Talk:Transcendental Meditation

TM versus other kinds of relaxation therapies

• The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety, and Kundalini Yoga did not show significant effectiveness in treating obsessive-compulsive disorders compared with Relaxation/Meditation. Drop out rates appear to be high, and adverse effects of meditation have not been reported. More trials are needed.
  • "Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (Review) " Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M

I'm just parking this here for future inclusion in the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The study Will Beback has parked here reviewed only randomized, controlled trials. That is why the number of studies is so small. Randomized trials are only one of many acceptable scientific methodologies for investigating a treatment or intervention. Another meta-analysis of the effects of the TM technique on anxiety included dozens of studies with other study designs. That study also controlled for a wide variety of biases, including investigator biases. It reached conclusions far different from this one. Why would we insert this one instead of the other? Perhaps the more notable of the two is the one reviewing the most studies and for which the most variables are controlled. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason that both studies can't be mentioned. What's the title of the study you're thinking of?   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference is "Differential Effects of Relaxation Techniques on Trait Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis," Eppley, Abrams, & Shear, Journal of Clinical Psychology 45(6):957-974, 1989. I have a pdf copy, but I don't know if it is possible and legal to deposit it in the discussion. ChemistryProf (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A 1989 review might be considered a bit old compared to one published in 2006. But if it's a significant paper then I wouldn't object to including it also, at least briefly.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's significant for several reasons. Even though it is older, it is more comprehensive, covering a large number of studies, in fact all the studies that could be found at the time. There has been little research on effectiveness of these techniques for reducing anxiety since 1989. It also adjusts for strength of study design as well as for other key variables. Taking these reasons into consideration, it may be more important than a new study on a couple of randomized, controlled trials. It deserves an equal billing and probably should be the first meta-analysis on anxiety to be discussed, followed by a brief mention of the new analysis on the randomized trials. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with including both. I don't see why they'd receive different weight.   Will Beback  talk  07:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If we want to consider relative weights, this would require further discussion and scientific analysis. If we are trying to avoid such discussion, how do we decide fairly which one goes first? The sequence of presentation in this case is likely to have an impact on interpretation of results. If the meta-analysis with the strongly positive results is presented first, this may imply to the reader that the strong results are more likely correct. The opposite conclusion may be drawn if the order is reversed. So is there a way to be fair to the relative weights of the studies without engaging in some further in depth discussion to evaluate the relative weights? ChemistryProf (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order is usually good unless there's a reason to do it differently. I don't see any reason to give comparable studies different weight.   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that chronological order is an easy alternative to evaluating the relative weights of the two articles. Since I have the earlier article handy, I can insert a blurb on it. I don't have time at the moment, but will do so in the next day or two. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Another alternative is to handle them together. Individual studies seem to get excessive weight in this topic. So it could be something like "A 1989 metastudy found xyz, while a more narrow 2006 study found abc." Although, I'd say reviews are actually more important than individual studies, so maybe it's those that we should be trimming instead.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We'd probably want to note that the Cochrane review looked at a single study on Transcendental Meditation. We could also include the randomized controlled trial on anxiety published this month in the American Journal of Hypertension that was done at American University and that got wide media attention.[1] It had 209 subjects and is the strongest study on anxiety to date. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We have two (or more) ways of organizing this material. One is to handle reviews and meta-studies separately from individual studies. The other is to separate them by condition addressed. It appears that we now mostly do the latter.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There are many possible ways to organize the research, and I would like to play a role in the evolution of that section. Right now, though, since this topic of anxiety is pretty hot at the moment, I will focus on a paragraph combining the three studies mentioned in this discussion. Should have it completed shortly. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the study that TG mentions?   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See the abstract here.[2] TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's just another study by MUM staff. What is the Cochrane review that you mentioned? Reviews are much more important than individual studies.   Will Beback  talk  17:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If ChemistryProf was proposing covering a 1989 review, a 2006 review, and a 2009 study in the same paragraph I'd argue agasint that. They are unequal sources. The 1989 review may be too old to bother with, unless it's particularly notable, and the study should go with the other studies, perhaps replacing an older study.   Will Beback  talk  03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, TM is not a relaxation therapy. It doesn't always produce relaxation (when it facilitates stress release), and it isn't a therapy (it is a technique for self-improvement). David spector (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Like many topics, there are various views of TM. It isn't our job to determine which is correct. We should just include all significant points of view with due weight for each. In this case, the movement promotes TM as a relaxation technique and a form of therapy. If there are sources for other views then we should probably include those too.   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has veered a bit off track. First, in response to Will Beback's remark about the authorship of the newest article, I can sympathize with his suspicion. I experience the same tendency to disbelief when I read an article purporting to investigate the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical treatment and then discover that the researchers were either working for or funded by the pharmaceutical company that sells the drug. This situation arises frequently in drug research. When it comes to an article in WP, however, such opinions have no place. They represent Original Research. The research article constitutes a reliable source. I know of at least one study that seems to justify the suspicions concerning research funded by the drug makers. So if I were writing a WP article about some drug research that fit the characteristics just described, I could also insert the results of a study that appears to show the probable bias in such studies. This is relevant to the current article. A valuable component of the 1989 meta-analysis on the TM program and trait anxiety is that the degree of affiliation with the TM program or TM organizations was a variable entered into the analysis. Such affiliations were found to have no significant effect on the outcome. As for including the 2009 trial in the discussion of effects on anxiety, this can be justified on several grounds. First, it is a brand new trial that reports some new findings not included in the Cochrane analysis. Second, since the Cochrane analysis contained only one randomized trial on the TM program, this new study in essence doubles the number of trials available for study. I should find time to give it a shot later today. ChemistryProf (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Studies and reviews are different things and we should avoid lumping them together, as had been proposed earlier. Also, it's questionable to treat old and new reviews with same weight. See WP:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence, which suggests that reviews published within the past five years are best. A 20-year old review is practically ancient. The new study by MUM researchers should be included beside other research from that ilk.   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

For those reading along at home, I was confused by references to the "Cochrane review". I now see that those are references to the paper written by Krisanaprakornkit, et al., that is quoted and linked to at the top of the thread. Apparently, those reviews are held in high esteem. Cochrane Library.   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cochrane review looked at a single study from 1980. How is that more up to date? Basically that review is saying that as of 2005 they could only find one randomized controlled trial on TM and anxiety. There is now a second randomized controlled trial, one that's much stronger than the one that Cochrane looked at. Cochrane only considers randomized controlled trials. That's not Wikipedia's standard, which allows other sorts of designs as evidence. Note that the up-to-date guideline is explicitly for an area that's being actively researched. That only makes sense. You don't cite older studies if new studies have superseded it. But that's not the case here, since TM and anxiety hasn't been actively researched since the 1980s. (Though we might find it as a secondary outcome in some of the NIH RCTs. We should probably check on that.) TimidGuy (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This long discussion began with the "parking" of a quote of an article from the Cochrane Library. I jumped into the fray because I happened to know something about the research on TM and anxiety and knew that this quote was based on very little information--one study. I was not sure then (or now) where Will had in mind to put this quote. Now that I have recently reread the Transcendental Meditation article, I see that the earlier and much more comprehensive meta-analysis I mentioned is already in the article under psychological effects. Considerable space is devoted to it, and one other article on anxiety is mentioned just prior to it. I do not dispute the fact that Cochrane reviews are generally highly regarded, but in a case such as this one in which only one TM randomized trial is included in the review, it cannot claim to be a definitive study. The recently published randomized trial obtained the opposite results using a larger number of subjects. I think the decision here is whether to mention the Cochrane review at all. If we do decide to mention it, then we certainly must mention the new trial as well. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has responded on this train for a few days, but we really need to improve and update the paragraph on anxiety. I spent some time in rewriting it and will go ahead and insert the new version. It has some of what was there before but has added the studies mentioned by Will Beback and TimidGuy and has tried to accurately reflect what these articles reported. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your treatment of the old versus new reviews, and of reviews versus studies, but I won't edit the material at this time. I continue to believe that this material receives too much space and should be moved to the research article with a detailed summary left in this article.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Any area of disagreement needs to be hashed out before anything is moved to the research article. Otherwise, we would have trouble with any attempt to summarize the material. As for the amount of space accorded the research in the TM article, I see research as central to the article, especially any research attempting to establish its benefits and effectiveness for clinical or preclinical conditions, compared to eyes-closed rest and to other techniques and approaches to stress reduction. It would be possible to move some of the material, perhaps, but in the end, I'm not sure we would save much space because an adequate summary could well end up being almost as long as the present treatment. On the other hand, if the general consensus is that some of the material must be moved, then I will work with other editors to help insure both treatments are balanced. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Famous people who have done TM

Al Jardine, Andy Kaufman, Angelo Badalamenti, Ben Harper, Betty LaVette, Bill Hicks, Burt Reynolds, Candice Bergen, Clint Eastwood, David Lynch, Deepak Chopra, Donovan, Doug Henning, Dr. John Hagelin, Eddie Vedder, George Harrison, Heather Graham, Howard Stern, Hugh Jackman, Jeff Bridges, Jerry Seinfeld, Jim James, Joe Namath, John Densmore, Kurt Vonnegut, Laura Dern, Merv Griffin, Mia Farrow, Mike Love, Moby, Paul Horn, Paul McCartney, Ray Manzarek, Richard Branson, Ringo Starr, Russell Simmons, Sheryl Crow, Stephen Collins, Stevie Wonder.Snapdog10009 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, but we need to have sources to support this. --BwB (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi BwB, how about these sources. I think most of the names are covered.

Celebrities push for Transcendental Meditation center in L.A. http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm59.html

Howard Stern and Transcendental Meditation http://awearnessblog.com/2009/03/howard-stern-transcendental-meditation.php

Change begins within concert at Radio City for the David Lynch foundation on 4/4/09 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z63ApfnHUxQ

Under Pressure - Eddie Vedder and Ben Harper - David Lynch Conce clert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyhkl6R924Y

“Change Begins Within” National News Conference http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/videos.html#

The Beach Boys in their first ever concert in Fairfield, Iowa http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/newsletter/2009_summer.html

Practitioners of TM http://www.nndb.com/group/854/000126476/

Maharishi on the Merv Griffin Show http://goldendome.org/MervGriffin/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.234.105 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

NNDB is not a reliable source. Blogs are not generally reliable, except for comments about the bloggers. The "Celebrities push for Transcendental Meditation center" article doesn't say that the celebrities actually practice TM. But so long as there are reliable sources for people practicing TM then there's nothing wrong with such a list of notable practitioners.   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. There are newspaper sources for most of these. Would it go in this article or in Transcendental Meditation Movement? We had such a list in the past in this article but had consensus to remove it because an editor said it sounded promotional. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that it is promotional, but what is the point? At one point we had a litany of "pro" and "con" quotes from various celebrities who had positive or negative opinions on TM. I think that 7th was the editor who started adding that material; then we got an escalation of more and more quotes on either "side". My suggestion that such material be dropped from the article was based on questioning whether it added anything encyclopedic to the article to have what amounts to a list of celebrities. And, if we start adding a list of celebrities who practice TM, are we going to add a list of celebrities who don't? Or who used to and quit? I think it is quite enough that in several of the articles here where an individual was very closely indentified with TM (the Beatles, Donovan, Doug Henning, Merv Griffin, Andy Kaufmann etc) it is appropriately discussed in context; but adding a list of celebs pro, con or indifferent to one or more of these TM Movement articles doesn't advance the ball.Fladrif (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it might sound promotional or it could be seen as just informational. I have done TM on and off for about 35 years and what struck me when I was compiling the list was just how large an impact it has had. I was genuinely amazed to discover that Clint Eastwood and Howard Stern are huge fans of TM. To me this was news that I thought was worth sharing, that's all. I also kept the paragraph title neutral--people who have done TM--not people who are for or against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapdog10009 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Many celebrities are Catholics, yet few say that their Catholic faith helped their careers, and no one would say that their participation significantly promoted Catholicism. It's quite different with TM. Several successful entertainers and businessmen credit TM with at least some of their success, and their involvement has given positive attention to TM. So long as the list is well-cited and neutral I think it is a benefit. In the Transcendental Meditation movement article we can give a more detailed discussion of those who are most closely associated with the movement, like Lynch and Henning.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Fladrifs concerns that we don't go overboard with this. It should not be given undue weight, but if the person's involvement with TM is notable and well sourced I think its OK to mention it in an appropriate way in the article. That said, it may happen from time to time that we need to discuss what is appropriate and what is not.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

" . . . if the person's involvement with TM is notable and well sourced I think its OK to mention it in an appropriate way in the article." Excellent! Please feel free to check out the links/sources I've included above. To me, who does TM and who supports it is news, i.e. important information. Snapdog10009 (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find reliable sources for most of these, but the sources you've listed are mostly not sufficient. I haven't looked that the videos, but performing at a benefit concert is probably not enough, unless they say on the video they practice TM. See WP:V and WP:RS for more info.   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what we had before.

The official TM website indicates that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its inauguration, including celebrities such as comedian Jerry Seinfeld,[3] Dolly Parton, Andy Kaufman, The Beatles, Beach Boys' Mike Love, Stevie Wonder, and Al Jardine, jazz musicians Eric Kloss and Charles Lloyd, actor Stephen Collins, radio personality Howard Stern, actor Clint Eastwood, film director David Lynch, actor Hugh Jackman, inventor and author Itzhak Bentov, Scottish musician Donovan, actresses Mia Farrow and Heather Graham [4]. For nearly eight years, Deepak Chopra was one of Maharishi's most prominent spokespersons and promoters of Maharishi Ayurveda or alternative medicine. Political leaders who practice TM include Joaquim Chissano [5][6], former president of Mozambique.

Some are sourced. In other cases, the Wikipedia article mentions their TM. And in some cases we'll need to find sources. TimidGuy (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"I haven't looked that the videos, but performing at a benefit concert is probably not enough, unless they say on the video they practice TM." You have to look at the videos, particularly the “Change Begins Within” National News Conference where Betty LaVette, David Lynch, Donovan, Dr. John Hagelin, Mike Love, Moby, Paul Horn, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Russell Simmons, all say they practice TM and recommend it to others. Videos, news conferences and articles associated with “Change Begins Within” also have Howard Stern, Jerry Seinfeld, Eddie Vedder and Ben Harper showing their support for the practice of TM. The videos are key. Snapdog10009 (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Transcendental Meditation practitioners has 32 entries, and that isn't even including all of the NLP candidates with articles. I don't think we want to automatically include 50 names. If possible, we should avoid too much duplication with lists in other articles. We have a similar list in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Reception. Maybe this should be the list of all TM practitioners for whom we can find a reliable source. We might want to use a term like "people trained in TM", rather than "people who practice TM", since in many cases we have no way of knowing if they are still active.

If we have a reasonably complete list here then the list in the bio article should be limited to those who are known to have had a personal relationship with the Maharishi or other significant connection beyond the average practitioner.   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we could have something on those who have trained in TM and then something more on those celebs who have been more involved with the TMM like Lynch, etc. --BwB (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Snapdog, what videos are you referring to? Where are they located?-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See the links at the top of the thread. Some are on Youtube and two are on private sites.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah check the links at the top of the thread, particularly the “Change Begins Within” National News Conference video at http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/videos.html#. The concert took place on 4 April 2009 at Radio City Music Hall to further the foundation’s goal to teach 1 million children in troubled schools the techniques of Transcendental Meditation. Here you will find out about the new wave of TM advocates like Jerry Seinfeld, Moby, Russell Simmons, Ben Harper, Betty LaVette, and Eddie Vedder. IMO this concert (and the people who practice the technique) is newsworthy. Here is a review of the concert: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-amaya/change-begins-within-my-i_b_182116.html Snapdog10009 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be to not create a section on celebrities who practice the technique but to approach this through adding into the article notable events and sources which pertain to t the technique like for example the Change Begins Within concert or the articles on the actor Ben Foster when he talk about acting and TM. I'm not sure yet how to title this, or exactly the approach just a preliminary thought.(olive (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

It'd be much cleaner and simpler to just have a list. It needn't be limited to celebrities, but could include all notable individuals.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree! All the people I listed above are advocates of TM. If you don't believe me check out the links and watch the linked videos. I've done my part and I now leave it up to you Wikipedia editors to decide. Cheers. Snapdog10009 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I believe you. Lists tend to have little meaning, and the kind of list we are talking about here could be very long. The problem with such a long list is, who wants to wade through it to read it. If there's agreement for such a list, fine. (olive (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Lists like that are found throughout Wikipedia. This isn't the best place to give the individual stories of miscellaneous TM practitioners - those are better in their biographies. If the people were important to the history of TM, like the Beatles or Lynch, then they might be included in the history as well, but most of these names don't appear to have been more than mere practitioners. Alternatively, it could be a standalone list.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists used anywhere can be tedious to read. I would suggest that if there's agreement then create the list. Its not a big issue.(olive (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

If it turns out that there is a consensus that adding a list of enthusiastic celebrities who practice TM, such a list can be created in one place (perhaps in WikiMedia) and transcluded in each relevant article (TM, MMY, Movement). That way, synchronization of content is automatic. David spector (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing something like that is technically possible, but undesirable. It's better for different articles to have different content. The list of TM practitioners isn't the same as the list of people who hold positions in the movement, for example.   Will Beback  talk  08:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my position stated above that I just don't think that a list adds anything to an article like this. WP:NOTDIR would seem to be instructive. It is one thing to say, in context in an article that Merv Griffin and the Beatles being enthusiastic TM proponents had a lot to do with popularizing TM in its heyday, or John Hagelin ran for president 3 times, or that David Lynch is busy raising money to teach TM to schoolkids, etc...but what does a list of famous TM practitioners add to an article like this? I know that articles on colleges and universities list notable alumni, and cities list notable residents, but even those strike me as iffy propositions. Wikipedia articles don't appear from my highly unscientific survey to contain the kind of list that is being considered here. The articles on Mormonism don't include a list of famous Mormons, etc. There is precedent for DS's suggestion: eg, articles on Boy Scouts don't contain lists of famous scouts, but there is a separate article List of Scouts. If somebody really thinks it's important to have a list like that, a separate article might be the better solution Fladrif (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fladrif. (OK, I think this is a Kodak moment. Please someone, quick, take a picture of me and Fladrif shaking hands and smiling in agreement!) Seriously, we already mention several well known TM'ers in the article. Such a list would not add anything substantive to the article in my opinion. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[7] Fladrif (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding standalone lists, here are some of those already on Wikipedia:

• List of Christian Scientists
• List of Pagans
• List of druids and neo-druids
• List of Scientologists
• List of Jesuits
• List of alchemists
• List of physicists

And so on. It's a typical thing. Yes-it's boring. Encyclopedic information often is boring, depending on what you're interested in.   Will Beback  talk  09:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Still no consensus? Sheesh! IMO lists are interesting—the Wikipedia lists shown below certainly are as I refer to them all the time, particularly for films and music. I have used the "AFI's 100 years" list to buy quite a few DVDs. Without this list I would have probably never seen "Citizen Kane." Did you know that AC/DC's "Back in Black" is the second best selling album of all time? These lists are useful and interesting. And Fladrif, to me an article on Mormonism would be enhanced by a list of famous Mormons—the list would put a human face on the religion. The list I propose would only take up 6 lines and would put a human face on TM. Why the hesitation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_films

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Films_considered_the_greatest_ever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years%E2%80%A6100_Movies_(10th_Anniversary_Edition)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

Snapdog10009 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries .. its just an opinion and not a big deal ... Go for it. (olive (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Snapdog, you don't need our permission to create an article. Just click this link and start: List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners. However before you do that I advise you to carefully read two core policies: WP:V and WP:BLP. Remember that the sources need to be of sufficient quality and they need to directly describe the individuals as practitioners, or something close to that.   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, you love others to do the grunt work! I agree with Flad and Kbobb that a list in this article does not add any value. Have fun with your new article, Snap. --BwB (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if Snapdog wants the list he can do the work.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, Will has done a ton of work on these articles, so......(olive (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Yes, credit where credit is due. No one does more of the grunt work than Will, especially all the tedious work on the refs. Thanks, Will. It's appreciated TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of you both to say so. The articles are coming along nicely. There's still much work to be done on fixing up those refs though. I like to think of this project as being a bit like a big sand castle, to which anyone strolling along the beach can stop and add their contributions. We all benefit from seeing a bigger and better "castle"/encyclopedia, and our work builds on each other's efforts. If Snapdog wants to write a list, that can be his one of his contributions.   Will Beback  talk  11:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks all. I'll get to the list right after Christmas as things are a bit hectic now. Happy Holidays to everyone. Snapdog10009 (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

People supporting Transcendental Meditation

The official TM website states that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its inauguration,[8] [9] including celebrities such as comedian Jerry Seinfeld, Dolly Parton, Andy Kaufman, The Beatles, The Beach Boys' Mike Love and Al Jardine, Stevie Wonder, jazz musicians Eric Kloss and Charles Lloyd, actor Stephen Collins, radio personality Howard Stern, actor Clint Eastwood, film director David Lynch, actor Hugh Jackman, inventor and author Itzhak Bentov, Scottish musician Donovan, actresses Mia Farrow and Heather Graham [10]. For nearly eight years, Deepak Chopra was one of Maharishi's most prominent spokespersons and promoters of Maharishi Ayurveda or alternative medicine.[11] Political leaders who practice TM include Joaquim Chissano [12][13], former president of Mozambique.

On 4 April 2009, at Radio City Music Hall in New York City, The David Lynch Foundation put on benefit concert called Change Begins Within to raise money to teach Transcendental Meditation to 1 million at-risk youth. [14] Many celebrities and performers joined Sir Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr in their support of this benefit including: Laura Dern, Angelo Badalamenti, Ben Harper, Betty LaVette, Eddie Vedder, Jim James, Moby, Paul Horn, Russell Simmons, and Sheryl Crow. [15]

Further discussion

Snapdog10009, I'm disappointed that you seem to have ignored everything that the editors here have said. First, there is general agreement to not include this in the article. Start a separate article if you wish. Second, "People supporting Transcendental Meditation" is not a good scope for a list like this. While we can pretty well determine who has been trained in or practices TM, supporting it is a different matter. Third, this list is still not adequately sourced. Before adding material like this to the encyclopedia you should carefully read WP:V and WP:BLP.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you win! (First, there is general agreement to not include this in the article.) Include what in the article? The well written first paragraph written earlier? (Second, "People supporting Transcendental Meditation" is not a good scope for a list like this.) Then change the heading to something like "people associated with TM." It's okay to edit. (Third, this list is still not adequately sourced.) As I said earlier you have to watch the videos. I guess I just don't have the patience for this. I'll just put the list here if that's okay with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transcendental_Meditation_practitioners Cheers, Snapdog10009 (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a competition and isn't about winning or losing. It's about following the project's policies and best practices.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob Oates

Citations to a book by Bob Oates have been added to the article.[16] Who is Bob Oates? I see that a Robert Oates is a "senior policy fellow with Maharishi University of Management's Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy (Fairfield, Iowa, USA)" and "Author of a dozen books".[17] There is also a Bob Oates who has written a number of books on football, and is described as a sports writer. At least one of his books on football was published in Fairfield. However he seems to be a different person.[18] What is Oates' background?   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems Bob Oates (the one that died I think) had a son Bob Oates Jr. who seems to be a writer and has some affiliation with TM. [19] If its the same Bob Oates that wrote this TM book, than he's not using the Jr. in his name. See here[20] It's a mystery to me.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I found this description in a 1991 article: "Robert M. Oates Jr., director of public affairs at Maharishi University." I also saw elsewhere that Oates, Jr. is a former football player.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, good, he uses the Jr. I also remember reading something like that, about him being a former football player.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Bigweeboy is adding the cites, so I presume he has the 1976 book. Could he say how Oates is described in his book? Does anyone know his academic credentials?   Will Beback  talk  03:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The book cover (1976) reads "Bob Oates, Jr. graduated summa cum laude from the University of Southern California and holds a MA in American History form UCLA. Thirty-three years of age, he has been the editor and/or author of five previous books. For the last three years he has worked full-time as a teacher of the TM technique." --BwB (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He has also written books on football with Joe Namath: "Joe Namath and Bob Oates, Jr. Joe Namath a Matter of Style

Little Brown And Company 1973 0345444906 / 9780345444905 First Edition; First Printing Hardcover Near Fine in Very Good dust jacket; Pages clean tight and unmarked - boards have very slight edgewear - DJ has chipping small tears and edgewear and bumped corners. A breakthrough book in football technique and strategy with a detailed text written and illustrated so clearly that any player can learn from it and every fan can enjoy it. Photos every page. ; 11" - 81/2"; 196 pages" --BwB (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! So it sounds like it would be fair to describe him, in regard to that book, as a historian, and in later years as a public relations officer.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not refer to him as an author? He wrote a sports book with Nameth. --BwB (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If his main qualification for discussing TM is having written a book with Namath, then we can say that instead. "Author" alone is pretty meaningless, since even a first-time writers is an author. Since we quote him repeatedly here and elsewhere his qualifications should be mentioned.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes good to mention his quals, but he is also an author, so this should be mentioned too. --BwB (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So we're using a book a guy whose main qualification is co-writing a book with Joe Namath as a key source for this article? I realize it's published by a mainstream company, Putnam, but I'm just surprised that this is the best available source.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Roger LeBlanc

I've removed this content:[21]

• Author Roger LeBlanc writes: "It’s not a religion- The Transcendental Meditation technique is a simple, natural technique practiced by millions of people of all religions, including clergy. Practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique does not require or involve faith or any particular set of beliefs."
  • My Dogma ran over your Karma by Roger LeBlanc p. 131 [22]

He is a "devout Christian" who is quoting TM organization claims and then adding his own negative comments.[23] There's no good reason to put the TM text in his mouth, and I don't think his own comments are worth adding either, so I just deleted it outright.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, good catch.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Jon Wilks

Wilks, Jon. "Transcendental meditation: Dismissed by cynics, applauded by medics, transcendental meditation is nothing if not controversial". Time Out Abu Dhabi. Retrieved 2009-11-15.

Source text

A misconception commonly held is that TM has religious connotations – possibly cultish in nature. Again, this was an unfortunate by-product of the Maharishi’s association with The Beatles: George Harrison, in particular, was an enthusiastic advocate of Indian religions, and many observers jumped to conclusions.

Version 1

An article in Body and Mind describes the common misconception that TM has religious connotations – possibly cultish in nature, resulting from the Maharishi’s association with George Harrison, who was an enthusiastic advocate of Indian religions.

Version 2

An article in Time Out Abu Dhabi says that it is incorrect to view TM as having a religious or cultish nature.

This is not among the best sources we can find, nor is this a notable writer. Wilks primarily writes restaurant reviews.[24][25] Time Out Abu Dhabi calls itself a source for "Abu Dhabi's best restaurants, nightlife, films, things to do and places to see".[26] We have plenty of scholars commenting on the issue of tM and religion, so I think we should leave this out.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair to me.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What about this deletion?

• Though religious in origin, going back for several thousand years, Transcendental Meditation as introduced to the West is not attached to religion. Rather, it is a means for developing human potential. -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This was deleted? Yes, I would wonder why. Unless there's a very good reason per Wikipedia, it should be returned.(olive (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Compare it to the source text and you'll see why I deleted it. Plagiarism is not allowed.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'll reword and re add.(olive (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

I remove this material from Spilka for the same reason.[27] Come on folks - we should be writing material at the same or higher level as college research papers. Plagiarizing material is cause for a failing grade even in elementary school.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Will. I do not plagiarize material.(olive (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately, not everyone shares your ethics.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Did You Know on Butler stabbing

Editors may wish to comment here [28] on a proposed DYK on the MUM stabbing.(olive (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

I object to putting the Butler stabbing on the WP home page. It is not notable (many unstable people stab each other randomly all the time) and has nothing to do with TM. Furthermore, the stabbing happened years ago. Or am I missing something, Olive? David spector (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I dislike the DYK on this topic since it seem sensationalist and tabloid- like. However, other editors think its fine, and have attempted to adjust the wording so that the "hook" is more accurate. This is a collaborative project and my opinion is only one of many. Not much else I can do.(olive (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

I have no experience with DYK in WP, but having read the hook and the discussion on the DYK page, I must agree with Olive. It sounds like the action of someone who dislikes the University or the Transcendental Meditation technique trying to bring attention to the possible discrepancy. As far as it being newsworthy, it hardly compares with the recent presentation of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barak Obama a day or two after he announces a 35,000-troop surge in the US war of aggression against Afghanistan. If irony can be said to be newsworthy, then that would be more appropriate than questioning the correctness of the University's claim about the peace promoting effects of the TM program based on this one event. Most campuses have a homicide every year or two, usually suicide, but they manage to keep it out of the news media, so most people never hear about them. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Speculating on the motives of other editors is not a helpful direction to take.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1960s and 1970s

In this section we now have the text "According to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's memoirs, twenty one members of the Indian Parliament issued a public statement endorsing the Transcendental Meditation technique in 1963. He writes that news articles on the technique appeared in Canadian newspapers such as the Daily Colonist, Calgary Herald and The Albertan." However, this book is not MMY's memoirs, so I have reverted to previous version. --BwB (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thirty Years Around the World

Will characterized this as MMY's memoirs. BWB reverted, saying that's not what it is. I'm inclined to think that Will is correct, and BWB is incorrect, based on these sources: MMY is listed as the author here. [[29]] (Refer to: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Thirty Years Around the World—Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment, Volume One, 1957-1964, Maharishi Vedic University Press, 1986 [to be reprinted], a historical account, in Maharishi’s own words, of the natural and spontaneous establishment of his worldwide movement to improve the quality of life of everyone everywhere and create Heaven on Earth.)[30] On the other hand, some other TM-Movement sites call it a "biography". [31] Rather than revert BWB's reversion, I'll ask the question, who has it right?Fladrif (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Flad. I took the latter view, Will took the former. Perhaps others may be able to shed more light on the two options. If Will feels to put back his original edit until this point has reached consensus, then that is OK with me. --BwB (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Memoirs" implies personal memories about events in a person's life. The cited book appears (I haven't read it) to be a history of MMY's Movement rather than his life. However, MMY represented himself not as an individual, but as an instantiation of the Absolute level of life. For example, he never would say whether he was living in one of the particular levels of consciousness that he described, nor would he state his age or discuss his likes or dislikes. For these reasons, the word "memoirs" is ambiguous when applied to MMY. On the one hand, they are memoirs of the Movement, and therefore MMY might have considered them his memoirs. On the other, they are not personal memoirs as normally understood. David spector (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we attribute the book to MMY without saying that it is his memoirs? I would be happy with that. How about "In MMY book on the history of the TM Movement...."?--BwB (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be fine with me. It might be sufficient to say something like, "According to a history written by MMY, ..."   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! --BwB (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the help.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Park and consistency

I can't find any mention of Park in this article at all, either now or in the last few days, so what contextual information are you talking about? Am I missing something? Woonpton (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was flipping back and forth between articles... This post should be on the Hagelin talk page. Sheesh. Apologies.(olive (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Should this section be deleted now? David spector (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No need.(olive (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Naming in lede:The whole nine yards

The most accurate and full name for the technique is Transcendental Meditation technique or TM technique so the first line of the lede should spell that out... no pun intended... Possibly later in the article once the reader has this bit of information. the shorter versions could be used.(olive (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Source?   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Common sense...:o)... and for starters, Peter Russell,The TM Technique, and opening sentence of Shear's chapter in , The Experience of Meditation, "The Transcendental Mediation Technique (TM) techique is an effortless mental technique...",pg23, Gerace's book, The TM Book opening lines. "The Transcendental Meditation (or TM) technique....pg11.

Rather than consider this the full name of the technique , what we have the opportunity for in these first words is a complete description of what we are dealing with and that is, a technique. (olive (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Are any forms of meditation not techniques? It seems implicit. If we simply want to indicate it's a technique we can say "Transcendental Meditation is a mantra meditation technique introduced in India in 1955..."

While two books may use the longer form, a crude survey shows that it is not the most popular variation. Google books shows that the long form is found in about 535 books while the short form appears in over 2000. The Proquest news archive shows 78 instances of the long form (many are press releases) versus over 7000 for the short form.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Olive on this. We need to start with TM technique and can shorten later in article. --BwB (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to do that? It's just extra words that don't add any meaning.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback is correct. The Sanskrit for the English phrase "Transcendental meditation" is bhavatita-dhyana. "Bhavatita" means "beyond being" or "beyond moods" and "dhyana" simply means "meditation". A two-word English translation therefore accurately reflects the Sanskrit original.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)