Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Opinions needed

In attempting to figure out how to reorder the cult section for better flow, logic, and so on, I realized some of the text doesn't refer to the TM technique at all. I went through ( altered text is here[1] ) the section and bolded text that seemed unrelated to the actual technique itself, leaving in any text in which there was some connection even if slight. Would other editors mind taking a look at this to see what they think? Should we remove the text that I've bolded? Is there any other text that should be removed as not referring to TM or is there text I've bolded that seems OK to include in the article/section? Is this a way to proceed in this section or not? Anyway, input would be appreciated.(olive (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

Comments

Please add any opinions/ comments you might have below.(olive (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

I'm fine with deleting the bolded text in your sandbox version. My preference, though, would be to remove the entire section, as my personal experience with TM teachers, students, TMO executives, educators at MUM, and attenders at the two long-term residential programs leads me to the strong belief that no part of the TM-related programs is a cult in the sense of the People's Temple, the Branch Davidians, and the Manson Family. Disclaimer: I also don't consider Scientology, ISKCON, or most other religious organizations to be cults, merely belief-based organizations to which their members are devoted. I hope this helps. David spector (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi David. One thing we are dealing with here is delineating the TM technique from the organization. So one can say the organization is a cult whether true or not, but a technique can't be a cult ... so what I am asking input on is whether what I've bolded actually refers more to the organization rather than to the technique. Its just a discussion though at this point to see if i've got things right or at least if others agree. Thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

Olive, if the answer is that it is more connected to the "organization", then where should we put it instead of here?   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have answers nor do I want to give any. My concern is step one; is there content here in the cult section that shouldn't be here, that is, connected to organization rather than technique. If that is the case then we can decide what to do with the content that we move . I from my side am also looking for a situation where all editors can agree on what to do. This is a highly contentious section and I from my side am not interested in any one sided decisions, and am looking for guidance especially from those who have indicated a nonsupport of TM. This is the beginning of that dialogue. We need your input and we need Fladrif's to make sure we get a section that satisfies all viewpoints; my position in opening this discussion anyway.(olive (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

The whole issue of what constitutes a "cult" is a big mess. I agree completely that the Transcendental Meditation technique can in no reasonable way be considered a "cult." Assuming one could come up with a definition of "cult" that everyone would agree on, I do not see how it could be made to apply to a simple technique. We all have ideas about what cult-like characteristics are, even if we cannot define the term adequately. There is no denying that aspects of the organizational structure of the organizations that teach the technique and of some of the purported effects of the technique, especially of its its more elaborate version called the TM-Sidhi program, can appear quite beyond what most of us have come to consider "normal." But these claims and phenomena can be viewed in many ways, depending on ones background, opinions, and view of the world.

At least it is true that Maharishi himself and his closest followers have always been eager to support research to objectively test the claims and purported effects. In many cases, a considerable amount of research has been done, and some of the seemingly most preposterous claims have been verified objectively. I feel that what is needed most here, rather than a section referring to the word "cult," is to list the items where the most people have raised doubts and deal with the scientific research investigating those things. If there is no research, then at least we can get descriptions of different points of view from the practitioners and teachers themselves and from those outside the organization. The material that is left after removing the bolded text does that to some degree, but not in a systematic way. What I am saying is maybe instead of this section trying to call the technique a cult, which is inappropriate with any definition that I have run across, we could have a section devoted to controversial claims or controversial reactions to claims of certain effects of practicing the technique. Does this make sense to anyone else? ChemistryProf (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cult refers to a group and group dynamics so I would agree that in no way can a technique be considered or defined as a cult. At the same time there are claims made against the organization that need to be included it would seem. I'd like to have a loit of input on this topic since this has been a very contentious part of the article.

What do others think of this suggestion:

Suggestion Chem prof: ..."than a section referring to the word 'cult,' is to list the items where the most people have raised doubts and deal with the scientific research investigating those things. If there is no research, then at least we can get descriptions of different points of view from the practitioners and teachers themselves and from those outside the organization. "

Bolding content that seems to refer to the organization rather than a technique was a first step to at the very least cleaning up the syntax of that section, so yes lots has to be done to make the section more encyclopedic. Thanks Chem. (olive (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

I too have felt that some material in this section has been irrelevant and always maintained that this article in on the technique of TM. A technique cannot be a cult, so the whole cult section can go as far as I am concerned. No doubt there have been concerns raised in the media about the TM organization exhibiting "cultish" behavour, but perhaps the TM article is not the right place for this. I agree with Olive about cutting out all the bold text and then rewriting the section. --BwB (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this section on Cult does stick out a bit and could probably use some work. I notice that the first sentence (in bold) in the sandbox refers to the "organization that teaches TM". Maybe this kind of information is better suited for the MVED article. The information is sourced and therefore a valid point of view. We just have to consider where it is most relevant and how it can be presented in a neutral way and without creating undue weight or emphasis. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify that I'm asking for input because i'm not sure how to proceed while taking into account the concerns and wishes of everybody ... so I have no opinion at this point. I Just need input so when I do edit the section everybody will feel comfortable with the outcome. It has been a highly contentious section so I have no interest in dealing with this on my own without lots of recommendations from all sides. (olive (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

I don't think that "Cult Issues" is the proper title for the section--"Controversies" would be more neutral--and there should be more context for the citations referring to the TM organization as a "cult" or "cult-like." A cult is typically understood to be "a social group sometimes accused of mentally, physically, or sexually controlling its members". The paradigm instances of cults, such as the Jim Jones or David Koresh groups, involved extreme, destructive behaviors. By contrast, the TM organization is moderate and mainstream. For example, it is affiliated with an accredited research university that has received recognition and millions of dollars in research grants from the US National Institutes of Health and other establishment agencies. Moreover, as the Wikipedia Cult article documents in extensive detail, characterizing a group as a "cult" is not neutral. It is very often just an expression of fear and hostility based on a lack of understanding. If we change the title and provide more context explaining the ad hominem character of the term "cult", then I think some of this material could be retained. Hickorybark (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hickorybark you make some good points. It would be great to have context for cult but unfortunately we can't do that on Wikipedia. That would be considered WP:OR. All we can do is lay out information that has already been published in reliable secondary sources. All the information we are posting here is helpful in deciding what we want to do next.(olive (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

In the Wiki guide on Words To Avoid WP:WTA is says to avoid words that are derogatory and words that label and uses cult as an example of a word to avoid even in the text. So the suggestion to take the word "cult" out of the section title is probably a good idea. -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the WP guidelines and the comments here, it is clear that we do not use the word cult in this (or any other) article. However, it may be appropriate to deal with the following definition that was brought up. The WP definition cited above, namely, "a social group sometimes accused of mentally, physically, or sexually controlling its members", is something the organizations teaching the Transcendental Meditation technique have been accused of, either by someone who has learned the technique but subsequently had a "falling out" with one or more of the organizations, or someone who has no direct experience with the technique or organizations that teach it, but who tends to believe every negative word they read about what goes on. A decision seems needed concerning whether it is appropriate to discuss this claim in this article or in another article. I think it could fit in this one, as long as the connection to the technique is made clear and the discussion is balanced. In my experience, the number of practitioners who share this negative point of view is vanishingly small. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

When WP:WTA says we should avoid calling a group "terrorists", for example, it doesn't mean that we cannot use the word in the article on Al Qaeda. What it means is we shouldn't call the group that using the editorial voice. It is fine to say that Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist group by experts and officials. Likewise it's fine to say that TM has been called a cult. In fact, NPOV requires we do so if that's a significant point of view.   Will Beback  talk  03:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here Chem. We can't really create a context for this section. Its either in a reliable source that makes a direct reference to the TM technique or its not. If its not we can't use it even to give context otherwise we are creating OR. We can attempt to determine the weight of the section per the article and per the sources. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying or suggesting.(olive (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

If I understand this correctly, its appropriate to use the word cult within the content of the section and should be done by attributing the word and information to the source. The concern may be in using the word cult in the heading. In doing so we immediately establish credence and legitimacy for the term. It would seem to be more neutral to call the section something neutral like controversy and then within the section add information about cult. Does anyone else read the guideline WP:WTA this way.(olive (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

It does seem from reading the WP:WTA page that it is better to attribute the expression to a reliable source. Also, I think better not to put in the heading of the section. --BwB (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by indicating that the word cult is not acceptable is based on my interpretation of the following 2.4 section in WP:WTA. "Words that label Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:

• "The Peoples Temple is a cult, which...""

It seems clear in this context that using the word cult in the section title is inappropriate, and would probably be inappropriate in any article. If I correctly understand other parts of this guideline, because this is such a derogatory word, it would be inappropriate to use in the text as well. Instead it would be better to detail the substantive claim that a reliable source has stated, such as "the organization has been accused of emotionally controlling its members." Hope this is clearer. It's actually quite similar to the battle that has waged over quoting someone's using the word "crackpot." Anyone can use such a word, but it is such a loaded word that to insert it into the article would in most cases constitute a rhetorical statement by the editor. ChemistryProf (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see more material appear in this section just at a time we are trying to clean up the section. While this material is sourced (although page numbers would be appreciated), it seems that the text is more a reflection of the authors appraisal of Maharishi University. Again, my point is that TM is a technique and therefore cannot be a cult. Perhaps this new material would be better suited in a article on MUM (notice it has been added to the MUM article already) or a TM organization. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We have had a problem with this section which moving out material that doesn't refer directly to the TM technique might have corrected. The section violates WP: NPOV. Adding more of the same doesn't correct the problem but exacerbates it, and makes the problem even more apparent. I've bolded the text and added it to the sandbox since it refers to the university. (I don't have the book at this point). My hope was that we could come up with a way of dealing with this section as a group with input from everyone that would satisfy everyone, but I can't see that adding even more questionable material in terms of whether this is about the technique or something else helps the situation.(olive (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

The material that I added is an appraisal of the way TM is practiced in the town and university at the center of the TM universe in the US. There is considerable and transparent sophistry going on here in trying to divorce TM the technique from the manner in which it is practiced and the organizations or the people teaching it. Fladrif (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has been on going for years on how to keep this article about the technique and not everything else connected to the organization. I'm sorry you see an honest attempt to include all opinions the way you do. The section is heavily NPOV however you cut it, and I am looking for a way to pare it down while retaining the most pertinent content. The best way to do that is to have lots of input and hopefully out of that will come some creative ideas that everyone can feel happy with, and that support creation of a strong article. (olive (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Flad, we are not trying to deceive anyone here. We are simply saying that perhaps the TM article is not the right place to include material that describes an author's view of the culture at MUM where TM is part of the daily routine. You have added the material to a new section in the MUM article. This seems a better place to have it. --BwB (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a source for the D’Antonio's book online, but a friend tells me that text form D’Antonio's book reads: ""For the first time in my travels through New Age America, I worried that I was observing a cult rather than a culture." He does not write, as the Wiki article now reflects that "Transcendental Meditation is a cult, not a culture." Perhaps Flad can provide a link to the text of the book from where he got the text? --BwB (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion needs to become more focused. The first issue is the title. "Cult issues" is a not-so-subtle attempt by some editor to create a negative view and needs to be changed. The choice of title can do a lot to shape what comes under it. Here it has served as a channel for inserting some ridiculous commentary into the article. Speaking from 40 years of experience with the technique and its practitioners and teachers, when I read these opinions relating to cult, they seem to me to be coming from another planet. As I said earlier in this discussion, whoever made these statements (and I would not be surprised if this applies also to those editors who put the comments in the article) either has learned the TM technique and has been dissatisfied to the extreme, or they have gained all their "insights" into the technique and its dissemination by listening only to the negative voices. In 40 years, I have encountered three former practitioners with such negative views, out of a total of an estimated 10,000 I have met at one or another event. To represent the views of these few almost exclusively over the views of the thousands of others who have quite the opposite opinion is not appropriate for this or any other encyclopedia. So let's start by changing the title. Any suggestions? ChemistryProf (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "Criticisms in the press"? --BwB (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That is more neutral, but maybe too broad. The topic is closely related to the one just above--namely religion. Perhaps it should be something like "Other issues pertaining to religion" or "Other religion-related claims" or something of that nature. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it could be "Other religion-related debates" or "Other religion-related discussion." Anybody else have a suggestion? ChemistryProf (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Trim section

I've been bold and trimmed this section as some editors discussed. Some may find it too little and others suggested moving the whole section, so they may find this not enough. I hope this compromise works for everyone. I believe there were suggestions to move the text removed from the TM techniques article to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. So if the change here is OK , I'll move the remaining content. I'll give this a few days so everyone can have a chance to look at this rewritten section.(olive (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

I disagree strongly.Fladrif (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. This discussion has been ongoing for quite a while and you did not comment in any substantial way . Now that the changes have been made you simply delete everything with the only comment being, that you disagree. This is a collaborative project and I made a clear plea to all editors to comment so we could arrive at something that all could agree on. And yes compromise is part of this kind of project. Your unilateral action to restore everything rather than to make any efforts to discuss points that we could all agree on is not civil nor appropriate per Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

I'm astonished that so much sourced information was deleted. Consensus does not override NPOV. If editors don't want this material in this article then they need to create a more appropriate article for it. Outright deletion of relevant, source, neutral material is not good editing.   Will Beback  talk  18:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on this topic. This subject has been under discussion for quite awhile and you and Fladrif both had numerous opportunities to comment . Note also that you asked me what could be done with the material that was not in the article and I clearly stated that I would in a few days once editors had a chance to look at the changes, move it to MVDEDC. This was not a deletion, it was a rewite after discussion and included a sandbox. If editors do not want to comment that's fine, but do it come here and accuse me of bad editing. And please read the discussion.(olive (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

NPOV? The section is so heavily weighted to the negative, what are you talking about. If there's a non neutral POV it is slanted towards slamming TM. There is one more or less positive comment and the rest slams TM. NPOV? Right! (olive (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

The discussion above? It provided no clue whatsoever that you were about to summarily delete this material. Even you characterized your deletions as "BOLD" indicating to me at least that you recognized that it had never been even proposed, let along agreed upon. Will is absolutely right about this, and your argument that your edits are justified because this section is negative toward TM are utterly without merit. Fladrif (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not mischaracterize what I said and read the discussion. The material was not deleted . The material was replaced, reorderd and parts were rewritten to accurately reflect the sources. You did not deem to comment. My action was based on the comment of those editors who did take the time and trouble to do so and was the compromised version since some felt the whole section could be moved.(olive (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Neither Flad nor Will have contributed text for the rework of the "Cult" section that has been under discussion since Oct. 10, or so. As Olive says, the text was moved to other article and the section rewritten. It was not an outright deletion. Everyone has had an opportunity to work together towards an agreed version. Perhaps we can now all take the time to do this? --BwB (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not attempt to mischaracterize what you wrote or what you did. You summarily deleted material, eliminating references and text. You rewrote sections not to accuarately reflect the sources, but to mischaracterize them and misrepresent both the sources and the statements therein. I utterly reject these self-serving self-justifications and the ridiculous assertion that a bunch of editors gathered around their computers at MUM in between Yogic Flying sessions can create a consensus that overrides the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.Fladrif (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fladrfi look at the sandbox...and tell me what is going on there, and what was discussed here. Your accusations make no sense. Material is not deleted, it is in the sandbox, and as every editor knew who followed this discussion it would either be moved back into the article or would be moved to another article pending time for editors to look at the first change that was made. What sections do not reflect the sources. If anything was not clear in terms of my rewrite as it wasn't for some editors they corrected it.

Anything could have been added or removed from that rewrite at any time. You are an editor then edit if you don't like something, but false accusations do neither you nor I any good.(olive (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

To which article aas the material sourced to Marc Galanter (psychiatrist) moved?   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing got moved, as Olive well knows.Fladrif (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are beyond my comprehension. Read the discussion and the following comment:

I believe there were suggestions to move the text removed from the TM techniques article to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. So if the change here is OK , I'll move the remaining content. I'll give this a few days so everyone can have a chance to look at this rewritten section.(olive (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Let me translate: General agreement was to move some or all of the section. Content was moved from the sandbox where it had been sitting for several weeks into mainspace following the apparent end of discussion. Neither of you commented about moving the reworked content into mainspace during those discussions. I moved the reworked content . I said I would move the content into MVEDC article in a few days to give editors a chance to react.

Neither of you took an active part in this discussion even though you knew it was going on. Then rather than admit that something had occurred which you had neglected to take part in and which you didn't like, a perfectly legitimate situation, you both turn around and attack me with innuendos , suggesting I am acting without honesty. and am editing poorly. Had I wanted to make this change more permanent and more difficult to reverse I would have moved the remaining content immediately to the MVEDC article. Out of a sense of fairness so that if even at the last minute and after all of this time someone disagreed, a revert and further discussion would be fairly simple. Fladrif's response is to ask Will how he can "catch" editors here.[2]. How disturbing is that kind of statement in light of Wikipedia's behavioural policies? (olive (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

I don't understand the plan here. If you are going to move material from one article to another, then do so. Deleting it with the plan to add it to another article sometime in the future is not a good process. Further, the Galanter does not appear to concern the MVEDC, so I don't understand the logic of moving it there. That article should have sources that talk about MVEDC, and this article should have sources that talk about TM.   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

TM is a technique. A technique cannot be a cult . A cult is a sociological group "activity" . The original discussion centered around this point. The mother organization or the "TM organization" is MVEDC. Therefore content that did not reference the technique ,but instead referenced the organization was going to be moved to the mother article with in days of the first move.... Why not immediately? Because every editor who had indicated they cared about this discussion knew the material was there and would be moved within days. An immediate move of the MVEDC content would have made it difficult for the editors who had not been involved and didn't seem to care, to make changes or to revert. This as you know is not any Wikipedia article. The plans that work somewhere else do not work here. With the best intentions to include every editor and to create something every editor would feel comfortable with, was and is once again been met with personal attacks and derision. With respect, no sense now in telling you don't like the plan. There is no content to move now, and I will reopen the discussion to accommodate the obvious objections of some editors . Hopefully those editors will comment this time. (olive (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

All Wikipedia articles follow the same rules. It's not for us to say that expert sources have it wrong, that when they refer to "TM" they really mean "MVEDC". It's not our job to say that TM cannot be a cult just because we define things this way and that. It would be acceptable to plit the article into two sets of content: one about the TM technique and one about the TM organization. But whatever material is moved to MVEDC should refer to MVEDC. I suggest you add it there first before deleting here. The temporary duplication won't cause any harm and it'll be easier to see what is going to go where.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles follow the same policies and guidelines. The processes of collaboration,however, are different depending on who is editing and how that group functions.Those processes here are very different here than in a less contentious article

If the source is talking about an organization or a group, its not talking about a technique. And the official name of this organization is MVEDC. As far as something referring to the TM ORG (MVEDC), that’s no reason it shouldn’t be moved to MVEDC…”we don’t second guess sources” is right, which means if the Source says TM and refers to a group in the source , then it doesn’t got into the TM (technique) article. It goes where the source intends it to be categorized…MVEDC. We go by the subject of an article and put the source’s content into the appropriate article…not second guess the source because it refers to the org or group as just TM ….it’s obviously content about the ORG…or MVEDC. (olive (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

1) I don't think that concept is clearly spelled out in the text. 2) We should create a dismabiguaiton page so that readers won't get confused between TM(technique) and TM(group). 3) If the bulk of the material on the cult issue is going to another page then the section here should have a {main} link to make it clear that this is just a summary. Also, we need a source that says TM is a technique and so can't be a cult, and that people referring to TM(group) really mean MVEDC.   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I utterly reject the proposition that independent editors are bound by the TM-Org's PR campaign and business plan that one must differentiate between TM the technique and the organization and people who peddle it. The claim that this article is about the techique is utterly bogus. The article says practically nothing about the tecnique, and any time anyone tries to add anyting about the technique itself, the TM-Org affiliated editors have a fit of apoplexy. Anything that the TM Org considers the least bit controversial or uncomfortable gets deleted from this article, shuffled off to some other article, and ultimately attacked there on bogus claims of weight and neutrality. This has to come to a stop. It has gone on too long without someone stepping in and actually enforcing Wikipedia policies including in particular the conflict of interest policies that this group of editors, all with direct finiancial ties to the TM org, are convinced just don't apply to them. The pattern of edits, acting in concert, are disruptive, and have made these articles horrible mish-mashes of self-serving self-promotions. I am not the least bit embarassed to say that the process needs to be commenced to ban TM Org employees from editing these articles.Fladrif (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

These are good comments, we should put the TM(group) related text in MVEDC and then note in the TM(technique) article in an appropriate way that the article is just about the technique and have links to these other related articles.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask again - do we have any sources that say MVEDC is the TM(group)? I checked that article and there's hardly a single source which even mentions MVEDC. Maybe the better solution would be to rename that article something like "TM(group)", acknowledging it as an umbrella topic, and rename this one to "TM(technique)". That would improve the focus of this article significantly and deal with this issue in a straightforward manner.   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The term TM(group) seems like OR to me. MVEDC on the other hand is a real entity, a notable topic, and has reliable sources. For more details on this point please see my comment on the MVEDC talk page.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

I hope no one minds if I congratulate the current set of lurking editors. This article has a history of edit wars between editors with strong personal opinions that influenced their decisions, instead of their using rational, objective decision-making. The recent sensible resolution of several long-standing disputes is a breath of fresh air around here. The article, although still burdened by a great deal of unnecessary and, IMO, unreasonable negativity, is in perhaps the best shape it's ever been.

I personally feel that this article is of unusual importance because Transcendental Meditation is one of the most significant and useful areas of knowledge that the world is blessed to have received; I've practiced TM twice a day for 40 years and have found it to be remarkably effective in refreshing me and eliminating daily stresses, as well as indispensable in helping me cope with the deaths of loved ones and other personal tragedies.

For these reasons I feel moved to thank those good editors who have hung in there even when they or their editing choices were repeatedly attacked. David spector (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, David, for your kind comments. TimidGuy (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Every editor stands on the shoulders of those that have come before them. Wiki is an ever-changing collaboration of personalities and likewise its articles are in a constant state of flux and (we hope) evolution. I agree with you Dave, that all the Wiki editors deserve a pat on the back for working together to create a free encyclopedia for the world to have access to. Congrats to all!-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Natural Stress Relief

I'm interested to see NSR added as a "see also". Are we open to add other meditation techniques to the see also as well? The list could be endless. How do we draw the line? As well NSR in the see also section is a spam link in the NSR article since it actively sells the technique on the site linked. Do we assume something is related because the site says it is? Is that reliable? NSR is a single mantra technique . How is that like TM which by all accounts seems to be a multiple mantra technique? Is this a bag of snakes we really want to open?(olive (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

Visited the NSR article. TM is mentioned once in the article. It says something like: "NSR is an alternative to TM". That's it. This NSR link is just as arbitrary as the KSCI link we removed sometime back. I have added several links to the list that relate to TM and do not have an internal link in the article. Once we decide what our criteria is for being on the See Also list, we can edit the list accordingly-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I mistaken that NSR is a derivative of TM?   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's no point in adding items to the "see also" that are already in the navigation template.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This book seems to say they are basically related, along with somethng called Primordial sound meditation.[3]   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

These are good points Will. We should keep in mind that the See Also section is a group of links to articles within Wiki and at the present time, the Wiki article on NSR does not have any relevance to this article except that it says that it was "developed as an alternative to TM". In addition, this statement is not referenced and could be POV or OR. I have placed a Ref Tag on the article, so maybe some editors will add sources. On another point: since we already have many related articles linked within the text of this article and since we have a navigation template with many other relevant articles, maybe we should just delete the See Also section? What do others think? -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Many meditation techniques are related. Are we going to link them all to tbis article. Should we link all of the TM articles to the NSR article then. We had a very productive editing/discussion period with Ronz in which for the sake of simplicity we pared down the see also sections on this article. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble accessing the archives (very strange). I wanted to link to that discussion. It might be a good idea to continue along those lines. (olive (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I think it would make sense to add related meditation techniques. I don't know why we'd link to NSR from other TM-related articles, such as the one about the prep school.   Will Beback  talk  19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Any idea how long that lost would be? Who decides where the dividing line is between what is included and what isn't . What would that dividing line be? Extremely nebulous criteria. I'm talking about linking TM from NSR ... in the NSR "see also".(olive (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

Do we not use the "See Also" section to link to articles that add something to article where the link originates? I cannot see what we would want to link to NSR. It adds nothing to the readers understanding of TM. --BwB (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's what WP:SEEALSO says:

• A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see bottom of Pathology for example). However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all. Thus, although some links may not naturally fit into the body of text they may be excluded from the "See also" section due to article size constraints. Links that would be included if the article were not kept relatively short for other reasons may thus be appropriate, though should be used in moderation, as always. Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links). Portal links are usually placed in this section.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kbob. My point would be and its only an opinion based on past discussions about this section, that there are probably hundreds of meditation types , including Christian forms, and prayer that are all at the very least peripherally related, and in some cases have actually been compared to TM. We include one and we include them all possibly, and if we don't we risk multiple discussions about where the line is that separates those that should be in the article and those that don't. If this were an article on Meditation in general then the door we open could be opened wide. I'll go with whatever the group decides but these are my concernsolive (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

I concur with Olive's concerns. Let's just eliminate the "See Also" section all together. --BwB (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Will's astute comment that we shouldn't have links in the See Also section that also appear in the navigation bar, I have removed several links from the section. There are still 5-6 that remain. That said, I feel that topics related to TM are already touched on in the article. I count 6 links in the text of the article that directly relate to TM ie. Maharishi, MUM, Orme-Johnson etc. Then there are also 11 links in the navigation bar at the bottom of the page. In addition there is a category bar just below the Nav Bar and by clicking on TM I get links to 21 related articles and sublinks to 20 more. So maybe its better to continue to utilize these three formats for linking to related articles rather than creating yet a fourth one ie the See Also section.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As president of NSR Meditation/USA, I would like to make a few comments about NSR. We are only 3 years old, and our parent organization (Istituto Scientia in Italy) is only about 6 years old. For this reason, there exists as yet no array of reliable references in books or news articles. There is an article Natural Stress Relief, but I did not write it, so it has some minor inaccuracies. It also fails to mention our second published paper (ref: Natural stress relief meditation as a tool for reducing anxiety and increasing self-actualization, Fabrizio Coppola, PhD, and David Spector, in Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, May, 2009, 37(3), pages 307-312). Although NSR is not a modified form of TM, NSR was explicitly developed to be an alternative to TM, since the developers (Istituto Scientia) recognized TM as being the most successful and effective of the techniques they examined. Although I know this to be a fact, there is as yet no independent "reliable source" to cite for it. The virtue of NSR is that our research shows it is as effective as TM in reducing anxiety and increasing "self-actualization", yet costs about 1/50 the price of TM and contains little or no mysticism. Unfortunately, the dearth of reliable references is a problem for inclusion in WP. WP is not a forum for OR or self-promotion. While I see a reason to retain the NSR article (because NSR actually exists, and has about 2000 clients worldwide), I find it hard to justify a link from the TM article, due to the lack of independent and reliable references. I hope this information helps. David spector (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David. I will remove the link to NSR from the TM article. --BwB (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

See Also

I am still in favor of deleting the See Also section completely if other editors agree. At present there are 6-7 links listed there. These are topics not linked to in the article or in the Nav Bar at the bottom of the article. However, all of the links in the current See Also section can be found by clicking on the Category: Transcendental Meditation link at the bottom of the article. So I don't really see a need for the See Also section. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has objected to my proposal above I have removed the See Also section and am pasting the list here in case there is further discussion.

• John Hagelin
• David Lynch Foundation
• Fairfield, Iowa
• Natural Law Party
• TM Song
• Transcendental Meditation (song)
• TM and Cult Mania
• Mentmore Towers
• Catching the Big Fish-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove Tags

I am planning to remove the tags at the top of the article. If you object please state why and what you think needs to be done to satisfy the tag. Then we can amend the article and get rid of the tags which have become a fixture on the article for many months. Thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article covers all significant points of view if it omits the controversy over the cost of the training.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thats a good comment. Any points from others?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I second the need to discuss the high course fee. In addition, I think the article has insufficient coverage of the mystical and/or esoteric programs offered to TM students as part of the extensive followup program. I'm referring to Maharishi's programs for rebuilding houses and offices such that their entrances face directly east, several programs that promise to cure many diseases through unproven, unresearched, and unlikely means (feeling the pulse, dripping warm oil on the forehead, making dietary changes, and adding tea and other foods or supplements sold by the TM organization), courses in Astrology and other such pseudoscience, etc. It's easy to find details and references to specific websites for these various follow-on programs through Web searches. David spector (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is specifically abut the technique itself. Many of these programs you mention have their own articles, so any reliably sourced information could go there.(olive (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

David if you go to the navigation bar at the bottom of the TM article you will find links to articles that cover the topics you have mentioned. At the same time I also note that you feel the TM article needs some discussion of course fees. Let's see what other editors add to this discussion and then I'll create a new thread for the topic of Course Fees so we can outline exactly what we think needs to be in the article, available sources etc. Thanks for your input.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"David, if you go to the navigation bar at the bottom of the TM article you will find links to articles that cover the topics you have mentioned." Not so. Several of the programs I find most objectionable are not listed there, such as the programs that offer "quack" (pseudoscientific and unresearched) diagnoses and cures for diseases (Maharishi Pulse Diagnosis^SM, part of Maharishi Aryurveda, and Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology). If people knew that the TM organization has apparently offered and continues to offer "amazing" and "instant relief" from serious diseases for $900 by whispering a "Vedic word of wisdom" (Vedic Vibration Technology), they might have concerns about the TM organization, if not the technique of TM. Already, many people reject TM as "religious" (it actually is not at all religious) only because the puja performed as part of initiation looks exactly like the standard Hindu religious ritual of offerings, also called "puja". These are some of my motivations for asserting that the mysticism and pseudoscience of several of the advanced TM programs is very relevant to this article on the basic TM technique. TM is offered as a practical course of study for the general public; this is the basic reason that anything that might alienate people from TM is relevant. TM offers the world a great promise but also carries a great burden as the legacy of MMY's unrestrained enthusiasm and questionable policies. WP can do a great service by covering everything relevant to TM in such a way that it emphasizes that the basic TM technique is a scientifically-researched means of reducing stress and improving the functioning of mind and body. This not only avoids "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", but implements WP:NPOV. David spector (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

David, you might want to check Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health for content on pulse diagnosis, and Vedic Vibration Technology. This article is more specifically about the TM technique itself. (olive (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

The article has improved a lot on the neutrality issue, but is still a problem when it comes to the "cult issues" section. As mentioned above, the editorial choice to use the term as part of a section heading is a strong statement of editorial bias. If we fix that, I am willing to see the tag on lack of neutrality removed. I am not sure about the issue of reliable sources. I haven't looked at all of the sources. I have noted some problems in the research section and will be making suggestions for that area soon. I do not expect them to be particularly controversial. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Control issues" is a short title for this section that is much less of an expression of opinion than "Cult issues" without losing the general meaning of the discussion. I would like to use this title to reduce the controversy over this section. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK it seems to be the consensus that if we can 1)Include appropriate text about the course fees and make some adjustments to the Cult/Control Issues section. Then the neutrality tag can be removed. Thanks for the discussion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Course Fee Controversy

Will and David have indicated that they feel that the 'controversy' surrounding the TM course fees needs to be part of the article in order for us to remove the Neutrality tag. I am starting this thread so we can discuss how to accomplish that.

• The first thing we need is sources, so we'll need to research to find secondary sources that discuss the course fee both the pro's and con's. Here are some links. I gathered these quickly and have not read them. So please evaluate them and locate others. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9]
• Secondly we need to decide how to report the course fees in the article. It would seem rather awkward to discuss the fees without saying what they are. We also can't cherry pick the highest or the lowest fee and probably will need to mention that TM offers scholarships too. So the challenge is how to do all that without making the article sound like an advertisement.

Any thoughts on these points?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would we exclude the highest and lowest fees?   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was saying we don't want to list all the fees but we also don't want to list just the highest fee or just the lowest fee. So may want to say the fees range from $500 to $5000 or whatever. Just bringing up this issue, for consideration as I know there was discussion about it before.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of references to the fee issue in a newspaper archive, buit it's difficult to search for them. I'll try to compile relevant excerpts in the next day or two.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be charging ahead on this without any evidence that this is significant area that needs to be included. The thread heading says this is controversial. I don't see much evidence to indicate that this is significantly controversial. We've had course fees move in and out of this article so many times its starting to feel like a tennis match. Why are we adding course fees again?... I don't see any rational for any of this except opinion.(olive (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Controversies often concern opinions. Let's assemble the sources and give the matter the weight it deserves based on those. If we can't find any sources then we won't add it.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant our opinions. Sure we can look at sources and see what needs to be done or which direction to go.(olive (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Yes that was my thinking also, to get the sources together and see what we have. If there is a controversy about the fee that is well documented in reliable sources than it may well warrant inclusion in the article. Until we see the sources I have no opinion either way.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If this helps, I've gotten feedback from many of my NSR Meditation clients that they initially wanted to learn TM, but when they learned that the TM course fee was too much for them to afford, they searched the Web and found NSR/USA. They subsequently found that NSR provided them with the benefits that they had originally hoped to get from TM. I mention this as evidence (although not published evidence) that the TM course fees are de facto an important aspect of the TM program. These high fees keep people from learning TM. This is perhaps the main reason that Istituto Scientia invented NSR in 2000-2003. (MMY always said that everyone should learn TM, but when he got older, he stated on a number of occasions that only rich people demonstrated sufficient intelligence and accomplishment to deserve TM; he stated this as a reason to raise the fees to a level that would be respected by those who are wealthy.) David spector (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not right David, but this isn't the place. As well, the subject mater must be considered significant in terms of sources to be included in a mainstream encyclopedia. (olive (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

FYI, I've started compiling newspaper clippings related to fees at Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources. i recall we discused this matter before and at that time I'd found some book sources, so I'll find those again and add them. Anyone else is also welcome to add sources they know of.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am against spending too much time on the TM course fees issue (of course other editors are welcome to spend their time as they wish) because fees are a moving target. A couple of years ago TM cost $2500 for a working adult. Then the fee was reduced to $2000. Earlier this year it was again reduce to $1500 for the summer months as a special offer. This "offer" has now been extended indefinitely. New course fees have been introduced for children, students, etc. More people (I've heard) have learned TM in the last 6-9 months than in previous years. So fees will come and go. If we publish a list of fees and write lots of text with pro and con views on the TM fees, when the fees change again (as I think they inevitably will), the article will have to be rewritten. If we want to include some text on TM fees, perhaps we can write something generic like "Over the years, there have been criticisms of the high cost to learn TM",, or something like that, but not give it much attention. --BwB (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has proposed adding a list of fees. Let's compile the sources and then summarize what they say on the topic. It may be somehting like what you propose, or it may be longer, depending.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the topic? In looking at the sources compiled what I see are articles that discuss finances in one way or another. I sense that something is being implied in this whole discussion. If we want to provide a section on the controversy surrounding the fees, then we need the fees and we need a source that says the fees are controversial. We can't collect articles on finances assume controversy, by say, for example, creating a heading that says controversy and then adding all of these articles on finances under that heading. That's OR and creates an editor-created POV. A thought....(olive (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

Agreed Olive. Let's not make a mountain out of mole hill. There are critics of the price of a loaf of bread. --BwB (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an effort in progress. Doing research often means sifting through a lot of wheat and chaff.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... not meaning to denigrate the efforts at all. In the comment to BWB there seemed to be a slant of some kind I wasn't aware of. So no worries, we'll see what turns up. (olive (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

I'm happy to be part of the process. --BwB (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need some good references about the course fees being "high" relative to other types of meditation instruction. While there are higher course fees (such as those of Star's Edge International), I'm reasonably sure that most other meditation instruction is cheaper. Some organizations offer meditation instruction for free.

Of course, not all kinds of meditation are as efficient or effective as TM, and not all have similar validation through peer-reviewed research. But NSR Meditation, for example, charges only about $50 for comparable but do-it-yourself instruction in transcending, and TM-Independent (UK), which claims to teach TM, has a sliding-scale course fee that claims to be 50% or less than that of the TM organization.

These comparisons help to show why so many people who want to learn TM cannot do so on account of its expense. All interested editors should recognize that the cost issue is a very important aspect of TM and has been so for some years. Friends of mine who are still teaching TM say that there are few students coming in for instruction. High course fees (even though no longer $2500 in the USA) are clearly one reason for the failure of the TM organization to fulfill MMY's dream of making TM accessible to everyone.

In summary, I believe that the high course fee for TM is relevant to the article. The only difficult part is finding a way to word the high course fee problem, and to find and add appropriate references, in a way that is suitable for an encyclopedia. David spector (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If we have an indication from a significant number of reliable sources indicating that a controversy surrounds the course fees then it should be included. If not then our opinions on the matter while interesting aren't really reason for including the information. Of course we have to decide what is meant by significant.(olive (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Have to agree with olive here. Our opinion is not reason enough to include the controversy on course fees. There has to be significant discussion of it in the press. Again, I suggest a sentence or 2 like "Over the years there has been some feeing that the TM course fees were too high...", back up by credible references. Otherwise, lets just forget about it. --BwB (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Will would like to propose some text based on the sources he has compiled.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

School Programs

I have created a subsection called School Programs in the article utilizing existing text and adding a few things also. I included school programs from around the USA and the world to round out the sub topic. Please feel free to edit it or if you have significant concerns please bring them to the talk page so we can discuss and make adjustments as needed. Thanks. -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A good step Kbob. There's a lot of information in the press on thr TM technique in the schools and in education so this new section is a good step.(olive (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

Resolved

Physiological effects compared to relaxation

Under the section by this name there is a paragraph about the research of Michaels and colleagues. I have been reading the other fascinating research in this area and would like to change the paragraph substantially to reflect this other research. The work of Michaels and colleagues is largely refuted in other studies, and my guess is it is due primarily to the small number of subjects used in her studies. It is always risky to draw conclusions of "no difference" based on small numbers. The numbers she used were likely not of sufficient statistical power to observe any differences, even though differences may have been there. What I have written is longer--two paragraphs instead of one--but gives a more complete and balanced reflection of the research literature on this key claim concerning this meditation technique. Here are the two paragraphs I would like to substitute for the existing one.

"In the late 1970s, Michaels and colleagues at the University of Michigan looked at changes in stress-related biochemicals during a practice session of the Transcendental Meditation technique. Comparing 12 practitioners of the technique with 12 sex- and age-matched non-practitioner controls, they reported that changes in the plasma levels of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and lactate during the practice did not differ statistically from those during a resting period in controls. A second study, comparing 8 young male practitioners with 8 young male controls, found no statistically significant differences for cortisol, aldosterone, renin, or lactate between the meditation period in practitioners and a rest period in controls. Based on these results, the authors concluded that the meditation technique has no significant effect on stress-related biochemicals. A similar experiment conducted at the same time (1978) found results with cortisol that contradicted the result of Michaels. Jevning and colleagues, from the University of California at Irvine, reported a statistically significant difference between 15 long-term (3-5 year) practitioners of the technique and 15 controls, with cortisol dropping during the meditation period, as opposed to no change in the resting controls. The controls then learned the technique and were retested after 3-4 months of regular practice. Their cortisol decline during meditation was intermediate between that of the long-term group and the original measurement during rest. In another study contradicting conclusions of Michaels and colleagues, Infante and co-workers from the Reina Sofía Hospital in Spain reported that regular practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique by 19 advanced practitioners resulted in plasma levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine in the mornings and norepinephrine in the evenings that were statistically significantly lower than found in 16 non-practitioner controls. In another study contradicting the results of Michaels et al., Dillbeck and Orme-Johnson reported in a statistical meta-analysis of multiple studies that blood lactate was one of the substances reduced by the technique compared to periods of eyes-closed rest."

"In 1997, another stress-related study, a random-assignment, prospective study by MacLean and colleagues at Maharishi University of Management and the University of Iowa, measured resting levels of cortisol and cortisol changes in response to laboratory stressors in 16 young males randomized to the technique and in 13 randomized to learn about stress and how to avoid it. Cortisol levels at baseline (the period just prior to exposure to stressors) showed a statistically significant decrease in the Transcendental Meditation group after 4 months of meditation practice but not in the comparison group after 4 months of stress education. The response of cortisol levels to laboratory stressors, on the other hand, showed a statistically significant increase in the meditation group after 4 months, compared to a lack of change in the comparison group. These authors concluded that these results suggest repeated practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique reverses effects of chronic stress."

Feedback requested. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My feedback: In the early days of research on a topic, studies are sometimes contradictory. This can be the result of statistical or experimental variability, weakness of the effect being measured, or poor experimental design due to issues such as conflict of interest, poor funding, or the use of graduate students. TM research has been conducted for only about forty years; given the lack of involvement of big players such as the pharmaceutical industry or NIH for most of that time, it is not surprising that some TM research topics do not have high-quality, replicated results. Choosing which of a set of conflicting research results is the most nearly correct is difficult even for trained scientists in the specific areas of the research, much less for us intelligent but non-specialist WP editors. WP should report the truth: that in some areas, TM studies differ in their conclusions (or, are equivocal), while in other areas, the studies replicate well. David spector (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, David, for the additional points of explanation. Do I understand correctly from your discussion that you approve of substituting these paragraphs for the existing one, as a way of achieving a more balanced presentation of this important research area? ChemistryProf (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Chem. I think you've done an excellent job. I would suggest that the words I've bolded be removed since they tend to give a POV slant to the paragraphs. Also you use the word "significantly/significant" several times. I would think that unless the researchers use this term themselves, our use of it would be a POV, and since we are drawing conclusions based on the studies, possibly WP:OR. I think for Wikipedia we would have to source the word significant. I could be off on this. Perhaps other editors could comment on that.(olive (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the points olive. I am used to scientific writing in which "significantly" refers to "statistical significance" with regard to the measure in question. Statistical significance is a universally understood expression and is exactly what the referenced papers said. I have now corrected the paragraphs to make this explicit, for the sake of any whose understanding might not be clear on this point. As for the connecting words "however" and "yet," these were added to make the paragraphs more readable. If other editors agree with you that they give an undue slant to the material, then obviously they should be removed. The result would not read as smoothly, but if removing them is necessary to avoid creating any impression of bias, then we will do it. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you were probably referring to statistical difference, but wasn't sure. As for "yet" and "however" I do think they generally slant slightly, but I may be too picky on this point so other editors can go with what they think is best, and I'll go along with that. Thanks Chem.(olive (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

In answer to ChemistryProf, I don't have time to study the section and your proposed change. If your proposed change better reflects the research, then I would support it. I respect Olive's opinion, so you should probably make the change.

I do think that the almost 400 research studies (perhaps 150 of which are reliable) is large and important enough that there should be a separate article that delves more deeply into the scientific research on TM, with only a brief overview (emphasizing the most reliable of its conclusions) in this article.

(I like the way progress, although still somewhat slow, is steadily being made in improving this article. This is in big contrast to several years ago and I am thankful that all of the current editors are suggesting and discussing changes politely, carefully, and intelligently.) David spector (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, we have two to one here on the "however" and "yet," so I have dropped those from the paragraphs. Editors have previously discussed the possibility of a separate article devoted to the research on the TM technique, and I have generally been open to that. However, it seems a bit odd to have an article devoted just to the research on a topic and one to cover everything but the research. To be fair to the TM technique article, research should be a major part of it. So this provides a bit of a quandry. Currently, I lean toward leaving the research in this article because so much about the technique has been researched and quite a bit of it is as good as it comes, in my opinion. If there were a consensus among editors that we should create a separate research article, then there should be a fairly comprehensive summary of that research in the TM article, with links to the other article. This is likely to give rise to some problems in terms of what research to highlight in the TM article and how to summarize it. Provides many new opportunities for POV debates. And compared to what I have seen in many other articles, even the fairly extensive treatment of research here is not excessive for a WP article. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

David, I believe there are closer to 8OO studies on the TM technique of which over 300 are peer reviewed.

Chem there is a separate article on the TM technique research here: Research studies on the applications of Transcendental Meditation . For now until there is some agreement as to how we deal with this article and the research article in terms of duplication, I would add whatever you add here to the research article.(olive (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

I didn't know about the article on the research. I will take Olive's suggestion and make these changes in both. Thanks. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

olive, I took a look at the article devoted to research on the applications of the technique and decided not to add this material there. It does not appear to fit. The proposed new paragraphs are focused on key biochemical effects of the technique related to its possible function as a means to reduce or reverse the effects of stress. This is central to understanding how the technique might work to reduce illness, improve cognitive function, and other such applications, but it is not an application in and of itself. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Chem, you wrote of the study by Michaels that it found that TM showed "no significant effect on stress-related biochemicals." But didn't the study find just the opposite? I thought that it found there was no significant difference between TM and relaxing controls but that it did show a significant reduction. By the way, I've always hoped we could say in the article (in a way that a general reader could understand) why this reduction is meaningful, what it indicates. Maybe right up front we could say that both TM and relaxation have been found to reduce stress-related biochemicals in the body, indicating such and such. Then follow that by discussing the relative effectiveness. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That seem slike a good suggestion, Timid. --BwB (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Persinger Self Published

Persinger's TM and Cult Mania is considered "self published" as far as I can tell. Since we have a fair amount of reliably sourced material in the Control Issues section, I am considering removing Persinger. Any concerns with that? (olive (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Considered self-published by who? Christopher Publishing was an independent publishing house from 1910-2005. Are you claiming it was a vanity press? Fladrif (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm not claiming anything, and had I been sure of this I would have removed it. I, in checking this source yesterday came up with information which seemed to indicate the book was published by Persinger's department at Laurentian, and I didn't look further nor did I book mark the page. In looking further, I do see Christopher Publishing House, a reputable publisher. I'll look further just because this is somewhat strange, but even if I find this other information as long as there is information that indicates there were publications through Christopher Publishing House I would think the source is reliable and the entry should stand as is.(olive (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Good work "Sherlock" Olive. --BwB (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)