Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Religious Movements website

The Religious Movements website was a project of Jeffrey K. Hadden at the University of Virginia. The bulk of the articles there were produced by his students under his supervision. The project was mostly taken down after Hadden's death in 2003.[1] We access the previous contents using the Internet Archive. Using the archived cointents as a source, we have this quotation:

Professor Jeffrey K. Hadden pointed out that the "...meditation techniques taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are clearly grounded in the teachings of Hinduism and that the claim to be scientific and not religious produce controversy at a number of levels...".[55]

First, there's no evidence that Hadden wrote that. The page is authored by Amy Karasz and Meaghan Midgett, not by Hadden. Second, "pointed out" is not a neutral formulation, because it implies that he is simply pointing to an obvious fact rather than making an assertion. Third, the quote does not appear on the page in the form we're quoting. The actual text reads:

The meditation techniques taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are clearnly grounded in the teachings of Hinduism. This, notwithstanding, the Yogi, the World Plan Council, scholars who work within the tradition, and many other individual members argue tenaciously that TM is not a religion. They argue, rather, that the heart and soul of the meditation techniques developed by Maharishi are grounded in scientific priniciples. On the one hand, the proponents of TM have made scientific claims that are highly vulnerable to disconformation. On the other hand, other claims that are made under the imprimatur of science simply are not amenable to disconformation by scientific methods.

Fourth, if we deem this to be a reliable source there would be better ways of summarizing it and there is other information in the paper that would be relevant. For example, there is footnote that reads:

Several TM members have written to the webmaster of the Religious Movements Homepage and expressed strong disapproval of the sociological perspective as well as the content of an earlier version of this page. When asked for assistance in checking the accuracy of the contents of the page, Mr. Hadden was advised to take the page down. Any treatment of TM as a religion, they argued, was tantamount to bigotry.

In summary, I think it is probable that this website does not meet the standards for sources. In that case it'd be better just to delete it as a source. If editors believe that it is relaible, then we shold review how we summarize it. Will Beback talk 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was aware of this and mentioned it earlier. If we have to mention origins of the tradition I think there may be better sources.(olive (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Will, I agree there should at least be a review of how we summarize the websites findings if indeed it meets the standards of a reliable source. The origins of TM is discussed in the origins section of the article already so perhaps the need to include something from this site is not necessary anyway.--Uncreated (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone defending the use of this source. If there isn't a reason to keep it I'll remove it tomorrow. Will Beback talk 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Permission to Add A Few Words

I would like to add the words in [brackets] to the sentence below, which currently appears in the article.

For example, Jaime Cardinal Sin, then Catholic Archbishop of Manila, said [in 1984] that some concepts taught by Maharishi conflict with Christianity.[60]

Is it alright? --Kbob (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about seeking con on a purely cosmetic edit Kbob - just do it :) The7thdr (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 7th, its done.--Kbob (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for discussion

There are so many threads started on multiple topics, that progress seems to be difficult. Is it possible for us to take one point/topic at a time, deal with it, then move on.(olive (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Sounds good to me. Can you give us a list of what topics you feel are currently under discussion?--Kbob (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Medical Research and The Wiki Google Test

The comments below were in the Consensus Section where they didn't belong, so I have moved them down here.--Kbob (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument that googling a subject in the news archives to decide how much prominence it should be given in an article is absurd on its face. But, let's play along: If I Google "Transcendental Meditation" in the news archive, I get 7,750 hits; if I Google "Transcendental Meditation" and "medical research", I get 31 hits. Clearly, by the logic of this argument, the mainstream press view of TM is that it has virtually nothing to do with medical research, yet fully one half of the article as presently constituted is about medical research. In contrast, combining TM with "controversy" gets 146 hits - nearly five times as many; "fees" 323 - 10 times as many; "catholic" 375 - 12 times as many; "religion" 930 hits - 30 times as many. Do you really want to continue to play this game? "cult" 394 hits; "flying" 425 hits; "ridicules" 111 hits;....and my favorite "robots" 32 hits. So TM has as much to do with robots in the popular press as it does with medical research! I'm going to start right away writing about 25 paragraphs/1800 words on TM and robots to achieve an appropriate balance with the medical research section! 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is used on Wikipedia as a way to measure news and media prominence. If I use google news I get 11,800 hits for Transcendental Meditation, 2,930 hits for Research Transcendental Meditation Technique, 897 for medical research, 1,650 for health benefits. We don't seem to be getting the same results.

I wanted to mention that if a user (name) here is also using an IP because they are another computer .... the standard is to mention it on the page otherwise the IP could be confused with a sock puppet of the user (name).(olive (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm putting the words "transcendental meditation" in quotes, searching for the phrase rather than the individual words. Hence the difference in the number of Google hits. Your method is producing Google hits like this for transcendental meditation or this for transcendental meditation medical research, neither of which have anything to do with TM.Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not me, but have to say that only a tin foil hater would think that was a sock puppet - so I wouldn't worry Olive :-) The7thdr (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no misunderstanding...Not accusing... just wanted to mention the convention in case the user is not familiar with it.(olive (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

To see more information on the validity of using a Search Engine Test see WP:SET--Kbob (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

In 1989, the Vatican released a document which was sharply critical of Transcendental Meditation, Zen and Yoga, saying it can `can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences.' [2] User:Littleolive oil

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

This is the document.[3](olive (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

This has been widely reported:

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

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

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

Agreed, should go back in. Those buddhist are the worse to be honest, not only do they lead to the possible "cult of the Body" but they are even worse than tm - they offer it for free. Swines :-) The7thdr (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to include something from Father Jeremy Davies, exorcist for the leader of Catholics in the UK, - who has published in one of his books that Yoga, Zen and TM can lead the practitioner being possessed by devils and demons also . A very popular book. Intriguing reading http://www.amazon.com/Exorcist-Tells-His-Story/dp/0898707102 http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/09/christian-yoga-doorway-to-demonic.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if there is an appropriate comment from the Catholic Church it should be included.

There is already information in the article from the RC church. Two comments may be undue weight. I would suggest one or the other.

The Transcendental Meditation technique is a mental practice and does not include postures and controlled breathing so the Vatican document mischaracterizes the technique. Does any one care about that?

To create NPOV, the article should have the more extended information on, priests, and rabbis other religious who find the TM technique does not intefere with their religion and is not a religious activity. This is a fair balance to all of the additions recently added indicating the technique is religious. This creates neutrality.

I see from the revert of the Vatican information which I removed because there was no discussion, consensus, nothing, the standard I thought we were operating under here, that this is no longer the case. So any one can add anything without discussion or comment as long as its sourced even poorly sourced and then wait to see if everyone agrees or not. I was operating under the old rules. Discuss first, reach agreement then add. This is no longer in effect as far as I can see.(olive (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree that it's best to discuss text before we rush into adding it. While the Vatican's view is significant, it isn't about TM in particular. The last bit of quoted text may be the best for these purposes. How about something like, In 1989, a Vatican council published a warning that mixing eastern meditation, such as TM, with Christian prayer could lead to "dangers and errors". The Vatican is more authoritive speaking about the relationship of TM with Christianity then it is on the topic of TM alone. Will Beback talk 05:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Will. The way you have phrased the sentence makes it more relevant. The only point I would make, however, is that we already have a statment in the article from the Catholic religion

"For example, Jaime Cardinal Sin, then Catholic Archbishop of Manila, said that some concepts taught by Maharishi conflict with Christianity."

If some editors would like to take the Cardinal Sin statement out and replace it with your sentence from the Vatican, I would have no objection.--Kbob (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not an eithor/or situation. Why should the Sin comment be removed? Will Beback talk 00:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe Kbob made a good point above, that two statements from the Catholic religion is giving a definite Catholic twist to the discussion. In other words, it is promoting a point of view that is at odds with other religions and especially with many of the priests, rabbis, and ministers of those religions. That is what I understand to be his reason for eliminating one of the points, and I find it hard to argue with that logic. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The statements are not exclusive, and can even be combined into one sentence. If there are conflicting views then we should include those too. I'm checking the refs for the other views and one of the books seems to be obscure. According to Worldcat, there are only three copies of A key to the kingdom of heaven: A christian understanding of Transcendental Meditation by Adrian B Smith in all the libraries in the U.S.[4] NPOV calls on us to give views their weight based on their prominence. The views of an archbishop with tens of millions in his archdiocese should have more prominence than those of a minor author, which may represent a less significant minority. Will Beback talk 04:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

comment moved down to match reply - Will Beback talk 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As a suggestion:

Jaime Sin, a cardinal and the Archbishop of Manila, wrote in 1984 that neither the doctrine nor the practice of TM are acceptable to Christians. In 1989, a Vatican council published a warning that mixing eastern meditation, such as TM, with Christian prayer could lead to "dangers and errors".

I think that's a better summary of Sin's statement. The two statement together don't amount to excess weight, since the comments are made by representatives of very large groups (circa 70 million Catholics in the Philippines, and over a billion worldwide). By comparison, an obscure writer and a rabbi quoted in a provincial newspaper seem much less significant Will Beback talk 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we have things right on this topic. First the concern the RC church(Vatican statement) has to do with breathing and body movement and not meditation itself, so if this statement was used it would have to summarize that concern. Second that the Vatican characterizes TM as a concern in terms of body and breathing is incorrect to begin with.... Why would we include a statement that is based on non reliable information when we know it to be unreliable. Third, It would be easy enough to say oh well its just a sentence lets put it in, but the reception section is now full of bits and pieces on religion and TM that editor's have added, and I just don't think religion is the issue we are making of it. TM has been around for about 50 years and there are topics that have come up and disappeared over time... around the Malnak time there was the religion concern but there's not much in the press on that anymore. Both these possibpe additions(Vatican and Sin) are at least 20 years old.

Concerning Adrian Smith's book which I have by the way, Wikipedia does not say as far as I've ever seen that a book's verifiability and reliability depends on the number of libraries the book is in in the US, especially since the book in question was written and published in the UK. The publisher seems to be legitimate. Books aren't required to be best sellers to use them as references.

One of the concerns I have is that we don't agree on what the controversies are, how important they are (weight), how to define them, and how to add them. Right now we are at an impasse on this topic. The reception section has been skewed to deal mostly with religion and TM... that isn't right and violates Weight. More discussion needed.(olive (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

The section is about religion and TM, so it's appropriate to discuss it there. We could move it to a section titled "outside views" or "reception". As for Smith's book, it may be reliable even if only one copy exists. But when it comes to WEIGHT, views should be given weight according to their prominence. An obscure book is far less prominent than an official document from a committee at the head of a billion people, written by the future head of that organiztion. As for errors in those views, they certainly may exist but they don't matter if we're simply reporting them as views. This article isn't about TM in 2009, it's about TM from its beginning to the present day. It's certainly possible that things would change over that period, both the movement itself and the perceptions of it. We should try and report as much of that as we have sources for. Getting back to the proposed text, any specific objections? Will Beback talk 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not trying to be difficult, but I object. I've listed my objections in several places. We don't need two references to the Catholic church in this section.This skews the article. As well, as I said the Vatican document uses TM as an example but its fundamentally incorrect.... its not part of a view, its a mistake... In the document proper no techniques are mentioned. The document itself is a general reference to techniques that use movement and breathing. TM does neither. The document,then, isn't about TM. In the footnotes, techniques that use body and breathing are cited as examples of what is said in the document ... TM is cited. Its not a correct example. We all know that... Why would we give the reader this kind of wrong information..Its not what the document is about.I don't see this as the usual argument about verifiability and truth, I see this a document that is not about TM at all but in whose footnotes an incorrect example is added. There's a point where judgment has to come into play. The Cardinal Sin document is certainly a strong enough document. There's a point where an editor has to say this isn't about TM so lets use something that is about TM. I would mention that the Pope and those who speak for him do not represent Catholics they represent the Church and speak to Catholics. (being Catholic myself)

My concern also is that including this information further skews a section that is already skewed through additions of material that were added without discussion first. I'm interested in neutrality and in reflecting TM in the way its viewed in the mainstream press for starters. If one does a search on "Transcendental Meditation research" or"Transcendental Meditation study" in Google News archives, it results in 2,780 articles. Virtually none of them mention any controversy. TM is simply accepted as a mainstream form of meditation for improving health. Here's the search result:[5]

I would like to make some suggestions. Take the Reception section and paste it here and lets work on it here. Let's list the information we want in that section and attempt to create balance. Lets decide what that balance is ...If this doesn't work we need formal mediation.(olive (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

If editors feel they cannot come to an agreement to include all significant points of view, as required by NPOV, then the first step of dispute resoltuon would be to either post an RFC here, or request input at the relevant noticebaord, in this case probably WP:NPOV/N. Will Beback talk 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Will,that these are significant points of view is an opinion, and that writing the article one way is NPOV. Including one reference to the RC church is neutral, two is over the line ... that's how I see it, and that's how I would characterize NPOV and that's my opinion... so let's be neutral as well, in how we see this dispute.(olive (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

FWIW, the text I propose above is 47 words long. By comparison, the paragraph summarizing William Sims Bainbridge's views is 88 words long. Yet some folks here are saying that 47 words would be excessive weight. If we are concerned with the weight issue, are we saying that Bainbridge's views are twice as prominent as those of Cardinal Sin and Cardinal Ratzinger? What evidence do we have for the prominence of Bainbridge relative to Sin and Ratzinger? Will Beback talk 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't OK the Bainbridge entry at all, nor did I ever have a chance to edit it or replace it...Weight also refers to impact of a statement... two comments about the RC Church is "heavier" than one. If we show that there are views that see TM as non compatible with Christianity then in terms of neutrality we should add for balance views that show its also compatible and acceptable. Bainbridge's quote only adds more to the non compatible side since it indicates the technique itself is religious.

What we have in this section is a dumping ground for opinions that are now for the most part cast TM in a negative light. Topics are mixed up and there is no flow from one topic to the next. It might be a good idea to rewrite the section after a discussion of what we want in it, then add subsections so that material clearly sits in the right area. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

I don't know what you mean about not having a chance to OK, edit, or replace the Bainbridge material. I also don't know why short comments by two people carry more weight than two longer comments from a single person, or why equal weight shouldn't be given to Catholic leaders as opposed to obscure writers. All significant points of view should be included. If that ends up being a "dumping ground" then it should be organized better rather than being deleted. Will Beback talk 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And I don't why you're comparing the two Catholic comments to Bainbridge as if I wanted the lines there when I think Bainbridge is rubbish and would have added a better source, less material or non at all since how many times do we have to say hindu and puja... so I guess we're even:o)... Yes that's my idea to as I said above to reorder the section.(olive (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

What do you mean by "a better source, less material or non[e] at all"? Please explain. Why shouldn't we include Bainbridge's view? He's a notable scholar. Will Beback talk 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Will... everything in front of the smiley face is my uncensored opinion, discussion of lack of understanding about what you are saying, peppered with a bit of a joke and has nothing to do with what should or should not be in the article. I know that what Bainbridge is saying is not true, however he may very well be reliable and verifiable and I'm not disputing that....nor am I seriously suggesting removing him.... I'm saying I'd like to but I am held by Wikipedia standards which I do uphold religiously pun intended, so until those standards are disputed in the case of the Bainbride entry, he, in my mind, stays. I've been on here too long... later.(olive (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Will, in my mind the entry we have for Bainbridge isn't particularly informative...it simply states his opinion, not how he arrived at why he thinks TM is a religion. I thought Exploring new religions By George D. Chryssides would be a better source to site because he explains why TM might be considered a Religion and reasons why it might not be considered a religion. --Uncreated (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've ordered the book, though much of it is available on Google. It appears to be a high quality source that could be used throughout the article, not just the part about religion and spirituality. As you say, Chryssides might be worthwhile too. Will Beback talk 04:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for continuing this overly long conversation, but important loose ends should not be left dangling. Of all the things said here, one of Olive's most relevant statements has not been responded to by anyone. She pointed out clearly above that what Ratzinger said, as quoted above, is not true of TM because he incorrectly included TM in what he called methods of "breathing and body movements." If other editors insist on including in the TM article what we all know to be wrong, where is the legitimacy in that? What WP rules uphold that? So when the discussion has degenerated to this degree, how can we even carry on? ChemistryProf (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Overly long? Since there's no agreement the discussion is far from over.

The point that Olive and ChemistryProf are making does not appear to me to be consistent with Wikipedia norms. If Ratzinger bases his concern about TM on it being a breathing exercise then we don't decide, on our own authority, that he's in error and so delete his view of TM. If we think that he is in error we can either cite a reliable source about the error or, and this is at the limit of original research, juxtapose it with a source that says TM is not a breathing or motion discipline. As an example, imagine that a very prominent clergyman made a widely reported comment condemning a politicans for supporting abortion rights. But we also may also have sources showing that the same politician has supported right to life. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the prominent viewpoint entirely. A sufficiently prominent view must be reported, even if we believe it to be based on a faulty premise. Remember, we aren't saying that it is true. We're just reporting that it was expressed. That's what NPOV is all about. We report all of the significant viewpoints without deciding which are correct or incorrect. Verifiability, not truth, is the Wikipedia standard. Will Beback talk 08:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will's discussion of verifiability and truth and I am generally rigid about its use. I believe this is a slightly different situation which is why I'm digging my heels in.

TM is not mentioned in the document itself. No technique is.
The document is very specifically about and refers to methods /techniques that use breathing and body movement.
TM is used as an example in the footnotes.
TM does not use breathing and body movement but is a mental technique.
In effect by adding this to the article we are saying TM uses breathing and body movement. This isn't accurate and gives the reader wrong information.This isn't an opinion or viewpoint, its just obvious wrong information, and we know its wrong.
If in the document proper TM had been specifically cited, then this would be a different situation, and would be an opinion.
Note Jimbo Wales' comment: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."

I realize there two ways of looking at this . My point is that there is a point where we just don't have to give out wrong info. and in my mind this is it.(olive (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

What false info? The comments about TM by Ratzinger are definitely opinions and are well-sourced. We aren't making them up. The title of the work is "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN MEDITATION". Section 2 says:

The ever more frequent contact with other religions and with their different styles and methods of prayer has, in recent decades, led many of the faithful to ask themselves what value non-Christian forms of meditation might have for Christians. Above all, the question concerns eastern methods.[1]
Footnote 1: The expression "eastern methods" is used to refer to methods which are inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism, such as "Zen," "Transcendental Meditation" or "Yoga." Thus it indicates methods of meditation of the non-Christian Far East which today are not infrequently adopted by some Christians also in their meditation. The orientation of the principles and methods contained in this present document is intended to serve as a reference point not just for this problem, but also, in a more general way. for the different forms of prayer practiced nowadays in ecclesial organizations, particularly in associations, movements and groups.

I don't see where the document calls TM a breathing and body movement. Instead, it calls TM an "eastern method" of meditation. That seems accurate. Will Beback talk 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I've read the document over several times and I think you're right. I think my reading of the body/ breathing aspect is quite overstated and I may have conflated that with the newspaper article I'd read. I'd be willing to put something into the article on the Vatican statement but I'm still reluctant to have two comments from the Catholic Church...Not completely against it but reluctant. If I had to choose one the Vatican document would seem to be more inclusive and from a higher authority. I wouldn't mind a statement that is more in the spirit of how the Vatican document speaks about Eastern meditations.

one can take from them what is useful so long as the Christian conception of prayer, its logic and requirements are never obscured.

This statement seems neither negative nor positive and very general and inclusive of what the document says. Of course other editors may not agree with me but its a discussion.... and it would appear comments about my research may be deserved :o).(olive (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

The Catholic Church has a billion members, so it's a prominent viewpoint. Pennington is a Catholic too. Is Smith a Catholic priest? The letter from Sin is about TM directly, so it's worthwhile. 47 wrods (as proposed) does not appear to be excess weight. Can we settle this so we can move on? Will Beback talk 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess by settle you mean you want me to agree with you ... I don't necessarily, and I have compromised on my position. You don't seem to want to compromise on your position. WP: Weight doesn't just refer to number of words. Far from it. This decision isn't just yours and mine either.

As we discussed, I am writing something about Pennington and realized that do so without considering the section as a whole would be to just chop the section up more than it is already. So what I have started to do is rewrite the section and expand it to include concerns other editors have. I'll post it here. I hopefully will have that finished in the next couple of days . Maybe the rewrite will settle the problems we are having(olive (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

What's the compromise proposal? Sorry if I missed it. Will Beback talk 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note that what I suggested was a compromise from using the "cult of the body" language. Note further that the statement, one can take from them what is useful so long as the Christian conception of prayer, its logic and requirements are never obscured is in reference to "great religions", not eastern forms of meditation. The "dangers and errors" language directly refers to eastern forms of meditation. Will Beback talk 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is relevant, reliably-sourced information, the inclusion under Will's proposal does not give it undue weight. Olive appears to have withdrawn her earlier substantive objection based on a more careful review of the underlying document. I agree with Will that it should be included as he has proposed. The consensus process does not give any editor veto power over what goes into an article. Fladrif (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is exercising veto power. Several other editors have commented.

This where I stand. The quote I suggested, in reference to the Vatican statement, I think obliquely refers to the practices in the great religions, that the document talks about, but it may not be direct enough. I'm fine with something else. I would though, include a comment on the Vatican document as a summary statement rather than a quote so the spirit of the document is clear and so we are not trying to summarize the whole document with one quote. I would include the Sin statement but with the following understanding.

This part of the section was meant to describe views as to whether TM compatible with other religions, and before it was reduced contained comments such as Sin's comment as well as comments from other religious clergy. I think the article could do with a slightly more extended section on this topic. It would be easier to clarify both sides and would probably be more interesting than what is there now which reduces the material so much as to be meaningless. In this case the Vatican and Sin document would be balanced evenly with other comments. Since I am working on Pennington I could add this. I am trying a rewrite the whole section to paste here and we can see if it addresses concerns from both sides. It will take a day or to to complete the rewrite.(olive (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

The Vatican document answers the question of compatibility in the negative, as does Sin's letter. So long as that is made clear in the article there are different ways of presenting it. I would expect that their views would be give appropriate weight relative to Pennington, for example, seeing as they were senior leaders and Pennington holds a much less prominent position. I look forward to seeing Olive's draft. Will Beback talk 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Still slugging away

Still working on Reception section ... including puja, mantra too, now.... delayed today with concerns with an older friend who is ill, but hope to have it ready for your perusals soon.(olive (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

I've moved this up to the other thread concerning the material. If Olive's draft is going to take much longer I suggest we add the compromise text I proposed above. We can always change it again later to something better. Will Beback talk 18:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Should have a rough draft by this evening. Thanks for patience.(olive (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

"Reporting all significant viewpoints"

If we are to report all significant viewpoints, is it not appropriate to include some information from, or at least mention of, sources like the following?

trancenet.net

skepdic.com

suggestibility.org

Sites like these have been excluded, as references and from external links, based on WP:RS. I'm not up on the interpretation of this policy, but it seems to me that the viewpoint represented by these sites is underrepresented in the article. Rracecarr (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

These would not represent Wikipedia compliant sites: Down the TM Rabbit Hole is a personal site/blog. Skeptic's dictionary admits to being a site that is not meant to be neutral. Knapp's site is a personal, commercial/advertising site. Scholarly/mainstream media refs are available on most topics so if needed we can go there.(olive (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Good question, Racecarr, but I agree with Olive, these web sites are organized by private individuals or groups with a single agenda ie. to criticize TM (and/or programs like it). I also agree that they are not reliable sources and that is why they were removed from the External Link section by Ronz some time ago. There are thousands of reputable, media articles, books etc which cover all aspects of TM and provide a variety of viewpoints. I think we should stick to those.--Kbob (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

James Randi is a noted skeptic, and his point of view would be legitimate to include. His website is a sufficient source for that view, but it amy also be included in his published materials. Anything we used from him should be attributed, for example, "Skeptic James Randi has described TM as ..." It'd probably be suitable in a "reception" section. Will Beback talk 17:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at Randi's entry about TM on his website...he doesn't seem to actually say much about Transcendental meditation and what he does say could be sited from more authoritative sources. --Uncreated (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Skepdic.com can be used as a reliable source for a skeptical viewpoint, as I believe can Randi's encyclopedia (http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Transcendental%20Meditation.html). Skepdic is obviously the better source with its thorough references, some of which might be used directly as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I would have to disagree. Randi is not and expert in meditation nor a scholar. TM is a mediation technique and not "occult or supernatural". Skepdic. does not attempt to present neutral information and so cannot be considered reliable. We have multiple reliable, verifiable scholarly sources for skeptical viewpoints on TM and have no need to go to this kind of poor source. (olive (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

"Randi is not and expert in meditation nor a scholar." Irrelevant. He's a noted scientific skeptic.

"Skepdic. does not attempt to present neutral information and so cannot be considered reliable." Irrelevant. It's a noted source of reliable and well researched skeptical analysis.

I suggest a re-reading of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, or taking it to one of these noticeboards. --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The one problem i have with Skepdic.com at least with the article on TM is that it sites wikipedia as a source as well as other sources which wikipedia would not recognize as being reliable.--Uncreated (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For us to take Randi as a source because he is a noted scientific skeptic cannot be relevant. We are talking about a meditation technique. Because the man has commented on TM doesn't either make him an expert or even knowledgeable. If he comments on prayer or ice cream or dogs is he now a reliable source in those areas. We take a source for the quality of the reliable verifiable information that source offers, and we back that up with the qualifications of the writer. Being a skeptic does not automatically qualify anyone for any topic they decide to speak on. NPOV does not come into it. I am presently rewriting the reception section using strong Wikipedia compliant material for both sides of the discussion on TM. Why add something that weakens the credibility of the article. I'm afraid I don't see the point here. Skepdic cannot be considered reliable if the author disclaims his own site by saying its a deliberate skeptical view. How is that a reliable source. And again we do have strong compliant sources. (olive (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

And Randi was a magician. I don't accept his qualifications to deal with science. If we want to talk about science better get a scientist with academic qualifications.(olive (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. NPOV most certainly comes into it. We report "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Failure to do so is a violation of NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But of course... Thing is, we first need to decide what is the significant view then find the source, not the other way around. We don't find the source then see that as a significant view. We have other sources, that are reliable, for whatever the significant views are. Why would we go to a less reliable source to reference those same views.(olive (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

Rracecarr suggested three sources. Will Beback suggested another. I pointed out that from my experience with other controversial articles ans WP:RSN, that some of these sources are perfectly acceptable here. So, we've found some significant viewpoints to include.

It would be helpful to be more specific when discussing what similar sources and viewpoints we already have. --Ronz (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm rewriting the Reception section and I'm trying to include all viewpoints that have been discussed ... within reason. If everyone doesn't mind holding on for a day or so, I'll post what I have .... maybe tonight... then we can see if it satisfies everyone. We can go from there. Thanks for your patience. I started by just working on one part of the section but realized it would be a bandage when what was needed was something larger. So its taken longer than I anticipated. With respect Ronz, and I do very much respect the work you've done here, there are several other editors working on this article so what is significant is open to discussion and consensus. What is significant here on this article may not be what is significant somewhere else and vice-versa. Thanks again for your patience.(olive (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

In effect, the discussion on the four sources you are suggesting is not really a source issue but is an issue about significant viewpoints and content. RSN doesn't deal with content, so what we may need is formal mediation and the input of a truly neutral editor to oversee this article for awhile.(olive (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm kind of surprised you are even advocating these sources since you led a discussion that supported removing some of them from the links section recently as not even compliant there(olive (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

I second the motion that we consider a formal mediation. The reception section is the most controversial portion of this rather contentious article. Already there have been many pages written by several editors over the past month without much consensus. In addition there seems to be some variation in opinion as to the interpretation and application of some Wiki guidelines regarding point of view, weight, notabiliy, reliable sources, search engine test, consensus etc. So maybe a formal mediation for some time might be a good thing for all concerned.--Kbob (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I should have a rewritten version of the Reception ection up on the talk page in about an hour so lets see how that goes.(olive (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

The TM Book

I'm wondering about the addition of the TM Book to the "Read Also" section of the article. I think its perfectly appropriate to have books by Maharishi and the TM organization itself as a way of self defining, but this book even though a best seller seems somewhat slanted. Would not a more scholarly publication be more appropriate?(olive (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm the one who added it. My impression is that it is an official publication, published by the "Fairfield Press" of Fairfield, Iowa. It appears to advocate the practice of TM and it makes a number of assertions about TM that we may want to include in this article. When that happens it would move from the "further reading" section into the references. Per your suggestion above, perhaps we should try to settle some of the other unresolved disputes before starting a fresh thread, unless this is really a major problem. Will Beback talk 01:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fairfeld Press is not TM organization press, and not sure what constitutes an official publication or honestly what that is... It wasn't published by the university, as far as I know . However, the writer is highly educated, and an expert in this field so the book would seem to be Wikipedia compliant.(olive (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

There are dozens of towns across the good ole USA called Fairfied. Does anyone know which Fairfield town, that Fairfield Press was named after? (assuming the town was the reason for the name) I did a Google search for the company in Iowa and it doesn't seem to exist. --Kbob (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that this was the only book they published. If that's the case then it may be a questionable source. However, the first version was published by Warner Books, a major publishing house. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy of that edition. I also see that the main author, Denniston, is on the faculty of MUM.[6] Further, the book seems to have been cited in a scholarly paper,[7] as well as a non-published paper by a scholar. [8] It's also listed as a source in this book.[9] Those tend to increase its reliability. Will Beback talk 03:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fairfield Press, Fairfield Iowa, is owned and operated by Denise Gerace, a MUM faculty member, which promotes "The TM Book" as a part of the TM organization's Public Awareness Campaign. Previously, the book was published and promoted by Three Rivers Press, which Gerace also owned and operated. As Will pointed out, Gerace was also the author. [10] If that isn't an "Offical TM Publication", I have no idea what is. But, more to the point, it is definitely self-published and thus is not WP:RS complaint. Fladrif (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As further information. Gerace no longer lives in Fairfield, and is only adjunct at the university. She wasn't on faculty here in 1975 although involved with the TM organization. The book I've looked at was was printed by Versemonger,1975. My understanding is that the 1975 edition was the original printing and that later Gerace decided to reprint herself. The book was also a best seller which makes it notable.(olive (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Versemonger Press was owned and operated by Peter McWilliams, the co-author. [11] So, it was definitely self-published in every single edition.Fladrif (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that research. One of the editions is listed in Worldcat as having been published by Warner Books.[12] If that's correct then that edition would qualify as a reliable source. The book is being sold by MUM Press.[13] If they are actually publishing it then it's self-publishe by the movement and would be a reliable source for the views of the movement. However I can't tell from the webpage if that's the case. Will Beback talk 18:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Interesting. I didn't realize Versemonger was owned by McWilliams. I'm not sure we need to use the book in the article anyway. There are other good sources.(olive (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

One assertion in The TM Book that caught my eye is regarding the effect of simultaneous mass mediation on crime and war. Which other sources cover that? I don't see anything about it in the article now but it's a very significant claim. Will Beback talk 18:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That is actually also known as the Maharishi effect. There was a little research done the Maharishi effect as regards to the TM technique but was discontinued when the TM Sidhi program was developed. The TM Sidhi program according to the theory has a more powerful effect with less people than the TM technique program.... so research shifted to the more powerful technique.... as I understand it.I think there has been discussion about including a comment in this article about the Maharshi effect as it pertains to the TM technique. I'm not sure how much research there was on it. I'd have to check.(olive (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

The TM Book includes graphs, so I presume some research was done. I realize the book may be dated, but it's important for us to include the views and claims of the movement in the 1970s as well as the present day. Will Beback talk 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Staying On Point

If we want to accomplish anything on this article we need to stay focused and do one thing at a time. Olive has spent a great deal of time creating a proposed Reception section that includes many of the points that have been brought up over the past few months on these discussion pages. She has posted it for discussion and further editing by the group. I commend her for her time and effort. I would like to remind everyone that we should limit our comments to the "content not the contributor" and that discussions of COIN are best taken up on the NoticeBoard. --Kbob (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Responses From Religious Communities Draft

Here is the current draft of this section below. Please make specific suggestions as to how you would like to change it. After we finalize this section than we can move on to others in the draft that Olive has created.--Kbob (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Responses to Transcendental Meditation from religious leaders varies. For example: In 1989, The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a document to Bishops of the Catholic Church on “…Some Aspects of Christian Meditation” outlining concerns that the personal and communicative aspects of Christian prayer could be lost in trying to fuse Christian prayer and eastern derived meditation techniques such as Transcendental Meditation, and that such techniques be continuously scrutinized to ensure “syncretism” does not occur. [24] In 1984, Jaime Cardinal Sin, then Catholic Archbishop of Manila, released a pastoral statement in which he outlined concepts taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that he believed conflicted with Christianity.[25]

Basil Pennington a Cistercian Monk describes the Transcendental Mediation technique as a simple technique that can stand on it own, but whose deep rest can act as a preparation for more traditional prayer. [26] Adrian B Smith, a Catholic Missionary priest describes that the Transcendental Meditation technique in itself is not taught in the context of any religion, but that it can enrich the spiritual aspects of life. [27

I don't think this is an optimal summary of the sources, nor does it give appropriate weight based on the prominence of the viewpoints. I had already proposed shorter, tighter language to cover the RC position:

Jaime Sin, a cardinal and the Archbishop of Manila, wrote in 1984 that neither the doctrine nor the practice of TM are acceptable to Christians. In 1989, a Vatican council published a warning that mixing eastern meditation, such as TM, with Christian prayer could lead to "dangers and errors".

Why is the text in Olive's draft preferable?

As for Pennington and Smith, how prominent are their viewpoints relative to those of Ratzinger and Sin? Olive's proposal devotes 92 words to the official RC position, and 67 words to the views of a monk and a priest. That appears to give excess weight to their views. Why not keep it simple:

Some individual Catholic clergy have written that they believe TM is compatible with Christian prayer.

Combined with the other text, that'd be much shorter than what Olive wrote, and more in keeping with NPOV's requirement all significant points of view are included, and weighted according to their prominence. Will Beback talk 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My draft, in my mind is not the preferred draft. We seem to be arguing about degree of prominence based on word count. I placed the two more notable comments in the lead of the subsection giving them weight . They were longer and more explanatory again giving them weight. They are balanced by two comments from priests/ monks which actually looking at it should be worded differently. There are many religious people who do TM, and see it positively. These two comments are meant to represent those many. Your wording is not really accurate to what they are saying, and each is saying something different, although both are positive.Perhaps a combination of both your draft and my draft would work.

With the expansion of the section I felt we could expand on the material in this subsection giving a clearer explanation and more interesting and informative reading.(olive (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

What is the text from Smith that we are summarizing? Will Beback talk 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am summarizing the book as a whole. Smith describes TM in light of a Christian understanding, and how TM enriches the Christian life and the spiritual life. The chapters are more specific explanations of this. Pennington explains in detail the impact of TM on Christian prayer, but is also describing prayer in its larger definition.(olive (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

You've written that my summary is incorrect. Please quote the text you're summarizing. This is an obscure source. If it's a widely held view maybe we can find it expressed by a more prominent writer. Will Beback talk 23:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've summarized the book above and also in my rewrite ..... This is also a source for Smith and is more notable. [14]. I don't have this but might be able to get hold of it. The issue it seems to me is that within the hierarchy of the Catholic church we have two documents discounting the TM technique. We also have numerous Catholics including priests as well as religious leaders from other religions practicing the technique, and supporting its use. Smith quotes some of these in his book. Others may be found on the official TM site, and David OJ's site. Just using the Vatican and Sin documents does not give a neutral or correct sense of the technique and how it has been received. To be neutral we have consider how to do that.(olive (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

The other book you mention is also hard to find, 7 copies in U.S. libraries versus 3 for the other one. I just don't see why we're quoting this obscure priest. There was a previous complaint about giving the RC official documents excess weight, but I don't see how adding this material helps that. If there are numerous other Catholics clergy who have expressed their views in reliable sources then I'd be interested in seeing them. Will Beback talk 01:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Will. I don't buy these arguments. The last book I mention is a published collection of papers given at a Catholic conference. The book has been translated in to several languages according to the inside cover introduction I have of, A key to the Kingdom of Heaven . Is Cardinal Sin's document published in any book and is it in libraries in the US .... the Vatican document? Harlequin romances might be in libraries but that sure doesn't make them notable . My point is that in accessing sources several aspects need to be considered.If your criteria is its not in the libraries then you have to apply that to all sources unless we agree that there are different ways of accessing the importance of a source for an article, and what is needed to make sure an article is NPOV.(olive (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

If it is not in libraries, and if those who wish to add it to the article won't share the material they're summarizing, then it is very hard to verify. Is there a problem with uising verifiable sources? Sin's entire letter is published by the Archdiocese, who can be considered a reliable source. Ratzinger's statement was widely reported and the official document is also available on line. I just don't get why two official statements need to be "balanced" with such obscure, unverifiable sources. But let's put Smith and Pennington aside for a moment. Can we get an explanation for the summary of the officIAl RC view? Will Beback talk 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on Will ... What do you want me to do summarize an entire book in detail ...."won't share the source" ... that's not fair not even close. I've explained the general view of the book and I've summarized it ... do you expect me to type it all out.

These issues are being conflated here: What do we have so far: Two negative comments about TM from the Catholic Church. They are in place in the article. They are also relatively old- 20 years old. They represent the official, at that time, position, of the church. They do not represent what Catholics are doing in their churches nor do they represent other religions. How do we present that or are you suggesting not presenting it at all.How obscure is Sin's statement or the Vatican document statement to anyone not Catholic; two statements twenty years old. You use the numbers in libraries as a test of notability but you don't apply that test across the board, which by the way I agree with. Thing is you won't apply the openness to the other side of the coin, the positive side of TM and the church. How do you plan to create neutrality in that subsection? I'm out of discussion points.(olive (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

What does age have to do with it? Do we think that the RC position has changed now that Ratzinger is no longer head of the council on theology and is the head of the whole church? As for primincne of a view, how do you propose we judge them? And again, why did you summarize the Sin and Ratzinger comments the way you did? For Ratxinger, not only do we have the document, but we also have third-party reports on it and a press conference. It'd probably be best to use those relatively "secondary" sources as our guide to the key phrases in the text, which is why I suggested quoting the "dangers and errors" line. How did you decide that "syncretism" was the key point instead? Will Beback talk 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I could conjecture on the pope's position but I won't since I can't use it, and it would be OR. In fact how alternative movements such as TM and NAR (New Age religions )are viewed changes signicantly with time. As an extreme example Lutheranism was once a new religion. That a document is 25 years old is relevent to the context of the document.

We are discussing in circles. I noted earlier that the Malnak document is a primary source and that there were good secondary sources, and that Wikipedia suggests secondary sources are preferable. That comment was received, in shall we say, a less than positive light. I rewrote the Malnak subsection including some info from those secondary sources but nothing came of that exercise. In rewriting the reception section if had I made only a short reference to the Malnak primary document and then referenced the secondary sources as Wikipedia suggest would be appropriate, I wonder what would have happened. In writing the Sin/Vatican sections I attempted to summarize the entire documents. Primary sources .... Yes indeed. What might have been the response to me using secondary sources? The original Reception section used the primary sources. I stayed quite close to that to rewrite, again , to attempt to compromise, collaborate put something together that everyone could agree on.

The overarching concern with Eastern meditation methods and Christianity as stated in the Vatican document is that the two become mixed together "syncretism". I attempted to summarize the document. There was no "instead". I was simple re writing a subsection trying to make it work.

Actually, I have very little else to say, here . I will not agree to putting anything else into this article at any point without some agreed upon method for determining what is significant. We need to agree on a consistent way of dealing with information. If we are using secondary sources as is my preference since I like to stick closely to policy/guidelines we'd better be consistent. My rewrite was done in good faith as an attempt to create a space for inclusion of many of the topics that have come up for discussion. That that rewrite is now treated as if I am attempting to push some POV is unfortunate. I will be applying for Formal Mediation in a day or two. Perhaps some outside help can help us through this.(olive (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

There are ample policies and guidelines that establish methods for deciding what to include in an article. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are the main ones. If we stick to discussing individual edits then progress can be made. Going in circles isn't helpful, so let's avoid that. Let's try to find an agreement on the issue we're discussing. Right now, we're working figuring out how to add the Ratzinger/Vatican statement to the article. That's been the topic since March 12 - see #Deletion. As for that age of that statement, readers can make up their own minds if we simply include the date. Will Beback talk 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need to come up with an agreement on policies; Wikipedia already has ample policies. Will's proposed language is simple, straightforward, accurate, neutral and appropriately weighted. Olive's alternative does not accurately characterize the Sin and Ratzinger comments, and gives undue weight to Pennington and Smith. The information should go in as Will has proposed. Fladrif (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I restate that I am in favor of mediation. All the editors on the page have a bias. This is obvious because we can rarely agree on content or even interpretation of Wiki policies or a agree on a set of procedures for discussion and insertion/deletion of copy. A mediator would save us all a lot of time and effort. I support Olives application for mediation.--Kbob (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving BOT

The archiving bot is sending the older discussions to Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/19 rather than to Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_19, and it doesn't show up in the the Archive List or in the Archive Index at the top of the page. How does this get fixed?Fladrif (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've moved the already created archives and I think I've fixed the bot. Will Beback talk 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Aribtrary Page break, continuation... British Elections, 2005

Hi 7th please do not remove this page break . It is an accepted way of making a long thread easier to follow and comment on...for other editors. Thanks (olive (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Adding a page break for a long thread so its easier to follow the most recent posts(olive (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Two comments:

As I said above I'd like to move Fladirf's recent addition into the origin section since it isn't about reception to the technique, but is more an aspect of history.

The origins section needs to be edited slightly to make a connection between what is there now and this new edit.

And Uncreated makes a good point . In this article on TM the edit should probably be a reference more about the fact that this was about the Tm technique no longer being taught in England... That should be a slight, simple shift to make...

Comments clarifying past posts:

This is very much about the Maharishi Effect. The Maharishi Effect was first researched on the TM technique , but very quickly that research moved to The TM Sidhi program and the TM technique was no longer researched. The number referenced in the sources Fladrif supplies, 800 as the square root of 1% of the English population and the 400 practitioners who actually where involved in the program to change the election clearly refers to the Maharishi Effect.The words Maharishi Effect is also directly mentioned in at least one source.

As an aside: neither the TM technique nor the TM Sidhi program includes any kind of "thought beaming". TM technique depends on an absence if thought. This is one of many inaccuracies in these sources.(olive (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

It is not about the M Effect, it is about the fact that the teaching of TM was banned in a major world power - nothing to do with bunny hoping on your bottom or walking through walls. Once you have stated that TM teaching was banned by the companies CEO it is obviously necessary to explain what brought this decision about - provided there is a reason. In this case it is because the CEO of TM limited at that time (or whatever title you would like to give him) wanted his members to influence the course of an election in a major "western" economic and military power at that time - which all of the bunny hopping in the world seems to have been unable to do. Whether a few years later TM Bunny Hopping and walking through walls is still researched by the movement is unimportant. It is equally, unimportant whether one news source wants to describe the M Effect as "hopping for peace" or "beaming thoughts". The Guardian, the Times and the Telegraph are not academic journals who need to clarify in detail every "new age belief"

I still have not seen a reason given either why this should be removed, moved to the back-end of WIKI or it's wording altered. What I am starting to see however is attempts at un-necessary synthesis and original research The7thdr (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact the sources reference several topics ... how those sources are used here is dependent on what is selected from those sources. The sources are about the Maharishi Effect, the banning of TM and the action by Maharishi . If you want the focus to be about Maharishi this needs to go to the MMY article. If on TM here.

In fact moving Faldrif's edit moves the edit to the top of the article.
We absolutely need to know as editors what is incorrect and what isn't whether we actually use the material or not ... and frankly any journalist worth his or salt needs to be accurate ... .
There is no policy that says if something is not an academic journal something can be incorrect.
Nothing I am suggesting is either synthesis or OR.(olive (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

"Nothing I am suggesting is either synthesis or original research" Yes you are, the articles all say that it is the TM that is being discussed - for it was the teaching of TM that was banned. Stating it is now about TM bunny hopping - unless you can cite resources and they are relevant - is original research. Equally, perhaps the standard of journalism in the USA is poor (where all sorts of new age "nonsense" is given creditability) but things are different here in Europe (if you are not familiar with the broadsheets being cited please go here:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/; http://www.guardian.co.uk/. For more please go to their relevant WIKI pages) but if you wish to discuss levels of professionalism in journalism than there are articles and boards within WIKI which would welcome it. You can continue down this line of argument as long as you want but it will make a bit of difference to the facts. However, you do make a very good point, there does seem to be a lot of confusion - out side of MUM-as to what is and is not the so called TM technique, the bunny hopping techniques, the empty your mind for world peace techniques, the peace palaces, etc. It makes a very good argument about re-integrating these into this article - we can split of some off some of the medical "research" to its own sub article to make roomperhaps. Right, seems that is the next thing we need to work on. The7thdr (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Add: Indeed, your own founder seems to be unable to make the distinction between what you deem as two different things. Going back to TM being banned in the UK your "Guru" said:

...the 95-year-old guru says there is no point continuing to waste the "beautiful nectar" of TM on a "scorpion" nation.

"The good effects of transcendental meditation - increased creativity and long life - should not be given to a dangerous country that is constantly busy destroying the world," said the maharishi, speaking at one his regular press conferences in the Netherlands. "TM is a gift from me to those who want to create peace and harmony in the world." ^[1]. Perhaps he needed lessons in reporting "accuracy" from MUM? :-) The7thdr (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

PPs I wonder why he didn't ban it in the USA at that time also for similar reasons? The7thdr (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 7th, I guess you don't understand what I'm saying and that may be my concern.

I would like to move this section from Reception to the Origin section since it is not about the reception of TM, and would like to integrate it into that section which might require a slight adjustment of words. I'll put up a version using Fladrif's version as closely as possible and other editors can see what they think.(olive (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

I am confused as to how you feel this exists in the origin section, but will go along with for now while you produce an edit for agreement - again I cannot see what is wrong with the present edit - and explain. The7thdr (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Origin section is really a summarized version of the history,and this banning is now history... There's little wrong with the edit now, but in order for it to connect with what's in the article and more specifically reference what is in the Origin section i it may have top be adjusted somewhat.(olive (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

7th. Would it be more appropriate given the discussion we are in the middle of, to suggest your addition and discuss it here rather than add it in without any input from any other editors You've added something without even discussion.(olive (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Oh I see... Well I assume the gentleman's agreement we've had here no longer holds. If this edit is not reverted on principle, then we can all add, whatever we want, when we want, without discussion as 7th has just done(olive (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

OK. 7th. I'm going to revert your change on principle because it think its important to protect the standard we've established for all editors on this page . I like what you did, but I can't support how you did it. I would think other editors will support your change so please wait for their comments to re add. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Here is my proposed edit to the one 7thdr put in:

Teaching of Transcendental Meditation Temporarily stopped in United Kingdom

The day after Tony Blair's Labour Party won reelection in May 2005, the Maharishi ordered that all instruction in TM cease in the UK explaining, "The good effects of transcendental meditation - increased creativity and long life - should not be given to a dangerous country that is constantly busy destroying the world, [14][15] The teaching of Transcendental Meditation resumed in August 2007, two months after Blair resigned as Prime Minister. [16]

I have removed the first sentence due to the lack of relevance in my opinion to the article on Transcendental Meditation. Will, Fladrif would you be happy with this?--Uncreated (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to stay in and is highly important. If the bouncers had been successful in altering the democratic process in a major "first world power" then the guru would not have banned TM training.

I see I can't revert, too many edits. So ... Unless other editors object the agreement we had to edit with discussion is now no longer in place. Well, lets see how that works for us.(olive (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Olive seeing as you have spent the past two days editing without comment and agreement here that seems a little - as they say in this neck of the woods - "rich". But, if you are unhappy about my quote from the guru than I will of course remove it now and at once and will agree it shoudl not be altered till all editors are in agreement 80.2.41.26 (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I will assume this IP is 7th from your statement. I haven't edited at all. I have been commenting here. Please check your statements for accuracy.(olive (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

To confirm for future ref - yes it is :-) And Olive, please note the history over the past few days where you made a cosmetic change to the origins section - Just as I did - and also the constant removal of the TM/UK incident - without discussion. And all of this has jsut been in the past 2 days 80.2.41.26 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

7th... I reverted once with discussion. I added a space... I am not editing into the article. Check your facts.(olive (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed with no discussion based on original research and synthesis; but this is starting to get like Ping Pong - don't you think? :-)

I changed the word 'these' to 'his' to help clarify the sentence. Even so it is awkwardly written and could be reworded. Having said that I have no other objections to what is written there and I like the addition that 7th made giving Maharishi's explanation for his actions. I also agree it belongs in the Origon/History section as it has nothing to do with public reception of TM. Good work 7th, Uncreated, Olive and Fladrif--Kbob (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin/history

It seems that the section currently titled "Origin" deals with the whole history of TM. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be renamed "History"? Will Beback talk 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Or maybe "Origins and History" since the two words have slightly different meanings, and this would cover all the bases.(olive (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

The first section of "History" could be "Origins". Is there any way in which its origins are not part of its history? Will Beback talk 00:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes I think origin can be seen as part of history. I would tend to think of origins, though, as pertaining to sources, and to history as more sequential. My preference woud be to have an origins section inside the larger history section.(olive (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC))_

OK, I'll change the heading. The headings that really overlap would be "Origin" and "Beginnings". This article doens't realy deal with meditation techniques before Maharishi, but if we add such material then "origins" might be a good heading for it. Will Beback talk 01:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Good job Will, I had been thinking about this change myself. Origins and History. I like it.--Kbob (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding some refs to bottom of page for possbile use in future discussions. ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

Rewrite reception section

I've attempted to balance this pretty evenly between the pro and con sides of TM. I have still to find a comment about the puja saying it is no longer connected to Hinduism came out of the Vedic tradition and is now used in a secular fashion which is the official position of the organization and should be included. I had a source for that but can't seem to find it ... so when I find it I'd like to add it to make sure the puja section is complete and neutral. The bold on the Malnak section is a part I feel seems to "weight" that subsection so I would remove it especially since there is material on puja in other parts of the section. I think this is something we can discuss. With all of you I reserve the right to critique my own work should I see that something I've done is not properly balanced(olive (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

you may be interested to know that the purpose of the "puja" is solely that of being a whopping great kick up the backside, to get people started. if nothing else, think of it like you would any other ceremony (such as a marriage ceremony), where intent is declared and someone officially goes "hurrah". i can tell you _right_ now it has sweet xxxx-all to do with hinduism. the only possible accidental link is the fact that the phrases that are sung are in sanskrit. Lkcl (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think another weakness may be that we need to add comments from from other religious groups non Christian and especially non Catholic.(olive (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)) Probably should have put this in a sandbox.(olive (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)) I wasn't sure about adding Markovsky's comment on schools and religion. Looking at the section on schools a couple of things could happen. The Malnak section could be moved to the legal case section, and a single sentence added to the school section referencing the case then adding Markovsky. Or we could leave in the Malnak case add Markovsky and expand the positive aspect of TM in the schools which is very positive these days. As is, the section is pretty "weighty" and adding anything else to it would tip the balance I think.(olive (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

I've moved it to a sandbox, /Reception draft. Will Beback talk 18:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just starting to look it over, but two questions come immediately to mind: what is the meaning of "considerations" in the section title? And what happened to the "Cult issues" section? Will Beback talk 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. Missed the cult issue section probably because I wasn't thinking of doing anything with it ... It should just be added at the end. The only thing I have concerns about with the cult section is that Wikipedia doesn't like the use of the word "cult" and the more I read the more I realize its not a word that is used by serious academics to describe anything except as a kind of cliche term. Maybe there's another term we can use ... maybe not. "Considerations" may be a little too general . I was looking for a word that would allow us to include the several issues some editors have with certain topic areas.... so that we could cover them easily and not worry about somehow trying to connect these different topics .... I'm not attached to the word except in so much as it is neutral ...Thanks for moving to a sandbox. I should have taken care of it last night but was too tired.... so greatly appreciate the help.(olive (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

OK, I duplicated the "cult issues" section so that the proposal will be clear. WP:WTA concerns situations where Wikipedia uses a word for a topic. So it discourages us from saying things like, "Peoples Temple was a cult group in the 1970s" or "The cult then moved to Guyana". It does not prevent us from reporting on assertions by reliable sources that the Peoples Temple was a cult. As for "considerations" - is it a synonym for "issues"? If so, then maybe it'd be better to leave it off, find a better word, or perhaps split the "consideration" topics into a separate section with a sharper definition. Will Beback talk 19:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy to just use Reception. It probably covers everything and its general enough to include the topics we are dealing with. We can leave cult, too, no problem.(olive (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm mystified why the section on the Catholic viewpoint is now much longer in this draft even though the same editor previously argued that a much shorter version gave excess weight to the topic. I'm not sure why the text is completely different. Could the drafter please explain the reasoning behind this part of the draft? Will Beback talk 22:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Olive you have done a great job of creating a draft that covers all the bases. I have made a number of edits in an effort to clarify your existing points. I hope I have achieved that. There is one sentence that puzzles me though. The last one in the puja section which mentions 'philisophical concepts'. Do you mean concepts utilized in the puja? Anyway please take a look at it and maybe make it more specific. --Kbob (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure that this "covers all the bases"? In other words, is this really a full summary of all significant viewpoints concerning the "reception" of the topic? I haven't done a lot of research, but have the other editors done a sufficient survey to make sure that this really covers everything? If not, perhaps that would be a prerequisite. Will Beback talk 23:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with earlier comments by Olive and Will that maybe the Catholic/Christian viewpoint could be cut back and other religions could be added as needed.--Kbob (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

in regards to covering all the bases, maybe something more should be said about transcendental meditation in schools around the world where it is practised and the improved academic outcomes that schools have enjoyed. Also I understand that over 100 corporations in Japan implemented the tm program and that the Japanese Ministry if labour was very impressed with it and sponsored additional research into TM in the work place. At this point the article covers the reception of TM in science and Religion/Spirituality...it would be good to see how it hows been received in education and business. This is a link to a page talking about TM in corporations http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9244531_ITM --Uncreated (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify. I argued strongly that there did not need to be two comments from the Catholic Church that were negative to TM, and two in the length of the article as it was then would be undue weight. After long discussion I felt the Vatican document in the end was probably the better, and I agreed to enter it into the article. I never wanted two statements but I'm trying to compromise here. If I add two negative comments, I added two positive to balance it .... That those two comments were Catholic was simply a matter of the sources I had.... And I mentioned in the comment I made at the beginning of the rewrite that I thought other comments for other religions would be appropriate . You 'll all notice i guess that this whole section is much longer than what we had before. Thus undue weight shifts its balance and there is room for more of everything.

I have attempted to add material based on the discussions to this point in time in which editors were concerned that certain topics they considered to be notable were missing. I note that in googling these topics in Google News Archives, they would appear to be for the most part less notable than thought, and in an effort to satisfy the NPOV notions of everyone, I entered what I could find in strong reliable sources on these topics anyway.

I wouldn't add any new topics to this right now. My preference would be to deal with what we have and then see if it can go into the article. Then after that add other new information with discussion.

Kbob, whatever I have added are not my not my ideas but a summary of text by the author,so I really can't change the words too much. Because of the contentious nature of the article and of the discussions, I am sticking very closely to the wording of the references I cite. Thanks very much for your copy editing :o)...I'll look at the sources and see if I can find a way to clarify the words that are unclear.(olive (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

I think there's a misunderstanding about the principle of "balance". If there are prominent sources that say the sky is blue, and minor sources that say the sky is grey, we don't give equal weight to both viewpoints. Olive brought up WP:WEIGHT before. Giving equal weight to a Cardinal and to a pariah priest is inappropriate and does not gives us NPOV. Please re-read WP:NPOV and try again. Will Beback talk 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I gave more space and material to the cardinal and the Vatican. Will I understand NPOV very well .... and I'll say again, NPOV is not an absolute but is decided on the article by the editors working there in as much as those editors can determine what is notable and what is mainstream for that article and in terms of the media and references. With all of the talk about NPOV here I added material I know is not as notable as some editors think it is ....just to collaborate and compromise so we can move on. I've tried to create some kind of fair balance . If it doesn't suit, say so. Either this rewrite is better than what is in place or its not. If it is not, say so and lets move on. If it is. Put it in place.... and lets move on. and by the way the sky is gray and it is blue. If you live in the Netherlands its mostly gray...So you can see how NPOV can be different for different editors. That's why there is collaboration and community consensus and policies, guidelines...Because there are no absolutes, but there are a lot of opinions ..... It has to be worked out every time :o)..(olive (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

No, NPOV is not negotiable. The majority of editors here seem to share a common viewpoint, but their agreement is not sufficient to override Wikipedia policies. I came to this page because of complaints at WP:COIN, and I was assured that there wasn't a problem. What I see is that major controversies are omitted, and efforts to correct the problem are being stonewalled. I advise mediation, and if not this may need to go to other dispute resolution. From what I've seen, there are very serious problems and I don't believe that the currently involved editors can fix it on their own. Will Beback talk 05:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to go to mediation , but I am truly amazed and astounded at your comment. I have just spent hours writing an entire section attempting to include specific sub sections on viewpoints that have been absent from this article... mantra, puja, with a format that allows for more of the same if and when this rewrite is added.I attempted to use the sources from the original reception section, except Markovsky which seemed a non sequitur, and Heddon because you were ready to remove him from the original article. But I am open to including them again of there is agreement to do so. I took the original sources and used a more summary style which is preferred on Wikipedia as I'm sure you are aware of and have attempted to make sure there is a balance from the negative and the positive views. I have used only the best academic sources I could find deliberately excluding any TM organization material such as Gerace's book except in the first subsection where TM is self defining. I have been completely and totally open to any changes, points, discussions, to throwing my rewrite out or using the old version ... anything....I have yet to see a specific point from you that indicates in anyway what you don't like or disagree with, what we can change , what you want o get rid of, except that you keep talking about NPOV. I myself discussed the comments for the RC church and I would think there is some agreement to add comments from other religious leaders. I have spent a lot of time with policy and working on the policy pages, and I understand it well.... I have never said that NPOV is negotiable . I am saying that what is NPOV on any given article is not predetermined by some nebulous abstract principle or by the opinions of editors working there, but must be determined by what is available about the topic in the sources, and is as well, a "working" policy in which editors have to work at deciding what the NPOV is going to be in that particular article. What major controversies are being omitted. I added puja. I added mantra, and am obviously open to discussing anything else. There is room for anything else with discussion in the format of the rewrite I did. I can't even begin to see how you can say I stonewalling when I spent the hours I did rewriting this section so that we could include topics discussed in this article. Who is stonewalling when you have yet to give me a single point that you would like changed or any direction at all in terms of what is wrong with this rewrite or even whether you like it or want to go with the old version. Your comments are unfair and untrue. But hey, if you want to go to formal mediation, I will be happy to.(olive (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Exactly. (I'm agreeing with Will, not olive) The "reception" section does not cover all of the issues, and doesn't even deal with reception. I would think that a discussion of reception of TM would include (i) that when MMY first tried to introduce TM to the West under the "Spiritual Regeneration Movement" umbrella, it was not well or widely received because it was being promoted and understood as a religious ( or if you prefer, spiritual) practice; (ii) a change in emphasis, promoting TM for alleged health benefits and de-emphasising it as a spiritual practice including a change of name of the organization, occurred in the mid-sixties, the promotion of TM through college meditation societies @ $35, the as well as interest in TM from various celebrities, led to an increase in interest and participation; (iii) that interest largely collapsed in the late 1970's coinciding with disaffection from TM of the same celebrities, increases in fees, the ruling of the court in Malnik that TM was a religion, cutting off government-sponsored school based TM programs, and increasingly incredible and extravagant claims of the benefits of TM - flying, invisibility, the ability to reduce crime, the ability to affect the weather, etc..... leading to the perception that it was a cult. Additional issues would include criticism of the TM organization from Hindu sources that it was an inappropriately sanitized and simplified version of Hindu practices created for Western consumption, that mantra meditation should not be taught separately from an understanding of its religious underpinnings and was not appropriate as a beginning technique for those not practiced in other spiritual practices, and that it was wrong to charge money for teaching meditation techniques. This leads to the fees issue, which include (i) that charging any fee is inconsistent with the traditions on which the technique is based, and inconsistent with the notion that TM is for everyone, and not just reserved for the wealthy; (ii) the dramatic increases in fees over time, leading to a number of TM teachers defecting in protest, offering to teach the technique at reduced prices or for free, or writing books teaching people the technique; (iii) efforts of the TM organization to register and enforce its service mark, leading to retraining and recertification of all TM teachers and in some cases the suspension of teaching in some countries (as an aside, one might also cite MMY's announcement banning the teaching of TM in the UK in reaction to its foreign policy). There is the German government report classifying TM as a cult. Lots more. TM claims that there are no adverse side effects to TM, but there are several scientific studies showing that a significant population of long-time meditators have significant and severe adverse side effects. It's all properly sourced. The Mantras are assigned solely based on age and gender, and while the students are not told this, they are invocations of Hindu gods; advanced mantras in TM_Sidhi are explicitly invocations of Hindu gods. Etc, etc.... Any time anyone has tried to include any of it, it gets excised by a group of editors with direct ties to the TM organization, acting in concert. No neutral or disinterested editory is likely to have the time or inclination to deal with such a group, dedicated to pushing their POV on this and related articles. 13:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladrif (talk • contribs) Fladrif (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Write and source it...and it can be discussed... and by the way check Patanjali for TM Sidhis ...and what else is opinion and incorrect, I wonder.(olive (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

I was assured that the editors here were following NPOV and therefore including all significant points of view. Any text or draft which doesn't include major issues, like the mantra controversy, isn't NPOV. I hope that editors will act quickly to fix the article and bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policies. Will Beback talk 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, you are right, the draft, doesn't cover all possible topics but it does cover many of the Religion topics and viewpoints that have been discussed the past month or so on these pages. Its a very good summary and starting point for editing and discussion in my opinion. If there are other viewpoints that are well sourced than as always we can discuss them and include them in the appropriate section of the article. I am also open to the mediation process if that will make everyone feel more comfortable.--Kbob (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I am not interested enough to get involved in this section - its the "research" I find interesting - but I have to ask, since when did wiki become an advertising leaflet for TM? For this is how it now reads. Funny, very funny. The7thdr (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sections - Alternate Pages

Suggestions:

this page, here, should be about the "Technique of Transcendental Meditation", and people should be gently or firmly shoved in the direction of the "history of" page for the discussion of the TM movement itself, the controversy surrounding it etc. etc. people have been trying to "cram" too much into this one page for a number of years, now, and it just doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcl (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to split off some topics. The ones listed above and also the research section would seem to be good candidates. Will Beback talk 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, it would be good to have another page about the Transcendental Meditation organisation and just have this page about the Transcendental Meditation technique. However I think having a section on the scientific research conducted on TM should remain in this article on the Transcendental Meditation technique.--Uncreated (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do yout think the history should be split while the research should stay? The article is currently about 3200 words in length, of which the research section is about 1500 words and the history section is only 390 words. Especially with those other sections split off, the research section dominates the article. For a variety of reasons, that doesn't seem ideal to create balanced coverage of the topic. Will Beback talk 23:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand the Transcendental Meditation Technique and the so called "Transcendental Meditation movement/organisation" to be very distinct from one another. The practice of the technique does not require any involvement with the "Transcendental Meditation movement/organisation". At the moment we have a lot of information about the "Transcendental Meditation movement/organisation" in the article just not in the history section but also in the reception section and lawsuits section. In fact the history section deals primarily with the history of the organisation and not the technique itself. The research section concerns the research conducted on Transcendental meditation which I would think would be highly relevant to the article...but it is quite long, maybe it could be more concise.--Uncreated (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The "decision" that this article is about the "TM technique" is not something that was arrived at by true consensus. It was pushed by the MUM faculty editors here, and the distinction between the "TM technique" and the "TM orgainization" is taken straight from the MUM style book per one of TimidGuy's posts here. If this article was about the "TM technique" alone it would be about one paragraph long. It is not, and should not be limited in that way just because the TM organization wants it marketed like that. This is not an advertising venue for TM; its supposed to be any encyclopedia. There is a pattern here that anything the TM organization is uncomfortable with is resisted to the last breath of the TM-related editors, and then - if that fails - gets sliced off and hidden in a different article. The article should be about both the technique and the organization that teaches it, including all reliably-sourced information pro, con, and neutral. Fladrif (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif, Who do you define as the TM organisation? Are you referring to the Global Country of World Peace? If you are, as far as I understand it is responsible for the teaching of not just Transcendental meditation, but literally hundreds of other techniques and programs around the world in different countries. To group it in with just one of those techniques does not seem logical to me. --Uncreated (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also if you think the article should be about Transcendental Meditation and the organisation which teaches it, the name of the article should be changed to reflect that.--Uncreated (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is decided upon by whoever is there at the time. Consensus also can change. The organization of this article, some of it made before my time, was decided upon by many editors over time. Assigning those decisions to a few editors would be an incorrect assumption. For example, although it didn't happen at the time the mediator, Philosophus suggested a split off of the research section. Please don't confuse "I don't agree with you" with the accusations you make above. There were and are many good reasons why the editors involved on this article decided to split off sections. Length was a major factor. I'm not sure what is wanted here, but before we decide to make any major changes in the structure of this article, I would like us to clean up the article itself. Anyway could there be a clarification on what is being suggested, if possible. Thanks.(olive (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Possibly a compromise is to have one or two studies here in the different categories researched and then link to a page on the studies. There are at least 350 peer reviewed studies on the technique and that number is growing so a separate article would be appropriate. In fact TM in the schools is growing hugely as well... so that may also be another page.(olive (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I odn't quite understand Uncreated's assertion that the movement and the technique are very distinct. The movement created the technique and is responsible for teaching it. I can't support splitting off other materials unless the overly-large research section is split off as well. Will Beback talk 00:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding Will is that the TM technique was revived by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and he taught people how to teach the technique who were called "Teachers of Transcendental Meditation". It would be good to say something about Maharishi in the article and something about Teachers of Transcendental meditation. However I think there should be a seperate article for the so called "TM organisation/movement". I think olives suggestion in regards to the research is a good one.--Uncreated (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If these topics are split off then summaries will still be left, per WP:SUMMARY. That would cover Olvie's suggestion, which appears to call for leaving some material on the studies. Likewise, some history should be left. Simply picking one study or another would not be as good as summarizing the research as a whole. Will Beback talk 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The research because of the extent of it and in terms of weight might have to have sections and sub sections to give an accurate picture of each area researched.(olive (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

That's a great reason to split it off into a separate article, where it can be treated in depth. There's no need to go into such detail in this article, which is properly an overview. It'd be hard to say that the scientific research, apparently mostly conducted by practitioners, is more important than the history or practice sections. Will Beback talk 03:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the research section is not that it is so long that it needs to be split off. The problem is that it is simply too long, and does not comply with WP:MEDRS or WP:Weight. It consists largely of a list of cherry-picked studies, the results of which are characterized, or in some cases mischaracterized. According to the two meta-studies cited, you can count on the fingers of one hand the studies which are (i) sufficiently documented to even be reasonably reviewed by independent third parties; and (ii) are reasonably "good" in terms of methodology. The first concludes that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from the research; the second indicates that only three of the TM studies can be categorized as "good", and that these do show a small statisticaly-significant reduction in hypertension. I do not think that TM-related research merits a separate article.

It seems to me that the Research section should be much, much shorter - about one or two paragraphs long at most, something along the lines of : The TM organization, in part with funding from the NIH, has sponsored hundreds of studies of the medical effects of TM. These have included examinations of hypertension ^fn, ______,^fn _____ ^fn...(list all of the symptoms/effects studied). The TM organization claims that these studies show..... Some of these studies have been criticized for _________^fn. Two recent meta-analyses of TM-related medical research conclude ...^Fn. Fladrif (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, with the obvious addition of a comment that some researchers have questioned the validity of this research The7thdr (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify where WP:MEDRS is not being met. WP:Weight is also probably not being met, but perhaps not in the way implied above.

I’d like to add a perspective here:

Extent of the research:

There are at least 350 and growing, peer-reviewed studies on benefits of the TM technique. Calling into question those studies calls into question not only the researchers, but the 350 boards that deemed the studies worthy of the publications that published the research. Wikipedia considers peer review and quality of publication to be the standards for inclusion.

Credentials of the so-called TM researchers: The researchers are highly credentialed in terms of their educations, and are respected outside of the TM organizations. For example:

publication in top journals
funding by NIH, which is extremely competitive
TM researchers invited to present at major national venues, such as the annual meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and other professional meetings
TM researchers serving as peer reviewers for major journals and for NIH grant applications
Speaking on Capitol Hill before a White House Commission
Addressing Congressional committees
Robert Schneider, as an individual example, is a prominent researcher, and was elected a fellow of the American College of Cardiology Research.

Some of the independent research institutions that have carried on research on the Transcendental Mediation technique. [15]

Concerning WP:WEIGHT:

As is, this article leaves out whole fields of research, such as the series of studies done in the lab of Archie Wilson (a non-TMer) at UC Irvine on biochemical effects.
Also the body of EEG research.
Our article also completely ignores research done in the field of business.
This is by far the most researched of all meditation techniques. The research is not only highly significant in and of itself, but significant in light of other techniques, and so must be considered highly significant in terms of this article.

Google news [16] Google scholar: [17]

Note that google news archives [18] in this week alone turns out 450 hits for Transcendental meditation the majority positive. Wikipedia says:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all
significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not
include tiny-minority views at all.

For example these would seem to be minority viewpoints if we look at media reports.

Cult [19] Religion [20]

I don’t see that there is anything clear cut in this article in terms of inclusion or exclusion, and all points deserve serious discussion and agreement.(olive (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm not claiming that there shouldn't be any discussion of medical or other research on TM; I am saying that the current section is way too long, and is structured in such a way that it violates both WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT. What do I mean by that? Look at that portion of the article. There are, as you say, literally hundreds of studies on TM. What is special or notable about the roughly 20 individual studies that are summarized here? Why those? Some make sense to mention specifically - for example the two recent meta analyses of the hypertension studies. WP:MEDASSESS would rate those first on the quality of the evidence. Others not so much, particularly some of the older studies which, by all independent accounts, were not rigorously conducted or documented. It is not enough to just keep repeating the mantra "peer reviewed publication". When a study is specifically cited in the article, it is nearly always from a primary, and not a secondary source. Because of that, the editors need to be extra careful to accurately and consisely decribe the conclusions of those sources accurately.

As I said above, I think that the research section of the article would be much better if it were much shorter and simpler and followed the format I suggested above. Fladrif (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the amount of research is highly significant in terms of the mediation techniques and in terms of the research field itself. As long as editors question that research I will repeat that the studies meet the Wikipedia standards for inclusion. The more important point here is the number of studies, including those that are new. This article must represent in terms of weight that significance. So I cannot agree that the section should be shorter, on the contrary. The work is significant and large enough to warrant a split in the article. The Malnak court-case subsection, for example, is inappropriately long as is. The case is thirty years old and the use of TM in the schools in the US, in the "quiet time" program, and in the rest of the world, is becoming more and more significant, especially in the late month or so. Yet, that point has one line and the Malnak case is as a paragraph longer than what you are suggesting the research section should be. That's a very skewed, weight ratio.

The wording of the paragraph you suggest above is pushing a particular viewpoint, and calls into question the quality and validity of the research in the research field as a whole.

"The TM organization, in part with funding from the NIH, has sponsored hundreds of studies of the medical effects of TM."

This statement is inaccurate. Multiple institutions have done research on TM . MUM faculty have done some of this research. Note that the TM organization is a non-existent entity. We use the term here to make discussion easy but its not a reality. MUM, the university, funds itself as does any university, and is independent of any larger organization.

"The TM organization claims that these studies show....." is inaccurate. Whether the TM web sites show anything about the studies is immaterial here. What is material is what the research itself shows, and its publication supports that. As well support for the findings of much of this research is significant in the medical community.

Remember that WP:MEDRS is a guideline and the suggestion that a meta study is the best source is a suggestion... and would also depend on the meta study cited and its applicability. Using Meta studies doesn't preclude using selections from the multitude of other studies.

Why these particular studies where selected, I have no idea... before my time. I agree completely that we would be more within policy if we used more secondary sources, and especially if the studies where cited in terms of summaries of the effects rather than citing the aspects of the studies themselves. That's a big rewrite which I would attempt, but only if the other editors looked at it seriously and with real consideration for its inclusion. Otherwise, its a huge waste of time for me.

We would need to deal with how significant is the concern with the quality of the research and whether it is a minority view which it would seem to be, or a tiny minority view and not worth mentioning as per Wikipedia weight and minority views.

To summarize: Seems we agree:

on use of summary to describe effects of the studies, and use of secondary sources if possible..

and disagree on:

length and so weight, and split off of the research section..

Well... that's a start.(olive (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Clarification:

There is a tendency to think that all people who do TM, or who support its use are followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or members of some kind of organization. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of those who start TM many could care less about where the technique came from and practice it independently of any organization. A somewhat parallel might be to users of Mac computers . The Computer is a tool. Owners of Mac computers may or may not know anything about Steve Jobs, admire him or care anything about what he thinks, although as the Wikipedia article on Jobs notes," His work driving forward the development of products that are both functional and elegant has earned him a devoted following." TM is first and foremost a tool. Nothing else is required of the practitioner once they learn to use it, but to use it. As some audience members said, like Bill O'Reilly in the recent David Lynch/Paul McCartney benefit last weekend, they support the use of the technique, whether they themselves meditate or not is unknown.

I add this clarification to add perspective on aspects of this article. For some, most certainly, the use of TM is a spiritual path (not to be conflated with religious) but for many this is not the case and so many of the so called controversial areas are really of no concern to these people nor is the organization that teaches the technique. This very different from, for example, Scientology. Shear notes in The Experience of Meditationthat Maharishi very deliberately peeled away centuries of overlays to the technique to make the technique something Westerners could use without change of lifestyle or religion.(I'm paraphrasing). Hopefully this will add clarity to our further discussions.(olive (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Olive thanks for that, but this is not a general discussion page about TM - there are many forums on the web for that. If it is meant as some explanation of TM Culture for inclusion in someway in the article, then it is purely personal opinions, insight and research at the moment. If you have sources for this - that are reliable - for inclusion in the article then please kindly supply them. Otherwise we risk going off topic and once again into general discussion and original research. Thanks The7thdr (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of misconception on this page about TM and its so called "followers" that impacts this discussion. I am adding clarification and not discussion points, nor points to add to the article. If there were no misconceptions, clarification wouldn't be necessary. But thanks 7th for pointing out the need for us to stay on track.(olive (talk) 20:10, 11 Apri

Users of Macintosh computers don't claim that their use will reduce crime, and they don't build cities based on Macintosh principles. I don't think that's an apt analogy. This discussion is ranging too far from its moorings - are we still discussing improvements to this article? Will Beback talk 05:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to interfere with Olives analogy but...Will that's the point...the majority of people who practice TM do not think or claim Meditation will reduce crime or build cities or houses based upon "TM principles".--Uncreated (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's stick to discussing the article and leave the extended analogies to other forums. Will Beback talk 06:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Uncreated is exactly right about the analogy I used. I am discussing these points in direct reference to the article. As long as there is confusion as to how applicable research is because of some personal aspect of the researcher's life irrespective of Wikipedia compliance as per peer review and the quality of the publications, and as long as there isn't a clear understanding of who practices TM and why, then we will continue to have needless discussion based on incorrect assumptions, personal comments on editors rather than on edits, and we won't be able to progress. I made a good faith effort to explain some of those issues as I see them. .(olive (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Again, being drawn into what amounts to a forum discussion on TM - everything you have said is personal opinion and original research - all of which may be interesting in a forum on TM, Religion or cults - has no place here. Again, please stay on topic - thanks The7thdr (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page of an article is in fact the very place where opinions and research can be discussed. The discussion page does not function according to the same editing guidelines and policies that govern the article itself. The discussion page functions more in line with behavioural conducts/policy /guidelines.(olive (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

The only purpose of article talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. See WP:TALK. We were discussing whether or not to split off some sections of this article. Is that still the topic? Will Beback talk 16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of whether to split off the article or not was "stuck" in the discussion of whether the research was notable enough to have the weight it does in this article. Part of that discussion focused on who did the research. Thus I have attempted to clarify that issue. Until there is underlying agreement or at least understanding of whether the research is notable and extensive enough to warrant a split off and as to how the "mother" article deals with the research here, we are at an impasse. My position again, is that:

extensive research that is Wikipedia compliant... this focus on personal lives of researchers as explained above a moot point
areas of research have been left out of this article , so research is even more extensive than this article now indicates.
research is significant in terms mediation techniques researched and in terms of research files itself ... see above post
I actually don't care one way or the other . I will not however support shortening the research section if it remains in place and a summary of what is removed needs to be specific rather than a single paragraph as suggested above.
I agree with Fladrif that a summary style describing the effects of the studies on the studies themselves would be more appropriate per WP.(olive (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

The "personal lives" of researchers are relevant if they represent a conflict of interest. If a researcher is a practitioner of TM then that's highly relevant. If the bulk of the research in the article comes from practitioners of TM that's also very relevant.

Rather than focus on individual studies we should try to summarize the topic. If we're goign to mention individual studeies then we should use an objective criteria for prominence- such as mentioing those studies which are most frequently cited or have drawn the most attention. We should not use subjective or non-existent criteria for picking studies to highlight.

Please re-read WP:SUMMARY for how summaries are supposed to be written. Will Beback talk 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the criteria for inclusion. So called conflict of interest is a moot point in terms of research when the studies are peer reviewed, notable and included in quality publications. I assume you are not referring to WP: COI which does not refer to researchers and their research. Until we have agreement to move the studies and leave summaries in place here, it seems we are "jumping the gun". Is their agreement to move the research and to create summaries here? I thought you were in agreement with this. Have you changed your mind? So far I don't see a consensus on this . Faldrif said he doesn't want to move the research. You said you did. Uncreated seems to not want to move it. I could go either way.(olive (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

We should just follow the Wiki guidelines for research sources. As Olive says if we use peer reviewed published research this shouldn't be an issue and if it was it would need to be covered in a seperate section or article. As far as creating a seperate article on TM research it sounds like a good idea as long as there is a substantial summary section here on the TM page--Kbob (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Back On Topic

It seems then that we are back discussing what they should be. It also seems, that everyone is in agreement about summarizing the research section - although, as one would expect, there are differences in opinion as to how "short" or "summarized" this should be. This is only to be expected and is one of the reasons these talk pages exist. So, with this in mind, would someone like to begin putting up an alternative draft for discussion? The7thdr (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't actually have consensus to summarize the research section. We have discussion as whether to summarize if we move the research section from here to a separate article. Since Faldrif is not in agreement with that move, and as he is a major editor right now, I would prefer to have his input before we go any further.
On the table we also have discussion as to whether the research section should cite the studies and the effects of the studies rather than citing the studies and the particulars of the study as is now the case in many instances. So we are dealing with two separate, major, discussion points.(olive (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

"The 7thDr yawns, and considers going off and bugging the Thelemites instead; at least they are slightly less predictable. Wonders were that article on Liber AL vel Legis is again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said when I first stumbled onto this articles, I don't have any dog in this fight, but it was obvious to me, as a disinterested outside observer, that these articles are not neutral, and are grossly skewed in favor of TM. They still are, and much as it would be nice to have a neutral, reliably sourced article on the subject, I'm just not interested enough in the subject matter, and I have neither the time nor the patience to do what is necessary to fix them. Carry on without me. Fladrif (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other whether the research in this article splits off or not although, I'd like to see the section more compliant in terms of listing studies and their effects as I said. Since there is no agreement to make the split right now, and I don't really want to do the work myself I guess the topic should be dropped unless someone comes along who wants to take this project on. I guess at that point the discussion could be opened again.(olive (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't mean to dismiss the subject here in any way ... so if there are others who want to continue well go ahead of course. It seems Faldrif and 7th have pulled out, and I don't really want to take the project on, but of course if there are others interested that's another story.(olive (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Oh, I haven't pulled out dear girl - just waiting in the wings; waiting in the wings The7thdr (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. T'is a play in many acts.(olive (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? The7thdr (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, yooz guys have so much cultcha! :-) --Kbob (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

2005 British Elections

This is fascinating, but I'm at a loss to decide if it goes better in this article, the MMY article, the NLP article or somewhere else. I'm inclined to say here, since this is supposed to be about TM and the instruction in it, so MMY banning the teaching of TM in the UK would seem to belong here. It is definitely notable.

In 2004 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi directed his followers at the Maharishi village, complete with golden meditation dome, at Skelmersdale, Lancashire to meditate with the aim of influencing the British electorate into overturning the Labour government. The day after Tony Blair's Labour Party won reelection in May 2005 despite these efforts, the Maharishi ordered that all instruction in TM cease in the UK. ^[6]^[7] The ban was lifted in August 2007, two months after Blair resigned as Prime Minister. ^[8]

I'm new to all this discussion on TM, but, as we know about any media story, they can spin the facts into a story that may be far from the truth, or just present a version/view of the truth. Perhaps we will never know fully why the Maharishi stopped teaching TM in the UK at that time, and therefore it may be better in a "neutral" Wiki article to just say that TM teaching was stopped in UK from x date to x date. 5/12/2008 Bigweeboy

I think you're right that the wording you suggest would be more neutral, but Wikipedia is primarily a place where sources are used and cited to give second and third party information. So in this case what is in the article as added by Fladrif, I believe, is based on those sources. The media for the most part says about the same thing on this topic, and Faldrif has, if I remember attempted to make the report of the source as neutral as possible. So what we have in the article is probably fine.(olive (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

I am new to the whole debate here. Also, I am not familiar with the history of the TM organization. However, it seems strange to me that there is so much discussion of this one point under the "History" section of this article. From reading the article I learn that the Maharishi started to teach TM in the late 1950's. Elsewhere, we learn that TM is part of a global organization. So, given the fact that TM has been around for 50 years, and is an international thing, why are there so few items in the "History" section? Surely some more newsworthy things happened to TM in these 50 years? Why then give so much importance to the British election item? Perhaps more items could be added to the History section. Bigweeboy 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Where should we put it?Fladrif (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC) One more detail. Fladrif (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This may be interesting, but notable is another issue. As I said to Will, until we can decide on some standard for what is significant or notable, I don't agree to put anything else into this article. I don't intend to make this discussion difficult but i also feel we are wasting our time talking in circles since we have no baseline of agreement on standards for this article.(olive (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Then discussion is not merely difficult; its pointless. Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest mediation. We then have a neutral party assisting us through some of the difficulties we've encountered, and so we can hopefully establish some baseline consistent standards for editing here(olive (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

But you have at least two neutral parties already. Me and WillBeback. A huge part of the problem here is your misperception that neutral parties are hostile to you and to the subject-matter of the article. Fladrif (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Being noted in prominent, mainstream newspapers is a good indication of notability. The fact that it had an impact on the teaching of TM in a large country is another indicator of notability. The material is well-sourced and neutrally presented. I can't see any reason not to add it to the article, and I don't see any policy-based reason given here to omit it either. Will Beback talk 21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The addition is not worded in a neutral manner. Its notability has not been established.

Mediation provides a neutral party. If you were truly neutral you would consider the opinion of another editor here when she asks for a simple discussion to establish consistency instead of pushing through this change at this point in the discussion. I am asking fot a freeze on this article until we can come to some agreement. Neutral editors would honour that. You aren't either of you .

This is inconsistent with your comment about Allen Green. Green appears in a prominent Canadian newspaper. A newspaper that comes out of the provincial capital is a notable newspaper in Canada, but I believe you said this wasn't notable. I guess I don't see that we have any consistency here. I have asked repeatedly that we set a standard. Looks very much like if I do it its not right, but if you two do it is. Interesting dilemma. If you add this to the article you do it without a real consensus. I note Will's comment on the COINB "So if there are, for example, five "pro" editors and two "anti" editors, the "pro" editors can't claim consensus as an excuse for violating NPOV, even if talk page discussions show a clear preference for one version over another." You both believe you are neutral, I don't believe you are , and your addition of this information while innocuous indicates a clear and deliberate attempt to override what ever I have to say or suggest as has been the case through out all of these discussions . Yet Fladrif has refused to be available for mediation . That is his prerogative. Yet, don't try and tell me that either of you cares about the neutrality of this article above what you believe is neutral. ~~If you make this addition at this time you risk an edit war.~~(olive (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

"Its notability has not been established." Huh? Can you explain, especially what you mean by "notability" and "established".

Also, for everyone here, I think this discussion (and all discussions on this talk page) would benefit by concentrating on content issues and avoiding discussions of editors. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz. In addition to his questions, I'm not sure how the presentation of the material is non-neutral. (FWIW, I'd edit out the "complete with golden meditation dome" which seems extraneous to the assertion but which might be suitable in a discussion of the village.) Will Beback talk 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that change to the proposed language. Fladrif (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right! Did anybody call Rracecarr.(olive (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Oh and we should be discussing the edits and not the editors ... stick around Ronz and see how that goes... and maybe check the discussion and the archives.(olive (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

You have constantly stated that editors - me especially it seems - are "attacking" you personally yet every-time someone here wants to include something that TM Limited dislikes you make personal attacks on them - see above. As to your most recent comment above, well, Will has been especially patient with you and has always shown neutrality.

This is starting to look "silly". 2 I will repeat, this obvious intellectually dishonesty is reflecting VERY badly on the academic credentials of MUM and it's academic staff in my opinion. And any future perspective students would be wise to make notes - again in my opinion.The7thdr (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any more discussion of the proposal. If there's no objection to it based on policies then it should be added. Will Beback talk 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been no substantive objection based on any Wiki Policy. I put it in the article with your changes.Fladrif (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. The successful efforts to isolate an editor here are a poor reflection of that environment. You are ignoring a legitimate request. And you are interpreting policy to suit your needs and that interpretation is not consistent. The edit, except for its language may or may not be the concern. I ask again that we define what and how you determine significant, notable not just here but in other places in the article. (olive (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Why was well-sourced and neutrally-presented material deleted from the article? [21] What policy basis was there? Will Beback talk 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I do not agree with the edit. It is not neutrally worded ... that's WP: NPOV. There was no discussion on its placement... and frankly in my opinion it was forced in despite requests for discussion to establish terms for editing ... so you will be able, I'm sure to override my deletion but I do have right to refuse the edit by removing it.(olive (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

"I don't agree" is not a policy reason. You've been asked repeatedly to point out what isn't neutral so it can be fixed if necessary. The placement issue is not a reason for outright deletion - it's a reason to move it to a different section. Again, please either suggest a correction or restore the material. Will Beback talk 00:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For myself I don't think the edit that Fladif contributed is relevant to the article on Transcendental Meditation. I think it would be more appropriate to appear in the article on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. However I think it is notable to comment on the fact that TM was not taught in England for those two years in the TM Article due to the organisation that teaches it not agreeing with the policies of Tony Blair...I'm not sure the reception section is the place for it though...maybe history? The part about Maharishi asking his followers to meditate so Tony would not be re-elected is not so relevant to the TM article...more so to the article about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, or the Natural Law Party...--Uncreated (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We have quite a bit in the article about TM being used to affect physiology, but we don't have anything about its use to affect political elections. So that and the suspension of TM training both appear relevant to this article. It might also be relevant to those other two articles, but if we're going to describe one set of affects of the meditation then I don't see why we wouldn't include this one as well. Will Beback talk 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Will, can you point me to the bit in the sited articles where it talks about TM being used to influence the elections in Britain.--Uncreated (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood:

At the same time he ordered his followers ... to beam peace-loving thoughts to the British electorate with the aim of overtuning the Labour government. [22]

I haven't had a chance to investigate this further. Isn't this along the lines of meditating to reduce crime and warfar - the Maharishi Effect? Or is it something different? Will Beback talk 05:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know TM does not in any way, shape or form involve "beaming peace loving thoughts". To be honest I am unsure what that sentence means...I could guess but it would be OR from my side.--Uncreated (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is. The leaders in village lamented that they only had about 400 people, and the reason the Maharishi's plan didn't work was that they needed twice that number meditating for TME to influence the election. ^[9] Fladrif (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif it doesn't mention that the effect would be created through Transcendental Meditation...I would guess the article is probably referring to the TM-Sidhi program and not Transcendental Meditation, but that would be OR from myside. --Uncreated (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of mediation. All the editors on the page have a bias. This is obvious because we can rarely agree on content or even interpretation of Wiki policies or a agree on a set of procedures for discussion and decision making. There is alot of emotion here, that means editors are not neutral. A mediator would save us all a lot of time and effort. I support Olives application for mediation.--Kbob (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can't even agree on Wiki Policies, then you have no business editing here. And there is no reason, based on the behavior of the TM-connected editors here toward Will, to think that the involvement of yet another impartial Admin will have any effect whatsoever. There is consensus among neutral editors to include this material. It is reliably sourced, neutrally presented, relevant and notable. No subtantive objection whatsoever has been raised to it; no Wiki policy has been cited why it should not be included. Olive simply announces that she won't agree to anything and promises an edit war if anyone crosses her. What's next - holding her breath til she turns blue and passes out? If that isn't reason for her to be blocked, I don't know what is. Fladrif (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Commnets: We have on this page, an implied method, that has been adopted because this is a contentious article, of proceeding slowly to make changes into the article. Kbob asked for permission to add two words, and I suggested a couple of days on a consensus-reached edit before saying I would remove the edit in question. Last night an edit was added so quickly into this article that all editors did not have time to see or comment on the edit, and although I was here, the edit was again added so quickly I didn't have time to even check the sources . The original edit was non neutral. I noted, that in my mind it violated NPOV. I notice there have been changes to it. Its only fair, and speaks of neutrality to give all editors active on this article time to check and think about an edit. This wasn't done. Moreover, when I mentioned (no, not threatened,) the possibility of an edit war if this edit was added, miraculously the calvary showed up. Its perfectly fine in my mind to notify editors of a pending change in an article, but it is also only fair to give all editors with an interest in a contentious article time to comment, possibly a couple of days. People have lives and jobs outside of Wikipedia after all and aren't always available. Yesterdays edit was forced into this article because there was no time given for all editors to comment, and my concerns and comments were ignored.

I will mention that constant references of editors in terms of NPOV, COI and other highly negative personal comments are disruptive and if they continue I will ask for admin assistance.

Suggestions: I have had the time now to look at the sources Fladrif links to. They are highly misinformed in many ways but reliable, verifiable sources and the fact that there were several newspapers in the UK carrying this story would possibly makes the edits notable in a more general sense. Adding them to the reception section seems misplaced since they refer to the Maharishi Effect. I would suggest adding a short comment on the Maharishi effect as a lead into this edit, and then adding the edit. Followers, should be in quotes.

I am adding a draft version of an edit describing the Maharishi effect and then a version of the material on the UK elections . I'm also adding Fladrif's edit. I'm not attached to either my or Fladrif's version.

I would suggest that Fladrif remove his edit for now until we can reach agreement, which shouldn't be difficult. I am attempting to limit myself to a one revert rule so will not make another revert.(olive (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Version1

The Maharishi Effect is described as a positive influence created by 1% of a population practicing the TM technique, and the square root of 1% practicing the Yogic flying technique. In 2004, Mharishi Mahesh Yogi withdrew teaching of Transcendental Mediation from the UK after efforts of Yogic Fliers in Skarmsdale, England to influence the election failed. In 2007, two months after Tony Blair,the British Prime Minister who was seen by Maharishi as responsible for England’s war-like position, resigned, the teaching of TM in the UK resumed.

Version2

The Maharishi Effect is described as a positive influence created by 1% of a population practicing the TM technique, and the square root of 1% practicing the Yogic flying technique. In 2004 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi directed his followers at the Maharishi village at Skelmersdale, Lancashire to meditate with the aim of influencing the British electorate into overturning the Labour government. The day after Tony Blair's Labour Party won reelection in May 2005 despite these efforts, the Maharishi ordered that all instruction in TM cease in the UK. ^[10]^[11] The ban was lifted in August 2007, two months after Blair resigned as Prime Minister. ^[12]

(olive (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

search on google for "TM square root 1 percent population" to get 27,000 hits. i checked the first five pages. only ONE link was something to do with mathematics, not TM Lkcl (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

I really am trying to stay out of this but - the main point of the references is nothing to do with the M effect - it is the fact that TM Limited's CEO - or whatever title you want to give him - officially "banned" the Teaching of TM during a number of years because a political party he did not agree with - and who would blame him as things turned out - won an election. There is no need here to "colour" this part with the "M effect".

Apart from the fact that it is not the "thrust" of what is being said here i have seen this "tactic" used in this article previously. It goes something like this:

1 An editor introduces something that MUM or TM marketing is "uncomfortable" with.

2 "They" then spend much time arguing that it is not "notable" (a favorite) not reliably sourced or "not part of this article

3 it becomes impossible to sustain this argument in the light of rational discourse and the item is included.

4 MUM or TM marketing make a suggestion; it is actually linked to the M Effect", Yogic Flying, Walking through walls, etc and this should be briefly mentioned.

5 In the interests of "keeping the peace" none faculty staff of MUM, TM marketing, etc agree.

6 Things go silent. Editors move on. Other subjects are examined.

7 Members of MUM who could just as easily discuss this over lunch in the MUM canteen. Start a discussion stating that because it has some mention of M Effect, Bunny Hopping or whatever, it belongs in the back-end of TM WIKI they have created that regarding Yogic Flying, etc.

8 off it goes.

This can be found repeatedly through the history of this article. Indeed, if one goes back to this time one will see this article - and all but two editors agreed - that this article was considered to be about the TM "movement" not the mediative practice alone. The7thdr (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask that the addition by Fladriff be removed as the discussion on the topic was not completed. As you know, there has been a common practice on this page to review additions and their wording, here on the discussion page before making changes to the article. This procedure was not followed and so it would be good if it was removed while the discussion is continued.--Kbob (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The process was followed. Not a single substantive objection was presented. The language I proposed was simple, straightforward, accurate, perfectly sourced, impartial, relevant and notable. Neither you nor olive nor Uncreated nor anyone else have advanced a single specific substantive objection. 7th is exactly right about the editing process in these articles. I am not going to permit this to turn into yet another Caucus Race. As for olive's "alternatives" I do have specific, substantive objections: (i) Why discuss TME and the theory of 1% if the population meditating vs SqRt of 1% yogic flying at this point? It's out of place, and unsourced. It might go elsewhere in the TM article, because TME is not exclusively a TM-Sidhi concept. But not here. (ii) her alternative #1 omits the relevant dates, all citations, and that the plan to influence the election was ordered by MMY. Fladrif (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

search on google for "TM square root 1 percent population" to get 27,000 hits. i checked the first five pages: only ONE link was something to do with mathematics, not TM. you should be able to find something in there, Fladrif, which satisfies the craving for sources. Lkcl (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

try this one, which, joy of joys, is the new york times. i'm sure that if you put a little effort in, you would find other sources which regurgitate this 1% and square root of 1% effect jobbie. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/22peace.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/M/Meditation Lkcl (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Still trying to "stay out of this" but i have to agree with Fladrif and disagree with Kbob. There is no need for constant discussion of anything that the TM movement is uncomfortable with; as long as it is relevant, notable and reliably resourced. Fladifs edit is all of these. No one has yet provided a rational reason why it should not be included in its present form. Goodness, this is tiring sometimes. Can't the TM movement see what a negative light this is putting you and is throwing doubt on the academic honesty of your movements research and editing? I address this to no one editor,. Really, from the outside it is embarrassing and somewhat painful to read. The7thdr (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif you have have failed so far to site sources showing how your addition is relevant to this article. I agree that something should be mentioned about TM not being taught in the United Kingdom for those two years...but the information that you have added "In 2004 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi directed his followers at the Maharishi village at Skelmersdale, Lancashire to meditate with the aim of influencing the British electorate into overturning the Labour government." Doesn't seem to have anything to do with Transcendental Meditation from the sources you have provided. Perhaps you could site the relevant sentence or paragraph from the sources you have provided.--Uncreated (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncreated, you are kidding aren't you? S/he hasn't cited resources to say its not relevant to the article? Perhaps you want him to cite a resource saying that this can be cited in WIKI? :-) "

"but the information that you have added "In 2004 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi directed his followers at the Maharishi village at Skelmersdale, Lancashire to meditate with the aim of influencing the British electorate into overturning the Labour government." Doesn't seem to have anything to do with Transcendental Meditation from the sources you have provided"

So, let me get this right, its ok to cite that the CEO of TM limited said that TM could not be taught in the UK but not why he made this decision. No context? No rational? Please. The7thdr (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The7thdr: the reasons were several - and you're not going to like them. 1) Tony Blair was a war-mongerer who was not in the slightest bit interested in stability or peace. having such a person as a Prime Minister was a seriously bad idea. 2) not quite in exactly these words, but close to it, Maharishi stated that if the UK population was so stupid as to vote in a war-mongerer, then they were not welcome to benefit from the stabilising effects of TM. 3) on the basis that evil tends to become more obvious when there is less stabilising to counteract it, Maharishi ordered everyone OUT of the country, or to get as fast as possible into Vaastu (spiritual-protecting) homes. 4) in this way, Maharishi surmised that the UK population would, thick as two xxxxing short planks as it was (overall - not all of it, obviously), be able to get through its stupid thick collective head that there was something desperately wrong with its leaders, much quicker and much more obviously than if the TM meditators were "accidentally" stabilising the country. 5) additionally, TM practitioners, by leaving the country, would not be subjected to quite so much stress. The7thdr: you should by now be going "oh. ah. um. err. i see." and perhaps now have a clearer idea of why it would be inappropriate to put such a description onto the page which describes the "Transcendental Meditation Technique" rather than describing "The History Of The Transcendental Meditation Movement", yes? Lkcl (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would I not like the fact that you state Blair and the entire - with one or two exceptions - Labour cabinet were a warmongering cabinet. Is this something I am not supposed to know? :-). But this makes no difference to the inclusion of the piece in this article. The facts are, TMs CEO asked a bunch of TMrs to bunny hop to stop a political party being elected (this raises some interesting questions about the M effect by the way. TM maintains that it generates "peace and love - man" in the surroundings of those doing it. However, in this instance tms ceo seemed to think it would have the effect of changing peoples thoughts about who to vote for - a form of occult "mind control"? Interesting. Secondly, if Labour had not won the election the |Tories would have done and they were just as pro war as labour.

Secondly, and as commentators have mentioned, why was the teaching of TM not withdrawn from the USA for the very same reason - a pro war, war mongering country? Indeed, TMs CEO had requested America's TM bunny hoppers to bunny hop to stop G W Bush Junior being elected also - once again without success.

Am I going ""oh. ah. um. err. i see."? Alas no. The7thdr (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

References

[1] ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/15/health.healthandwellbeing

[2] ttp://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903310312

[3] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=N6RtrzRvhh8C&pg=PA65&dq=Transcendental+Meditation+religion&ei=ILfBSZTyOZOqMs7DgeoL

[4] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=nJAIuE-s5sYC&pg=PA15&dq=Transcendental+Meditation+clergy&lr=&ei=2LbBSeDBEYzKM7zgwZQL

[5] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=qPDrZu9c7dkC&pg=PA131&dq=Transcendental+Meditation+clergy&ei=VKPBSfzDNoSyNqGH6cEL#PPA131,M1

[6] "All you need is love and peace - but not in destructive Britain, so the Maharishi pulls out" The Guardian (August 15, 2005

[7] "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" The Telegraph (February 7, 2008)

[8] "The mystic who inspired The Beatles: The town that lost its guru" The Independent (February 7, 2008)

[9] "The town that lost its guru" The Independent (August 17, 2005)

[10] "All you need is love and peace - but not in destructive Britain, so the Maharishi pulls out" The Guardian (August 15, 2005

[11] "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" The Telegraph (February 7, 2008)

[12] "The mystic who inspired The Beatles: The town that lost its guru" The Independent (February 7, 2008)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]