals to be performed by various kinds of priests having different ranks?. That seems like the very definition of "organized" to me. What am I missing here? Fladrif (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict so I'll stuff this in here for ease of reading in sequence:

No you're not missing anything... Its semantics again... When I say organized, I refer to a term, and way our modern religions are organized and named as opposed to the more ancient religions which were probably more open ended...My understanding is that ancient religious traditions probably grew up and were based more on regions and the cultures which developed in those regions. In certain areas everybody would slaughter a goat , but in others maybe some other animal dependent on what lived in that climate. The modern religions are more tightly defined and organized based on internal ideas, philosophy and have moved into physical areas in which they were not developed perhaps more so than did these older religious traditions. The tightly defined organization of the modern religion is what would allow it to maintain its integrity even in a new cultural environment. Hinduism is interesting in that even though one of the first so-called organized religions it remarkably open ended and probably is more accurately described as a tradition. Despite its openness/looseness it has moved substantially from where it developed.

The problem I see is in transferring information from one culture to another because words and traditions are mis characterized. Its quite common in Asian/eastern culture to bow down to a leader/ teacher but we would never do that here even in most Churches. Even in modern day Japan one still uses a half bow as a sign of respect.... (perish the thought of my students bowing down to me...sheesh). I may be rambling, but I guess what I'm getting at is, our readers probably won't know that religious in terms of puja refers to something different than how religious is defined in the west, and more closely resembles the non-apparent religious undertones that have given rise to our modern day Christmas rather than Theistic religions as most Westerners know them. I think that may be one reason why priests, ministers, rabbis can do TM and sit in on a puja and not feel it intrudes in any way on their beliefs or traditions.Not sure how to deal with that. If I do toss around some term that do not seems to make sense, thank you for asking me to explain rather than assuming I am fudging on the answer somehow. I really appreciate you understanding and openness.(olive (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, thank you for reiterating your opinion that it is not appropriate to characterize TM or the puju ceremony as religious in the Teaching Procedure section. You are a man (or woman) of great flexibility and integrity. Your other points are duly noted and will continue to be heard and discussed. --Kbob (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7th, thanks for your reply and for explaining your position and for your continued civility. As mentioned earlier the majority of the editors here have decided that the Teaching Procedure section is not the appropriate place to characterize TM or the puja ceremony as religious because it is contentious and complex and should be addressed in the Religion and Spirituality section instead. However, if possible, I would like you to feel comfortable with this action, even if you don't fully agree. So I made a search on Google for Sanskrit dictionaries and this is the way the Sanskrit word 'puja' is defined. Honor, worship, respect , Honor, worship, respect, reverence, veneration, homage to superiors or adoration of the gods Honor, worship, adoration, hospitable reception, , Ceremonial worship . As you can see the word puja in Sanskrit has multiple meanings, several of which are non-religious. Even the English word worship has different meanings when used in different contexts. A man might say that he worships his wife but he is not necessarily practicing religion. Likewise the TM puja ceremony is not intended as a religious ceremony but rather as a traditional method for showing reverence and respect for a tradition of great teachers. It is not and induction into a culture or tradation it is just a one time show of respect and reverence after which the person is instructed in the mental technique of TM. For us to characterize the puja ceremony as religious, particularly in the Teaching Procedure section would be showing bias to one particular definition of the word. So instead four editors have concluded that if these different definitions are to be mentioned it should be in the Religion and Spirituality section. I understand that you may possibly still disagree, but we cannot make any progress as an editing group if 100% consensus is required for any change. So once again I propose that we go ahead and make the change now. There is the possibility also that as a gentlemen, a scholar and a man of peace that you could actually make the revert yourself. Is it possible? --Kbob (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Kbob. I didn't see this when I made the edit ... Not sure of it was here or I just didn't see it. I would have been happy to have 7th make the change.(olive (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Olive- what you did in the article a few moments ago is an example of where I do have a problem with your edits. We have been discussing here whether to remove the description of puja as "religious" from the Teaching Method section, leaving that controversy to the Relationship to Religion Section. I'm not going to claim that you jumped the gun on making that change, because I think that there is a consensus - with one highly vigorous dissent - to make the change. But that's not all you removed. I've restored it in the later section to preserve the information, and then cut the quote (which is something you and TimidGuy wanted in any event), because I think the moved footnote makes the quote redundant now. I am perfectly happy to debate the merits of where that footnote best belongs, and I am trying very hard to be empathetic to your apparent point of view that deleting the footnote was part and parcel of what we were discussing. But, I think that you have to admit in all candor, it is not something that was specifically discussed here on the Talk page, and that your edit summary gives no indication that you were making more extensive deletions than what was specifically discussed. Unilateral actions like that are far more likely to invite conflict than consensus. Fladrif (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern. The edit summary states clearly I am reverting to the original text. This is the text prior to the addition by 7th that he made without consensus. I left out the info on fees 7th objected to thinking even though we could get into a discussion on that .... there was a long history behind that addition, I thought we could save a lot of time if I said nothing and left it out as 7th wanted. I didn't jump the gun so much as assumed the entire edit was included in the discssion on religious.I don't think we should hide information in footnotes for the most part.If its worth noting pout it in the article unless there's a lot of disagreement and that's the only way to include something. I'd like to say I'd be happy to put the footnote back in place but I wouldn't . It was put in without discussion and references the term religious which I thought we'd agree to remove in spirit as well as directly in the text . That said I understand your concern, so please put it put it back if necessary.(olive (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, I agree with what you said:"Unilateral actions like that are far more likely to invite conflict than consensus" I may have missed something, but at the time when Olive originally removed the word 'religous' I felt it was a bit abrupt. Maybe it was based on some prior consensus but I didn't see consensus and it had the effect that 7th then entered a controversial quote from Bainbridge which began a minor editing war. Anyway I don't want to go backwards and make a fuss about the past, but now looking forward I think that having this policy you suggested ie. we do not make changes on contentious items without clear consensus on the talk page is a very good one and helps all of us. Thanks for bringing it up. Have a great weekend! --Kbob (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold on there guys. I reverted one of several edits made by 7th that had been placed without consensus during the COI. I made one revert of a one word addition I felt was simple and could be reverted if there was a lot of concern about it. The source was problematic. Those edits were made when I was under pretty intense scrutiny and didn't have the time or energy to contest them, and no one else was around. I'm going to assume 7th didn't realize that. Note that Will Beback cautioned 7th to slow down. Thing is if you want to apply cautions you better do it across the board. We are dealing right now with edits entered by one editor without consensus, but everyone is attacking Olive. Sheesh give me a break. Interesting, and I am being blamed for an edit war. Anyone heard of AGF. In that light, I'd like to suggest the points below concerning 1RR.(olive (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

....course thinking about it Will wasn't thrilled with my edit either.(olive (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif: You are waisting your time. TM is a multi-billion dollar commercial venture. They have the resources and the time to wear you out. You must also remember that this is a religion, people like Olive - and yes I do suspect olive is more than one editor, but maybe wrong - believe that come the dawning of the New TM world they will be the new spiritual "rulers". Sound far-fetched? Read Geoff Gilpin, The Maharishi Effect: A Personal Journey Through the Movement That Transformed American Spirituality, Tarcher-Penguin 2006, ISBN 1-58542-507-9. She thus has the very future of her Atman at stake in this. This is no different to Christian/Muslim fundamentalists and in many ways these people should be pitied I think. They do however, have one advantage over the other fundamentalists - they targeted students that would later go on to be academics in the late 60's early 70's. Your only options here - sadly and it has been done in the past - is to involove fundamentalist of different viewpoints (Christian and skeptical fundamentalists are the best)

It is a pity really, I am not actually "anti" TM - I just believe that TM is outrageously dishonest - especially in this article - in representing it self truthfully. It is however a "dying" movement so there maybe some desperation in this.

Olive, go and have a meditation for goodness sake and practice some of the teachings in the Gita or especially the Upanishads. Might I recommend Easwarans translation? It is genuinely much better than your founders. I am actually, re-reading it at the moment. Most enjoyable. Namaste

Ahhhh 7th. What astonishing comments to make to anyone. New spiritual rulers..... well, when I'm what would it be, the spiritual queen, I'll let you know. Sheesh. You really are over the line in WP:NPA. But 7th I'll say this. For you to spew out such comments I must have insulted you in some way and if that is so I apologize.(olive (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Not at all Olive, you are the one that keeps saying I am insulting you - so thought I would remove niceties and state facts. Nothing I have said however is a personal "attack". I state facts about your religion, these are realities not insults :). The7thdr (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I’ll always remember a dinner-table discussion about the upcoming presidential election

of 1976. A few were for Ford and a few were for Carter. One perky young woman

insisted that nobody in the TM movement should waste their time voting. Any day now,

the Age of Enlightenment would dawn and America would adopt a caste system with

Maharishi and his followers as the new lords and ladies.

I confronted her with a lame protest about Abraham Lincoln going from his log cabin to

the White House. She seemed genuinely baffled by this argument. “But,” she asked in a

concerned tone, “don’t you want to be known as Lord Geoff?”

At first I was as baffled as she was, but I got used to it. A surprising number of

Maharishi’s followers assumed that their service to the movement would be rewarded by

a mansion with a staff of servants, a position of leadership in the coming world

government, and the gratitude of all humanity.Geoff Gilpin: Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Miracles, Quantum Failure

The7thdr (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

7th. you can cite some author any way you want but this doesn't mean his statement is true. I have never met anyone who thinks this way, ever. To extrapolate a statement like this and lay it on an editor here is a long jump in reasoning. Truth and source verifiability need to be delineated. They aren't the same in editing and they aren't the same in life.(olive (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

And You might note that the suggestion for the 1RR was in part to, protect against edit wars where one side could "out war" the other since I knew that was a concern, but hey, read it as you will.(olive (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Uncreated, while I can actually feel you straining your intellectual muscles on this one, this might not be the best article for you - except for when Olive needs the additional "vote" in an attempt to prove consensus of course. Perhaps you might want to look at other articles. Namaste

Kbob, I really hope you are as genuine as you sound on occasion - I oddly like you and feel that article would be better with your editing style - even if you are "pro" TM. Some such editors are need for balance :) namaste

Olive, it is thus presently 2 editors to three. As the three are obviously highly pro TM - this does not make consensus without discussion. Note, you started the edit war. You claimed that the reference for religious was not valid - stating it was a website. It was not as can be clearly seen in the edit history, it was the USA court case stating the PUJA was religious. Your reasons for reverting was incorrect, even more so when more references were added that supported this notion, per your request. The7thdr (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

However, happy to go with this if fladrif is in agreement, but feel if that is the case we need get on with explaining how the mantras are assigned - based on the persons age. We have a reliable, compliant reference for this after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ospina/Bond Study

This addition was controversial. Maybe if there are objections to the study, they can be noted here, otherwise we can just leave the study in place.(olive (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Now that there is some rewording, I'm fine with this entry and feel it can stay.(olive (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

Because this is a medical claim - we need to mention who funded the ^ James W. Anderson1, Chunxu Liu and Richard J. Kryscio, "Blood Pressure Response to Transcendental Meditation: A Meta-analysis," study.The7thdr (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The study clearly states there was no conflict of interest so we can't assume one. Remember we're just citing sources.(olive (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Kentucky Meta analysis

This research was funded, in part, by the HCF Nutrition Foundation

and by an unrestricted gift from Howard Settle. During a 1-year study period J.W.A. received partial salary support from Mr Settle. Mr Settle had no input on any aspect of the study and received a draft copy as a courtesy but had no input on the content of this manuscript. J.W.A. has no other connections to groups related to Transcendental Meditation and declares no other financial

interests or conflicts related to the subject of this manuscript.

(olive (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

I guess I would read this as saying there was no conflict despite Settle's funding.I don't like to clog up the article with all kinds of claims and disclaimers on who did what and why...Such additions seem to me to be trying to make some kind of point, and that creates a subtle POV. However we can see what everyone else thinks and go with that. Didn't see this post of 7th's earlier (olive (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

In which case citing who funded - it should not be problematic :) The7thdr (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1RR suggestion

I'd like to suggest we as a group uphold a 1RR policy with the following stipulations. Example: My recent reversion of a part of the Procedure on the word "religious" was in my mind part of the addition 7th made and which we discussed and so should be removed. (I realize not everyone saw it that way.) It referred to "religious" and didn't seem to have to make sense in the section once the Bainbridge quote was removed. Leaving it there was a kind of hidden piece of information. With a 1RR rule Fladrif would have come in and reverted the change. I would have left the revert in place and taken this to discussion if I was concerned about Fladrif's revert. I would also suggest that the editor placing the info and the editor reverting be the only ones to engage in each particular sequences of reversion. So for example, if Fladrif made and edit which I removed Kbob wouldn't come in and revert me.

What this means:

• Effectively all edits in place right now could remain in place until agreement is reached to change it. If 7th didn't like something in the article he could remove it. If Fladrif thought the addition wasn't good he could replace it. This now goes to discussion and needs a consensus to be changed.
• The advantage is that small noncontroversial edits can be made without discussion. Well any edits can be made and if no one touches the edit then easy consensus is reached.
• This also ensures that edit wars would not happen....And fairness would be more prevalent. For example if 3 people like an edit but 4 didn't, the four would win out in an edit war. This way one edit, one revert and then it goes to discussion.
• If its obvious to all concerned that an edit will be highly controversial then discussion might come first, but still an editor has the right to make the change ... we all AGF and revert or leave it as each feels is right. So no one gets attacked for making that first edit
• As a group we would have to enforce verbally this rule for anyone coming onto the article . So if some new editor adds something Uncreated doesn't like and Uncreated then reverts, but then the new editor tries to revert back we as a group have to ask him to back off and take the edit to discussion even if we agreed with that new editor.
• This requires highly collaborative editing, but I think we are capable of doing this. Everyone here has shown they can be reasonable.
• Actually I think it would be great to try this to see if we can collaborate at this level.

To summarize. On revert per customer. Two customers per edit. Each edit, one revert series only. New customers play by the rules of the pool or deal with all of us.

But just an idea... not attached.(olive (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Olive, just keep to wiki guidelines. And I know that the humanities is your area of academia, but don't you humanities teachers ever study the meaning of "concise ;) Thanks The7thdr (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1RR has been used on other contentious articles, and some editors adopt a 1RR rule on their own. So there are precedents for something like this on Wikipedia. Thanks for your reply. You sound like just a scientist,7th. (olive (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Your second point, might be olive, might be :) The7thdr (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Olive - this is total BS. And, so are your most recent edits and your comments above in the prior section. If you had any intellectual integrity whatsoever - and your actions of the past couple of days confirm that you don't, so I know I'm wasting my time - you would concur. Here's what I propose:

1. You acknowledge that you have a direct conflict of interest on all TM-related articles. You've admitted that you are a paid employee of MUM. We both know that that isn't the half of your financial interest in, and dependency on, the TM Organization and MUM. I'm not going to say one more word on this lest I cross the line of WP:Outing. But, you know what I'm talking about.

2. You limit yourself strictly to the COI guidelines at Wikipedia.

3. That means for you, especially since you have repeatedly demonstrated beyone a shadow of doubt that you are utterly incapable of confining your edits to those guidelines: Zero, Zip, Nada, Zilch, None - No reverts whatsoever by you, other than for clear and unequivocal vandalism.

I'm taking this up again with WillBeBack and the COI Noticeboard, because you are clearly incapable of understanding plain English or conforming your behavior to the standard expected at Wikipedia.

Go ahead and piss and moan to your and TimidGuy's favorite Admin about how I'm personally attacking you. Fladrif (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow... Fladrif...The 1RR suggestion comes out of discussions I have heard watched over time on Wikipedia concerning ways to deal with contentious articles. The way I suggest it if you read it carefully was first of all a suggestion to make things move more quickly and if you look at how it works it gives you and 7th an advantage over the other editors.If all other editors edit war against you you can't win, but with this no edit wars at all. It means that all of the stuff 7th put in without discussion will effectively stay in unless more discussion and agreement ensues . It means I can't remove something and ask other editors to back me up in an edit war. For god's sake Fladrif it was a move to help you out and to show good faith to make this easier ... and finally it was a suggestion Faldrif .... If you don't like it say so.

Fadrif let me make this clear. I have not and do not edit with a conflict of interest edits. I do not have to tell you or anyone anything, and I have never admitted to conflict of interest editing. That's your game apparently. And I will say again, I will allow my work and edits to be scrutinized at the highest level of Wikipedia.

You don't not have the right to limit my editing.I have not been banned or blocked.

But you know you may be successful in your agenda because obviously its an agenda. I have to think seriously about continuing to edit on an article where the editors think its accetptable to treat other human beings as you and 7th have done me. I have to think about it seriously. And by the way TimidGuy has retired and will not be back apparently so you can level your foul attacks on me and leave him out of it.(olive (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

• Two points: 1RR reduces edit wars but doesn't help achieve talk page consensus. I'd suggest mediation would be a better form of general dispute resolution. Or, if it's a dispute over a discrete topic then a RFC, which solicits outside input, may work so long as folks are willing to listen. As for the COI issue, this isn't the place to discuss it. Article talk pages are for discussing articles, not editors. The WP:COIN or a user talk page would be the best places for discussing COIs. My advice to editors here is for everyone to edit as if they have a conflict of interest, and avoid making edits that promote or denigrate any particular POV. This topic has many reliable sources that contain a full range of POVs. Each significant POV should be presented neutrally in its most relevant location. "Writing for the enemy" is a good way of achieving NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC

I was very aware that in an edit war 7th and Fladrif thought they could be outnumbered. 7th, I think it was, said so at one point. This suggestion was meant to completely get rid of the possibility of edit warring, and that concern. It in no way protected me. On the contrary. I thought pretty seriously about losing any kind of editing options to people who seem to hate me. But i felt that if the editing environment was improved it might be worth it. It could also provide a more collaborative situation. Most importantly it was a suggestion. If anyone saw any use in it fine if not just an attempt to make things easier on everyone. I also noted earlier that its tough to do a mediation and/ or RFC on every contentious point. Discussion here is not civil and that isn't easy to deal with. I am at a loss. At this point its hard to see any sense in trying to deal with the situation here. Incivility is wearing, beyond wearing. Thanks. I think you comment is measured, even, and fair.(olive (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Olive, I believe that no one "hates you". This is not the issue, it is purely to do with the manner in which you have attempted to "control" this article. This not a personal matter at all. If some people seem a little "frustrated" with you, it is not you but the decisions you make and your comments. See below for example. Here you removed something that I added, which was added with the evidence you stated needed to be in place for it's addition. This you then just removed again. I did not edit war and returned it, but joined in the discussion. I than went with the general concise and the offending item was moved to the section that everyone said it should be, And then? You removed it again!. One has to admit this is a little frustrating. As to "my" agenda. That agenda is to reflect the truth of the facts in this article based on correct reliable sources. At present that is not the case due to the selectivity of the evidence presented.

Well said. Fladrif (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish both of you ....Your incivilities are beyond the pale and they are very personal. I have made two reverts in the last few days . One I thought was within the spirit of the discussion. I advised you to return it if I was out of line. The second I apologized for because I had thought I had explained clearly my position when I probably hadn't and so I personally consider that revert a mistake. I apologized ... but apparently that's no good here.... you both twist what I say and do and continue to attack me personally. You both have some imagined view of who I am and what I believe in and think that this imagined view gives you a right to treat me in fashion that is outrageous and abusive. This is the give and take of discussion but every move I make is cast in the light of your POV of me. If you for a second could get past your agendas you might see an editor who is trying to get along despite abuse and trying to move the article in a way that is fair to both sides. Maybe the issue is about control .... I have a right to work on this article as do you. I have a right to try and focus a discussion . I don't have the time to deal with endless discussion once a consensus is reached. Its a waste of all of our times in my opinion. I have a right to question the sources. I have a right to make suggestions as do you both. The 1RR rule has been useful on other articles. I thought it might help us here. You could have just said ... no this doesn't work for me ... but you had to use that as a point of attack ... again....Wikipedia is about the sources. Its a collecting place for knowledge, and is not about truth. Relative truth is personal and is not an absolute. There is no truth about TM as far as Wikipedia goes there are only the sources. Those though sources have to balanced in terms of what is seen in the mainstream literature and media. This article can't be about attempting to right some perceived wrongs in the article. You may think its a mess, others may not. That's an agenda. Just deal with what we have in front of us. From my side if the article is not FA status it could use a lot of work .... why is that so hard to understand or believe. I'm done discussing any of this from here on in .... Its the article or nothing(olive (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

For you to revert reliably-sourced materials without discussion, and then when it is reinserted at precisely the the point in the article where you yourself agreed it ought to be to revert it again, and then have the brass balls to come here and propose that everyone agree to not revert your reverts, and then to feign offense when this hypocracy is called out takes something. I'm not going to accuse you of bad faith, because I can think of other alternative explanations for your behavior - though those alternatives are potentially less charitable or flattering. So, when you say "I have not and do not edit with a conflict of interest edits", I have to assume that this is one more of those semantic games like "Carter Phillips isn't counsel to TM", "Hinduism is a tradition not a religion" and "Vedic religion isn't a real religion, because it's not organized" "ok it was organized but let's change the subject", etc., etc., etc. Yes you do have a conflict of interest on this very article, and you repeatedly edit it an a manner which directly violates COI editing policies. You can insist that 1+1=3 all day and all night long if you want, and I suppose that most people will eventually decide that it's pointless to keep telling you that 1+1=2, but 1+1 will never add up to 3, no matter how persistent you are in being wrong. Fladrif (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right whatsoever to revert reliably-sourced material from any article, even ones where you don't have a COI. Fladrif (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Olive: "you both twist what I say and do and continue to attack me personally. " No Olive, and I need to repeat this, we do not attack YOU Olive, we criticize the manner in which you attempt to lead the article in a manner which removes anything that the TM movement is uncomfortable with: Religion, Court cases, poor research, research funded by the TM movement, the nature of the mantras, criticism from former TM teachers, etc, etc. You attempt to do this declaring NPOV but many editors can see that this is manipulation of NPOV. You see this as personal because you are so tightly connected to your religion - this is the nature of deep religious devotion. Indeed, it is not only religious devotion but any form of fundamentalism, including conspiracy theory and even fundamentalist atheism . This does not, and I will repeat this, reflect well on the intellectual clarity - or perhaps even honestly - of MUM faulty members and for me, causes me to examine even more closely any research funded or arising from that institution.

In my five years with the Movement, I’d seen the heights of devotion and the

depths of paranoia. I’d been through hope and despair and crazy superstitions and

grinding boredom without end. By then, it wasn’t much of a surprise to learn that my best

friend had a secret life as a bun-bouncing lunatic.

The thing that bugged me, as I stood in the shadows watching the happy faces go

up and down, was the knowledge that each one of them believed without question that he

was flying through the air under his own power like Superman. I knew these guys, and I

knew the Movement. If Maharishi said butt-bouncing on foam rubber was magic, a

miracle, a paranormal suspension of Newtonian physics, then it was. Period.

The Maharishi Effect: A Personal Journey Through the Movement that

Transformed American Spirituality. Copyright 2006 by Geoff Gilpin

Just to clarify, this occurred at MUM The7thdr (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read 7th.(olive (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Or see? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k357ErdUQyk The7thdr (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An audience member says, "So what is it TM wants?" TM's Raja of Germany replies, "An invincible Germany". The audience member replies, "That is what Hitler wanted" The Raja of Germany" - one of TMs most enlightened members - responds, "Yes, but unfortunately Hitler was not successful" The7thdr (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Procedure section

There was no agreement to move this somewhere else in the article. Discussion necessary.(olive (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm happy with it being moved. The7thdr (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It either belongs there or in procedures. I think it should be in procedures, everyone else thinks otherwise. The agreement above - ad nauseum - is that it belongs in the religion section. You Olive argued this repeatedly. Removing it now claiming it was not discussed does not reflect the academic department of MUM in a very good light, in my opinion. The7thdr (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right actually in one sense. My comment to move this somewhere and that the religion section was the appropriate place if it had to be somewhere was meant to be "with discussion". However I can see that wasn't the meaning others probably got, and I probably didn't clarify that in any way. The reception section is going to need some scrutiny so it can all be discussed then. Apology for the edit....(olive (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Actually double apology for the edit.Must be really tired.(olive (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

This has nothing to do with MUM 7th...good grief.(olive (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes, let's take our time and discuss this. Its always easier to just make changes on our own but it doesn't move anything forward in a productive way as things just get reversed. Let's take our time and work together on this. Thats the Wiki way. --Kbob (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's Work Together

I see a lot of emotion on this page right now but its not helping the article or ourselves as editors. 1) Conflict of Interest--COI issues belong on the notice page, not here. Those who are accusing other editors of COI need to follow up on the Notice Board or read the Wiki Guidelines or contact Will Beback to find out what more can be done. At present no editors here are under any restrictions. 2) Personal Attacks--The policy is simple: "comment on content not on the contributor". Wiki administrators can restrict or block editors who badger, harrass or make personal attacks on other editors. This page is getting out of hand and if the current atmosphere continues it may be necessary to take recourse to Wiki procedures and policies to restrict offensive editors. WP:NPA 3)Point of View--Wiki has guidelines to reduce POV. But still everyone has a point of view, everyone has a bias, everyone has an opinion. Welcome to planet earth. If we don't like opinions that are different than ours, and feel aggravated and stressed by it, than why are we on Wiki? Take a moment to ask yourself why you are here and if it might not be time to find a new hobby that brings you joy instead of more aggravation. So everyone please take a deep breath, this is not personal, its not a life or death struggle, its a just a dang article for heavens sake! :-) Let's get back to discussing each specific aspect of the article one by one and making changes as we reach consensus. Remember: "Comment on the content, not the contributor". Thanks for reading and thanks for listening. Let's work together! :-) Peace--Kbob (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kbob:

1 Once more you mention personal attacks - when none have occurred. Threatening editors with "if the current atmosphere continues it may be necessary to take recourse to Wiki procedures and policies to restrict offensive editors" is bad manners and does nothing to "enlighten" things

2 "no editors here are under any restrictions" The following is taken from a users talkpage, an instruction given by an admin and related to COI - I will not mention by name: "I urge you to seek consensus on the talk page and avoid making edits directly to the article except in cases of vandalism."

The truth is that some of us have far better things to do than have to hang around the TM article, and addition, some of us are showing remarkable constraint. The7thdr (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good comments 7th. I feel that there are ongoing violations of WP:NPA so we differ on that topic, but thats OK. I wanted to alert everyone in advance to avoid problems, that was my purpose. I did not intend to threaten, so your criticsm is well taken. Regarding the restrictions on an editor here, if you feel that someone is restricted and is violating those restrictions than you should follow through with administration. To have it clearly resolved would benefit all of us on the page. Have a good rest. --Kbob (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Kbob. AS to your last comment, I say nothing regarding it because I would like to think it can be resolved without further incident. The quicker that is forgotten the better in my opinion. You will notice that this is actually the first time I have mentioned it here. I believe that everyone has a valuable contribution to make - as long as they "play fair" :). Namaste my friend The7thdr (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reception Section

Due to some recent additions, the Reception Section is now unduly weighted (in my opinion) in favor of the viewpoint that TM is a religion. To be fair we will either have to reduce the number of entries there or add other sentences to provide a counter viewpoint and establish nuetrality. I am purposely not getting into any specifics in this post right now but wanted to make this statement and open the discussion on this topic. It would be best to make a separate discussion section for each sentence and then take them one at a time. I know some editors may be in a hurry, but we have several people working on this article and we need to take our time and do it right. Other comments and insights are welcome. Enjoy!--Kbob (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A good comment. Please present some counter evidence. The7thdr (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of two sections that seem to me to be a bit unwieldy because of the way the information is organized and presented. (The research section is the other one I'm thinking of). A laundry list of "pro" and "con" positions on any point ends up forcing editors to engage in an artificial counting game to achieve a false sense of "balance". It may or may not be appropriate or necessary to add to or subtract from the sources currently cited; a reorganization of the current information to present it in a more encyclopedic fashion may solve the perception of one side or another of any particular debate appearing to have undue weight. But, better and more comprehensive research is always a good thing. Fladrif (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The reception section (in particular, the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" subsection) looks to me to be a rather accurate explanation of how TM has been received. I'm unaware of some notable religious or spiritual tradition that has embraced TM in any significant way, that might be offered up as some counterweight to what's there. WP:DUCK. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions Fladrif, we can explore them more.--Kbob (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yogic Flying Discussion Continued

I have a proposal. First let me review…. We agree (I think) that the TM course and the TM-Sidhi course are two separate courses. They are separate mental techniques with separate course structures, timelines, course fees etc. For this reason there is a separate WIKI article for the TM-Sidhi technique. However, since the TM-Sidhis have also received a lot of publicity and is one of the primary 'advanced' programs of TM, it makes sense that it could be mentioned in the TM article with a link to the TM-Sidhi page. I suggest we put it in the Origin section like this: (new sentence in brackets) In the early 1970s, Maharishi undertook to establish one Transcendental Meditation teaching center for each million of the world's population, which at that time would have meant 3,600 Transcendental Meditation centers throughout the world. [Then in 1975, Maharishi began teaching an advanced mental technique called TM-Sidhi and which included a technique for the development of something he termed Yogic Flying.] In 1990, Maharishi began the coordination of the teaching of the Transcendental Meditation technique from the town of Vlodrop, the Netherlands, through an organization he called the Global Country of World Peace. This group reports that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its introduction.--What say ye, Olive and 7th? --Kbob (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it Kbob. It needs to be brief and this seems to fit the bill. I cannot be sure of others of course. Alas, i would suspect that once i agree it is good a multitude will say "nah" perhaps I should keep my thoughts to myself ;) The7thdr (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To make it flow from the rest of the article, I suggest adding one more sentence at the beginning saying that various kinds of advanced training in TM is offered beyond the initial 7-lesson course. Then the brief paragraph on the training centers and on TM Sidhi makes sense in that context as places for advanced training and one of the types of advanced training. Oh, and it looked from olive's edit summary that she intended to take out the part about the first two lectures being free, but neglected to do it. Should that bit come out? Fladrif (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Including this information as Kbob suggests would be fine in this section, and I agree with Fladrif that a sentence is needed to add context. Maybe something like the below putting together Kbob's and Fladrif's suggestions. (olive (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

In 1955, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (born Mahesh Prasad Varma), an Indian ascetic[7], began teaching a meditation technique that he said was derived from the Vedic tradition[8] and which came to be called Transcendental Meditation. Initially the TM technique was taught individually as a basic technique but later various other techniques became available. For example, in 1975, Maharishi began teaching advanced mental techniques in what he called the TM-Sidhi Program and that included a technique for the development of what he termed Yogic Flying.(Shear, Jonathon, Editor. The Experience of Meditation:Experts Introduce the Major Traditions. Paragon House, St Paul, MN, 2006.)

The four posts above have been moved down here to the bottom of the page so we can continue and hopefully finish this up together. I hope that's OK with everyone.--Kbob (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You have all made good suggestions and I like Olive's re-write. However, I have changed the wording a bit to make it just a tad more readable (in my humble opinion). Does anyone like this version? (below)

In 1955, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (born Mahesh Prasad Varma), an Indian ascetic[7], began teaching a meditation technique that he said was derived from the Vedic tradition[8] and which came to be called Transcendental Meditation. However, as time went on Maharishi began teaching other, more advanced, techniques as well. For example, in 1975, Maharishi began teaching a series of mental techniques that he termed the TM-Sidhi program. One of these mental techniques was something Maharishi called Yogic Flying. (Shear, Jonathon, Editor. The Experience of Meditation:Experts Introduce the Major Traditions. Paragon House, St Paul, MN, 2006.) --Kbob (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that olive's version is better because the phrase "other, more advanced" strikes me as having two POV issues. First, "other" suggests that it is different, and even unrelated to TM. My understanding is that they are related techniques,a "nd TM-Sidhi is an advanced form of TM at least in the sense that taking basic TM intruction is a prerequisite to learing TM-Sidhi. The phrase "more advanced" suggests that there is a double comparative, ie that TM is itself an advanced techhique compared to some unnamed and unidentified technique. So, I like Olive's version better.Fladrif (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we add a bit on the Maharishi Vedic Observatory, fun-for-the-whole-family-home-edition? Isn't that another advanced application of TM, or maybe a bit of technology to assist in its practice? Fladrif (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I just looked at the German version of this article.[11]translated. I see it covers, at least in passing, the issues of yogic flying, selection of mantras, and fees: three of the main controversies. Is there any reason why this article can't cover those in a similar fashion?   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, that was another one of those "the editors decided" deals. Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_18#Protect_article.3F Archive 18 My own impression is that the German article is at once (i) shorter (ii) more comprehensive and encyclopedic in it's structure and approach, and (iii) more neutral than this article. Which is not to say that the German article doesn't have its own faults or could not be improved, but I agree that there is no reason this article could not follow the same approach. Fladrif (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, I have no problem using Olive's version if that is the consensus. I also would not object to removing the words 'other' and 'more' from my version if that is the only objection. Either way is OK with me. It would be nice to hear something from 7th on this as he was the editor who was the main proponent of this idea in the beginning. (I believe he started the section). Regarding the comparisons to the German version. I have comments on that but would prefer to discuss it in a separate section if someone would like to start one.--Kbob (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quickie: I am busy on other "projects" at the moment so won't be around (massive sighs of relief no doubt, Olive stops drinking again ;) ) Anyway, for what it's worth, good to see this coming along well now Namaste The7thdr (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Change TM to Transcendental Meditation

There are a few instances in the article where the letters TM are used instead of the name Transcendental Meditation. Ninety percent of the time the phrase is spelled out. To be consistent I would like to change all the abreviations to the actual name spelled out completely. Does anyone object to this? Speak now or forever hold your peace....oh sorry I thought I was at a wedding for a minute :-) (jes kiddin)--Kbob (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. I noticed in the article, though, that it's often described as a technique. It is, I presume, correct to call it a "meditation technique?" Would it be preferable to use that expression (Transcendental Meditation technique) more often?ChemistryProf (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal fee section

I actually removed something earlier if I remember, that 7th had wanted removed. I'm happy to remove the "fee" material, Fladrif mentioned though. Makes the thing sound less like an advert. If someone really wants it in please revert I'm not attached.(olive (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Seems like good logic to me. Who wants to read an advertisement? ChemistryProf (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what section you're referring to, since there doesn't appear to be a "fee section". However the fees charged for TM are part of the controversy surrounding it. I don't recommend removing all mention of the fact that significant fees are charged. NPOV requires that all views are included, so this needs to be covered one way or another.   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This refers to Fladrif's comment on the fact that the first two lectures are free -"fee material" from the Procedure section, and was not a controversial entry or edit.(olive (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

So where are the fees discussed?   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the current version of the article,the only mention of fees was the couple of words on the first two lectures being free. Olive has now removed that. I don't have any problem with those being removed - it did sound a bit like an advert.

If you go back in the archives for the article, editors have gone back and forth on whether a discussion of the level of fees currently being charged for instruction is appropriate or not. The arguments for including it would seem to be that: there was considerable controversy generated when the fees were very rapidly increased from less than $500 to $2500 (more recently reduced to $2000, if I understand correctly), leading to a number of developments (i) many TM teachers refusing to charge the high fees, breaking away to teach on their own (ii) the registration of TM as a service mark and efforts of the service mark holder to enforce the service mark, including re-certification and re-training of TM teachers; (iii) TM instruction being suspended in some countries as a result of the foregoing; (iv) questions as to whether high fees in "first world" countries were subsidizing activities in third world countries, (v) whether the fee increases contributed to the rapid decline in new TM enrollments in the mid to late 70's etc... The "con" arguments would seem to be that discussing fees gets into the article looking promotional and that these other issues aren't really notable or appropriately sourced. I don't really know where I come down on the notability argument or whether it really goes in an encyclopedia article, but it did look to me like most of this stuff was appropriately sourced, or could be reliably sourced given just a bit of Googling. Fladrif (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the difffrom last December when olive deleted the section on "Issues of Cost" as "redundant". I don't understand why the deleted material, which was contained nowhere else in the article, is redundant. Fladrif (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC) It does not appear, from a cursory review of Archive 18, that there was any discussion of removing that information on the Talk page at the time of that edit.Fladrif (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking a quick look on Google, I see this book: The Future of Religion By Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge, University of California Press 1986, [12]. It has a lot of information about fees in the 1970s. Exploring new religions By George D. Chryssides, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001, [13] also mentions the fees, plus has quite a bit on mantras and initiations. Here's a paper that touches on fees, "The Secular Selling of a Religion"[14]. I'm sure there are more. There are many scholarly sources for this topic.   Will Beback  talk  18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The editing practices/disputes/discussions/whatever that led to these categories of information being excised from the article predate my involvement on this page. But, while a review of the Talk page archives reveal various claims from time to time that the material lacked reliable sources, those claims do not appear to have been well-founded or legitimate arguments for the deletions that occurred. Fladrif (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Will I had a quick look at the book Exploring new religions By George D. Chryssides. I haven't had a look at the other two but will do so when I get a chance...I thought his section on "Is TM a religion?" was quite good...he presents reasons for why TM might be considered a Religion and why it might not. There didn't appear to be any substantial info on the price of TM though. In regards to the price one of the questions in the past has been that since TM is priced differently from country to country should one just list the USA fee or all the fees or some of the fees or none of the fees.--Uncreated (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Redundant" referred to the fact that a suggestion had been made to move information about fees to the procedure section. The links on fees in the issues of cost section were spam links and either before or just after that were removed from the ref section as well with consensus and under the direction of Ronz who seems to specialize in links. Some of that ongoing discussion is here[15][16] Once a more general note was added in the procedure section the info in the bottom section was redundant ... Note also I made the change to see what it looked like with the comment that it could certainly be removed. The mantra bit was not referenced, and as it was really had no place unless referenced. Discussion on mantra has been ongoing in this article and could be visited again as far as I'm concerned if the topic is considered notable enough for inclusion.(olive (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Since this is a contentious topic, it might be better to wait for a response on a talk page rather then making the edit and inviting people to revert it. As for the fees, another source, which meets the requirements for an RS even if it's not ideal, is The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions. It says, "Its insistence on fees for initial instruction has left some wondering at its motives, but the movement is not, to all appearances, an exploitative one."[17] It'd be better to track down the source for that, but it can also be used directly.   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that some of these discussions and agreements, such as those listed by Olive, appear to be among editors who share a viewpoint on this topic. That's why NPOV policy is described as non-negotiable. In other words, an agreement by editors to delete material required for NPOV doesn't mean that the material should be deleted. It looks like TimidGuy proposed that the key areas of disputes about TM were not "major controversies" and so could be omitted, and then a couple of editors agreed with him. If that's what happened then it was probably inconsistent with good editing practices.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Last comment for a while. I feel that the fee section needs to reinserted. A number of TM teachers - as is well documented - left the movement for the very reason of rising fees - resources available all over for those that want to look. This is why many of them - while believing TM worth while - offer none official training at lower costs. There use to be a discussion of this including alternatives listed. This is important and I feel reintegrated to the article. It is certainly noteworthy The7thdr (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The refs 7th refers were links to sites advertising techniques and so are not appropriate references but are considered spam. If the topic is considered notable enough I have no problem adding some information with appropriate refs.(olive (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

See the refs I found. TM has been thoroughly covered and there are plenty of sources available. Would editors please draft a replacement section to cover this controversy?   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm piecing together bits for this. Here is one bit that I'll park here for further use:

Instruction in TM in Bermuda was temporarily suspended in 2003, in part over the refusal of local TM instructors to implement orders from TM world headquarters in August 2002 to increase fees for intial lessons from $385 to $2000.

Deletion

In 1989, the Vatican released a document which was sharply critical of Transcendental Meditation, Zen and Yoga, saying it can `can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences.' [18] User:Littleolive oil

Anyways, the document really does exist, although it is maybe not correctly sourced right now. This is just to show that the official Judeo-Christian views on the topic are often critical and negative, much like other similar criticisms on the subject. ADM (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been widely reported:

• The Vatican today cautioned Roman Catholics that Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can "degenerate into a cult of the body" that debases Christian prayer.... The 23-page document, signed by the West German congregation head Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was believed the first time the Vatican sought to respond to the pull of Eastern religious practices. Ratzinger told a news conference that the document was not condemning Eastern meditation practices, but was elaborating on guidelines for proper Christian prayer. ... By Eastern methods, the document said, it was referring to practices inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism such as Zen, Transcendental Meditation and yoga, which involves prescribed postures and controlled breathing. Some Christians, "caught up in the movement toward openness and exchanges between various religions and cultures, are of the opinion that their prayer has much to gain from these methods," the document said. But, it said, such practices "can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences." Attempts to combine Christian and non-Christian mediation are "not free from dangers and errors," the document said.
  • Vatican sees perils in yoga and Zen; [FIN Edition] (AP). Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Dec 14, 1989. pg. A.3

The Vatican represents the hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics. It has a significant point of view and this should be mentioned, at least briefly.   Will Beback  talk  06:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This belongs back in the article. I strongly object to simply reverting reliably-sourced relevant information under the guise of "lack of consensus". It is a highly problematic practice. The better practice is to leave reliably-sourced relavant information in the article unless and until there is a genuine consensus to remove it. I'm putting it back in pending that discussion.Fladrif (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)