Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

the generic problem with anti-TM activists

Over the past several months, there has also been a systematic attempt to delete :edits that might adversely affect recruitment into TM and its corollaries. Examples of recent deletions: the statements 1) that MMY's publications include a translation of the Bhagavad-Gita (Hindu scripture) and the lengthy poem "Love and God," 2) that the mantras used in TM are based on age and gender, 3) that some TM teachers have broken with MMY and are offering the technique at reduced price, and 4) most of the comments concerning sexist practices within the TM organization. This is part of a long-standing pattern of concealment designed to make TM appear as bland as possible to enhance its appeal to prospective initiates (a "facade"). It also points up an important characteristic of the TM organization, namely, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's zero tolerance for dissent, which makes his program incompatible with the open, democratic society that has allowed him to spread his message. It would be refreshing to see, for a change, a little openness and honesty and tolerance for intellectual freedom from an organization that is supposed to be selling "Enlightenment." Ironically, censors never seem to understand that the only thing gained by hiding the truth is the eventual disillusionment, distrust, and dislike of those they deliberately attempt to mislead. This is one of the reasons why a significant number of people who once learned TM have removed themselves from all contact with the organization. One can easily see the dwindling support for TM in the organization's group publicity photos in which the numbers have grown progressively smaller as the "movement" has reduced its appeal to those individuals willing to acquiesce in having their private lives "Vedicized." Interestingly, even some of these group shots have been staged to make the numbers look greater, usually by spacing the sparse course participants far enough apart to make the group appear larger than it actually is. To the discerning eye, this communicates a pathetic under-estimation of the perceptiveness of the viewer. (This comment will probably be deleted by TM proponents.)

(left out his or her signature - User:149.152.216.49)

If if is deleted, they could face serious discipline because that would be vandalism. Removing other contributors' comments from talk pages is a serious no-no. It's utter censorship. Askolnick 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Over the course of the last month it has became clear that this article suffers from disruption by several committed anti-TMers. The conclusion has been arrived at by investigating the sources used when inundanting the article with unsubstandiated rumours and other nonsense.

• If a clinical study proving the adverse effects of TM exist - now is the time to present it (no more journalistic BS taken from dedicated anti-TM sites).

• If allegations of fraud about etc are made, back this up with court documents.

As the matter now stands what some editors i.a. claim, that a highly placed laywer in the TM Movement actually contacted the authorities and reported what amounted to criminal activity - where is the police investigation? Where is the trial? Where is the verdict?

In the absence of these, any normal person with some experience of such matters will only conclude that the allegations wasn't even worth the alleged paper this alleged attorney allegedly wrote it on.

I think wikipedia admins need to start taking the phenomenon of underhanded organized subversive activity on this site seriously.

Peterklutz 21:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"It has become clear..." to whom?

"The conclusion has been arrived at by investigating the sources ..."

Who did this investigation and who did this concluding?

Peterklutz, you really need to begin behaving more rationally. You're talking as if you've been appointed King of Wikipedia. You should know enough of Wiki policies by now to know that an article certainly CAN mention allegations of fraud without "court documents." All that is necessary is to cite reputable published sources that the allegation was made. What's more, I cited a court-filed affadavit which contained those charges. A fact you conveniently ignored.

You need to watch your own conduct. You are pissing off more and more Wiki administrators with your disruptive conduct and increasingly bizarre charges of conspiracies of "organized underhanded subversives." Askolnick 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I believe it is time to consider an RFC or other formal action to put a stop to Peterklutz' persistant vandalism of this article. If you agree, please speak up. Askolnick 03:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

AFter some investigation, I think you're correct about the lawyer reference. I don't think "alleged" is the proper term to use, but since he left service (I think) at MUM before it was accredited about 1980, and before any peer-reviewed research was published under its auspices, his testimony isn't exactly relevant for anything published in the past 25 years or thereabouts. Any peer-reviewed research published before then wasn't directly from MUM/MIU, as far as I can tell. Perhaps he's referring to the Collected Papers Volume I research, with I certainly will agree includes a lot of, at best, "preliminary" in-house research that isn't worth much.Sparaig 01:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your are wrong Sparaig. As MUM's legal counsel and director of the university's grants programs, DeNaro was able to speak with authority about the TM movement's fraudulent efforts to portray itself as pursuing science rather than promoting Maharishi's religious agenda. The movement continues today its deceptive use of pseudoscience to hide its religious agenda.Askolnick 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text of Denaro's affidavit as I found in a newsgroup archive. A typo I noticed a few years ago still leaps out. Others have speculated that he meant to say he left MIU in July 13, 1976. not 1975 since that would make him a Time Lord:

5. On November 21, 1975 I began work as Director of Grants Administration at MIU, and had over-all responsibility for all of the grants and funding programs including World Plan Executive Council- United States (WPEC-US).

I was also legal counsel and reported directly to either Ed Tarabilda, Vice President of Legal Affairs and/or Steve Druker, Executive Vice President. In addition, I had a full time teaching schedule in economics and business law. Prior to coming to MIU I was initiated into the practice of TM.

My wife worked at MIU as an administrator and researcher, and we resided in Frat #108. I continued to work as a professor of law and economics until my last day on campus, July 13, 1975.

Denaro obvious feels that the people at MIU/MUM were pretty awful and that MMY himself is even worse:

23. In his more subtle and very sophisticated way Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his charlatanism is [sic] a far more destructive and dangerous cult leader than Jim Jones who induced more than 900 people to commit suicide in Guyana.

Regardless of the validity of his claims, the fact that he was there for [say] 18 months in the mid-70's, 5 years before MIU/MUM received accreditation, means that he doesn't have much to say about the research that was published from 1980 on, after the school was accredited. There was very little, if any, peer-reviewed research coming at of MIU/MUM during that time, at least according to pubmed.

Wallace RK, the founding president of MIU, published 3 papers in 1970 and 1971, and nothing more appears in pubmed until 1981. Dillbeck, MC published a paper in 1977, and nothing more until 1981. Orme-Johnson DW published a paper in 1973, and nothing more until 1981.

These were the three principle MIU researchers for many years, I believe, and none of them appears to have published a peer-reviewed paper during the period that Denaro was at MIU/MUM. Orme-Johnson may have done the research for his 1977 paper while Denaro was there, however. It seems very likely that Denaro was complaining (and rightfully so, IMHO) about the sloppiness of much of the early in-house research that often made it into TM brochures from that period. but that stuff was likely often done on a shoestring budget.

Also, David Orme-Johnsonhttp: asserts this:

Replies to Allegations that Maharishi University of Management Suppresses Negative Research: Dennis Roark and Anthony Denaro. Two former faculties of Maharishi International University, Dennis Roark and Anthony Denaro, have made allegations that the university has suppressed negative research results. Neither Dennis nor Tony were involved in the research at MIU, so they are not in a position to be "expert witnesses". I have had various key roles in the research at the university as Director of the International Center for Scientific Research, Chairman of the Psychology Department and Director of its doctoral program, Co-Director of the doctoral program in the Neurophysiology of Consciousness, and Dean of Research. I hardly knew Tony Denaro at all, and several other faculty that I have talked to don't even remember his ever being there. That I didn't know him is significant in this context, because he, being a lawyer, was never involved in the research, so he is hardly in a position to comment on the research process. Even if he had heard second or third hand accounts, I have not heard of any specific instances cited by him to back up his claims, which are untrue.

The comments by Dennis Roark came from a letter cited on an anti-TM website, in which he states that the research at MIU is "fraudulent in many ways”. The only specific instance that he cites is his doubts about EEG research on Yogic Flying. I was senior author on the study and co- author on a subsequent replication of the study, so I am very familiar with the methodology used.

The issue Dennis raised is whether the EEG can be measured during gross body movement because of the artifacts produced by movement. There are many EEG studies of runners, astronauts, etc., where the subject is moving. One approach to dealing with artifacts that many scientists use is to remove them with digital filtering. Another, more conservative approach, which we used, was to eliminate from the date is set epochs with artifacts in them. Figure 4 in the original 1977 paper show a trace of raw EEG data typical of the Yogic Flying session that is without artifact, and the coherence spectral array shows increased EEG coherence at that time. Thus, the coherence effect was not due to artifacts.

Sparaig 08:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, as head of MUM's grants programs, DeNaro IS and expert witness on how the university and the TM movement used (as it continues to do) gross deception to sell their guru's religious teachings as science. We certainly don't expect the people he's accused of fraud to agree with him. Duh! Of course they deny it. But that doesn't make the accusations go away -- especially since similar misconduct has been amply documented -- by me and many other reporters and investigators. Wikipedia is not the place to conduct a "trial." It is sufficient to cite the allegation and the fact that it is disputed by the TM movement.

Nice try at obfuscation. What has Orme-Johnson's attempt to discredit Dennis Roark to do with anything in this article? Roark is not relevant since there's nothing about him in the article! Any more straw man arguments you want to erect to knock down? Askolnick 15:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just cut and paste the whole comment by Orme-Johnson. Sorry to let it go over the limit of what was relevant. Sparaig 16:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

who is responsible for deciding when to archive a talk page?

Just wondering. Sparaig 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Any editor can archive or refactor an article's talk page, it depends on the size of the page, how current the discussion is, readability of the page - things like that. Check these articles out: How to archive a talk page and Refactoring talk pages. Dreadlocke 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is complete text of denaro?

The only complete text of denaro's affidavit I could find was quoted in a newsgroup. All the other links to the text appear to be broken, unless someone can dredge up a findlaw search for it, whcih I'm not very good at. Sparaig 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Law text..? The guy may have a point re the sorry state with mid-level TM pencil pushers, but he sure shot himselfin the foot with that James Jones 900-killed analogy. The article reminded me of my own experiences with TM management, experiences I would find universal to all organisations driven by,or entertaining, some sort of idea or ideology - including political parties.

For the benefit of critical-minded eaders I would like to ask himor her to consider these possible interpretations of DeNaros'affidavit: (1) the guy is hysteric; (2) MUI in the 1970s indeed was a really harrowing place; (3) this whole hyperbole deal: be it experiences of TM or the fervour with which TM is attacked, is victim to some sort of Texan or American syndrome - why does it have to be so BIG?

I am sure the situation in the TM Movement in other parts of the world is quite different :-)

Peterklutz 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Panchakarma

BTW, Andrew, Panchakara (5 actions) includes enemas and other "actions" held to be therapeutic in the Ayurvedic tradition. Sparaig 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. But that doesn't mean Panchakarma = "Maharishi Ayurveda." Panchakarma is an ancient prescientific practice. "Maharishi Ayurveda" is a recently introduced, trademarked line of health products and services being sold by the TM movement. TMers are always playing three-card Monte with words. And I'm one of the cops out to break up the crooked games.

It was wrong to define "Panchakarma" as "Maharishi Ayurveda." That's why I changed it and explained the most invasive and questionable part of the treatment. But I will make it better by adding the words "which includes" to the parenthetical explanation. Askolnick 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Enemas were often the most effective way of introducing medication and nuitrition prior to IV's and injections, you know. There may be little or no scientific evidence that the specific treatments used in Panchakarma are of value, but to characterize herbalized enemas as "most questionable" is more-than-a-stretch. Sparaig 07:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More strawman arguments and obfuscation from Lawson English. TMers are not selling enemas to provide nutrition or medication. They're selling their enemas with the false claim that they remove mystical toxins from the body (which Maharishi calls "Ama"). To call these enemas the most questionable part of Panchakarma is no "stretch." If Lawson wants to argue this, let him cite some studies in Medline that show these enemas are safe and effective. Askolnick 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever. My point is simply that if the herbs used have any therepeutic value (not claiming they do), then using enemas to deliver them is the [very] old school way of doing it. Even modern medicine uses enemas and suppositories as a medical delivery system in some situations. BTW, for what it is worth, there IS a published, peer-reviewed study on the utility of using panchakarma, or at least parts of it, to remove toxins from the body: [1]. Sparaig 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Skolnick and other anti-TM activists

Not all the people who have edited this article are "anti-TM activists." Some of us are educated people who have had direct experience with the TM organization over an extended period of time and who, having maintained our intelllectual independence, wish to pass on our observations so that others can make an informed decision as to whether to involve themselves in TM and its corollaries. The article in Wikipedia should not be turned into just another propaganda vehicle for recruiting the unwary.

The reasons for restoring your current reverts to the evident smear-campaign version of this article are not ideology - but editorial. All the allegations you make are found, albeit in a more encyclopedic fashion (in a neutral narrative form) - as opposed to inundating the article hyperbolic citations made by people in what appears to be a strong state of affect.

In fact, in the restored/current version I linked directly to attorney DeNaro's affidavit - instead of the anonymous dedicated anti-TM site behind-the-TM-facade.org. Which could be construed as even more devestating to TM (if that is you objective).

You say behind-the-TM-facade is not anonymnous.

If you have any information about it, feel free to share it here. Until this happens, I can only continue to observe that a whois lookup confirm (1) it is anonymous; that (2) it is somehow connected to a sex toy vendor (unstress4less), and (3) perhaps - given the registered contact name of the anonymous site owner - set up and operated by competitors to the TM Movement - TM defectors hoping that people learn their TM ripoff technique.

About you, Andrew: I've checked what I understand to be your personal site and it appears to me you are an organized member of a group calling itself BRIGHT. When it comes to editing the TM article, being an ideological atheist makes you no different from representatives of competing religious sects.

Here's my question to you and everyone one of your kind: Why don't you create a/o maintain an article about your thing - in your case BRIGHT? Why do you go outside your own turf and attack others? What is this negative thing that burns inside you and propels you to go out and defame, tear down, and destroy?

Why can't you and your kind simply live and let live?

Peterklutz 08:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What you actually mean is why can't I lie and let lie. Sorry, Peterklutz, I prefer the truth and I dis those who use falsehoods -- such as your claim that I am an organized member of BRIGHT. I have a link to the group on my web site under "Paranormal" sites (in fact, the link is old and doesn't even work!). Other than that, there's nothing. And a Google search will show nothing connecting me with the group -- for good reason: I'm not involved with it.

You're really climbing into the gutter in your campaign to vandalize the TM article and attack anyone whose speech you disagree with. Askolnick 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The BRIGHT link worked just fine when I visited it. Peterklutz 17:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, behind-the-tm-facade.com now has a non-penis-enlargement-related home page. Were I paranoid, I would think the webmaster is monitoring this discussion... OK, so I 'am" paranoid --sue me. Sparaig 02:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not paranoid, Sparaig - the person(s) who run(s) the site appears to have a long history of anti-TM activism.

I don't know who bankrolls it, but the administrative contact is given as the admin at www.elkgrove.net), a California ISP.

The upside of the attempt to consilidate all the alleged TM-negative "research" on one site is that anyone who wishes to form their own opionion just has to check the reported sources and see what they are worth (I did that myself and was pleasantly surprised at how thin it all is, you just need to scrape a little on the surface to learn that there really isn't anything under it - especially when compared with original TM research).

as far as concern the Meditation Information Network, I've already mentioned that this guy runs a number of anti-sites, one of which got him into trouble..

Peterklutz 06:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bah. Leaving aside any anti-TM activities, the existence of the "People Eating Tasty Animals" webiste idea was pretty darned funny, IMHO. The courts lack a sense of humor. Sparaig 11:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sure the judges smiled too.

But when you consider the resources put into it, the whole deal starts to taste a bit funny. Who would bankroll the hijacking of an anti-meat industry site? A private person out of his own pocket just for the fun of it?

And just who keeps funding this guy's other anti-sites?

Peterklutz 12:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The guy himself. IIRC, he had a GF or other close friend who committed suicide and he blames TM for the death. Sparaig 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no suicide involved. I did watch someone who I cared about at the time have a real hard time of it after finishing the TM-Sidhi course, and also observed a lot of general weirdness around movement activities and the people involved with them. I also find it pretty funny that after all these years, some people are still going around babbling about how websites must be "bankrolled" or "funded." My sites, incrementally, cost me nothing more than the price of a domain-name registration - less than ten bucks a year for most of them. Mike Doughney 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mike. Thanks for correcting my well-known bad memory of the situation. I can sympathize with the TM-Sidhis issue. 22 years after learning them, I'm still torn between "good thing, bad thing" POVs concerning my participation. Sparaig 20:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

confessions of ignorance (copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sethie)

Ran a check to list the top editors[2]

Toward the top of the list I found i.a. Sethie, here's what SFacets and he - one of the article's other TM-critical editors have to say with reference to his own knowledge regarding a subject CFacets persistenly defames:

SFacets: I agree that there is alot of pro-TM biased editing, however it is important to let them contribute to the article for it to grow (after all followers are logically the ones who would know the most about the organisation). Of course the edits made should be monitored..

Sethie: I concur 100%. Since Peterklutz, 186. has been around, I believe the articles have improved, a lot... I am definatley opposed to totally censuring anyone, unless every edit is absurd...

Peterklutz 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My point here - please take note of this wikipedia admins - is that the top "contributors" to the TM and MMY articles by their own admIssion don't know what the subject-matters they are editing.

My guess is that unless wikipedia adapts its policy to the facts on the ground in Cyberspace; it will in time stagnate (as admins choosen by popular vote) are more concerned about their own popularity as hostile editors pull wikipedia down into the gutter - as the admin elite entrenches itself and proves to become an immovable layer of article-subject ignorance

Bon chance!

Peterklutz 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Peterklutz, this is more of YOUR confession of ignorance. As a long time authority on TM "science" and a major contributer to the TM Wiki article, I've never "admitted" that I "don't know what the subject-matters [I am] editing." That is a baseless claim from someone who is conducting a persistent campaign of disruption and disinformationi. You've been warned repeatedly to cease this misconduct, but you've chosen to ignore everyone's warnings. Our patience is about to run out. Askolnick 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

attempt to find a resolution to Askolnick's edit war

If you are serious about getting this resolved, Andrew, I have two suggestions: (1) desist from portraying yourself as some sort of wikipedia official, threatening your fellow editors with an array of reprisalswith from the wikipedia arsenal (2) stick to the facts (one of which is that that your name is not mentioned in the section re subject-matter ignorance)

If, or when, you do this,you may want to consider these rationales for my latest edits:

• the TM-Sidhi Program is a discrete subject-matter not to be confused with the Maharishi Effect (the effect can be produced in more than one way), hence a more encyclopedic and reader-friendly way to present information about these two subjects as (1) explaning what the TM-Sidhi program is; and (2) in the Maharishi Effect secion explain that - and any existing controversies
• When writing for an encyclopedia it is better to summarize subjects rather than inundate articles with lengthy harangues of defaming hyperbole. It's just bad style. Being a journalist, which I understand is your claim, you are held to a higher standard in this regard than other editors. My conclusion, based on this and your bias, is that you keep coming back on purpose to maintain the Transcendental Meditation article in it's presently degraded, crippled state.
• Your deciscion to remove the bullet point summaries with links from the Maharishi EFfect section screams of prejudice. You may not like the findings proposed by ISTPP - but with what right do you deprive readers of their freedom to form their own informed opinion...?

The extent to which the TM Movement appears to have gone to test their hypotehsisis is quite news worthy. The world has no shortages of loonies, but this bunch have actually put serious resources into testing a superbly outlandish theory. Where is your sense for scope journalism? People just might want to know this - if for no orther value than sheer infotainment.

What people don't want is to drown in hyperbole defecated all over the article by fundamentalists of various shades.

Andrew if you're going to call yourself a journalist in the future, put your money where your mouth is and contact ISTPP; get their study; peruse it for weaknesses; if and when you spot these; build a case and confront Hagelin and demand explanations. If, after doing all of this, you still have a case - take a deep breath, relax and congratulate yourself. You are no longer to hostage to your fears that TM scientists actually might know something you don't.

To any wikipedia admin who happens to read this: if you're too young or inexperienced to understand what'sgoing on here - there just might be seniors in your organization in a position to help.

Peterklutz 16:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

vandalism by moi?

Andrew, you justified your reverting of my edit of the lawsuit text because I was being a vandal. Here is your original text, followed by my revision:

MUM has been sued by the parents of the killed student on the basis that TM might be dangerous for mentally disturbed people and for not taking actions to protect the victim after he had been violently attacked earlier in the day by the mentally ill student[3].

Here is my revision which you then reverted, calling it vandalism:

MUM has been sued by the parents of the killed student on the basis that TM might be dangerous for mentally disturbed people and for not taking actions to protect other students after the first violent attack earlier in the day by the mentally ill student[4].

Here is what your own link says. Why is it vandalism to modify your contribution to be more in-line with what your link says?:

The lawsuits say university employees ignored the first attack, resuming classes and blaming the attack on Sem’s improper meditation.

Sem was placed in the custody of Joel Wynsong, the university’s dean of men, and taken to Wynsong’s apartment on campus, where he stole a paring knife, court documents said.

He then fled the apartment and went to the dining hall where he stabbed Butler, records show.

The lawsuits allege the university was negligent for failing to recognize the threat Sem posed to students, reporting the initial attack to authorities and keeping Sem away from other students after he attacked Killian. [emphasis mine]

Sparaig 17:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lawson, I apologize for my misunderstanding. My memory of the murder at MUM was faulty. I made that correction because I wrongly thought that Sem attacked the SAME student twice the same day, rather than attacking two separate students. Sorry. When the article is unlocked, you or I should change it back to your version. Askolnick 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

However, I accused you of vandalism when you deleted a large amount of material I had added to the article simply because you don't want it in the article. In your own words, you "put" your "own 2 cents in" by censoring out that all that information[5]. What you did was nothing less than censorship. You thought the information is harmful to the religious group you belong to so you put yout "2 cents" in by taking all of it out. You are NOT ALLOWED to put your "own 2 cents" into any Wiki article. No one is. Only material that is relevant, that has a neutral point of view, and that is supported by a reputable source may be included in Wiki articles. Your "own 2 cents" should be kept in your own pockets from now on. Askolnick 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 So the Universty DID do something after the first attack? Peterklutz 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not nearly enough, IMHO. Sparaig 22:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. If a person is Hell bent to commit an act, they are very hard to stop. From what you say the only step that might have prevented the killing would have been for MUM staff to physically attack Sem and incapacitate him before it happened. Doing this would have meant MUM staff breaking the law, since Sem at the time was cooperative and apparently accepted being taken into custody and followed the Dean to his room/office. I would be very surprised if MUM is not vindicated on this point.

Finally, how many Rambo-types do you know that are jumping the foam in Fairfield? :-)

Peterklutz 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For once, Peterklutz is right. Without a Rambo around, there was nothing the Maharishi University of Management's administration could have done to protect that poor student from being murdered with a knife from the Dean's kitchen.

It clearly would have taken a Rambo-type to force the TM administrators to call the police and report that a schizophrenic student, who had stopped taking his medication, had stabbed another student in the face with a pen. That would have drawn public attention to a serious mental health problem on a campus that is supposedly enjoying Heavenly Bliss. It would have taken a Rambo-like hero to force the administration to go public. That it was their ethical and legal responsibility to report a violent crime, that it was their duty to protect the safety and lives of their students was not compelling enough. It would have taken Rambo to force them to pick up the phone and call the police. Instead, the mentally ill and violent student was able to pick up a knife from the dean's kitchen, go back out on campus, and stab another student to death.

Rambos and the police; they're never around when you need them.Askolnick 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The police were never called... Sparaig 23:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Andrew above. If you check the lnk you provided, the deletion was done by Peter, not moi. As far as I recall, I haven't deleted or reverted or whatever any substantial portion of this article. At best (or worst), I've added a bit to give an alternate point of view to provide balance, at least IMHO. If you feel this is wrong, fine, but please castigate me for things I have done, not things someone else has done. Sparaig 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right again and I apologize. Looking now, I see that it was Peterkurtz who deleted it not you. Sorry Lawson, you are not guilty of vandalism or anything resembling it. I struck out my comment above and appologize for my mistake.Askolnick 11:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry. I'm sure I will be doing plenty of stuff to earn your ire in the future... ;-) Sparaig 18:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read some of the discussions above in which Andrew Skolnick is involved

..and of the two remaining alternatives of who this persona is, (1) an ideological dead-ender; or (2) a paid (government?) debunker, I think the odds are stacked in favor of the latter.

Why?

Because of this man's automaton-like response-pattern to Sparaig.

In all likelyhood not the only such experience of an unpleasant and prevalent phenomenon (young and impressionable?) wikipedia admins are exposed to.

Peterklutz

Page protection

Considering the ongoing damaging revert war, I plan on keeping the article fully protected until a consensus version is agreed on this talkpage, or else a consensus that protection has become unnecessary and constructive editing can begin. To see how the word consensus is used on Wikipedia, please click on the link. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. Askolnick 00:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Given that Andrew is convinced that I'm reverting pages (when I have not), presenting a totally biased view of TM (as though he's not), that he considers rewording something to more accurately reflect his cited reference to be "vandalism," and that Andrew was paranoid enough about me to ask people if they were me simply because they disagreed with him in other wikipedia disputes, even though it has been years since our last internet exchange, IIRC, I think the term "when hell freezes over" applies to the assumption that "concensus" will be reached amongst all parties. I HAVE been trying to reach concensus about this article from the moment I started contributing, BTW. I challenge anyone to show me instances where I have not. While I may be being paranoid myself (or at least, arrogant about how important I am to him), it seems to me that Andrew's extreme level of participation in this article started after I first made a contribution. Sparaig 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia would grind to a halt if "consensus" meant 100% agreement. That's why I asked you to click on the link; the word isn't used in exactly the same way on wiki as in the, uh, real world.

BTW, everybody please note that I can insert things that are generally agreed, if I'm around. I won't do that with any kind of debatable consensus, though. But noting Askolnick's apology above, about a pretty minor detail — "Sorry. When the article is unlocked, you or I should change it back to your version." — I've made the change. (Protest here if you disagree with it.) Bishonen | talk 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

As already stated by myself in the opening para of this dispute (whihc foloowed my request for admin assistance), is ummed up above. Please find them repeated here: the TM-Sidhi Program is a discrete subject-matter not to be confused with the Maharishi Effect (the effect can be produced in more than one way), hence a more encyclopedic and reader-friendly way to present information about these two subjects as (1) explaning what the TM-Sidhi program is; and (2) in the Maharishi Effect secion explain that - and any existing controversies When writing for an encyclopedia it is better to summarize subjects rather than inundate articles with lengthy harangues of defaming hyperbole. It's just bad style. Being a journalist, which I understand is your claim, you are held to a higher standard in this regard than other editors. My conclusion, based on this and your bias, is that you keep coming back on purpose to maintain the Transcendental Meditation article in it's presently degraded, crippled state. Your deciscion to remove the bullet point summaries with links from the Maharishi EFfect section screams of ejudice. You may not like the findings proposed by ISTPP - but with what right do you deprive readers of their freedom to form their own informed opinion...? The extent to which the TM Movement appears to have gone to test their hypotehsisis is quite news worthy. The world has no shortages of loonies, but this bunch have actually put serious resources into testing a superbly outlandish theory. Where is your sense for scope journalism? People just might want to know this - if for no orther value than sheer infotainment. What people don't want is to drown in hyperbole defecated all over the article by fundamentalists of various shades. Peterklutz 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, don't plan your strategy to "resolve" this by letting some more time pass and then unlock the article satisfied with Askolnick et al doing some feet shuffling, because if you fail to uphold wp editorial styles and rules now, I reserve the right to escalate this in the wikipedia organization. Somewhere along the line the chance is someone will see the bigger picture of what is going on and do something about it.

Oh, and by the way (in case you haven't noticed), the only person that has has deserved having the V-word thrownat him or her is Askolnick - the sorry fact that he and his likes scream bloddy murder as soon as someone dare substitute one of their derogatory invectives with a fact only servers to highlight the moral standard of these individuals.

Peterklutz 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave the page protected for as long as necessary, so everybody had better get started on the compromise thing. Peter, your confrontational habits of speech (certainly I don't see anybody else on this talkpage persistently attacking the motives of everybody else the way you do) and editorializing editing isn't going to make it any easier to reach a consensus that includes you. I hope there eventually will be a version that satisfies everybody, but if you choose to stonewall, "consensus" doesn't have to include you; read Wikipedia:Consensus and see. And you shouldn't make the mistake of supposing me young and impressionable. I'm neither. Bishonen | talk 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Well, Andrew's willing to apologize when he's completely in the wrong on something, but he's been quite willing to toss accusations in my direction based on his mis-reading what I have said and done here, colored by his perception of me in the past. Sparaig 02:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

TM censors keeping busy at Wikipedia

The TM censors have also deleted the sentence about TM teachers who have broken with MMY and are offering the practice at greatly reduced price! They have also deleted most of the material about sexist practices within the TM organization, which might be of interest to women. Anything that might adversely affect RECRUITMENT is being systematically deleted.

Bishonen, may I ask that you also please restore an entire section that the censor removed? I just noticed that he/she deleted the entire section on the Journal of American Medical Association's expose of TM's campaign of scientific deceit when I wasn't watching. Here's the version that was removed without any justification: [6]

The TM movement has tried for 15 years to make this information disappear. They first tried a SLAPP suit. They later turned to lying that the suit was settled for an "undisclosed amount of money" and that the information was retracted - neither of which is true. Its agents should not be allowed to get away with censorship in Wikipedia.

There appears to be a more that was deleted in this censorship campaign, but I don't have the time now to detect all that was removed. What can be done to stop this assault on the integrity of Wikipedia? It's becoming a full-time job to correct that damage of these censors.

Thanks.Askolnick 00:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree fully that Peter Klutz should be restricted (somehow) in his access to this article, as there is a clear agenda--almost as if advertising TM. It's disturbing in it's utter lack of any objectivity.

Sparaig seems to share a similar agenda with the added problem of simply lacking accurate historical information on Indian philosophy in general. (Posted unsigned by BettyBrahman.)

But at least Lawson (Sparaig)is a gentleman. That at least makes dealing with his propagandizing less infuriating. I've battled his distorted view of reality for years, quite some time ago. He always remained courteous (even when I was not). There's a big difference between these two. I don't think it would be right to bar Sparaig. He at least is respectful of rules and courteous and therefore much less disruptive.

By the way, Peterklutz has been allowed to turn the article on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi into a virtual advertorial for his guru's world enterprises. We really need to stop that too.Askolnick 01:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree fully that Peter Klutz should be restricted (somehow) in his access to this article, as there is a clear agenda--almost as if advertising TM. It's disturbing in it's utter lack of any objectivity.

Sparaig seems to share a similar agenda with the added problem of simply lacking accurate historical information on Indian philosophy in general.

BettyBrahman 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Insert that? Me? Oh, no. I'll insert things that are generally agreed, nothing else. 100% agreed on this page. If you think there's any chance of getting universal agreement for that (I really doubt it), start a poll or something. If you think the integrity of Wikipedia is at stake, either mediation or the Arbitration Committee is your next step. You, and everybody else, might want to read up on a few ArbCom cases to understand what can and can't be achieved through that. I'd recommend especially Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair as somewhat relevant to your concerns. Bishonen | talk 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

I'd be quite happy for Andrew's take on things TM and JAMA to be included if he can get JAMA to allow the full text of the original Chopra, Sharma and Triguna article to be referenced from Wikipedia. It's not exactly proper, what the authors did, but at the same time, folks can decide for themselves the egregiousness of their sin vis-a-vis what Andrew writes about it. Sparaig 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the AMA provides full text online for JAMA issues beginnin in 1998. However, I believe the article can be access through a number of online data sources (like Lexis-Nexis) available for free at most libraries. Here's the citation:

Maharishi Ayur-Veda: modern insights into ancient medicine

H. M. Sharma; B. D. Triguna; D. Chopra

JAMA. 1991;265:2633-2634.

That's the May 22/29, 1991 issue of JAMA.

The text of my October 2, 1991 JAMA article was available on my web site for several years. Unfortunately, the AMA permissions officer asked me to take it down (I may be the author, but I don't own the copyright). However, it is available on other web sites, such as: [7] Askolnick 13:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just want to put it to the record that any silence on my part should not be construed as condonence of further edits on the TM article (including JAMA stuff). If the activists are prepared to discuss details and formulations for further edits, I'll be coming back to this page to see that they might have to offer.

Peterklutz 10:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor wording issues

The opening line "Transcendental Meditation or TM is a form of meditation developed in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati. The meditation is reported to be reminiscent of and possibly derived from tantric practices found in Hinduism." Needs to be reworded to correctly convey accrate historical information on the common origin of the TM technique.

It could simply be reworded as:

Transcendental Meditation or TM is a form of meditation developed in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati. The meditation is reported to be reminiscent of and possibly derived from tantric meditational practices found in Hinduism.

This should prevent TM from incorrectly being thought of as "tantric" in the sexual sense, a usage common in western parlance. --BettyBrahman 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the whole question of the definition can be avoided by pointing out that MMY claims that TM is the simplest and easiest form of dhyana, as defined by Patanjali.Sparaig 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What goes around comes around...

It now appears evident that the congregation of anti-TM activists is not willing to discuss the facts on the ground that prompted myself to ask wikipedia admin to launch an investigation into Askonlick - the grounds being Askolnick's repeated unedits of efforts to provide encyclopdic information about the Maharishi Effect and the TM-Sidhi program.

Since the activiets have not responded to my proposal to not confuse these two discreete issues and to provide summary information and a link to the ISTPP research on the interesting and apparently controversial subject of the Maharishi Effect, I can only conclude that they don't have any reasonable arguments to stop such an edit.

Instead, the tactic of the activists have swung into personal attack mode (Askolnick and Betty Brahman), in the apparent hope of discrediting their perceived opponents, while intimidating other editors.

I would be amazed if what is going on has been lost on wikipedia admins. In case it has, please find below some pertinent informationthat has been brought to my attention:

... just wanted to let you know that your concern about User:Askolnick's proper participation in Wikipedia:dispute resolution is well founded he declined to participate in formal mediation:

     EVIDENCE 1

He did not participate in consensus building for a new article version:

     EVIDENCE 2

Then he jumped right in and reverted edits without consensus or discussion. Now we're in the dispute resolution process, once again:

     EVIDENCE 3

If you take this to mediation, I would probably avoid informal mediation such as the mediation cabal, his track record in cooperating with them is, well, I'll let you read for yourself:

     EVIDENCE 4

He launched vicious attacks against both Cabal mediators, Rohirok and Wade Tristhammer.

He has threatened Wikipedia with Libel, and continually uses overblown rhetoric, threats and insults to try and invalidate those that disagree with him. He engages in a constant stream of personal attacks. I'm amazed he hasn't been taken to ArbCom for violating NPA:

     EVIDENCE 5      EVIDENCE 6

Reading the comments of the activitsts, I would suggest that wikipedia consider keeping this article fully protected for the foreseeable future - it's quite evident what will happen the moment it is released.

And by the way, if wikipedia is serious about resolving the issue: demand Askopnicks detailed response to why the Peterklutz summaries of the TM-Sidhi and Maharishi Effect sections shouldn't stand.

And, when no such appears, feel free to reinstate Peterklutz far more enlightening and informative sections on these two sub-subjects.

Peterklutz 06:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal For Fixing This Article

I've noticed that valuable parts of this article were removed prior to its being put under full protection. Furthermore, a few individuals are clearly involved in an editing war.

I suggest that individuals who have done more than three edits of the same section be banned from editing this article for a period of one month and that full protection be lifted. That way, cooler heads can work on the article to make it fairly reflect all sides of the controversies. NPOV does not mean that full discussion of controversies is prohibited, just that it be objective. That can be done best by impartial editors. David 21:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your suggestion and reasoning: Because valuable parts of this article were removed, the editors who tried to protect those valuable parts should be banned along with the one editor who kept deleting those parts? Do I have your thinking right?

Call me naive, but shouldn't the person responsible for censoring those valuable parts be banned rather than editors who have been fighting to keep them in? Askolnick 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In any war, it is prudent to treat all parties as fairly and objectively as possible. The basic reasoning is that each participant probably feels that they are right and the others are wrong. Taking sides or criticizing only exacerbates the war. Therefore, my proposal is to ban all recent multiple-edit authors from editing this article, without attempting to evaluate whether they were doing something useful to the article (they will all feel that they were). Wikipedia has plenty of good contributors who can take over the reorganization of the article and do a great job. I trust Wikipedia, I do not trust edit wars. David 18:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud, I didn't ask people to take sides. I asked for Wiki policies to be respected and enforced! Wholesale deletion of large amounts of content without adequate justification is clear violation of Wiki policies. According to what you're advocating, the way for a vandal to eliminate someone from contributing to an article is to start an editing war with him or her. Then he/she can be banned for restoring the repeatedly deleted material that even you identified as valuable and should be replaced. It seems that I've fallen down that rabbit hole.Askolnick 18:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Never thought I'd find myself on the same side as Askolnick, but here we are. David Spector's proposal just might be the stupidest thing I've ever read - were it not for the fact that this guy has his own TM Movement and, thus, quite possibly an agenda.

There's your real Enemy, Andrew - a true closet-minded secterian entertaning negativity against his fellow seekers and who jsut might be conspiring to turn a negatively spinned TM-article into an ad for his TM-ripoff.

I'll let you in on a little secret, Andrew. I let you know who the Enemy is not:

He is not a nonagenarian who some fifty years ago gave up a life of blissed solitude in the Himalayas in order to help his fellow men.

Peterklutz 21:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! My proposal is really that stupid? I thought and still think it is reasonable and in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophy. While it is true that I distribute meditation instruction materials on a nonprofit basis, I can hardly be said to be heading a movement. Furthermore, I don't think there is anything wrong with my agenda (in brief: MMY is a great man who has helped humanity but is currently obsessing on ineffective and elitist tangents, causing TM teachers such as myself to become increasingly alienated), but I also happen to respect the Wikipedia philosophy of including facts and representing all sides of controversies. What I want to see for this article is an end of edit wars and a comprehensive, balanced article that errs, if need be, towards inclusion rather than exclusion. David 14:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to your motivations for doing what you're doing, but you've missed the point about what MMY is doing. Suggest you check out the current push to get TM in the public schools using private funding, specifically to address problems like attention deficit disorder. Sparaig 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of what MMY and David Lynch are doing, and it is totally irrelevant to my proposal for ending the edit war on this article. David 13:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Note I didn't comment on your proposal directly, but only on your comment about what MMY is doing. As far as your proposal goes, I see it as entirely self-serving. You've proposed to eliminate the input of the most frequent contributors to this page, thereby allowing yourself a greater hand in determining what gets put in. Andrew and Peter both have a perfect right to contribute to this page, just as I do and you do. The question is of how to resolve the current conflicts, not about who is more worthy of contributing because they happen to not be part of the ongoing ping-pong of editing/revision conflicts. Sparaig 14:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be such ego defense (and downright meanness) around here! If you would like to include me in the list of editors to be banned, that is fine with me. My proposal addresses fixing the article. I do not agree with your implication that only the recent editors are capable of fixing the article. Any objective and experienced editor (and there are lots of them here at Wikipedia) can do research on TM and the TM movement and fix the article. The edit war seems to be due to these recent editors each with too much of an attachment to how they want the article to be changed. Since no one person can be identified as responsible for the war, all should be banned from editing the article (for, say, one month). David 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

David, please try harder in your rebuttals not to misrepresent what Sparaig or others say. Sparaig did not say or even imply that "only the recent editors are capable of fixing the article." Also, your claim that "no one person can be identified as reponsible for the war" is clearly contradicted by the record -- not to mention the fact that one HAS been blocked for his "disruptive" conduct. Careful adherence to the facts is not just important to this article, it's also important to this discussion. Any proposed fix for this article needs to be realistic and in the Wiki community's interests, rather than in the interest of any one person or group. As Sparaig argues, blocking others, which would clearly give you a bigger say, is not in this community's interest. Askolnick 13:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I misrepresented anyone's point of view. But, Askolnick, in boldface above, I clearly said that I am willing to be banned too. That would not give me a bigger say, but none at all. I have just been trying to offer a solution to the problem. If you think the problem has already been solved by banning the one person who was responsible for the problem, then why not change the protection back to semi-protect and let everyone fix the article? The reason that my proposal to change the protection back was denied is that the edit war would probably continue. The edit war was clearly NOT caused by one person, but by several people all thinking they are right and others are wrong. The issues aren't even that significant! In any case, I hereby withdraw my proposal, and good luck to you all. David 20:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit War Comments

Call me biased, but my attempts to point out that Denaro's statements about attempts to deceive concerning obtaining research grant money aren't very germane because he was Grants Director during a time when there was only one peer-reviewed study published on TM out of MIU/MUM have been dismissed by YOU as being immaterial. That suggests to me that your agenda to paint all things TM in as poor a light as possible blinds you to obvious truths (as though your projection that I was engaging in an edit war with you haven't already established that). You also enjoy quoting from people with negative comments about TM, such as Denaro, and then dismiss the direct response to Denaro's allegations from the Director of Research at MIU/MUM during that period as just another example of attempts to deceive. My own take on impartiality is that if you're allowed to quote someone with a negative view of MIU/MUM and/or research on TM, we True Believers should be able to quote a formal response from someone who was also there. Sparaig 02:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The last thing you say tie directly into what prompted Asklonick to launch this edit war: when I included ISTPP's response whilst not only keeping, but clarifying his criticism (by using better sources then he did).

Pretty Girl (and any other admin whop happen to read this) save yourself time and confusion about who's who here and form your own opinion by consulting the sources directly. There are plenty of examples of the misrepresentation and vilification, the latest - the one that got us all into this situation - should be evident when doing this comparison, the remedy to which is summarized higher up on this page.

Peterklutz 06:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What the protecting admin is (not) for

Call me Shirley, but it's not my role to adjudicate all these quarrels. I'll unprotect when editors have worked them out amongst themselves. Alternatively, if anybody thinks the article is a hopeless battleground, they're invited to seek mediation, or—ultimately—to request arbitration. Please look above for my first-aid links for these things, I'd rather not construct them again. Note that arbitration is the final step of dispute resulution; some attempt to form a consensus should be made first. Please also consider mediation before arbitration, iff you believe there's enough good faith around for it—avoid seeking mediation as a mere formality. Please feel free to consult me if anything's unclear. Bishonen | talk 08:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

As always, the Devil is in the details - and I am still waiting for Askolnick to start discussing in a factual manner the details of the edit Peterklutz made (see section above); and which Askolnick reverted a couple of million times; at which time you were approached with the question to investigate him - upon which your response was to freeze Askolnicks reverted (per)version(!)

Perhaps the best way to energize Askolnick's sorry ass into discussion is if you bring back the last unvandalized Peterklutz version?

I am sure Skolnick will have plenty to say then - things that, with some parental guidance, he just might be encouraged to reformulate into some human language others can actually understand?

Peterklutz 20:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Crossposted to User talk:PeterKlutz:
Peter, perhaps you didn't see my objection to your confrontational habits of speech and persistent attacks on other people's motives some ways up this page. I'll up it to a formal warning: please read WP:NPA ("Comment on content, not on the contributor") and desist with the personal attacks or I will block you for disruption. Bishonen | talk 12:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC).

Well, we all know where you motives lay now. Thank you for confirming.

Peterklutz 13:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see there's a (rather busier) User talk:Peterklutz as well as the User talk:PeterKlutz. I'd better crosspost to the former as well. In fact there's an unholy mess of sigs, accounts, and IPs over which criticisms, warnings, and your own contributions are dispersed; I mention that as a warning to any other admin who might wish to review your editing. It takes research. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC).

Interesting

Now that everyone can't see their name in lights, so to speak, the contributions die away to nothing. Sparaig 22:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Typo in URL of MUM

There is a typo (mum.ed should be mum.edu) in the URL of the MUM in section Criticism and controversions: TM has an adverse effect on its practitioners.

Re Andrew Skolnick's Cerebral Meltdown

1. If everyone is onboard, please use the text/link to MMY's Bhagavad-Gita that I several weeks ago created and inserted into the MMY article (it didn't have one).
2. By the same token, feel free to do the same with any other book Maharishi Mahesh Yogihas written, including "Love and God."
3. The mantra section was dropped because it was infactual (Andrew Skolnick does not know what he is talking about).
4. Was not aware of any comments re TM-teacher defectors in the TM article. A good place for a one-liner about this would be the seciton under Criticsim and Controversies dealing with internal criticism - incidentally another created by myself (to the apparent dismay of anti-TMers, who allege TM-practitioners can't think for themselves).
5. The allegations about the TM Movement being sexistis is so stupid I considered it an act of mercy toward A Skolnick and his merry band of morons to remove it. If the intelligent reader wishes to re-live the hilariousness ofit - just check the history and learn how the Askolnicks of this world brandishes entire organizations after single individual males at some time allegedly addresses a woman by her first name(!) Walking on ice that thin - I am surprised Askolnick haven't drowned and reached the bottom a long time ago.
6. Also when it comes to allegations about lack of intellectual freedom and zero-tolerance, it is evident that Askolnick does not speak from any type of experience of TM, the TM Movement or its founder - in short Andrew Skolnick is utterly unqualified to offer any enlightening comments on this subject what so ever. In fact,reading his edits, it appears the guy forms his opinions by visiting various TM-critical websites whilst under the influence of controlled substances. Let's just hope A Skolnick's next enterprice is not to "improve" the wikipedia article on Einstein and his science.

As regards the rest of Askolnick's conspiracy theories I consider it my second act of mercy toward the man not to offer any comments.

Thank you.

Peterklutz 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility meltdown --> block

[Shrug] You have got to be kidding. The last time I warned you about personal attacks, you came right back with an attack on my motives. And now this namecalling and defamation? I've decided to block you only for three days, but please be aware that you'll be on probation when the block expires. Civility is a big deal on Wikipedia because the lack of it ruins the collaborative process of wiki-editing. That's why civility and no personal attacks are official policy. Please click on those links, study the policies, and then take your choice when you next return to this page (or any other); either decide to abide by them—the spirit, the letter, and the common sense of them—or, next time, expect to be blocked a) fast, b) without warning, and c) for a week. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

You've gotta be kidding!

Don't you read the BS Askolnick is pasting the article with right now - which I reported - and you ban me!!!!

I understand very well that if you ever lock this article down (as you did the TM article) it will only be after Askolnick first has teared it apart.

Oh,and by the way, where does one report biased admins doing piss poor jobs?

User:Peterklutz

I suggest posting your report on my back door. My dog Argie has run out of chew toys. Askolnick 00:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter, er, there seems to be a little misunderstanding here. You're blocked. I'm well aware that you have access to other IPs, but "blocked" doesn't mean merely that one particular account of yours is technically prevented from editing. It means the person is not allowed to edit. It means don't edit. Editing while blocked is "block evasion", which is a serious violation, and cause for further blocks. Note that there is one exception, that the block message page will have told yoou about: you are both technically able to, and allowed, indeed encouraged, to edit your own talkpage, User talk:Peterklutz (just give the anonymous IPs a rest, please). All right, let's say you didn't know that (though what you'd think a block that only applied to one account would be for, I can't imagine.) But from the moment I post this on talk:TM and User talk:Peterklutz, just don't edit, unless you want all your IP's blocked for another week. As for reporting biased admins doing piss poor jobs, there is indeed a special page for that: WP:ANI. Post a request for review of my admin action there, and other admins will look into it. Just 'don't do it while you're blocked—blocked means you don't get to edit, remember? But there is one avenue for protestiing a block that you can use while blocked: the mailing list. Now don't edit any more until the block expires. Bishonen | talk 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

TM and the Schools

One of the reasons that proponents of TM are so anxious to delete any and all information in this article which might adversely affect recruitment into TM (and its corollaries) is that the TM organization, with the support of filmmaker David Lynch, recently launched a major campaign to introduce TM into the public schools in the United States. This has been one of MMY's fondest dreams and one of the reasons he publicly damns democratic government and belittles man-made constitutions in favor of his "Constitution of the Universe" (the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution precludes religious practices in publicly funded schools). Because of the high cost of learning TM, the failure of the organization's political activities (Natural Law Party), and the blatantly Vedic-Hindu nature of its newer programs, initiations in the United States have slowed to a trickle. Teaching TM in the public schools is therefore seen by the TM leadership as the quickest way accomplish MMY's plan to transform the entire world into one big happy Vedic-Hindu society! If there ever was a person with delusions of grandeur, it has to be Mr. Mahesh. Signed, Dazzled in Danbury, 5 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.216.49 (talk • contribs)

The TMO has tried lawsuits on occassion only to have them backfire. They've tried other forms of censorship with the same result. I seriously doubt that Peter is an official representative of the TMO given how badly they've been burned in the past (eh Andrew?). BTW, the high price of TM was set by MMY himself over the marked protests by virtually everyone in the TMO. The last time a TM insider challenged the price structure, it was John Hagelin, during a meeting. The rumor is that frail old MMY simply got up and walked out without saying a word. Hagelin shut up after that. However, more recently, David Lynch is reported to have complained that no-one is willing to help support his foundation because of the high price and HE threatened to withdraw his support. MMY is reported to have referred him to John Hagelin to set a new price structure. The educational price for TM is reportedly now $600 per person, if a large enough block of students want to learn. The $2500 fee apparently still stands for individuals and smaller groups. Just a rumor, at this point. Sparaig 09:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter may not be an official rep of the TMO, but he could very easily be "inspired" by them, if you get my drift (the sutra for "knowing the mind of another" is a subject that has not been broached in these pages?). The $2500 fee has had such a dramatic effect on initiations that one wonders about the motivation behind setting the fee so high. Could it possibly be an act of sheer vindictiveness or manipulation, similar MMY's recent refusal to speak to TM teachers who do not live in Vedically-correct dwellings? DD 6 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.216.49 (talk • contribs)

TM and Sexism

How interesting that PeterKlutz seems to think that the comments about sexism in the TM organization deleted by him from the article on Transcendental Meditation were written by a male! He must find it inconceivable that a female might rise up from the docile ranks of sari-clad belles to challenge male domination of the TM leadership? His assertion (by way of justification) that no generalization should be made on the basis of a single male having addressed a female by her first name is highly amusing. In point of fact, the "single individual" happened to be Bevan Morris, one of the biggest guns in the TM organization, coyly addressing Dr. Susan Dillbeck as "Susie" in front of the camera as he moderated a nationally televised, official TM celebration in which her husband, also on the podium, was addressed by MR. Morris as "Dr. Dillbeck." Also of note: Mrs. Dillbeck was the only female included in the group of "experts" assembled for the occasion. In point of fact, no women were included among the 40 ministers appointed by MMY to head his new government of the "Global Country of World Peace." What message does that send to females who practice TM and to prospective female initiates?

The TM leadership has consistently justified the segregation of females in its courses and facilities by contending that female physiology is weaker (more sensitive) than that of males and must therefore be protected (from what?). Where is the scientific evidence to support this view? In fact, women generally score higher than men on tasks requiring endurance, manage to carry off the difficult physical feat of childbirth, and (statistically speaking) live significantly longer than men. Even assuming that most women ARE capable of a more subtle level of physical functioning than men, should this not justify placing them in positions of leadership where their more refined level of feeling can be put to good use to benefit humanity (undoing the harmful effects of gross mismanagement by males)? No--all this is just bombast! The real roots of the pervasive discrimination against women in the TM organization lie in the intense patriarchy of the Vedic-Hindu tradition, a social system which MMY actively promotes as optimum for the world. In this he is very much out of step with the times. Signed, Feminist Meditators of America, 6 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.216.49 (talk • contribs)

Expert contribution

I'm doing some computer animation work for Fred Travis, a TM researcher from the TM university, and I mentioned these web-pages. He's expressed an interest in contributing to the pages on MMY and TM. Is there anything he should be aware of when/if he contributes? I know there's a thing against posting "original research," but that applies to things that haven't been published, right? Fred's got a reasonable publication history in the field, keyword: Travis f, so that shouldn't matter. On issues concerning TM theory and whatnot, is it kosher for him to post his own stuff even if it hasn't been published? I know Andrew's posted references to his own articles in Jama and other magazines. Sparaig 20:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Peterklutz 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But it's not fine by Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Whether it's fine by you or fine by me, is irrelevant. Please, oh please, read (AND abide by) Wiki rules and guidelines that explain why you may NOT use original research or unpublished information.

No original research is one of three content-governing policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Travis - or anybody -- may include information that he or anyone else published in a reputable information source. Non-published information may NOT be included by anybody. The most important principle behind Wiki's policy is verifiability. Readers cannot verify information that is not published in a reputable publication.Askolnick 12:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I am sitting on top of a virtual mountain of important information on TM, Maharishi Mahesh, and many of his researchers. I would love to be able to add some of it. But Wiki rules say NO.Askolnick 12:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to TM theory, not research. I thought I made it clear. BTW, what "floodgate" of important information do you have. Inquiring minds and all that...Sparaig 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sparaig, do you remember years ago when I coined the name "Dormouse" for you, because of your habit of trancing out and reawaking later in the debate to post a befuddled statement (in honor of Lewis Carroll's Dormouse at the Mad Hatter's tea party)? Well, you appear to be doing it again. Please, or please read and pay attention to Wiki's policy regarding "No Original Research." That's what we're talking about.[[8]]

I have an enormous amount of information collected through the years that have not been published. For example, I would love to include information on how the TM MAV group in Germany placed a crudely forged letter from Ohio State University on its web site that falsely claimed the university repudiated my JAMA report on TM researcher Hari Sharma. You know, the same-ol'-same-ol' deceptive activities I wrote about in 1991. Only now I have another 14-years worth. If you can get Wiki administrators to change the rule against including unpublished original research, be my guest. I'm ready to start publishing this material in Wikipedia as soon as it's permitted. Oh, and there's all the stuff that I couldn't put into JAMA because of extremely strick rules regarding non-disclosure of patient information. I'd welcome the opportunity to publish in Wiki how TM MAV superstar Dr. Nancy Londsoff prescribed a $11,000 Maharishi Yagya (religious ceremony to appease the Hindu gods) for a patient who was suffering endometriosis! The TM suckers don't even get to witness the ceremony. They're performed by MMY's holy men in India, while the money goes into the Giggling Guru's swelling coffers. (One really has to admire the man's chutzpah and imagination in finding new ways to liberate his followers from their money.)Askolnick 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Andrew, if you reread what I said, I indicated that I didn't see a problem with his discussion of his own published *research* but I was wondering about his potential contributions to anything concerning TM theory. And as for the rest, True Believers who live and work together are well-known for doing stupid things in the name of What Is Right, whether it be forging documents or prescribing Vedic ceremonies for physiological conditions. BTW, while Fred is a TB, I don't get the impression that his published work is skewed beyond a general optimism that TM works, etc. Sparaig 20:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, Sparaig, please read the Wiki rule re No Original Research. Editors are NOT permitted to insert their own unpublished research. And that of course includes their unpublished research on TM theory.

I agree with you that it is well known that members of the TM movement do "stupid things in the name of What Is Right," such as forging documents and other fraudulent acts. That's why it is vital for articles on TM to discuss the movement's deceptive practices. Askolnick

Overall Suggestion for more Balanced Editing

Dear Bishonen, This comment is to help you decide a strategy for making this article more sensible and accurate. It’s pretty obvious to most people with experience of TM that TM and Maharishi are very positive forces in the world today, and the vast majority of meditators continue to be very satisfied customers. It is therefore odd that this article lacks much information from the TM side, and is daily blasted by virulent attacks entirely out of proportion to the almost non-existent problems in reality. However, if one reads a sensible exposition of the history and activities of the scientifically discredited (especially in USA) Anti-Cult Movement (ACM), it all starts to become clear. One immediately sees that the terminology and tactics used by the anti-TM editors are precisely the same as those described in that history. Here are example links to get that background material: http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm.htm http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/statements/brainwashing.htm http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-barbaraschwarz-2004-06-29.html

My guess is that most potential pro-TM Wikipedia editors are put off by the expectation that their contributions, however reasonable, will immediately be destroyed by the fanatical anti-cult activists, who somehow have the means to spend so much time on their destructive manipulation. It’s a case of “Fools step in……….” They’re probably sensible to stay out of it.

So the challenge to you is how to make Wikipedia work in these circumstances. How to stop the constant vandalism by the ACM types, so that the genuine editors will feel safe to contribute. Maybe you could start by adding a notice at the top explaining that this is the situation and giving links to the ACM background, without which any newcomer will surely be baffled. Then it will be necessary to control the ACM-type editors so some sensible editing can occur.

Or maybe you have another suggestion? --Acrat 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Acrat, Wikipedia is not written for "most people with experience of TM." It is written for everybody. While the opinions of "most people with experience of TM" are important to a TM article, so are the opinions of its critics and others.

Saying that the vast majority of meditators are very satisfied customers is about as meaningful as saying that the vast majority of Dial soap users are satisfied customers. Unsatisfied customers don't continue buying a company's product. And studies have shown that the majority of people who learn TM don't continue with it. So your statement is very misleading.

And merely saying the problems in the TM movement are "almost non-existant" will not make those many problems go away. There's not a big enough rug in Wikipedia to sweep them under.

Your attempt to dismiss critical editors by implying that they are members of the "fanatical Anti-Cult Movement," is hardly acting in good faith. If you've ever heard of the murders and suicides in Jonestown, the subway poison gas attack in Tokyo by Aum Shinrikyo, the bioterrorist attack by the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh cult in the U.S., and the vast program of criminal acts by Scientology leaders in the 1970s, then you should know there is much about cults to criticize. To dismiss critics of cults as part of an evil world conspiracy is, frankly, very cult-like. Cults are not in the least encyclopedic. By their very nature, they suppress information that is inconsistent with the leader's teachings. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia. As such, it must include an appropriate representation of facts and opinions from reputable sources in all articles. Askolnick 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I did not imply they were members of an ACM. I connected them by type of terminology and tactics, not by membership. They could be members, or ex-members, or they could simply have learned the approach by self-study or osmosis. But the similarity is too great to be a coincidence.

It is in fact the word "cult" which is not encyclopedic. There is no such thing as a cult. The word exists for the sole purpose of denigrating the object group. This is explained in my sources listed above, which I strongly recommend readers to scan. Encyclopedists should use neutral, factual terms.

Incidentally, by listing these very examples, do you not actually define TM as a non-"cult"? These problems are not found in TM. --Acrat 19:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Another source of confusion is the use of the word "member" in relation to TM. TM is a practice which is done by "meditators". It is learnt by taking a short course. There is no membership, nothing is "joined". Having learnt TM, one is called a "meditator". The practice is recommended to be done twice a day. One who is irregular, or stops for a while, is still called a "meditator", because no one else knows if they do the practice or not, and in many cases people return to the practice after some time. For the same reason, the term "ex-member" has no meaning. The only terms which are meaningful are "meditator", meaning one who has been taught TM, and "non-meditator", meaning one who has not yet done so.

--Acrat 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, you more than implied it, you stated that editors who add critical content to the TM article are "fanatical anti-cult activists." You seem to have a very short memory. Right above you claimed:

"…most potential pro-TM Wikipedia editors are put off by the expectation that their contributions, however reasonable, will immediately be destroyed by the fanatical anti-cult activists, who somehow have the means to spend so much time on their destructive manipulation."

Equally false is your claim, "There is no such thing as a cult." Wikipedia certainly disagrees with you. Wiki's article on cults begins with the following definition:

"In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics."

Most sociologists and other authorities who study cults consider Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his followers a cult. (Anyone who may doubt this should visit the Maharishi's campus in Fairfield, Iowa sometime and see how his tranced-out followers walk around with a thermos in hand and a "blissful" smile tatooed on their faces. The thermos is for the warm water that they drink throughout the day, as directed by their guru.

As for more formal evidence showing that TM is a cult, here's just one example: "Cults in France," is a 1995 commission report for the French National Assembly [9] The report lists Transcendental Meditation as a destructive cult and provides estimates of its size in France and the rest of the world, along with other information on the group. Askolnick 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[Post by blocked user removed.]Peter Klutz

chee Peter. You give the rest of us neurotics a bad name... Sparaig 11:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Sparaig. And Peter, you're getting me a bad name as a ridiculously lenient admin. I've actually never heard of somebody not getting sanctioned for IP-editing while blocked before. Yet last time it happened, I merely told you politely that perhaps you hadn't realized the block applied to all editing by you. And here you are again. OK, IP block time. First I remove comments made by blocked user. Guys, I'd appreciate being told about those on my page or by e-mail, I can't be everywhere. Or feel free to revert them yourselves. The appropriate edit summary for that would be something like "Removing post by blocked user". Bishonen | talk 12:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

Couple of points to Andrew concerning TM cult-status: Jehova's Witnesses, Church of Christ Scientist, Mormons, and several other relatively well-known groups are mentioned in the French paper you cite, along with Scientology, Moonies, etc. At what point does "cult" simply mean "non-mainstream?" Even the wiki quote you provide gives a rather "broad" definition of cult. Also, MMY himself has objected to the extremism concerning drinking warm water. Does following a fad make one a member of a cult? Finally, perhaps TMers smile a lot because they're happy? There are Buddhist monks who practice emotional manipulation techniques for up to 50,000 hours over the course of their lives. A recent research aticle on meditation made national headlines when the researchers published physiological findings concerning a few such people. Are these people members of a cult because they've self-induced a feeling of compassion? Sparaig 02:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now here's a tough one: The opinion of scholars who study destructive cults, or a long-time member and defender of one of those cults -- which shall we believe? That's a real tough choice, Sparaig. Do we believe authoritative scholarship or apologetics? I'll get back to you when I decide. Askolnick 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've decided. I'm going with the scholars. Sorry, Lawson. Askolnick 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you never responded to my questions, Andrew... Especiallly seeing that none of your own points were included in the article by the scholars... Sparaig 03:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am just addressing a few points raised above:

1. the alleged “many problems” with TM?

Can anyone provide a reliable source for their existence?

Vague references to such dubious problems are typical of the ACM-type editor I described, as explained in one of the sites I cited above, where I found the following quote:

Coleman notes: "When more dispassionate investigators, avoiding such obvious 'mistakes' in methodology, have studied new religious movements, they have found no evidence of mind control or of the mental or physical harms claimed in anti-cult literature" Coleman, Lee. "New Religions and the Myth of Mind Control," American Orthopsychiatric Association, Inc. 54(2), 1984.

The following are references to such investigators and results of their investigations: Bromley and Shupe (1979); Galanter et al., 1979, American Journal of Psychiatry 136: 165-170; Hill (1980); Levine and Salter, 1979, Canadian Psychiatric Association J., 21(6): 411-420; Ungerleider and Wellisch, 1979, American Journal of Psychiatry, 136: 279-282.

The full citations are given on the site.

I have repeated my three citations at the end of this post.

2. A agree that the opinions of critics of TM should be included, provided satisfactory sources are given. If there is a genuine criticism, then let’s hear it, and provide proper evidence, not just pseudoscience.

3. Can anyone provide the citations for the “studies (which) have shown that the majority of people who learn TM don't continue with it”?

4. Please note I did not refer to any “conspiracy” related to editing TM. I just noted the similarity of approach of certain TM editors with the (partly) organised ACM.

5. I agree that a lot of confusion arises when words like “member” and “movement“ are used, whether re the TM Movement or re the ACM. It’s not easy to define the TM Movement, and the article’s definition is probably wrong. I think it refers to a group of people rather than a group of organisations.

6. The word “cult” is not encyclopaedic. The Wikipedia Cult page does not reflect the scientific view of the word, which is clearly expressed in the sources I cited above. For example:

Cult: A vicious "snarl" word used:

• By the media to refer to dangerous, destructive religious groups.
• By the anti-cult movement, mainly to refer to a wide range of new religious movements who they accuse of engaging in psychological abuse.
• By the counter-cult movement, mainly to refer to Christian groups that hold one or more non-traditional religious beliefs -- other than those shared by the counter-cult movement.

The term is always hurtful. No group will willingly accept being called a cult. Since the term has so many different and mutually exclusive meanings, we recommend that it not be used as a stand-alone term. If you do use it, we suggest that you carefully modify the word to make its meaning clear, as in "benign cult" or "destructive cult." A better, emotionally neutral term to use is "new religious movement." An even better policy is to use the name of the group itself, without attempting to classify it.

Another example:

cult: "A fashionable buzzword thrown about haphazardly by the media, anti-cultists, establishment ministers (who no longer worry about the label being applied to them). Although the term has a fairly precise technical meaning, it has been run into the ground by persons who indiscriminately attach it to any group not conforming to a narrow range of so-called normal middle-class religions" (Bromley and Shupe 21-22).

Quoted in Biermans, John T. The Odyssey of New Religions Today - A Case Study of the Unification Church. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1988. 38-39

These explanations could usefully be incorporated into the Cult page, but until they are, I will continue not to cite it.

7. As clarified in the sources I have cited, it will not be possible to provide a truly scientific source for the statement “Most sociologists and other authorities who study cults consider Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his followers a cult.” ACM-type pseudo scientists like the late Dr Margaret Singer have made a living out of such assertions, but the true scientists in this field avoid the words “cult” and “mind control” like the plague. My sources expose this in considerable detail, with full citations.

8. Regarding the suggestion that "Cults in France," a 1995 commission report for the French National Assembly, constitutes more formal evidence showing that TM is a cult, this is what one of my above sources has to say:

The "mind control" argument has been promoted by the ACM extensively in Western Europe, leading to the imposition of restrictions on the activities of new religions in some countries. Parliamentary commissions to investigate cults were established in several countries, which included much involvement from European anti-cult organizations, as well as apostate testimony. Many of the fledgling democracies in Eastern Europe have followed the Western European models, imposing even stricter restrictions on the free exercise of religion. Massimo Introvigne comments on the role the mind control theory has played in raising concern regarding new religions in Europe: The media, continuously fed by the ACM, started running lurid exposures of the "danger of the cults," and parliaments instituted enquiry commissions in several countries. In the French and Belgian commissions, politicians did collaborate with anti-cult activists and vocal disgruntled ex-members of some new religious movements. Academics got only a minimal audience, and the reports produced by the commissions were largely based on information supplied by the ACM. Although with different nuances, and dismissing the word "brainwashing" as inadequate and old-fashioned, these documents rely on the ACM model distinguishing between religion and cults on the basis of manipulation and mind control. The Belgian report quotes the deposition of the president of the French ADFI [Association for the Defense of the Family and Individual], stating that a cult could be distinguished from a religion because the former is "a group where a mental and affective manipulation is present" (Chambre des Représentants de Belgique 1997: 1, 138). According to a militant anti-cult psychiatrist quoted by both the French and the Belgian report, it is not difficult to distinguish between a religion and a cult. Although some features may be similar, a religion is founded on "free will" and there is no "manipulation," while manipulation and mind control are the trademarks of the cults. (Introvigne, "Brainwashing") Dr. Introvigne further points out that the academic consensus on the brainwashing model is virtually unknown in Europe, and therefore the anti-cult organizations are able to sell this idea with great ease to the press, courts, law enforcement and government officials. In some cases, the national anti-cult organizations have received funding from their governments to support their endeavors against cults, which has further aided their dissemination of religious hatred and intolerance. (end quote)

This shows that the French example is not science-based, and cannot be used to hoodwink US i.a. readers, who require an honest picture of scientific views.

9. I repeat here my sources for all these points

http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm.htm http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/statements/brainwashing.htm http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-barbaraschwarz-2004-06-29.html

--Acrat 16:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jumping Jehova! I haven't seen this much spinning since the last Hanukkah dreidel party I attended (which of course was held at a secret location by the fanatic Fundementalist Christian-Jewish Anti-Cult Movement). Ratno's essay reminds me of several other ironic apologetics that tried to remove an embarrasing word from the lips of humanity. Some may remember when Frank Sinatra launched a campaign on behalf of the Italian Anti-Defamation League to convince the public there's no such thing as the "Mafia," and that the word was nothing but a slur on all Italians. Of course, while Sinatra was doing this, he was hanging out with his Good Fella pals, who headed the nation's Mafia families, many of whom eventually wound up in prison for murder, racketeering, etc. I'm also reminded how some leading doctors tried to eliminate the words "waiting room" from American speech, because too many patients began associating the term with physician arrogance and disrespect for patients. They tried unsuccessfully to pass a resolution at the American Medical Association's annual House of Delgates meeting. They wanted the term replaced with "reception area" (despite the fact that probably no doctor EVER receives a patient in the room where he or she is often uncaringly kept waiting for extended periods. Another time, some AMA delegates tried to pass an AMA resolution that would remove the word "dumping" from use -- as in "patient dumping" -- which is the unethical and illegal transfer of a sick patient to another facility because the patient has no money or health insurance. One doctor delegate with an actual soul argued against it, saying, "Dumping the word dumping ain't going dump patient dumping." Patient dumping and excessive waiting times have become an embarrassment to organized medicine. Perhaps characteristic of the actual problem, some physicians would prefer to fix the language rather than tackle the problem. So it is with cult defenders and apologists. Despite all the evidence before our eyes how cult victims are controlled, manipulated, abused, sexually exploited, robbed of their posessions and sometimes their lives, the apologists want us to do away with the word "cult," and use a positive euphanism, such as Ratno suggests above, "new religious movement."

Ratno also asks for sources for the view that there are harmful and dangerous cults among us and for the opinion that TM is a cult. However, he makes it clear he regards authorities who hold those views as "pseudoscientists," and therefore unacceptable for inclusion in this Wiki article. Above he uses that slur on the distinguished psychologist, the late Dr. Margaret Singer. Simply slurring all sources of critical views of TM and other cults with the label "pseudoscientists" will not make them unacceptable for inclusion in Wiki articles. If Wiki excluded the opinions of alleged pseudoscientists, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because there would not be a Transcendental Meditation article. If there ever was a "poster child" for pseudoscience, TM would be it. Askolnick 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Let’s first address the reference to “all the evidence before our eyes how cult victims are controlled, manipulated, abused, sexually exploited, robbed of their posessions and sometimes their lives”. The Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) is clearly and scientifically exposed in the sources I have provided as 1) exaggerating the number of “cults” 2) pretending the rare disaster examples are typical of all the groups they choose to call “cults” 3) trying to create a scientific basis for their accusations (Margaret Singer was an example of a scientist exposed in US Courts for pushing pseudoscience as science having already been called insufficiently scientific by the American Psychological Association -- see below no 5)

As I said above, Coleman notes: "When more dispassionate investigators, avoiding such obvious 'mistakes' in methodology, have studied new religious movements, they have found no evidence of mind control or of the mental or physical harms claimed in anti-cult literature" Coleman, Lee. "New Religions and the Myth of Mind Control," American Orthopsychiatric Association, Inc. 54(2), 1984. The following are references to such investigators and results of their investigations: Bromley and Shupe (1979); Galanter et al., 1979, American Journal of Psychiatry 136: 165-170; Hill (1980); Levine and Salter, 1979, Canadian Psychiatric Association J., 21(6): 411-420; Ungerleider and Wellisch, 1979, American Journal of Psychiatry, 136: 279-282.

So these comments are unsourced, pseudoscientific, exaggerated, wildly campaigning and are totally unencyclopedic and unacceptable according to Wikipedia policy.

2. As explained above, the word “cult” has been discredited by indiscriminate use, and this is the opinion of neutral scientists.

3. Actually, the statement ‘A better, emotionally neutral term to use is "new religious movement." ‘ is not my statement. It is part of the quote. I apologise if this was not clear. However, the quote does continue “An even better policy is to use the name of the group itself, without attempting to classify it.” I agree with this intelligent suggestion, especially in the case of TM, which is not a religion.

4. I am misquoted as asking for sources for the view that there are harmful and dangerous cults among us and for the opinion that TM is a cult. Only the latter is true. I asked for a source for the statement “Most sociologists and other authorities who study cults consider Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his followers a cult.” Please provide the sources. We can then see if it is scientific or pseudo. By not providing it in case someone doesn’t approve, well, that looks more like an admission that there is no source.

5. Here is more about the late Dr Margaret Singer, from http://www.parishioners.org/false_exp/singer01.html

Margaret Singer was a psychologist whose theories of so-called "cultic coercive persuasion" have been discredited by her own profession. The American Psychological Association (APA) rejected these theories as lacking scientific foundation. Several courts have forbidden Singer to testify as an expert on these theories because, as one court stated, "her coercive persuasion theory did not represent a meaningful concept." The APA formally dismissed Singer's ideas in the 1980s after she and her associates from the American Family Foundation (AFF) (an anti-religious hate-group) had formed a task force within the APA on "deceptive and indirect methods of persuasion and control." This task force submitted its report to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. The Board rejected the task force's report in May of 1987. The APA stated that "in general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach needed for APA imprimatur." The APA requested that the task force members not imply that the APA in any way supported the positions they had put forward in their report. Prior to its rejection of Singer's report, the APA had already endorsed a position contrary to Singer's "coercive persuasion" theory in an amicus brief before the California Supreme Court in Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the unification of World Christianity. The forward of the amicus brief contained a stinging comment that forecast the repudiation the APA would later deal to Singer: "[the] APA believes that this commitment to advancing the appropriate use of psychological testimony in the courts carries with it the concomitant duty to be vigilant against those who would use purportedly expert testimony lacking scientific and methodological rigor." Blind to this lack of support from her colleagues, Singer continued to sell her services as an "expert" witness and was permitted to testify in the case of Kropinsky v. World Plan Executive Council. However, in August of 1988, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals overturned the case, citing the lack of acceptance of Singer's theories: "Kropinski failed to provide any evidence that Dr. Singer's particular theory, namely that techniques of thought reform may be effective in the absence of physical threats or coercion, has a significant following in the scientific community, let alone general acceptance." In 1989, Singer's status received another blow in the decision of the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal of California in the case of Robin George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California. Singer was hired to testify that Robin George had been "brainwashed" into joining the Krishna movement. The appellate court dismissed her testimony, finding it to have been merely an attempt to bolster a civil litigant's attempt to collect damages: "... Robin's brainwashing theory of false imprisonment is no more than an attempt to premise tort liability on religious practices the Georges find objectionable. Such a result is simply inconsistent with the First Amendment." In 1990, U.S., in United States v. Fishman, District Court Judge D. Lowell Jensen rejected Singer's theories and those of her sociologist colleague, Richard Ofshe. He prohibited both Singer and Ofshe from testifying about "thought reform" as expert witnesses. In 1991, in the case of Patrick Ryan v. Maharishi Yogi, the U.S. District Court in D.C. applying a looser standard than the Fishman case, still found that Singer's theories lacked acceptance in the scientific community. Instead of attempting to compile scientific evidence to support their theories (or adopting theories that could stand up to the rigors of scientific inquiry) Singer and Ofshe then took the novel approach of suing the APA and the ASA for having rejected their theories and respected scientists for having criticized their shoddy research methods. Singer and Ofshe complained that the defendants had conspired to deny them employment as paid expert witnesses in the anti-religious community. Judge Lawrence Mc Kenna dismissed their complaint as "absurd". Undaunted, Singer and Ofshe filed a similar case in California. This complaint was stricken by Judge James R. Lambden under California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. Singer was an advisory board member of the old Cult Awareness Network (CAN) until it went bankrupt in the face of a $1.8 million civil judgment for the deprogramming of a member of the Pentecostal Church. She was also an advisory board member of the AFF. Both groups have relied on her discredited theories of "brainwashing" and "coercive persuasion" to lend an air of respectability to their attacks against minority religions. While this theory initially gained some popularity among civil litigants in the 1970s and 1980s who were seeking large damages awards for their voluntary participation in religious activity, the theories were unable to withstand scientific inquiry. As Professor Harry Cox, Professor of Divinity at Harvard University observed, "the term 'brainwashing' has no respectable standing in scientific or psychiatric circles, and is used almost entirely to describe a process by which somebody arrived at convictions that I do not agree with." John T. Biremans: The Odyssey of New Religions Today). Dick Anthony has compiled an excellent study of the scientific literature debunking Singer's theories (and those of her colleagues in the anti-religious business). Singer bases her work on what she claims to be the results of studies into the treatment of prisoners of war during the Korean conflict. Anthony shows that the entire Korean brainwashing scare was without substance and was merely a political campaign concocted to perpetuate the anti-Communist hysteria of the McCarthy era.

6. ‘Simply slurring all sources of critical views of TM and other cults with the label "pseudoscientists" ‘

This is not what I am doing or wish to do. I welcome critical views of TM which are well sourced according to Wiki rules. What I have seen is a lot of unfounded criticism in and around this article. It needs to have the right references, if there are any, or be deleted. In citing the work of scientists, especially psychologists, it is important to avoid the ACM trick of citing the pseudo scientists, such as the late Dr Margaret Singer, who have been exposed by mainstream scientists as an embarrassment to their profession.

In the same vein, simply slurring all sources of positive views of TM with the label "pseudoscientists" is equally unencyclopedic. Over 700 scientific studies, many from reputable institutions including Yale, Harvard etc, deserve more serious treatment.

The point is that Maharishi is a great scientist, and he has spawned a new breed of scientist.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is widely regarded as the foremost scientist in the field of consciousness, and considered to be the greatest teacher in the world today. Maharishi has completely restored the thousands of years-old scattered Vedic Literature for the total significance of its theory and practice, and has organized it in the form of a complete science of consciousness. http://www.tm.org/main_pages/maharishi.html

‘Maharishi, the greatest scientist of this scientific age, has brought to light the total knowledge of Natural Law, the Veda, for the fulfilment of all physical sciences. His Majesty Vishwa Prashasak Raja Nader Ram http://www.globalcountry.org/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=66

What Maharishi has done is to create a new branch of science -- the science of consciousness, or Vedic Science. He has developed it to the point where his universities give PhDs in it. According to Wiki policy, these PhDs are the best sources about Vedic Science, including TM, as sources should be scientists specialising in the actual field.

How different this is from the ACM approach to science which is to fabricate a false science to provide them with ammunition in their fabricated cases in the Courts.

PS Contributors should in future take care not to confuse the word euphanism with the word euphemism!

--Acrat 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think my view is shared by most Wiki editors that Wikipedia has no room for such polemics. It is neither true that the respected psychologist Margaret Singer was "exposed by mainstream scientists as an embarrassment to their profession" nor that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, is "considered to be the greatest teacher in the world today" and "the greatest scientist of this scientific age" -- except among several thousand of the guru's devout followers.

I will admit that TMers do know a lot about "fabricating a false science." They've been doing that for more than a quarter century and have managed to stuff it with many of the world's most discredited scams, including astrology, healing gems, herbal enemas to rid the body of "poisons," courses on levitatation and other magical powers and absurd claims.

The claim that Maharishi is teaching science is betrayed every time he and his followers describe his teachings as "total" or "complete knowledge," as Ratno does above. One of the most distinguishing features of science is that it is can never be complete. By its essential nature, it is tentative and temporary. One of the most common, tell-tale signs of religious dogma and pseudoscience is their proponents' claim to be offering "complete," "perfect," or "total" knowledge, as Maharishi and his followers regularly do.Askolnick 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedial article on Singer, as I pointed out, says that she tried to sue her own organization and failed. I have heard that at least one court refused her testimony because it wasn't scientific. As far as MMY teaching "science" goes, yeah that's true, he doesn't. OTOH, to claim that no "good" science ever comes out of the TM researchers is wrong or at least unsupported by the evidence. Sparaig 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let us consider the case of astrology as an example. Presumably there have been some studies to test astrology which have failed to demonstrate its effectiveness. However, there are several systems of astrology, differing greatly. For example, Western astrology (based on sun signs) and Indian classical astrology (vedic astrology, Jyotish) (much more complicated, containing many subsystems, not a uniform system these days) and Maharishi Jyotish, which is very different from Western astrology and is an ongoing attempt by Maharishi, an acknowledged vedic scholar, to revive and codify Vedic astrology. The differences between Maharishi Jyotish and Western Astrology are so great that, if Maharishi Jyotish is accurate, then that would lead us to expect Western astrology to be inaccurate. Therefore, any studies discrediting Western astrology would not be relevant in evaluating Mahararishi Jyotish. This illustrates the importance emphasised in Wiki rules of quoting opinions of experts in the field. To write off all astrology on the basis of a few studies of one type only is called arguing from the particular to the general. It is not logical, and therefore not encyclopaedic.

--Acrat 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I like Ratno's reasoning: the fact that some three-card-monte dealers are cheats doesn't mean that the three-card-monte dealer working on Maharishi's street corner is also a cheat. Vedic astrology (including the brand trademarked by Maharishi) is no different from all other varieties: they are supersitious systems that rely on non-falsifiable assertions and the ignorance and gullibility of clients*. TMers can no more evaluate future tendencies by the stars than they can hover in the air, walk through walls, make themselves invisible, or posessess the strength of an elephant (all of which are or were similarly bogus claims made by Maharishi). To write off Maharishi's silly, comic book claims as bogus is both logical and encyclopedic.

• As Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary defines "clairvoyant": "A person, commonly a woman, who has the power of seeing that which is invisible to her patron, namely, that he is a blockhead."

By the way, I'm in the process of modernizing and codifying the rules to Three Card Monte. Anybody interested in taking a course to learn my new TcM (R) system, please leave a message on my talk page. Jai guru dev.Askolnick 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Full protection removed

I've unprotected the article, but left semiprotection switched on for the moment. This means that all established users can edit, but IPs can't. Please feel free to edit! It's best to discuss major edits here first, and to avoid full reverts unless you really are removing vandalism. Bishonen | talk 02:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

And so it continues...

And of course, as soon as the article is unlocked, Andrew has to contribute a diatribe. Show me a typical encyclopedia article where one of the editors cites his own work extensively in order to provide negative info about a subject. Sparaig 02:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply restored material your fellow TMer Peterklutz deleted in his vandalism attacks. He won't be vandalizing this article again anytime soon. Askolnick 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Does this mean I can quote Jim Lippard's comment to your article's "interesting" use of selective quoting? He's a well-known skeptic:

[10]

From: James J. Lippard - view profile

Date: Mon, Dec 26 1994 4:58 pm

Not yet rated

show options

In article <3dnj83$...@news.primenet.com>, engl...@primenet.com (Lawson

- Hide quoted text -

"English) wrote:

"> 1) his quote of Deepak Chopra's autobiography in Skolnick's JAMA article - '"In his book _Return of the RIshi (Boston, MASS Houghton Mifflin Co; 1988: 139), CHopra repeats an old Indian saying, '"Four things in life you must cherish: first the guru, then your parents, next your wife and children, and finally your nation." Former members of the TM movement say that their belief in the Maharishi was so great that they would have done anything the guru asked.' (Maharishi Ayurv-Veda: Guru's Marketing Scheme Promises the World Eternal 'Perfect Health', A. Skolnick, JAMA October 2, 1991 -Vol 266, No. 13).

> Well, I can't comment on anyone's dedication or belief in their guru, but here is a "rather" more fully in-context version of the same quote:

> [description of agonizing over whether to go listen to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi lecture in person is deleted]

> "Whatever else we are, doctors are not good followers. I made excuses for a day or two. My psychologist friend continued to call me, and I could tell that he wondered at my reluctance. But I had placed a long distance between myself and any idea of having a guru. I would not have started TM in the first place if it hadn't allowed me to meditate on my own. In that respect, even though I was raised in India, I am a child of my times. There is an old saying in India:

'Four things in life you must cherish: first the guru, then your parents, next your wife and children and finally the nation.'

No one knows how old the saying is, old enough to seem permanent. But the changeless has changed. I talked to Rita about the troublesome invitation, and we decided that our curiousity was stronger than our timidity. We went." (_Return of the Rishi_ pp 138-9).

> Taken in context, this quote from Dr. Chopra's book has exactly the opposite meaning from how Skolnick would have you interpret it.

This case seems about as clear-cut a case of out-of-context quotation as you could care to have--it would be quite at home in a publication of the Institute for Creation Research. I'd like to hear Mr. Skolnick's explanation. Was this an accident?

Sparaig 03:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Teachers Breaking Away

I'd like to restore the following information to the article about TM teachers who have broken with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and are teaching TM or a comparable technique inexpensively. I know some of you have objections, so I would like to know what they are before I edit the article. Perhaps I can rework the addition so that it is acceptable to everyone. David 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I put in a blurb about my former McDonald's restaurant in the segment about McDonald's? We use the same recipes, but we don't do any advertising or have the overhead of a coporate HQ and so on, so we charge less... Can I mention us? Please, please? Sparaig 20:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

After checking the website, its more like: we don't use the same ingredients, have no quality control, but we do have a few customers that like us and some of us used to work for McDonald's, so can we please include a blurb about our restaurant in the entry about McDonald's? Sparaig 21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Text To Be Added

Many TM teachers feel that a course fee of $2500 USD to learn TM is unreasonable, in view of Maharishi's longstanding claims that the technique is everyone's birthright and that everyone should practice it. As evidence of this unreasonableness, TM initiations have declined to a trickle and some of Maharishi's TM teachers have broken with him to offer a comparable technique at considerably lower prices. They include TM Independent in the UK and Natural Stress Relief in Italy and the USA.<unsigned post from David Spector (sorry--the signature is at the end of the main heading above; I did not realize that the wiki treats subheadings independently.)>

That would be comparable to wanting to put a plug for Burger King in an article on McDonalds. TM is a registered trademark. I know that the cult likes to have it both ways -- claiming that that it's an ancient meditation technique at the same time claiming that it's a trademark meditation technique owned by Maharishi's organization. But the truth is that it is a trademarked brand of meditation techniques. Because it's trademarked, nobody else can offer to teach it without license from the TM organization. So what break-away TMers are offering cannot legally be TM, for the same reason that Burger King can never sell discount Big Macs and McDonalds can never offer Whoppers. And an article on TM is no place to promote these generic brands of transcendental meditation. The most e-ink that should be given to them should be a brief mention that some TM teachers split from the organization are are teaching almost identical meditation techniques at substantially lower costs in competition with their former guru.Askolnick 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What you say aout breakaway TM teachers is certainly the case. However, the second URL doesn't appear to be related to TM at all, as far as I can tell. Sparaig 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So, the problem with mentioning breakaway TM teachers is essentially that Natural Stress Relief does not seem to be TM? Well, of course not. As you say, calling a breakaway technique TM is quite illegal. You can find a detailed comparison between NSR and TM at http://www.nsrusa.org/compare.php. Mention of breakaway teachers belongs in an article on TM not because it is advertising for the breakaway teachers, but because the fact that teachers have broken with Maharishi shows how deeply some teachers have been alienated by the policies of Maharishi and his organizations. Also, it is a fact that initiations have slowed to a trickle and this, too, is highly relevant to an article on TM. I do not believe that an article on TM should only contain material authorized by the TM movement; I am trying to add perspective to the article. If there are no further objections, I would like to add the above paragraph to the article. Some may point out that I can simply go ahead and add it, but those people may not be aware that there has been an edit war here recently; I do not wish to contribute to the war (I have even tried unsuccessfully to stop it). That is why I would like to get at least a majority feeling that adding the paragraph is acceptable before I add it. David 00:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I can comment on what both you and the Italian group are offering: the TM technique and its moral equivalents are ALWAYS taught in person, not via CD or website. Also, MMY introduced the concept of individualized mantras (plural) in 1955, so I am at a loss to understand why the Italian group is claiming that they're teaching TM ala 1958 by using a single mantra for everyone. Sparaig 03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate to agree with Sparaig, it is perfectly clear that what NSR is selling is NOT TM. One of many important differences is the lack of "checking" that it critical to the TM movement's technique (and cult recruitment efforts). At most, David, you can only justify adding a short statement that a number of alienated TM teachers broke away from the movement to offer instruction in their own meditation technique at much lower costs. As for adding the claim that TM initiation has slowed to a trickle, you would need to provide a reputable source for this information. The allegation of a TM competitor is not credible enough.askolnick 12:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Would the following addition be acceptable, then?

"Many TM teachers feel that a course fee of $2,500 (USA) to learn TM is unreasonable, in view of Maharishi's longstanding claims that the technique is everyone's birthright and that everyone should practice it. They are also alienated by the emphasis on rebuilding all homes having entrances facing to the south or west, his forbidding the teaching of TM in England, and several other policies. Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer their own techniques at considerably lower prices. They include TM Independent in the UK and Natural Stress Relief in Italy and the USA."

David 11:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Except for the first word, "Many," I see no problem adding it. Unless you can cite a reputable (that means independent) source for saying "many," you should use "some."Askolnick 12:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. I used "many" because I know many TM teachers who privately tell me they are alienated by many of Maharishi's current policies. But I am content to change it to "some" since I have no reputable source. I will wait a few days for others to post their comments before I change the article, since I don't want to start another edit war. David 13:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Andrew...

Andrew, if what Chopra and company did was so extraordinarily wrong, why isn't there a 6 page expose on this new incident in JAMA?

July 13, 2006 Medical Journal Says It Was Again Misled By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHICAGO, July 12 — For the second time in two months, The Journal of the American Medical Association says it was misled by researchers who failed to reveal financial ties to drug companies.

The journal is tightening its policies for researchers as a result.

Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, the journal's editor in chief,

said her main concern was the impact on readers, who she said needed to know about researchers' financial conflicts of interest to properly evaluate their studies.

The latest incident, disclosed in letters to the editor and a correction in Wednesday's journal, involves a study showing that pregnant women who stop taking antidepressants risk slipping back into depression.

Most of the 13 authors have financial ties to drug companies including antidepressant makers, but only two of them revealed their ties when the study was published in February.

Antidepressant use during pregnancy is controversial, and some studies have suggested that the drugs could pose risks to the fetus.

The authors of the study defended their research in a letter to the editor published Wednesday. The lead author, Dr. Lee Cohen of Massachusetts General Hospital, who is on the speaker's bureau for eight drug companies, disputed that such ties could influence findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparaig (talk • contribs) 03:58, 14 July 2006

Telephone effect and wiki articles...

What a fine example of the telephone effect. The article now contains information that was discredited by the TMO itself about 2 decades ago ("radically reduced metabolism" and I'm sure that if I attempt to correct the misconception, someone will accuse me of being anti-TM. Sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparaig (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 July 2006

I cannot make heads or tails of what you are saying, please clarify.

If you have a source that discredits that finding, cite it and post it! Sethie 02:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether comprehendable or not, Sparaig, please sign all your contributions. Thanks.

BTW, I word searched the article for "metabolism" and found nothing. Dormouse, are you sure you're not having a trance dream? There is nothing in the article about "radically reduced metabolism." Askolnick 06:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. 1) sorry about not signing. 2) that was a phrase in the MMY article, not the TM article:

"Transcendental Meditation

Transcendental Meditation is a mantra-based meditation performed while comfortably seated. Meditation sessions are performed twice a day and typically last for twenty minutes, during which practitioners regularly experience significantly reduced autonomous body functions (pulse, breath rate, heart rate). This radically decreased metabolism is claimed to be the result of the practicioners Transcendental Consciousness, which is a state where the mind is void of thoughts." Sparaig 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So it shouldn't be on this talk page, now should it? It belongs on the MMY talk page where it would make sense. And we wouldn't feel like we're at the Mad Hatter's tea party trying to keep the Dormouse awake.

The statement in question is seriously flawed. Besides being foolishly redundant ("pulse" rate and "heart" rate are synonyms), lowering heart rate and breath rate does not necessarily involve lowering the body's metabolism. Metabolism is primarily controlled on the cellular level and, while it can be measured by oxygen consumption, it cannot be measured solely by pulse or breathing rate. Oxygen consumption can remain the same by breathing more slowly but more deeply. Similarly, a slower heart rate can be associated with greater oxygen consumption/metabolism.

You could have changed this sentence to make the article better if you cited a sound reason. As for being accused of being anti-TM, I wouldn't worry about it. That's the price you often have to pay for trying to make this article fair and accurate. Askolnick 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maragaret Singer

[Margaret Singer] "She headed the Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC) in 1987 for the APA. When her findings were rejected by the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) for "[lacking] the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary" she sued the APA and lost in 1993."

My favorite story about Singer was her report of TMers who were in a state of permanent depersonalization so severe that even electro-shock therapy couldn't cure them...

What's that old saw about how Jesus would be locked up in an insane asylum if he returned today?

Cosmic Consciousness

"By definition, cosmic consciousness is held to be a state in which there is no stress remaining in the nervous system. In this state, the nervous system is said to become so flexible and adaptive in the face of challenges, that no further stress can be incurred. In cosmic consciousness one continues to be active on the surface, changing level of life, while maintaining a completely peaceful or restful state deep within the mind. Thus, in this state, for the first time, a permanent state of peace is achieved."

Sparaig 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

medline reference to CC study pdf of study

Sparaig 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Article on Natural Stress Relief

I am president of Natural Stress Relief, Inc., a nonprofit educational corporation. I would like to write an article on Natural Stress Relief (see www.nsrusa.org) and link to it from appropriate articles like Meditation. The reason I propose it here is that the people who would be most likely to oppose such an article (and delete it) read this talk page. Although NSR is new, it has already helped hundreds of people to enjoy life more, through the use of an effective and effortless form of meditation that allows the nervous system to reverse the damaging effects of stress. As a longtime Wikipedia contributor, I feel that NSR belongs in Wikipedia. Please let me know below if you oppose such an article. David 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry David, but I think this would be quite inappropriate. Wikipedia rules and guidelines frown upon people adding articles to promote their companies. If an organization is important enough for an article in Wikipedia, one should expect a disinterested editor would be interested enough to write one. If not, then I don't think it deserves an article in Wikipedia.Askolnick 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Askolnick, and I suspect such an article would be nominated for deletion on WP:AFD, on the ground that the subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia, and especially on the ground that you wrote it. As a long-time contributor, I expect you have created a page some time. Whenever you do, this text comes up: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam." Askolnick is giving you the canonical wiki reply: if it does belong on Wikipedia, somebody will write it. You should wait for that, not write it yourself. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks B. (I assume that Askolnick wrote this. David.)

Thank you both for your insights. I would not want to write this article if its only purpose were advertising. Here are my thoughts. First, where is the boundary between advertising and reporting facts? Natural Stress Relief (the technique and the companies) exists, as do many other organizations having articles in Wikipedia. Second, I think I can do a better job of describing NSR objectively, since I know more about than most folks. Third, it is true that appearance in Wikipedia would increase sales, but isn't that also true for articles like Denny's? David 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but I doubt that the CEO of Denny's started or even contributed to the Wiki article. While I believe it is appropriate for Denny's CEO or any other person to contribute to the existing article on Denny's (as long as he/she is providing well-sourced information, in an objective manner consistent with Wiki rules and policies), Wiki rules do not allow him or her to create such an article. And no, I don't think you necessarily are able to describe NSR more objectively because you know more about it. Because NSR is YOUR organization, you are LESS likely to be objective. And even if do manage to write objectively, readers are not likely to think so, because of your personal involvement. I have this same problem in writing about Natasha Demkina. Because my investigation and articles on her have been attacked by her promoters and defenders, I am perceived by some as unobjective -- ie. I'm defending myself and not the validity of the information.

But the bottom line is as Wiki administrator Bishonen said, Wiki rules bar you from writing an article on yourself or your organization (or such TM splinter groups in general) because it is self-promoting. If you did, it would likely - and justifiably - be removed.Askolnick 14:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)