Talk:Transcendental Meditation

RfC: How should we present the TM material

The question is what should be under the title "Transcendental Meditation." 03:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 1

Leave it as it is with a short introduction page at Transcendental Meditation addressing the two main uses of the term ( the Transcendental Meditation movement and the Transcendental Meditation technique) with links to these two main topics. The introductory page would also have some material that deals equally with both main topics.

Involved editors

• Support I support this layout as TM is used to mean the technique and the movement about equally by google. Technique 244,000 [1] Movement 155,000 [2]. These two meaning are also used extensively by academic sources. This is thus the most WP:NPOV solution.

Note that in the first instance, your search string is malformed. You used "transcendental meditation technique free". TimidGuy (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes thank you. I only get 24,400 for the technique when corrected. [3] while I get 162,000 for the movement.[4]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Leave current arrangement as-is. Fladrif (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Could accept, but not as it is It is not possible to cover the important aspects of any of the two subjects in a short summary or introduction. At the end of the short article, in the current situation, the reader may have the impression that he has the big picture, the essential, but actually important material is missing - it has been removed. Removing material that fits within the scope of a title is not NPOV. To improve the situation, we would have to add important content about the two subjects and in doing so we will get back to an article as we had before TMM forked out of TM, but it could be much shorter since we have two extra articles for the details. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There are not two main uses of the term "Transcendental Meditation." There is one main use, and one rare usage. Look at the data: 10 out of the first 10 search results in the LexisNexis newspaper database use the term "Transcendental Meditation" to refer to a specific type of meditation; 9 out of 10 for the Lexis/Nexis magazine database; 10 out of 10 for the Lexis broadcast transcript database; 10 out of 10 for Google Scholar; 8 out of 10 for Google Books; and 9 out of 10 for Google News Archive. Per WP:UNDUE, the use of the term "Transcendental Meditation" to refer to something other than a meditation technique is minor, and should be treated accordingly. The article on "Transcendental Meditation" should be about the meditation technique. It can mention in the context of the article that the term is sometimes used in a broader sense. And of course there can be a link to the article on "Transcendental Meditation movement," the term sometimes used to refer collectively to the organizations associated with Maharishi. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Where were these searches discussed?   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in reviewing this data. Can anyone explain how these figures were determined?   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The phrase 'Transcendental Meditation' is defined as a technique of meditation. This is verified in multiple dictionaries and encyclopedias which I have cited here. [5] It is a noun. However, like any word, it can also be used as a adjective. For example the word olive. Olive pit, olive oil, olive colored shirt. This doesn't make the word 'olive' ambiguous in its meaning. Therefore the argument that Transcendental Meditation is sometimes used as an adjective before the words center, teacher, movement, project etc and that this usage makes its meaning ambiguous is a false logic. I due concede that on rare occasions the term by itself has been given alternative usages, but these instances comprise only a few percent of the overall number of usages and to redefine the term based on an occasional misuse of the phrase is inaccurate and a disservice to Wiki readers.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No one here is arguing that the term is not used to mean a technique. Thus providing further references to show it means a technique adds little. One would need to convince us that is does not mean a movement ( even a percent or two is sufficient if the refs are solid ). This would mean convincing us that the Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source or we have misinterpreted it ( this would also need to take place for the few dozen other solid refs put forth ). A ref saying that it does not mean a movement would maybe needed which I assume does not exist the rest is original research :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This section is not the place for discussion or criticism of editors who are casting their "vote". Doc James could you please moved your comment to the Discussion Section? Otherwise we will have discussion here too. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Transcendental Meditation is first and foremost a meditation technique introduced my Maharishi sometime in the 50s. Later, an organization formed around the teaching of this specific technique, now referred to as the Transcendental Meditation movement. We only need 2 articles to cover these topics in Wiki - the first and main article, either to be called "Transcendental Meditation" or "Transcendental Meditation technique", but exclusively about this form of meditation. The other article can be call the "Transcendental Meditation movement" which cover the organizations - past and present - that teach this specific technique and related programs. --BwB (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support This proposal treats the Transcendental Meditation (TM) article as a parent to Transcendental Meditation technique and Transcendental Meditation movement, and I presume still History of Transcendental Meditation. A parent article contains summaries of sub-articles, per WP:SUMMARY, and World War II is an example of this style. It should be a relatively short overview of a large topic. It is more appropriate for a parent article than a pure DAB page because the various topics are closely related, whereas DAB pages often include unrelated topic with similar names.   Will Beback  talk  13:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Per a more comprehensive version of this in Number 5 below. As well as TG points out TM used to mean a technique is more predominant than TM as a movement. Our articles must reflect this per WP:WEIGHT.(olive (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

• Oppose As I have said before, I was never in agreement with the forking of the original article and the creation of three separate articles. Transcendental meditation, as I and many others already said, is a term referring to a technique. That is what an article on TM should be mainly about. Of course, there is an organization that promotes and teaches such technique and relevant points about that should be covered also, we all agree about that, I beleive. However, three articles, as they stand are an exaggeration and no longer on point.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Support. This seems the most sensible option. This article should be a general overview, or summary, of TM, with the other two articles giving more detailed infomation for our readers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This seems to be the fairest way to go about doing this. If a person wants to know more about either topic under the broad umbrella of TM then they can visit the separate articles noted in a hatnote above the short summaries. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support for the above reasons. The scholars I quoted here [[6]] all considered the movement that arose around the techniques to be of interest, and covered it under the same name of TM. Rumiton (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Searching the Internet and counting hits is not a valid way of determining notability. We need to look at what the best sources say. Rumiton (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, but second preference. I think it would be better to cover the "Theoretical concepts" and "Characterizations" in either the technique or movement article, whichever the relevant material best fits into, and then include these aspects here in the summary article as part of the summaries for these subarticles. Checking google books, there is no question that TM is understood as the movement in some quality sources, [7][8][9], but book sources using the term to refer to the meditation technique are in a clear majority, and the same will be true in google scholar, given the amount of peer-reviewed research on the technique. Perhaps this should be reflected in the summary of the technique article being somewhat longer than the summary of the movement article. --JN466 03:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Merge the TM Technique article in the TM article to bring it back as it was before the split. This will bring back content that naturally fit within the scope of the title "Transcendental Meditation". Before the split, the TM article was the only article about the technique. As pointed out in the last Rfc, there was no need for another article on the subject [10][11].

Involved editors

• Support (First choice) Having one article per subject allows that we explain each subject carefully. Dab links can insure that information is easily accessible and well organised. No need for an introduction to help the readers see that Transcendental Meditation Movement is about the movement - Dab links are perfect, simple - they do the job better than an Intro. We can include content about the movement as needed in the TM article. Overlaps are natural. Suggestion 1 also has overlaps between TMT and TMM. Nobody mentioned any problem with this option, except to exclude content that naturally fit within the scope of the title "Trancendental Meditation". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is my first choice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

Oppose for the reasons why I supported the first option. Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 3

Same as suggestion 2, but, in addition, redirect Transcendental Meditation to Transcendental Meditation Technique. This was the most supported suggestion in the last Rfc (see diffs above).

Involved editors

Uninvolved editors

Suggestion 4

Per Discussion: Create DAB page

Involved editors

• Accept as a compromise (third choice). It avoid the unnecessary short Intro that is too likely to be biased because some content is excluded. It still has the problem that, in reliable sources, "Transcendental Meditation", except within "Transcendental Meditation Movement" and similar expressions (TM group, etc.), is, of course, almost never used to mean the movement. Dab links are therefore more appropriate. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Second choice The main benefits of this solution may be that it is the most neutral and that it pushes all of the content issues to other articles. It has two weaknesses: one is that it requires merging text into an already long article and the other is that the TM article may not be the target for the material anyway. Perhaps splitting it off into a "TM theories" or a "Maharishi Vedic Science and related theories" or a "Philosophy of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" article would be better. If we go with this option we should add a section on the TMM to the TMT article, so that the cross reference each other.   Will Beback  talk  13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe it solves anything and could create further confusion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• My Second Choice if Choice 5 not accepted. --BwB (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

Oppose but only mildly. Disambiguation is intended for articles that have little or nothing to do with each other. The examples given in WP:DAB conform to this; eg Mercury (planet, metal, mythological figure.) This is more of an expansion of a single topic. No harm would be done by DABbing, but I doubt if it would be stable for long. Rumiton (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Rumiton. --JN466 03:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 5

Per Discussion: TM article as a summary article for TM technique and TM movement with sections linking to topics that have their own articles Further explanation: I'm suggesting as a compromise basically what Will suggested earlier in the discussion: moving out of the TM article both the "Theoretical Concepts" and "Characterizations" for which there are no main articles, leaving only the sections that are summaries of and link to other articles, TM history, TM technique, TM movement, with the additional stipulation that we not add in content unless that content is a summary of another article. This is close to Number 1 but with the added suggestion by Will, and a stipulation that basically would prevent adding back in the content we had just removed.(olive (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

Involved editors

*Support Yes leave the summary of the three main sections ( history, movement, technique ) and move the other stuff to one of the sub articles. A fair compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The section on characteristics apply equally to the movement and the technique. One cannot separate them. Thus reverted so that further discussion can take place.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree First choice as a compromise to my original thinking. @James:Only summaries of topics that have their own articles not as a place for content as suggested above, there is no other place for, a sure-fire way to create contention, hopefully keeping it simple, clear, and neutral.(olive (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

• Agree Per Olives comments above that draws distinction between Option 1 and Option 5. --BwB (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree (Second choice) Summaries of each topic, not just content that does not fit anywhere else, is a good idea. However, the stipulation that we cannot move back content needs to be clarified. It should be OK to bring it back in the form of a summary. This suggestion should not be about excluding content, but about having all content in linked articles properly summarized. The problem with this suggestion is the mis-definition of "Transcendental Meditation". Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  Comment FWIW, this seems to be the same as the proposal I made on October 25. Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 34#Proposal. At the time, no one agreed to it.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  Comment Yes. I said that above. Its a compromise for me to go with this. Its not my first preference.(olive (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

• Support I support this as my second choice. My first choice is to revert the article split and the mis-definition of the term Transcendental, (Suggestion #2)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support As this is by far the clearest, least messy option, and will hopefully lend some order and clarity to the garbled information representing the current state of these articles. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Sounds like an acceptable compromise. But eventually we're going to have to deal with the issue of weight regarding usage of the term "Transcendental Meditation." TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Not my first choice, or my second, but if it achieves consensus I'll support this one too.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support This seems the best compromise to me, as explained, perhaps not so clearly, last week. Early morning person (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

barely-involved editors

This seems the most reasonable choice for the reader. I for one don't care much about such topics, so as a reader I prefer to have some simple overview, which the current article more or less provides. It doesn't appear to me that there's an easy and convincing way to decide whether the movement or the technique is the most notable part—they are pretty entangled. Reading about either in more detail than this article provides would surely bore me to death. I've not read any of the sub-articles, and frankly I think Wikipedia has too many Maharishi-related articles. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Support. Rumiton (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. (I've made a half dozen (?) edits in the topic area, and commented at the arbitration case a few months ago; if you feel this makes me involved, please feel free to move my vote to the involved section). --JN466 03:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It seems to me, as a bit of an outsider, that while the technique predates the movement, they have since become so intertwined that they are vitually inseparable. The technique seems to be primarily if not exclusively practiced by the movement, and the movement seems to have as one of its primary purposes, if not its only purpose, the advancement of the technique. So having the main article be about both those topics, as well as the history involved in the eventual intertwining of the two, seems to me anyway to probably be the best way forward. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 6

Make the movement page the main page located at TM. Turn the TM technique page into a subpage of that. The technique is just park of the movement well the movement goes on to deal with architecture and the running of fundraising / a university, etc.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Add clarification per Doc James: "...get rid of the TM page and redirect to the TMM page." (olive (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Involved editors

• Support We would have a paragraph about the technique in the main article at TM that would cover the movement. People do not care about the technique unless the understand the whole religion behind it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. The technique predates that movement and there would be no movement without the technique. TM technique should be the primary article. --BwB (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This suggestion is much too big to be presented as a new option in a Rfc that has been around for some times now. I created a specific Rfc below for it so that the issue is presented more precisely to the community. It deserves that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Well, the statements supporting option 1 suggest that the two other articles are for extensions, for those readers who want more. So, the Transcendental Meditation Movement article would be a complement and the essential about the movement should be be covered in the main article. Similarly, the Transcendental Meditation Technique article would be a complement and the essential about the technique should be be covered in the main article. This would require that we duplicate some content because each article would need to also contain the essential: an article is not like a section of another article - it needs to be self-contained. This is not a problem - it happens all the times that articles with a general scope overlap on the essential with articles that have a more specific scope. I can see why people might want to do it this way. It will be like going back to the situation before we forked TMM out of TM, but with two other articles that go more thoroughly in each subject. That can make sense. It does not respect the most common definition of Transcendental Meditation, but I can see that people, because they fear that we hide content, feel that the article entitled Transcendental Meditation should nevertheless cover the movement as much as the technique. Before the split the movement was covered as needed in the TM article, it covered scholar opinions that need to pass from one to the other (as Rumiton points out), but somehow beyond logic more seem to be needed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• You need to clarify the options. For example, "Bring it back as it was before the split, but without discarding recent edits." means nothing to an outside editor looking in, trying to help you guys out here. --JN466 06:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As a minimum, an outside editor should be aware of what did happen in the last Rfc - the split despite the fact an external editor clearly suggested two articles, not three, not a split, one on the movement and another on the technique, which he said should be called the "Transcendental Meditation Technique" article [12][13]. We don't want to start from scratch every time we do an Rfc, do we? You are right, though, the option 2 should have explained a little bit more. I will add a sentence to clarify. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is equally important to make sure that we understand what the external editors really have in mind. One wrote "the summaries". What does that mean? As it stand now, it seems that we have two external editors that want a TM article that deals equally with TMM and TMT, but this is also the idea of suggestion 5.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question 1 for external editors supporting option 1.

Isn't it the purpose of the Intro in each of the two articles, TMM and TMT, to summarize the content of their respective article, to allow our readers to get the essential and let them decide if they want to get more information in the body of the article? It is very important to note that the Intro of the technique article naturally covers the movement as needed and, similarly, the Intro of the movement article naturally cover the technique as needed. What is gained by doing it again in the TM article? A summary that would focus only on material that is not a part of one or the other would totally fail its purpose. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the leads need to refer to the bigger picture, but not "cover" it. Rumiton (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To cover the big picture seems a good idea. Removing material that is published in reliable and independent sources and which naturally fit in the big picture is against NPOV. Anyway, this is very abstract. Could you be more concrete? Perhaps, you did not meant that we should exclude some sources.Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about the leads. No article lead can contain every fact about the subject. The lead should hold the most important points, the essentials, as you say, and the tone of the lead should reflect the general thrust of the article. Rumiton (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, I just read Wikipedia:SUMMARY, but this is suggestion 5, not suggestion 1. Doc James and me too, we did not understand suggestion 5 and the difference with suggestion 1 at first. Suggestion 1 says that we leave it as it is, which means that it is for content that do not fit well in either subject - it's completely different - night Vs day. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The existing intro might be a little long, given the length of the article. It's a bit of a holdover. Perhaps it'd be best if it essentially had a paragraph or sentence to summarize each section.   Will Beback  talk  13:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question 2 for external editors supporting option 1.

Does option 1 means that we should totally exclude from the TM article material that regularly make the news about TM: scientific research, school programs, etc. as well as the procedure itself? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment regarding the meaning of Transcendental Meditation (TM)

The meaning of the term TM has been and is still central to justify suggestion 1. For example, Will Beback provided above an example where TM is used in practice (not just defined) to mean the movement: "TM is building peace palaces". We have perhaps no other evidence of this kind to support that TM means the movement: a special case. Will, could you please add this in the subpage [14] and provide the reference. I could not find it anywhere. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rumiton, you misunderstand, TG did not count hits in a superficial way. He looked at how the term TM is used in practice. You can take a larger sample, as large as you wish, you will get the same conclusion. This is better than what dictionnaries or encyclopaedia can tell us: language is not fixed in dictionnaries or encyclopaedia. Besides, the large majority of definitions in dictionnaries or encyclopaedia respect this usage in practice, perhaps all of those who aren't written with a religious view do. The most funny thing is that I looked at the TM entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica [15], written by the religious expert John Gordon Melton and, except in the definition itself in the first sentence, all occurences of TM means the technique - he uses TM in a way that contradicts his own definition. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand. It doesn't matter how he did it, that was his own original research. If he was a professional with a reputation to lose if he got it wrong, his research would be admissible. Encyclopedias have been found to be not particularly good sources either, as they are tertiary sources and their articles are not generally compiled by specialist experts. We need to go straight to the scholars. I have given you three that look at TM simultaneously as a technique and a movement. Do you need more? Rumiton (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Rumiton. There are two things to consider here: first, the question that we ask and, second, what we intend to do with the answer, our objective in asking the question. The question asked here is what is the meaning of the term "Transcendental Meditation" or "TM" and our objective is to determine what should be under "TM". i.e., to choose one of the suggestions that are given above.

A different objective would be to determine the specific content under a given section, say a section on Religion Vs TM. For this last purpose, you are definitively right that we must rely on the best sources and avoid original research. The meaning of TM is not so relevant here. To follow sources, but also simply by common sense, an article on the technique, irrespectively of its title, has to include paragraphs where we pass from the technique to the movement and vice versa all the times, as you pointed out. However, we had paragraphs like that before the split and we still have them after the split. It makes sense that the TM technique article includes paragraphs like that, even if its primary focus is the technique. To my knowledge, nobody has objected to that. This is not the problem that we are discussing now, unless we are, but then I missed something.

We must distinguish between these different objectives because the meaning of TM might not have the same significance and the policy may apply differently in each case. Our objective now is to decide what should be under the title "Transcendental Meditation" (DAB page, article with DAB links, etc.). In this case, the policy/guideline says explicitly that we can agree amongst us on the best tools to use, including google count, etc [16]. This is not against WP:NOR. Every one seems to agree that the meaning of TM is an essential ingredient here. So, in accordance with policy/guideline, we are using the best tools we have to agree on it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If we are using a disamiguation page, that guideline might apply. That option has not been chosen. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just had a tought. I hope your point was not that you have given us the best sources to cover entirely the subject of TM and that the entire subject should follow these sources. Was that your point? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh good! Otherwise, we would have been very far from a possible resolution of the dispute. I assume that you did not mean either that all the sources should be by religious scholars. I am not asking this time. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this as simple as possible.   Will Beback  talk  11:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

An honorable goal. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but not at the cost of misunderstanding guideline. In particular, the guideline that I cited is to be used to determine whether a DAB page or a DAB link should be used. Please read it again [17]. It applies exactly to our situation to help us determine which suggestions is the best. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on suggestion 1 and related comments

@TimidGuy, Valid point. An organisation that respects the usual meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" is so natural. I only given up on it because I feel that some misinterpret it as if it was hiding TMM content, which has nothing to do with logic. It does not hide TMM content - it only organise it better. No one wants to hide TMM content. So, I focus on the most important: no well sourced material about TM should be excluded from the TM article and the article should be well organised with a summary for each topic per WP:SUMMARY as in suggestion 5. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@JN466, your third reference, at the page you gave, uses "Transcendental Meditation Movement", not "Transcendental Meditation", to mean the movement. Not a big deal - your conclusion is still valid: some sources use it, at the least some times, to mean the movement. They are specialised sources about religions (Handbook of the sociology of religion) or mostly about movements (Dictionnary of the 70's).

Unarchived

Per recent edits and discussion, it appears that one or more editors would like to add further comments to this RFC so I've unarchived it.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV-Title and NPOV-section (intro) Dispute

The NPOV-title tag was used because this is a dispute over the subject matter within the scope of the title: what should be under "Transcendental Meditation"?

Summary of suggestions

• A summary article about the technique and the movement (current post-split situation)
• A full coverage of the technique without excluding anything that is related, including content about the movement. There is no need for an extra article about the technique. (pre-split situation)
• Same as the previous option, but after a redirection of Transcendental Meditation to Transcendental Meditation Technique.
• A DAB page with entries for "Transcendental Meditation Technique" and "Transcendental Meditation Movement" (compromise)

Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Some context

• This situation started in September 2nd when, without consensus and after very very little discussion, important content was taken out of this article and moved into a new article entitled "Transcendental Meditation Technique". [18] [19] [20].
• A related NPOV dispute was going on before the split with regard to the content of the Introduction [21]. Those who created the split argued that only some reviews published by some agencies deserved to be reported in the Intro. This excluded the conclusions of many reviews published in independent peer-reviewed journals. After all attempts to compromise, an NPOV-section tag was added for the Intro section. This tag was removed at the time of the split without any discussion. However, the Intro still has the same controversial content regarding the research.
• Few days ago, the NPOV-section tag was reinserted and a new NPOV-title tag was added. However, the tags were again removed without discussion.

I just reinserted the NPOV-section tag for the third time, the NPOV-title tag for the second time. I will bring the previous removals of NPOV tags to the attention of the relevant forums. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, the above 1000 words or so are almost incomprehensible. I would still like to help here if I can, but not at the expense of my sanity. Verbally bludgeoning other editors like that is not acceptable in Wikipedia, and until editors agree to voluntarily edit and clarify their own contributions no one is going to want to help you. In communication, more is not better, and the above borders on deliberate disruption. Rumiton (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will proceed step by step. So, I will remove some material. It is understood that your statement applies to what was there before. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope it is better. Now, I must say that one of the issue with external contribution is that the so called non involved editors are often not aware of the situation. It takes some times to see the context. It is impossible to do it in only few sentences. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rumiton, is there anything you don't understand now? I agree with Olive that pretty much was said in the previous discussion and that we just need to come to an agreement. I just brought out the points again to formally complement the NPOV tags. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

September 2? Again? For the record, this didn't "start" on September 2. That assertion ignores the existence of the RfC, started because of the disagreement over the lede.[22] But let's stop rehashing old discussions and keep our focus on the present and the future.   Will Beback  talk  12:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edith, thanks for your quick cooperation. I'm sorry if I sounded extremely exasperated, but I was extremely exasperated. Yet I also agree with Will that these articles will progress when ancient battles are laid to rest and editors focus on finding superb sources to support what they know to be the truth (that's the Wiki-reality of it.) I would also suggest some concerted effort go into deweaselising some of the text. It isn't exactly a POV situation, but phrases like "TM has been reported to be..." and "as many as 6 million people" raise a fully justified red flag for many readers. Rumiton (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If you should find these statements are not sourced please post the information here on this talk page. There are some concerns in the language of the article and content but I don't think you'll find that those those two statements aren't very well sourced. Reported may be a weasel word, and in fact one of the sources says "is" the most thoroughly researched so yes, the text could be more definitive than it is.(olive (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

Good. "Is" is much better, provided of course that the source said exactly that. Now about that "as many as 6 million". Did the source say, "6 million", or "more than 6 million", or "less than 6 million"? Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources give numbers that range from 4 to 6 million. You can see some of the size estimates excerpted at Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 34#Order: TMM before TM technique?   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@Will Beback, Thank you for providing that additional diff [23]. I think some editors want to understand the context and will find useful to look at this diff. It shows that the dispute was not about the overall structure of the article, but only about how the article is presented in the Intro, I mean, there was no specific complaint about the overall content of the article, for example, no one said that there we should remove the section about the movement or that we should remove the section about research. So, why this split, which removed so many sections and began something entirely new? If you don't find the context useful, just ignore it, but some editors can find it useful. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing that past action.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary

I wonder if we have enough input from the regular editors here and with the input of an outside editor to sum up what we have in terms of possibilities and editor support for those possibilities. I'd like to get on with editing the article but prefer not to until we can come to some resolution. We have support for a DAB page while some editors are happy with what we have now. If there are any other possibilities could we bring this up now in a succinct fashion, and then see if we have enough input and information to resolve this. The end of this discussion seems way overdue. (olive (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

I agree. There has been many editors involved in the previous discussion, but they moved away seeing that it was going nowhere. Seeing that all attempts failed and that we are still in disagreement, I added the NPOV tags. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see if we can come to some agreement without much further discussion. The issues have been layed out multiple times and I can't see we're getting any new information. Could we go ahead with this.(olive (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

OK Olive - sum it up and let's get on with it. --BwB (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@BwB, What is wrong with the summary of the dispute that I provided? It focuses on the main options, which is what we need. It includes a compromise, which Will Beback proposed. It brings out that the pre-split state of the article was not excluding any related content, about the movement, etc., which is very significant in my opinion. What would you add to that summary? Anyone can add any other options, and we can get on with it from there. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A succinct summary of options sounds like a good idea. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the summary at the beginning of the section to make it clear that it is a summary of options. Is there a need to start a new one here? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tags: I sent a notice to the Incidents NoticeBoard about the NPOV tag removals [24][25] Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to me Option 1, the current situation, is the best. When I first saw Wikipedia articles starting to get split up I resisted the idea, generally because I smelled a POV rat somewhere. I now see that when an article reaches a certain size (I think 10 000 words has been suggested) it begins to encompass more than one theme. A reader Googling, in this case, "meditation" or "mantras" or "altered states" will find the TM Technique page, as well as a feast of other related articles. Another reader might be interested in the growing influence of Indian religious groups or philosophies in the West. Neither will want to plow through 5000 words unconnected with their subject, but if the articles are linked, they easily can do so. OTOH, disambiguation here does not seem appropriate. The subjects are subsets of each other, not entirely different subjects that might be confused. Rumiton (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Very strange. I am reading it again and again, and, except for the first sentence, this seems to entirely support option 3 with DAB links. There has been a fork of TMM out of TM for the very reason explained above. It says "...but if the articles are linked, they easily can do so" but the Dab links in the TMT and TMM articles do that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting back the NPOV tags

The NPOV-title TAG (dispute about what should be under the title Transcendental Meditation) and the NPOV-section tag (dispute about the Research in the Intro) were removed by Doc James at a time where it seemed that we had a consensus for suggestion 5. This consensus did not include the dispute about the Research in the Intro and thus only the NPOV-title tag should have been removed. Moreover, the consensus for suggestion 5 has not been respected. Therefore, we should put back these two tags because despite all attempts to compromise we still do not have resolved the disputes and the article does not reflect a consensus, not at all. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose No outside editors have supported the concerns brought forwards by those involved in the TM movement. We have had a number of RfC on the above topics and thus adding tags after it has been settled without any evidence that consensus has changed is bordering on disruptive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not disruptive to add tags if an editor has concerns especially with the way the RfC's were preempted. This comment, "No outside editors have supported the concerns brought forwards by those involved in the TM movement" does not belong on this talk page. You are violating the ArbCom instruction to, assume good faith and are personalizing comments.That said, I didn't add the tags and have no opinion one way or the other on them.(olive (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

Yes, we need to focus on the content of the article and the opinions and points brought to the discussion page by other editors, not the editors themselves. --BwB (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the discussions below, including the recent suggestion #6, are sufficient evidence that an important dispute about the overall arrangement of the TM articles is going on, that the TM article is central in that dispute and that all proposed compromises to resolve the dispute failed, the tags will be reinserted. I do not need approval to do that. It is sufficient that I have evidence to justify the tags. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what the dispute is with the current article. You agreed to Option #5, and that's what is now reflected in the article. Do you no longer agree to Option #5?   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact no. James moved the content back into the article originally moved in agreement with suggestion #5, I assume pending possible acceptance of his new suggestion, (#6). Even so most editors compromised one way or the other on suggestion 5, so may have concerns. As well the suggestions were for overarching considerations and not necessarily for more specific and possible POV issues. While I don't care about the use of tags to remedy anything, if another editor has concerns and want to use tags, I don't see a concern.(olive (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

The tags are used to inform the readers of a likey non-NPOV situation. I believe that this non-NPOV situation is not only likely, but obvious. However, we do not even have to prove that there is a non-NPOV situation to put the tags. The existence of a lasting dispute is sufficient. I want to avoid the tags because they are shameful. This is why I wait before I put them, but at some point the readers need to be informed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you say exactly what issue with the current article has led you to add the POV tag?   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly how this tag should NOT be used per "Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." [26] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the following is the purpose:

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight.

The goal is always to have more participation. I supported the mediation. I asked for another Rfc so that we have more participation. Of course, I expect that the readers will participate. This is why we want them to be informed so that they can go to the talk page. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant.[27]

Which views from high quality sources are misrepresented?   Will Beback  talk  03:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So you understand that personal beliefs are irrelevant, including those that are used to exclude high-quality reliable sources from the TM article. Therefore the tags are entirely justified. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question. Since you are the editor who added the tag the onus is on you to explain the problem. The only problem that that template addresses are misrepresentations of highly reliable sources. This is the third time I've asked you to explain why you added the tag. If you can't describe the exact problem, then the tag should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It may not be so important, but currently the tags aren't there. To answer your question, I said many times that content pertinent to TM should not be excluded from the TM article, and, of course, I meant content that is well sourced. The content that was moved out was well sourced - this is not discussed I hope. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edith states above "The tags are used to inform the readers of a likey non-NPOV situation." This is what tags are not used for.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like Edith wants to merge back the TMT, TMM, and TM history articles in here, so that no possible sources which is about some aspect of TM is left out. If so, I think that would be a horrible idea. This is currently constructed as a parent article. It shouldn't contain anything that isn't already sourced in one of the child articles. All this article has to do is summarize those correctly and briefly.   Will Beback  talk  10:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Will to bring back the discussion on the content and, hopefully, eventually on actions to rebuild the TM article. I am kind of exasperated of the recent misleading comments about my motivation in informing the readers, which I am going to address in the user talk page, not here. However, you misunderstood what I proposed with regard to content. I am still OK with the compromise of suggestion #5 as a way to rebuild the TM article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean when you talk about "rebuilding the TM article". Please explain what it is you want to do.   Will Beback  talk  12:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought Suggestion #5 was reasonably clear. We still have to discuss what exactly are the best summaries. My feeling is that we might have to rely on Rfc to resolve issues that will be raised along the way, but at the least we would be all focusing on suggestion #5. At this point, we still have suggestion #6 in the way, and we do not know for sure what it is. Let clarify this situation first. Doc James did not yet clarify what he meant. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in #5 about rebuilding the article. What kind of rebuilding are you talking about?   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We just need to make sure we have the best summaries. Do we have consensus that this is a part of suggestion #5? I want to work on this, using Rfc and other ways to get more opinions if needed, but before we do that we need to have a clean summary of the last Rfc, including a consensus, something that outside editors can understand. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Do we have consensus that this is a part of suggestion #5?" Define "this".   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Best summaries. If you ask me what the best summaries are, then I don't know yet because it is something we have to determine all together with possible outside help. 67.230.155.83 (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the RfC is not closed yet, discussion of any suggestion may be premature. Why don't we wait.(olive (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

Let's just close this thread. I can't even tell what is being proposed here.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Will. I lost the plot many days ago. --BwB (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not complicated. The NPOV tags are perfectly legitimate when they are used to help resolve the issue in the talk page. They have been used for that purpose (despite any confusion about this) and they should be used again. Those who oppose to the use of the NPOV tags are the same ones that refuse mediation and refuse consensus in the last Rfc. We should make sure that the talk page is active for discussions and bring back the tags so that all readers (and external) editors can participate. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Chicken or Egg:Editor input requested

This same discussion comes up again and again. Although I'd like to continue with the points of concern in the lead, this seems more fundamental, and tends to sidetrack the discussion. Could we come to some definitive position on which came first, the technique or the movement or where they concurrent? Could we discuss this based on something more than opinion, and with out getting personal? Is there a source that says one came before the other. Maybe we could keep the statements short, see of there's some compromised position. This issue keeps coming up and smokes out any other discussion we have so lets settle it once and for all. Once settled maybe we could agree among ourselves not to bring it up again. Because this is so fundamental to how the articles are arranged we also could take this up the DR ladder if necessary. (olive (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

Discussion

• The Vedic Tradition predates the movement. The knowledge of the technique in the Vedic Tradition was practically lost. The movement predates the renewed knowledge of the technique as taught in seven steps, etc. However, I don't see how this could justify a mis-definition of Transcendental Meditation. Olive, I don't understand your emphasis on that issue. When the movement started and when the technique took its current form (taught in seven steps, etc.) cannot justify a mis-definition of TM. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that this is helpful. It isn't for us to decide and we can't bind future editors with a decision here anyway.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This also applies to whether the TMM is a religion or not, but yet editors here have entirely restructured the TM article based on their personal view about it. Why not include all content that pertain to TM in the TM article, including research on TM, and let the readers decide for themselves? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Religion? Are we discussing that too? I don't think that abstract discussions accomplish anything. If someone wants to make an edit, then we'd have something concrete to talk about.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Per my specific discussion point above: We're not trying to bind anyone and of course we can't bind editors who come into this later on, but we sure could point to reasoned discussion and ask they read it for insights. This comes up again and again and references both the second line of this article, and discussion on which of the TM articles is the mother article. If we don't decide per the sources I don't know who will, but no worries. We can keep rehashing this as it comes up and move onto other points of discussion.(olive (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

I don't particularly like the second sentence. It looks awkward. I think it is simpler to say that MMY introduced the technique. The movement was indeed created along the way, but to say that MMY introduced both the technique and the movement is definitively awkward. I suspect there is some hidden message behind it that editors try to pass here, but I am not even sure what it is. Perhaps, they want to suggest that the movement was a separate hidden agenda of MMY or something like that. You are right, we should decide per sources and not give undue weight to a particular source that would have a special viewpoint to motivate this awkward sentence. I understand now your point regarding egg and chicken. The current form of the technique can be seen as the creation of the Movement, but of course, there was also a form of the technique that was taught in the early time by MMY before he structured a way to allow TM teachers to teach it. So, I conclude that it is important not to raise the question which of the two came first out of context. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your continual attribution of bad faith to other editors is a direct violation of the TM:ARBCOM. You have been repeatedly warned about this, but persist in making accusations of bad faith. You are not going to get another warning. Fladrif (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right Fladrif. I should not do that. I sincerely could not understand why we needed to use this awkward sentence, but I should not presume that there was an intention behind it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes lead

As a compromise, per Will Beback's suggestion above, I've added "two" to identify skeptics rather than use inline attribution. The same principle applies to "Reviews". The wording previously implied all reviews. Since there has been strenuous objections to inline attribution on this too, I've identified the reviews as two rather than all. I assume this will satisfy everyone.(olive (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Better. However, the independently done is a statement in itself, which needs its own reliable source. Of course, this source must be distinct from the sources for the reviews themselves. The weigth that is given to this statement needs to be justified by a reliable source. Is this notion of independently done so important? Some might argue that it is better when the authors of an article have diverse opinions. The point here is that no study is provably independently done. No source can be proven independent from financial interests, religious influence, etc. Therefore, a variety of interests among the authors could be considered better. The independently done needs to be sourced. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@Edith: There are two studies sourced. No citation is needed.(olive (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

Fine for now. Shall we add to the body additional sources which identify TM and its underlying theories as pseudoscience?

• Boa, Kenneth, Cults, World Religions and the Occult, David C. Cook, 1990 ISBN 0896938239, 9780896938236 p. 204;
• Carlson, Ron, Decker, Ed, Fast Facts on False Teachings Harvest House Publishers, 2003 ISBN 0736912142, 9780736912143 p. 254;
• Hexham, Irving, Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements, InterVarsity Press, 2002 ISBN 0830814663, 9780830814664 p. 74;
• Marvizon, Juan Carlos "Meditation", Shermer, Michael (ed)The Skeptic: Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience ABC-CLIO, 2002 ISBN 1576076539, 9781576076538 p 141;
• Nanda, Meera "Postmodernism, Hindu Nationalism and Vedic Science", Koertge, Noretta Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195172256, 9780195172256 p 232;
• Kinman, John M., Of One Mind:The Collectivization of Science Springer, 1995 ISBN 1563960656, 9781563960659 p 130;
• Hook, Ernest B, Prematurity in Scientific Discovery; On Resistance and Neglect University of California Press, 2002 ISBN 0520231066, 9780520231061 p 215;
• Becker, Carl B. Paranormal Experience and Survival of Death, SUNY Press, 1993 ISBN 0791414752, 9780791414750 p 1;
• Bainbridge, William Sims, Across the Secular Abyss: From Faith to Wisdom Lexington Books, 2007 ISBN 0739116789, 9780739116784 p 10;
• Stenger, Victor, Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness Prometheus Books, 2009 ISBN 1591027136, 9781591027133
• Etc

That would add up to more than two...more than ten....and I could go on for some time if so inclined. What number should be put in the lede? I'm sure that whatever number we pick, we can find enough sources to match it.Fladrif (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally content that is of an opinion as this is, is attributed, which I suggested. However, Will wasn't too excited by that so suggested we just use a number. I added it. If the point is to add in the lead that some aspects of the TM programs are pseudoscience than we should source the statement. Its been the habit of some on Wikipedia to use the term pseudoscience in the leads of some articles to make sure the label isn't missed. This comment by the admin MastCell is a better comment than what I might make on that point:(olive (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

I think the encyclopedia always dies a little when we fight about whether something should be labeled "pseudoscience". Realistically, where naturopathy makes pronouncements about health (e.g. vaccines are bad, chelation therapy and live blood analysis are good) then we should note that these claims do not enjoy scientific support. On the other hand, some aspects of naturopathy are more akin to a philosophy or belief system, which cannot be "pseudoscientific". Ideally, we'd avoid broad strokes as much as possible - I think we can trust readers to appreciate these gradations without putting words like "pseudoscience" in big letters. Where individuals or organizations have notably described naturopathy as pseudoscientific, we can of course cite them, but I'd favor a more nuanced approach when we use the encyclopedic voice. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Olive, please sign your post. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I didn't know admins got so much respect around here. Anyway, there are various views on this issue. I don't see other editors jumping to agree with MastCell, so I'm not sure that we can assume there's a consensus for his view.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not advocating labeling TM as a pseudoscience. There are, however, prominent reliable sources that do label it as a pseudoscience, and that view is notable. MastCell's argument that a belief system can't be a pseudoscience is the flip side of the same coin of what many of those critics point out: they assert that taking a belief system and clothing it in the language of science is the very essence of pseudoscience. But, that is a diversion, and not really the issue or for us to decide. The issue is this: The only reason the lede says "two critics" is because the article cites only two. There are more. Many more. Shall we cite them all or not? And, if we do, shall we say "at least a dozen" in the lede? Fladrif (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to use a number then it should be a correct number.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

'Kay. I got a dozen. A dozen it is.... 'Til we find more. Fladrif (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I cited MastCell because he said what I think better than I could. Its a well articulated comment, something to consider. As for your change in the lead, while citing 2 skeptics seemed a poor alternative to inline attribution, I went along with the suggestion as a compromise. Citing "a dozen " seems pretty strange to me as does citing all of the sources. I doubt its encyclopedic in terms of writing style, and I don't support it for the record. Just reads strangely. If there are that many sources then it may be fair to say "skeptics". With two sources no, with several maybe so. At any rate it reads poorly, but that's my opinion. It may be worthwhile to have outside input on this.(olive (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

I'm fine with "skeptics", without counting them. It is much more encyclopedic. That was my point. Fladrif (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to quote people out of context (and the courteous thing to do is to provide a link so people can read the context for themselves). He was writing on a policy talk page about policy, and he was writing abstractly, not about a specific situation. I can't speak for MastCell (nor should anyone but MastCell) but the way it reads to me, he was making a clear distinction between when we're speaking for the encyclopedia and when we're speaking for sources. When we speak in the voice of the encyclopedia, he says, we should avoid "broad strokes" like making a categorical assertion that something is "pseudoscience." I agree with him completely there, and I would even go farther and say that I don't think slapping a "pseudoscience" category on an article is necessary or useful either. However, when reliable sources call something "pseudoscience" then we should cite those sources so the reader will have that information. In the case that's being discussed in this thread, unless I've missed something, we as an encyclopedia were not saying TM is pseudoscience; we were simply citing sources that say TM is pseudoscience, which is encyclopedic and s policy-based. We should be mindful of the difference, is what I think MastCell was saying. Woonpton (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good analysis Woon, thanks. --BwB (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So now editors have deleted from Wikipedia (in the article on the TM technique) information about the design quality of a couple of the best studies sourced to a book published by McGraw Hill Medical (and written by researchers at NIH) and have added sources saying that TM is pseudoscience. Seems like we just keep getting farther away from NPOV. It should be clear in the lead that the research is not pseudoscience. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We have independently done reviews that say the evidence is of poor quality from better quality sources than this book. Thus should like we are getting closer to NPOV not farther away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You're justifying deleting the book because in your personal opinion Ospina is stronger? Is that how NPOV works? I feel like this is an extraordinary admission. And now you've added information from a 1985 book on religion to discredit the science. TimidGuy (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like this is what Doc has done. --BwB (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

New Tag

Please explain this tag. Did you read the sources which are cited? Those sources show that they are independent reviews. Do you have a legitimate question as to whether the AHRQ and the Cochran studies cited are independent reviews? If so, state what the question is. If not, remove the tag. Fladrif (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See above. I explain why the independently done is controversial. It can imply a greater validity or better quality and this is controversial. If you qualify the reviews as being independently done, then a source is needed. Any controversial statement needs to be sourced. The sources themselves cannot be used as sources to say that they are independently done. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the controversy?   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See above. I understand that independently done by itself means that the authors were not affiliated at all with TM, which might be true, but irrelevant. The burden of discussing the possible POVs that are communicated by this statement in that context is not on me. In this case, I think it is clear that the purpose of that statement is to say that the two reviews have less bias than other reviews, but the burden to discuss that is not on me. Whoever added that statement needs to provide a source to clarify and justify its purpose in this specific context. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So, your tag is entirely improper. You have no legitimate argument that the studies are independent. You have no answer to three different editors, each of whom has told you that the sources cited show that the studies are independent and that no further source is needed. Your argument is that identifying the studies as independent affords them undue weight and that to do so is "controversial" That is (i) wrong (ii) tendatious, as it flies in the face of WP:MEDRS which favors independent studies and (iii) more to the point, irrelevant, providing no justification for the tag whatsoever. I'm removing it. Do not restore it. Fladrif (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ESL, I don't think an issue becomes "controversial" just because a Wikipedia editor has an opinion.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(indent) First, I did not have the time to explain the Tag before Olive made her comment. So, we do not know what she thinks. So, there are only two editors that explicitly disagreed, but this is not surprising. Just want to point out here that the same argument that is used to deny the need of a source for the statement independently done here is also the argument that is used to exclude other non independently done reviews that were published in peer-reviewed journals. The argument is that the statement independently done in that context is Wikipedia position, not something that needs to be sourced and balanced with other POVs. It is exactly on that basis that the other reviews were excluded. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to focus on this particular use of independently done here. Instead, I think we should directly discuss the fundamental issue behind it, which is the complete exclusion of the other reviews from the TM article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the non independently done research is discussed in the TMT article. The importance of independence is not controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that the "independently done" in this particular context is not sourced. The only way to source this use of "independently done" would be to have an independent source (independent from the two sources) that says it in the same context. For some editors here, it seems that it means that the two cited reviews are less biased than the other reviews. This particular interpretation is certainly controversial. There is a scientific literature on the subject of bias in research and this kind of controversial issues has been well documented with case studies. It is not because one side in the dispute says that it is not controversial that it isn't. Even if I point to specific examples in the literature, no matter how relevant are these examples, the controversy will still be denied. It is to be expected that one side in the dispute will deny the controversy. Right now, I am waiting that we close the current Rfc, but this is not the end of the story. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have sources that say calling these two studies "independent" is controversial? If so I'd be interested in seeing them.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't even need to refer to that literature. It is enough to consider the guideline alone, including MEDRS, to see that the notion of "independent sources" is not that simple and it is only one criteria among many: it is something to be considered in the article talk page, not to be brought explicitly in the article itself. The use of "independently done" to qualify the two reviews could only make sense if it was the main point about the TM research that can be taken from the MEDRS guideline. Otherwise, we should consider the other points as well. I can easily argue that it is not the main point. I can also argue that the other sources can be considered to a large degree independent as well. I consider totally innapropriate to bring in the article itself, in the voice of Wikipedia's MEDRS guideline, a POV of some editors that is based on an evaluation of sources that has no consensus yet. It would be fine if it was clearly attributed to a source. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So you're no longer saying that it is controversial? What POV are editors supposed to be adding to the article?   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, totally inappropriate and without consensus means that it is controversial. What POV? Ask Fladrif. He seems to know how MEDRS support the "independently done". He would just need to expand on it and you will get your answer. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What is "totally inappropriate"? If you can't say what POV is involved, then please don't accuse other editors of pushing it.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a POV of editors, including Fladrif (as can be seen above), which is presented in the voice of Wikipedia's MEDRS guideline. That is in itself the problem. If you want to correct this situation, please provide a source for the "independently done". I will read it and tell you what the POV is. I think you can find such a source. When I added this tag, I thought that you will add the source. I was not expecting that you would insist so much on presenting a POV in the voice of MEDRS guideline. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I give up trying to understand you.   Will Beback  talk  07:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's me that should perhaps give up trying to understand your question. When you ask what is the POV, I assume that you don't expect the trivial answer "The two reviews are independently done." In accordance with policy, the significance and purpose of a POV in its context must be supported by the source - the POV needs to respect the context that is provided by the source. A Rfc and MEDRS can explain the validity of a source, but they cannot be used in place of the source - they cannot provide the context all by themselves without a source. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing this with you any further. No-one agrees with you and you are simply repeating yourself. That these studies were independentely done is a fact, not a POV. That they were independently done is sourced, and does not require additional sources. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not your personal theories of the relative credibility of independent and non-independent research. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

You say that it is sourced. What are the sources? If the sources are the reviews themselves, then it is not clear in the sentence. It should be more clearly attributed. A statement like "Reviews, self-declared as being independently done, ..." would better inform the readers. In this way, the purpose and significance of the independently done would be clearer. We will know that the authors of these reviews, not Wikipedia, are arguing that their reviews are less biased than other reviews. Of course, since there are many sources of bias to consider and the other reviews are published in independent peer-reviewed journals, some might have questions regarding the value of this self-evaluation. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And it is not my personal theory. The complexity of what constitute independent research and of determining its significance in terms of bias can be documented using MEDRS alone. In addition, there is an independent scientific literature on the subject of bias in research. I don't need to refer to that literature here. However, in general, it should be considered a valuable complement to MEDRS. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We had a RfC on this. Feel free to draft another one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See above. There was no consensus in that Rfc, but, if there had been a consensus, it would have been wrong to use it to replace a source. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually had this same thought. It's a violation of WP:NOR. It's a Wikipedia editor adding his own observation, rather than something that's in the source. We should also reconsider the use of "TM researchers." After all, any scientist who does a study on TM could be said to be a TM researcher, even those who don't practice TM and have no connection with any TM-related organization. If the scientists involved are from MUM, then we could say MUM researchers. TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Timid. --BwB (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding two

The wording "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM" has gone through a RfC. Needling away at the wording is tiring. Yes I can find a few more independent review. Are they any that do not agree? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus in that RfC except one declared by you before the RfC closed. I don't see that accuracy in the wording as needling. There seem to be issues with the POV on the TM research as characterized by the wording in this one sentence. We've discussed this ad nauseum and do not agree. We need to go to the next step.(olive (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

Do not agree that there was consensus at the RfC. --BwB (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To answer Doc's question, yes, there are independent reviews that do not agree. TimidGuy (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a ref [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The TM organization has an incredible PR arm ( one can see it by a quick search of the web ). On close inspection much of the research is either directly or indirectly from MUM. Cochrane still holds more weight than the rest regardless. It is not as if we are basing this on only AHRQ.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources to document that paranoid view of TM research, we can insert it and properly attribute it in the TM article, perhaps in an eventual research subsection together with other well sourced POVs on this issue. However, to use this paranoid view to support the "independently done" without attributing it to a source is inappropriate. The web page that you provided as a source does not discuss this view. It does not even discuss TM research, so it does not provide the proper context. Beside, it is not an independent source for that particular POV. It is a self-evaluation and that should be made clear in the attribution. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are saying that Cochrane is not independent I really have nothing more to say.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Marketing

BTW we have this ref that says TM was spread with "the use of sophisticated marketing and public relations techniques."[29] "Maharishi organization had a clear marketing plan and full time public relations officer up until at least 1992" [30] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait it gets better "TM's greatest public relations success was not the movement's endorsement by the Beatles musical group or other celebrities, but the large number of articles published in scientific journals, apparently proving TM's claims or at least giving them scientific status." [31] We have to get adding some of these gems into the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And it goes on "The movement used to good propaganda effect this apparent endorsement by the scientific community, distributing reprints of the most favorable articles and citing them at every opportunity. Only after TM had achieved its greatest expansion did a number of debunking articles appear in journals suggesting that the original findings had been false or exaggerated" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And "Further capitalizing on its putative scientific status, the movement staged many well publicized conferences... received many kind words from state and local governments that was very useful in the cult's publicity" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that there is debate on whether TM was or is marketed. However, tangling up the research in a discussion on marketing is not really useful in terms of discussion. And we can always cherry pick comments out of sources on either side of this discussion. Lets try and stick to neutrally examining all of the sources then edit accordingly. (olive (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

This is a prominent text written by two well known others

Rodney Stark is Professor of Sociology and Comparative Religion at the University of Washington. Among his many books are "The Rise of Christianity" (1996), "The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation" (California, 1985), and, with Roger Finke, "The Churching of America, 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy" (1992). Roger Finke is Professor of Sociology at Pennsylvania State University.

William Sims Bainbridge is a prolific and influential sociologist who has worked in both academia and government, currently as Director of the Human-Centered Computing program at the National Science Foundation. He is the author of many books, including "Nanoconvergence, Across the Secular Abyss, " and "God from the Machine: Artificial Intelligence Models of Religious Cognition.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So, you have a few sources that share this paranoid view on TM research. Perhaps this paranoid view goes on to explain why, despite this so called debunking, many subsequent scientific reviews published in peer-reviewed journals still document today the scientific relevance of TM. It is normal to be skeptical of any research, but there is a limit to anything. This is something that we need to discuss with the help of external resources, starting with MEDRS and Rfc, but also the neutral scientific literature regarding bias in research should be very helpful to bring well documented opinions. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have found a few sources that share my main stream scientific point of view regarding TM and could find many more... A few reviews claim that TMs finding are valid but all have conflicts of interest and we have papers already that address these drawbacks. All of the positive papers come out of MUM. Thus we state "independent" reviews do not confirm health benefits. Simple yes... We even have sources saying our reviews are independent ( and beleive me I could find many more sources that verify Cochranes independence ). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am still not seeing a source with the proper context being cited for the "independently done". The context are reviews on TM research. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway will write a nice paragraph to add to the TM article dealing with TMs PR machine. As it applies equally to both TMT and TMM will add it to this article. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We probably all have content to add to such a paragraph.(olive (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

@Doc James, You are always so fast to react. It will not help to resolve the current dispute. It will only make the articles more against NPOV. You will simply bring out again the POV that TM research is biased, now by adding TM marketing in the context. It does not address the main issue, which is that scientific reviews that are published in independent peer-reviewed journals are being discredited using this notion of "independent sources". We need to discuss that calmly, without acting too fast, with the help of external resources. This time, please let us do the Rfc. You cannot keep doing Rfcs in your way. I think right now there is still a Rfc that is going on. Perhaps, we should close it, draw a conclusion from it and then move on. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As Doc J. says above, Stark, et al say in this 1985 book (re: the TM research) that "a number of debunking articles appear in journals suggesting that the original findings had been false or exaggerated." I'd be interested to see whether these debunking articles appeared in peer-reviewed journals and how many a "number" of articles are. Seems to me that the validity of their criticisms of the TM org'n's "marketing" revolve around the quality and quantity of these "debunking" articles, compared to other research.Early morning person (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the point that is implicit here. We are not here to directly evaluate the quality of these "debunking" articles, but it is our job to consider the reliability of the sources. Were these sources peer-reviewed journals? However, more importantly, even if they were peer-reviewed journals, this would not justify that they completely annihilate a POV that is presented in reviews that are also published in independent peer-reviewed journals. It is acceptable to present a "debunking" POV in the article, including its use of the notion of "independent sources", as long as it is properly attributed. However, it is against NPOV, to use this POV as a final authoritative argument to reject a different POV, which is sourced in independent peer-reviewed journals. The notion of "independent sources" should be considered in the talk page, but we must do it while considering all POVs in the light of MEDRS and all other external resources that can help us, not only in terms of these debunking POVs. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes this paragraph will definitely increase the NPOV of this article. Edith thanks for bring up this interesting topic which currently is not covered sufficiently in depth. If others have interesting sources about TM marketing I would be happy to look at them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to add content into such a paragraph. I'm not sure how an additional whole paragraph can increase NPOV unless there are POV problems in the article. Otherwise such a statement is a strong indicator of bias which of course we want to be very careful of especially given the ArbCom.(olive (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

@Doc James, I did not bring the Marketing topic. You did. We are trying to discuss the lack of representation of peer-reviewed sources in the light of MEDRS and other external resources. Bringing this marketing topic in the articles will not help this discussion in the talk page. If you want to include this marketing issue as a part of an intelligent discussion in the talk page, which would include other POVs and MEDRS, etc., that's fine. However, rushing to bring this topic in the article will not help the discussion. Bringing this topic in the TMT article and then immediatly summarizing it in the TM article, while other important aspects of the TMT article have not yet been summarized, is against NPOV. We should discuss the lack of representation of peer-reviewed sources in the TM article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You asked if I had sources to back up my comments and thus I went out and found some excellent ones on the marketing of TM. So I must thank you for bringing this up. I will add it here in this article as a proper discussion is missing and both the technique and the movement have been promoted using a number of nefarious techniques. Peer reviewed sources are already very well represented. I should know as I added most of them myself... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nefarious techniques" indicates a publicly stated POV and bias. I assume you won't approach the writing of any article with such bias as your impetus.(olive (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

@Doc James, No, I asked for sources with the proper context for the "independently done", and none has yet been provided. If you mean that these sources provide the context, then perhaps you should use them instead of the current web page, which has nothing about TM research. Perhaps, somewhere in these sources they say or suggest that these two reviews were independently done in opposition to other reviews. If that is the case, then please mention the exact pages and they will be good sources for the independently done. The big improvement is that now it will be clear that a POV of some sources motivates the "independently done", not Wikipedia position. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the Cochrane POV indicated that it is independent... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking a statement of Cochrane in a general context to infer that they meant that the two reviews were independently done is exactly what WP:NOR says we should not do. Please either remove the "independently done" or provide a valid source, a source with the proper context. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Though, I admit that the logic is not bad. Indeed, if the editor/publisher/reviewers are independent, it is a strong point in favor of the independence of their published reviews. The same logic applies as well to all reviews published in independent peer-reviewed journals. It is just that, when we write the article, we are not there to apply logic, but to stick with what sources say while respecting the intention of the sources and the context. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have some more sources for marketing and research. I'm a little buy now, but I'll add more sourced material to the appropriate articles when I get a chance.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought for some reason you had added the paragraph in place. I'll add some content too in the next few days as well as attribute what we have which is mostly from one source, and is pretty old. I'm sure working together we can come up with something informative.(olive (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

I don't think that editors here can go against a consensus for suggestion #5 that was established after long discussions with external editors in a Rfc. Material must first be added in the TMT article and then be summarized in the TMT section of the TM article.This is completely against NPOV and against the last Rfc. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The RfC isn't officially closed.(olive (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

The majority of external support is still for option 1.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No, until Doc James added suggestion #6, there was a consensus for suggestion #5. Seen suggestion #6 has no support, I think suggestion #5 still prevails. It is not because it is not closed that we should ignore the Rfc. Olive, it is strange that you act against your own suggestion. I don't get it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no rules Edith. I'm working within Wikipedia. As long as the RfC is open editors can still vote and editors can add suggestions. If one doesn't work within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines we can expect mass chaos.That's the standard I have to edit by. I don't mean my statement to be pompous in any way. Just saying it the way I see it. (olive (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

I am not against adding suggestions. I think it is a reasonable interpretation of guideline to follow a Rfc as much as we can even before it is closed. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If one counts it is 4 in favor of 1 and 3 in favor of 5. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jayen voted #1 as second and #5 as a first choice, which means his vote counts for #5 making votes by outside editors equal in number. A overall count of all the votes gives #5 most votes. Consensus doesn't function by just counting votes. We also had someone uninvolved come in and look at the arguments and votes and his assessment was that #5 was a consensus suggestion.(olive (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

Moreover, if you look at the supports for suggestion #1, you will see that the concept of summaries is also there. Just by common sense, it is weird to systematically write a content in the TMT article and then duplicate it in the TM article. This is not the idea of the the TM article, no matter what suggestion with look at. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

If I could make a suggestion:I suggest we work collaboratively on the new paragraph, and since you and James seem to be going around in circles on the research sentence in the lead, unless there is some agreement pretty soon we ask for outside help on that issue.(olive (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

Those interested can work on the marketing content. Since, one place must be used to do that, why not use the TMT article. Once it is in a reasonable state, we can include a summary of it in the TM article, in the TMT section. This seems to be reasonable. Meanwhile, we can also discuss the research aspect, the peer-reviewed journals, etc. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The content was added here so if there is discussion it should be here, I would think.(olive (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

If it was added here instead of in TMT and then summarized here, then it is exactly what is against a consensus in the Rfc. There is no reason to go against a Rfc even if it is not closed yet. You said it yourself, "If one doesn't work within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines we can expect mass chaos." Respecting a consensus in a Rfc, which is within policy, seems a good way to work within guideline. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Until an RfC is closed their is no official consensus.(olive (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

A consensus can exist at any time independently from a Rfc. A Rfc is only a way to have additional comments, nothing more. It is only that, naturally, if there is external opinions, then the consensus is more significant. The principle that we should respect a consensus, as long as it exists within policy, applies independently from the existence of a Rfc and independently from a Rfc being closed or active. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In a Rfc, if comments are still coming in, it is natural to wait until we have more comments before we draw a conclusion regarding a consensus. After a conclusion is drawn, it is not fixed in rock - it can change if new comments are coming in. This is the closest from understanding your point that I can get. However, we have already drawn a conclusion and no additional comments are coming in. You said it yourself. An external editor even analysed the situation and concluded that there was a consensus for suggestion #5. This is more than enough to see that there is a consensus. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia stipulates 30 days for an RfC to stay open. Its not up to me to adjust that to suit my own purposes. Within that 30 day period comments could continue to come in and consensus could change.(olive (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

It could change. So it exists. This is not just logic playing with words. Really, there is a consensus and guideline says we should respect it. Sure, it could change. If it happens, we will respect the new consensus. More importantly, implicit in your reasoning is that, after the Rfc is closed, the consensus will be more stable. This reasoning is also wrong. After the Rfc closes, we will still need to ask external opinions, new info can come in and so the consensus will not necessarily be more stable after the Rfc is closed. A consensus in a Rfc is not at all like a decision in a court of law. A Rfc is just a way to get external opinions. It is very important, but that is all what it is. The 30 days rule does not mean that no consensus can exist before or that the consensus will be stamped as stable after that period. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really have nothing more to add to this conversation. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

I said every thing I have to say also. Perhaps, we will get other opinions. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

(undent) God, this section is getting very convoluted. What is it we are trying to say here? It seemed like Doc added the material in the beginning to make some point to discredit TM marketing, but now we have some philosophy/cultural history lesson. --BwB (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we added the part about the 1960s and Zen, and I'd be fine with taking that out entirely. I hope we're not "trying to say" anything, except to convey what reliable sources say about the marketing of TM. This is a topic that several, if not many, editors have addressed. While the 1960s and Zen, and all the rest, are interesting context, I think those might be better in the history article. Thre is much more to add here so let's not fill it up with too much tangential context.   Will Beback  talk  11:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I added that content since the source clearly indicates how two infrastructures were building at the same time, and it was out of that infrastructure that TM and its marketing progressed. This is/ was simple context. I see you've added even more to that, so I assume you changed your mind about the usefulness of context. I think there's too much context now, but I can live with it. And please assume good faith. how a simple statement right out of the source in context of the information we are using can be seen as non-neutral is way beyond me. Sheesh.(olive (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

"Tangential" is exactly the right word.Early morning person (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the brief mention of 60s and Zen was plausible, but the added material on Ram Dass and Leary and "consciousness raising" (which can equally apply to Women's Liberation as it does to development of consciousness) seems excessive.99.241.140.220 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Early morning person (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

BwB is right. The marketing subject emerged in the talk page as a way to discredit TM research. Somehow, the subject moved in the article itself, but only presenting one POV, using old references, etc., and all of this in violation of a large consensus in the Rfc. It gives undue weight to a POV against the relevance of recent TM research. Adding material in the marketing section to try to compensate would only violate the consensus in the Rfc even more. It is a pity that we decided to wait 30 days before respecting a consensus in a Rfc. I believe this is unusual and not very efficient. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not do personal attacks. That research on TM is being discredited is a fact. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? What personal attacks?

The marketing of TM is a legitimate topic. I recently read a paper that analyzed TM as a "marketed social movement". Several other authors discuss marketing and commercialization too, even outside academia. Adam Smith, for example.

As for the age of the sources, let's use the best we can. Sources don't necessarily expire after a couple of decades, though they may be superseded. If folks can suggest better sources for the marketing topic then we can use those. No problem.   Will Beback  talk  12:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Marketing in an organisation is not a very notable topic, unless there is something special in the way it is used. So, the topic is not really "marketing", but something more special. TM as a "marketed social movement" is a very specialised topic. It seems to be a part of the Characterization section, which reinsertion in the TM article was already a violation of the Rfc. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently the marketing of TM is a notable topic because so many people write about it.   Will Beback  talk  14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The date and the reliability of the sources is important. A different POV is that scientific research is what characterizes TM. We should not give the same weight to all sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how the date of a scholarly paper, for example, is important. In your answer, please consider the many sources we now use, and keep adding,[32], that are more than 30 years old.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to use old sources to report old accomplishments, events, etc., but to discredit research as a whole, dates are important. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

According to whom is this information being used to discredit research? That sounds like an assumption of bad faith. Again, exactly how are the dates important?   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The section uses a 1985 source to say: "getting articles published in scientific journals, apparently proving TM's claims or at least giving them scientific status". This is not the normal way to present findings that indicate that a technique can improve health, reduce anxiety, etc. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, what is the relevance of the date of publication? Have there been subsequent changes which make that source obsolete?   Will Beback  talk 

Yes, this is about TM studies and there has been a lot more since then. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are newer sources that say something different we can include those too. So far, you haven't shown any evidence that the Stark and Bainbridge source is no longer reliable.   Will Beback  talk  09:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(indent) I recall that this marketing topic emerged out of the above discussion around the "Independently done reviews." Currently, no source with the proper context is provided to support the "independently done". Using the general point that Cochrane is an independent editor/publisher to suggest that specific reviews are "independently done" is Original Research. Interestingly, let us note that the same logic implies that all TM research published in peer-reviewed journals are from independent sources, and so "independently done" - the same logic. The logic is fine. However, applying this logic to add "independently done" in the article itself is original research. We must distinguish between the use of logic to evaluate sources, which is fine, and the use of logic to add content in the article itself, which is OR. So, the "independently done" should be taken out. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about the "marketing" section. I think you're talking about the lead. Let's try to stay focused.   Will Beback  talk  09:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While we were discussing "Independently done sources", we suddenly created this new topic. So, it seems natural to remind us of this previous topic, which is actually closely related. Let us not create artificial boundaries. The marketing topic emerged because I mentioned to Doc James that we could mention these new proposed sources in a subsection about research together with other important POVs, and I meant with due weight. Doc James thanked me for my proposal and created a new Marketing section. I never proposed the creation of a Marketing section. The answer to your question regarding new sources is in this proposal of a subsection on Research, which Doc James misunderstood. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see inside Doc Jame's skull like you apparently can so I don't know why he created this section. Regardless of the motives of editors, this is a legitimate topic on its own and, coincidentally, I was planning to add similar material. So let's keep this thread focused on this material, and not on material in other sections.   Will Beback  talk  12:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

They?

We have repeated uses of the word "They" in this section - "they" did this, "they" did that. It seems quite "unencyclopedic" wording to me. Perhpas the editor(s) who added the text could give us the specifics of who "they" are? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the name of the specific organization that applies in each case would be better. The other option, if we cannot determine what the author meant, would be to quote and attribute the sentence to this author. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving the Marketing section and undue weight

For the record, I am still of the opinion that adding this section (and any other section without its own article for that matter) was against the large consensus of the last Rfc, but if there is a "subconsensus" among the involved editors that we must wait after the 30 days to respect this larger consensus, I will go with it - even if I find this strange. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The RFC concerns what goes where. This material may end up in another article, depending on the consensus. Not to worry.   Will Beback  talk  12:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This view point is an improvement, but I still don't understand why we wait. This section could be written completely differently if we consider the context. We should move it right now and adapt it to the context. I have the feeling that this material does not deserve to be a section all by itself, no matter what is the article. It should be moved together with the Characterization section - it is the same kind of content. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how any interpretation of the RfC would lead to merging the "marketing" and "characterization" sections. If you want to add that proposal go ahead, but it's not there now.   Will Beback  talk  09:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Rfc was not about merging Marketing with Characterization. It is just a fact: this Marketing topic, as it is presented now, is the same kind of content as in the Characterization section. This kind of content has already received undue weight. It presents a POV while other POVs based on reliable peer-reviewed publications are being ignored. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are peer-reviewed materials on marketing that we're omitting then please add them. The three main sources for the section are all published scholarly presses, and one of them is from a peer-reviewed journal. I intend to also add some less scholarly, but still reliable sources. Considering how much has been written on this topic, I don't think it's undue weight.   Will Beback  talk  12:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not evaluate undue weight within one section only. This kind of content has already received undue weight in the TM article. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:UNDUE would apply here. It isn't a fringe view to say that TM is marketed.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Come on! When we read about TM, perhaps the main question is "Is this Hocus-Pocus or is there some scientific validity to it?" The current marketing section says that it is the result of marketing, thus Hocus- Pocus. The entire characterization section says that it is Hocus-Pocus. At the same time, a few editors here says that it would be a TM propaganda (pushed by the other editors here) to say more about TM research than what appears in the "Independently done reviews". We even select the worst of what is being said in these reviews. Please, can we start to address the main issue, not avoid the main question. Are you afraid of it? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The "main issue" fo this thread is marketing of TM. I don't know where you're getting the stuff about "hocus-pocus" - I don't see that in the text or in any sources. You may be drawing inferences which aren't supported by the text itself. Just because a product is marketed does not mean that it is fraudulent or worthless. Anyway, this discussion seems to be rambling along without going anywhere.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is in the text: "getting articles published in scientific journals, apparently proving TM's claims or at least giving them scientific status." It is not the way one would normally refer to valid research that indicates a technique improves health, etc. It is close enough from saying it is Hocus-Pocus. Yes, I agree it's not going anywhere. I noticed that long time ago. I am just being patient and answering your questions anyway. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the "normal" way of referring to research is. But I do know that multiple sources make the point that the scientific research has been used, or even created, for marketing purposes.   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) can we please focus on the topic of this sub-thread, i.e. the excessive use of "they" in the Marketing section. --BwB (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the use of "they" was taken care by Olive, so there was no point to continue this thread at the time. Is there still an issue with the use of "they". Anyway, I created a sub-section with the remainder of the thread. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

One more, once more

It occurs to me that I may not have been crystal clear above (in the earlier section on the talk page, "One more") regarding my favored option re: the six suggestions included in the RFC. In the end, I favor suggestion 5 as an acceptable compromise. I have also indicated this in the now-archived RFC tally (archive 36)--Early morning person (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I understood it. Thank you. It adds to a consensus. It makes it even more clear. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote on EMP's talk page, we should not edit archived talk pages. If a comment here is not sufficient then we can unarchive the relevant thread for further additions to it.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we should not comment about an editor in the article talk page. Only EMP needed to know about that, but if you wanted to suggest that EMP's comment did not add to the consensus, this is incorrect. It does not matter that the Rfc is closed. A consensus can be created before or after a Rfc is closed. A consensus exists and has a value independently of any Rfc - the Rfc is just a tool to get more comments, nothing more. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't commentng on the editor: I was commenting on the edit. If we want to add more comments to the RfC then let's unarchive it. Since there seems to be a desire to keep discussing it, that seems like an appropriate action. Any objection?   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to reopen the Rfc to accept Early's comment. Her comment adds to the consensus. The Rfc is a way to get more comments, not a requirement to accept new comments. However, yes, it can be nice to have the Rfc section back. I am not sure what is the rule about reopening the Rfc - perhaps only Doc James can do it. We can just bring back the section without the Rfc Tag, and let Doc James decide for the Tag. If I understood Olive, it can be active for 30 days. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving is a totally separate issue from whether an RfC is still open. I'll go ahead an unarchive it so EMP and anyone else can add their comments.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! It's a good idea. With regard to archiving Vs Rfc, a Rfc exists when a request to make comments appear in some public forum that is used for that purpose. The Rfc tag is the way to create this public request. When the Rfc is archived, the tag is removed and the Rfc stops. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation, and the un-archiving. Early morning person (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Rfc is closed

The Rfc tag is not in the talk page anymore, so there is no request for comment anywhere in any public forum. We can bring it back of course, but I doubt very much that it will change the current consensus. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I've unarchived the RfC.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The section only. The Rfc is not back. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

An medical article looking at cost and adverse effects

Adverse effects

There are however, a number of case reports in the mainstream medical literature describing occasional adverse psychological1 1 , 1 2 and physical effects1 3 t h a t appear to be causally related to the technique. These adverse events range from mild to severe and warrant further systematic investigation.1 4 Cost issues The technique is taught using a commercial system in which one begins by purchasing a mantra. Further instruction entails an escalating system of fees that can be cost prohibitive. Moreover, the TM organisation has on occasion been implicated in unethical and cultic practices.1 5 In light of this information, medical practitioners have no choice but to

recommend caution with regard to this method.

Manocha R (2000). "Why meditation?". Aust Fam Physician. 29 (12): 1135–8. PMID 11140217. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Here is another very interesting paper: [33] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources that are pejorative and there are sources that are not .Our job is to show both sides of a view fairly per mainstream sources. You clearly are attempting to present the pejorative view. But what is your point? (Do you believe an undergraduate student journal is a reliable source.) (olive (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC))

We do present both sides. Some people who practice TM says it allows them to fly and have eternal health. Independent reviews and articles in the mainstream medical press not written by those within the movement disagree. There have been causes of publication in which authors associated with the movement "forget" to mention their association during the publication process. The is all none controversial and easy to reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

James. You are conflating your personal bias with use of sources. You have discounted multiple outstanding universities that have carried on joint research with your so called nonindependent researchers. You have discounted numerous NIH grants. You have discounted the education and professional credentials of numerous researchers. You have discounted reviews of TM technique research. You have discounted peer review of over 340 studies and their peer review boards and the reputable journals that publish those papers. I could care less about your personal biases, but those biases do not have a place in an encyclopedia. (olive (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC))

I have done none of these things. I have only directly referenced the research and continually provided high quality references for text I have added to the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A paper from JAMA discussing how TM was misrepresented to them during publication

They say that Maharishi Ayur-Veda is

not traditional Indian medicine, but the latest of the Maharishi's schemes to boost the declining numbers of people taking TM courses, through which the

movement recruits new members.

Skolnick AA (1991). "Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Guru's marketing scheme promises the world eternal 'perfect health'". JAMA. 266 (13): 1741–2, 1744–5, 1749–50. PMID 1817475. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

They?(olive (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC))

Yes great article highly recommend you read it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear who the "they" is ...If you refer to Skolnick, most here are familiar with this source, the accusations and the responses from the accused physicians.(olive (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC))

See Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health#Sharma and Chopra; Skolnick's perspective was published in reply to that. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Marketing section

This section is almost completely pejorative. Is this NPOV?(olive (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC))

It's a common misunderstanding that "neutral point of view" is the same as "neutral". There's nothing in the NPOV policy that requires majority and minority views to receive equal attention, for example. I don't think that all or even most of the material in the section is pejorative. As I said to another editor, if there are sources on the topic of marketing which have a different view that we've omitted then let's include those too.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with olive - a waste of space. --BwB (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• A reliably sourced view is just that, and shouldn't be confused with accuracy or NPOV. NPOV is maintained by including content from the sources per weight in the mainstream, and then added per weight of content in an article. (olive (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC))

Is this no longer true?   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think most of the last paragraph in that section can be removed without much loss of information in article, specifically:

“ Yale University architecture professor Keller Easterling compares TM to "Arnold Palmer Golf Management", a developer of golf courses, saying that both are "ideologies and practices" that are regarded as "commercial products".[9] According to Easterling, TM maintains a partial story which allows it to keep the "brand amnesiacally refreshed" and alter plans without explanation. ”

The previous paragraphs in that section are more to the point, and cover the same material. I don't see what this rather convoluted exercise in metaphors adds. The (architecture) book is also cited without page numbers. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I may be able to do a better job of summarizing the extended comparison, which is discussed across an entire chapter.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It's written in the most silly postmodern language I saw in quite some time; it rivals TM scriptures in that respect. And it's about franchises in general, beside Maharishi and Arnold Palmer's architectural follies and how they relate to the branding on their companies, the chapter also covers Martha Stewart, Sam Walton and Howard Schultz. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to the overall organisation

Unless we move back the Rfc tag (which would be pointless), the RFC is now closed. We should now take action. I propose

• Move the Chararacterization and Theoretical Concepts sections in the TMT article in the spirit of respecting the consensus around suggestion #5.
• Discuss the move of the Marketing section in the TMT article in the Talk page of this article. It cannot stay here against consensus, but we cannot move it in another article without first discussing it in the talk page of this other article.
• Have a Rfc about the lack of representation of peer-reviewed research and the undue weight given to content that is pejorative against the research.
• Add a NPOV dispute tag in the TM article. This will help the discussion, bringing the talk page and this dispute to the attention of the readers. An Rfc is not sufficient because editors either ignore it when it is not favorable to their POV or they quickly take action as soon as they see one comment that could be in anyway interpreted in favor of their POV. In the latter case, the Rfc is then considered over or lost in the mess that is created.

Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Might be best to find an uninvolved admin to summarize the RFC for us.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We already have that. Are you going to keep asking uninvolved admins until you get a comment that you can in someway interpret in favor of your POV? I think you need to first show that you can respect the current consensus, which has already been pointed out by an uninvolved admin. As I said before to Olive, I know that a consensus is not a frozen decision. It is fine to ask for even more external opinions as long as we do it right with a complete new Rfc, not something that could be a way to seek support for a POV. However, now, we must act in accordance with the consensus that we have. We have waited enough. The current situation is exactly why I think we need a NPOV tag. This is a way to make sure that we have more attention on the issue. Isn't it what Doc James want also? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is this consensus from the previous uninvolved admin. I must have missed it among all this text. Can you please link to it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Let us wait for opinions of others here. I could provide it, but it is better if others participate. They might have more to add. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that the archiving of the RfC was done by a 'bot, and has no official status. However it is a result of a lack of further discussion.

If we follow #5 then we would have little mention of research on this page. There's a proposal to split the research on TM (and perhaps related technologies) into a separate article. If that were the case then, under #5, we could have a summary of the research here.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Let us not go into that level of details at this stage. Doc James still questions the consensus on suggestion #5. Can we just agree that we had a consensus for suggestion #5, within which we have yet to agree on what are the best summaries? If there is an issue about Research in the best summaries, this does not invalidate the consensus. We can simply do another Rfc about this Research aspect, as I suggested above. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) It was stated that an independent admin had summarized the RfC regarding the layout of the article. Where is this summary please... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Sj comments:[34], [35](olive (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC))

If we go for #5 then we'll move the three non-summary sections ("Theoretical concepts", "Characterizations", "Marketing") to the TMT article. I don't see the need for more discussion over it, another Rfc, or a re-application of the NPOV tag, but let's take it as it comes. But it'd be nice if there weren't so much turmoil here.   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

These sections however equally apply to both the TMT and the TMM. Also four external editors supported option 1 while only three supported option 5. I do not see this as that much of an issue however if we do this it will be going against the RfC. I am hesitant to set a precedent. I have asked User:Sj to clarify his position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! It is always nice to have opinions. If serious concerns are being expressed around suggestion #5, in particular, if constraints on the best summaries are being proposed, then I propose we even do a complete Rfc on the subject because, if we have to create a consensus around the best summaries within suggestion #5, we must do it right. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

AE proposal

There is an WP:AE proposal to ban several of the long-term editors of this page. I'm noting this here because the list of proposed bans exceeds the initial report (which was against User:Littleolive oil). Tijfo098 (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Science of Creative Intelligence

This section seems too long and detailed for this article to function as an overview. On a diagonal reading, the section appears to be mostly about the technique, so some of its contents should probably be moved to one the sub-articles. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is part of a consensus around suggestion #5, which you can see above. It goes even further than that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Skeptics Dictionary

Varma and his school have contributed nearly nothing of importance to the science. Their main concern is using science, no matter how questionable or controversial, to support the view that TM is good for your health. For some people, that's probably true. But even if true, it doesn't seem to be earth shattering. For the record, I have never maintained that meditation isn't good for you. My position is that TM is not unique.

[36]

This is an interesting quote. WRT previous discussion regarding the use of this source at WP:RS we have this [37] and [38] which consider it a RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)