Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique

Orphaned references in Transcendental Meditation technique

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Transcendental Meditation technique's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Williamson":

• From Transcendental Meditation: Williamson, Lola Transcendent in America:Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New ReligionNYU Press, 2010 ISBN 0-8147-9450-5, 9780814794500
• From TM-Sidhi program: Williamson, Lola, Transcendent in America: Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion", NYU Press, 2010 ISBN 0-8147-9450-5, 9780814794500, pp. 97-99

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed extra TM reference

I removed the extra reference in the first sentence to "Transcendental Meditation". The header states that the article is about TM technique and refers the reader to the TMM article. There is further reference to TMM in the lead and is linked, so the extra reference to TM is not needed. --BwB (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

TM is not the same as TMM, so both links are needed. I'm not sure why you're removing links to that article, but I don't think it's helpful to readers.   Will Beback  talk  15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Will. Linking to the main article is useful and the usual practice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this is the article on the TM technique, so let's keep the focus on that topic. The header states that the article is about TM technique and also refers the reader to the TMM article. There is further reference to TMM in the lead and is also linked. --BwB (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about MMY either but it wouldn't make sense to delete those links just to keep the article better focused. You seem to be removing links to the TM article from other articles, even using misleading edit summaries.[1] That's unhelpful.   Will Beback  talk  16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt "mislead" by my edit summary. I did combine 2 sentences to make one sentence, hence the summary, and I did feel it was more clear and direct for the reader. I do not see the need to direct the reader to the TM article since this article is about the TM technique. Again, if others see a rational for this beyond my reasoning, then so be it. --BwB (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The TM article covers more than just the technique, obviously. SCI, for example. I'll go ahead and restore it.   Will Beback  talk  18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This article covers SCI also. --BwB (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's only a short summary of the main coverage at TM.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

TM in schools and universities 1990s–present

The material in the "TM in schools and universities 1990s–present" section is increasingly related to, and sourced from, the David Lynch Foundation. It seems like this material is more relevant to that topic than to the general topic of the TM technique. I suggest we move the DLF-funded programs to the DLF article or, less ideally, merge the DLF article here. Any other suggestions?   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely against a merge of DLF and TMT. --BwB (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I oppose a merger. Some of the TM programs in schools etc. have been funded by DLF. If you feel the mentioning of funding by DLF is off topic we can consider and adjustment for those specific phrases or sentences. For example this sentence could be moved to the DLF article. "Its principal, George H. Rutherford, is a member of the David Lynch Foundation's Board of Advisors." However, moving other text is not appropriate as it they are clearly relevant to this article. From a quick scan of the section I see there are about 20 references and only 3-4 citations are sourced to the DLF web site.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem directly related to the technique. Instead, this material is about a limited number of training programs in a limited number of US schools. In all, it covers at most a couple of thousand people, out of the reported six million who've learned the technique. It's more about the movement, or the DLF, than about the technique. So if folks don't want to merge the DLF material here then let's move the DLF material from this article to that article. I don't see any benefit to splitting it between two articles.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that Keithbob deleted relevant material about the DLF from this article. If we're going to write about the DLF here then we need to say so, not hide the association. I'm going to restore those deletions.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What I did was remove redundant mentioning of DLF. I left plenty of references to DLF behind and DLF's role as a foundation that provides scholarships for TM programs in schools was clear. Here is how the section stood after the last time I edited this article on Oct 5 2010. [2] The DLF is mentioned or referred to twice in the section's opening paragraph and then four more times in the 6 sub sections that follow. Please stop mis-characterizing my edits and good faith efforts to improve the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How did I mis-characterize your edits? I said you deleted the material, which you did.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Chalmers is an Ayurveda practitioner?

The article identifies Chalmers as an Ayurveda practitioner. Is there a source for this? According to this 2003 full-disclosure bio in BMJ, he hasn't practiced Ayurveda since 1991. He's been with the National Health Service since 1996.

Competing interests: Roger Chalmers is a full-time locum general practitioner and has derived more than 99% of his income from NHS clinical work over the past 7 years. He became a teacher of Transcendental Meditation in 1975, and has lectured widely on research and medical applications of this and related techniques over the past 27 years. From 1982-1996 he was directly involved with institutions publicly advocating TM<holding a number of non-salaried academic positions (including co-editing of collected papers on TM research). From 1987-1991, he worked in full-time private medical practice utilizing the complementary system known as Maharishi's Vedic Approach to Health, which includes TM, alongside modern medicine.

TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. The text you quote says he has practiced MVAH. Is the issue simply that he's a former Ayurveda practitioner rather than a current one? If that's an important distinction we can add "former". We can add "TM teacher" while we're at it.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the Chalmers who lost his licence to practice medicine in 1991 for serious professional misconduct over his failed attempt to treat HIV with MAV, is it not? How he can work as a locum GP and do NHS clinical work while stricken from the Register is a mystery to me. It leads me to question the accuracy and forthrightness of the BMJ disclosure bio. Further, nothing in the disclosure bio directly states that he no longer practices MAV; it is merely an inference that TG is drawing that is not contained in the source. Perhaps 1% of his income is derived from MAV. For all we know, he is using MAV in his clinical work as a locum. Perhaps he does it gratis while moonlighting. We can't tell from the source. Fladrif (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

yes it is difficult to tell from the source Chalmers current connection to TM and Maharishi Ayurveda. --BwB (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Chalmers disclosure statement for a 1999 LTE in the BMJ has a slightly different flavor than the 2003 [3] as does a blurb for a 2000 NLP-UK Annual Conference. [4] The current MVI-UK website lists him as a TM teacher. [5] It appears that he was not reinstated to the Medical Register until 2006 [6] [7], so I continue to be at a loss as to how he could have worked as a locum GP or done NHS clinical work in the 1992-2007 timeframe. Fladrif (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Click on "GP Register entry date":

"If a doctor is on the GP Register, the GP Register entry date shows the date they were entered on the GP Register. To work as a general practitioner (GP) in the NHS, other than as a trainee, a doctor must have their name on the GP Register and be fully registered with a licence to practise. For many doctors the date of entry will be 1 April 2006 as this is when the GP Register was established."

TimidGuy (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's the point of this thread? Is there a proposed edit?   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Former Maharishi Ayurveda practitioner Roger A. Chalmers, a TM promoter and National Health Service physician

What is the source for him being an NHS physician and a "former" MVAH practitioner?   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The "source" is a self-serving statement by Chalmers in an addendum to a letter to the editor to the BMJ which is inconsistent with an earlier self-serving letter to the editor by Chalmers, as parsed by TG. I note that Chalmer is a regular LTE contributor to the BMJ, and his concept of COI as reflected in his disclosure statements proceeds from the premise that whatever he does as a volunteer without compensation doesn't need to be disclosed. What we do have a RS for is that Chalmers is "Dean of Medicine of the unrecognized Maharishi University of Natural Law - Mentmore" who was stricken from the Medical Register for "serious professional misconduct" directly related to his practice of MVAH [8] We have no reliable source - just his say-so - that he is a NHS practitioner, and no reliable source that he is a "former" MVAH practitioner. I regard this edit by TG, claimed to be "per discussion" as a violation of the TM ArbCom. Fladrif (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the usual public source to determine if someone is an NHS physician? I admit that I do not know much about that, I don't need to see physicians so much, but there must be one official source for that. How comes this is complicated? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)