Talk:Transcendental Meditation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

 This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

edit
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Revert of pseudoscience categorization

There are over 200 peer reviewed and published scientific papers on the effects of TM. To state that TM is a pseudoscience is simply not supported by the facts. Duedilly 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The number of papers on something does not make it science. Also, the vast majority of the papers dealing with TM address its psychologic effects, and not the pseudoscientific language and ideas used by the practitioners. Those papers that do address the 'physics' of TM invoke such psuedoscience as the quantum mind. This is why TM may be classed as pseudoscience. Michaelbusch 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect. The number of peer review published papers on a topic does in fact matter in determining whether something has been vetted by the scientific community. 200 peer review published studies is far more than most wikipedia entries have to support their scientific credibility. Psychology is a science, and there have also been many physiological and biochemical peer review publications on TM as well. What you are asserting is both unsupported and is OR by you. Please do not edit war. Duedilly 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, the vast majority of the papers do not discuss TM. They discuss its medical implications. TM has such things in it as 'TM and the unified field' (see the controversy section). That is pure pseudoscience. This is not OR by me.
The number of papers does not determine if something is pseudoscience or not. If it did, geocentrism and bibical creationism would be accepted thought. In this case, the papers aren't even addressing the point under discussion, so that discussion is barely relevant. But, again, the papers that discuss the 'physics' of TM are nonsense, even if they have been pure reviewed. Michaelbusch 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you give an example of a paper on the physics of TM? I believe you are confusing research on Transcendental Meditation with research on the TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have been in the process of reviewing each of the 200 peer review published papers on TM. I have not yet seen a single reference to anything like what you describe. You will need to make specific references. And even if you were able to find several peer review published papers that reference anything like what you suggest, that in itself does not justify a pseudoscience categorization, and certainly does not extend to the vast majority of research done on TM to justify any kind of pseudoscience label. I can reference close to 70 papers so far that I have reviewed in this large project that do not use descriptive terms such as "quantum mind" or "unified field", and further a cursory examination of others does not support your contention at all. Again, even if you find several authors who use terms such "quantum mind" to describe their results, this in itself does not in any way invalidate the research results. Further that would also not in any way invalidate the hundreds of studies which do not do use this terminology. You need to understand that ultimately, it is the scientific community of experts in their respective fields who peer review and suggest a paper for publication. 200 peer review publications involving several times that number of researchers and reviewers in fact do define the scientific validity of this technique. Duedilly 20:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Search on Google Scholar for TM finds several hundred results, as noted, which are almost entirely psychology & medicine. Again, these are not about TM, but about its effects on practioners. Searching for TM and physics gives such things as:

  1. Domash, L.H. 1977, "The Transcendental Meditation technique and quantum physics", in "Scientific research on Transcendental Meditation".
  2. Gustavsson, B. and H.S. Harung 1994, "Organizational learning based on transforming collective consciousness", which talks about "the field-effect of consciousness after similar phenomena in physics"
  3. Kleinschitz, K.B. 1997, "An investigation into field effects of consciousness from the perspectives of Maharishi's Vedic Science and physics", published by the Maharishi University of Management (supposedly a PhD thesis). This one is pretty blatant pseudoscience: 'a long-range field effect of consciousness ... called the Maharishi Effect ... resulting from the practice of TM ... is fundamentally a phenomenon of radiation of evolutionary influence arising from the enlivenment of pure consciousness, the unified field of natural law. ... This disseration reports on ... simple, robust, objective indicators for the effect ... [and] concludes on a pratical note with a description of the promise, available through concerted utilization of the knowledge and technologies of consciousness in Maharishi's Vedic Science, for enhanced national and global security in the face of unprecedented nuclear, biological, and genetic threats for which the modern sciences offer few sensible solutions".

In addition to physics, the outrageous claims of TM extend to mathematics:

Gorini, C.A. 2007; "Maharishi’s Vedic Mathematics: The Fulfillment of Modern Mathematics"; published by MUM.

I know what the words in these publications mean, and the sentences even parse with English grammar, but beyond that they read like bollocks. Their statements are so far removed from reality that even pseudoscience seems kind, but the conclusions, like those described by advocates of 'quantum mind' and similar things are pure pseudoscience. Two notes: James Randi, the CSICOP, and various other groups have done this type of debunking of TM before, and, again, the above is completely separate from TM's psychologic and medical effects. Those are documented, and are good illustrations of biofeedback and placebo effect, but the claims about physics and mathematics that come with TM are purest pseudoscience. I understand peer review and scientifc consensus very well, but we must distinguish between TM itself and its effects. TM is pseudoscience. It may be useful pseudoscience, but it is pseudoscience nonetheless Michaelbusch 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been continuing to acquire copies of each of the ~200 full peer review published studies on TM from sources such as medline and other NLM databases. TM is a mental technique. Until recently (with the development of technologies such as fMRI and positron emission tomography) we could only study and understand TM by its effects. When TM was first being researched in the 60s and 70s, the validity of psychosomatic medicine was not established. There may well have been occasions of unorthodox terminology used to explain the surprising results that were found. But by whatever name, the results themselves have been robust. That someone might write a paper on TM and quantum mechanics does not in any way invalidate the hundreds of medical studies showing clear physiological and biochemical effects from the mental practice of TM. It sounds as though you may be unfamiliar with what exactly the practice of TM is and the number of biological and psychological studies that the scientific community has felt to justify the publication of in peer reviewed journals. And as you suggest, precisely because TM has its roots in a non-western paradigm, likely there often were higher standards of validity and credibility that the results needed to meet (especially in the 60s, 70s and 80s when the mind-body connection was much less understood and accepted) in order to pass the critical examination of skeptical peer reviewers. The several examples you reference above in no way justify categorizing TM as pseudoscience, and in no way invalidate the extraordinary scientific research that has been peer review published on TM over the last 40 years. Duedilly 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Biofeedback and the placebo effect? How so? What about Transcendental Meditation entails biofeedback? As I understand it, biofeedback entails giving a subject real-time feedback of some autonomic physiological function. And what's the justifcation for the placebo effect? Note that the medical studies funded by NIH are randomized, controlled trials. Why would the placebo effect show up in one group and not in another? Don't RCTs control for this sort of thing? I wonder if you've ever read any of these studies. How can one judge an entire body of research without ever having read a single study? TimidGuy 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Just what IS pseudoscience? TM is a technique.There's also a theory of how TM works, but the implications of the theory also purport to explain the cosmos. At what point does this theory become a religion or pseudoscience? When you disagree with it? Careful how cavalierly you dismiss the cosmological implications ( you certainly will have a hard time dismissing the physiological implications, because they are reasonably well-supported, and becoming more so all the time). From the John Hagelin CV:
1986: After a series of discussions with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the potential relationship between Physics and Vedic Cosmology (see [1] and [2]), Hagelin made some preliminary modifications in Flipped SU(5) Superstring Theory to make it more in-tune with Vedic philosophy, which also made the theory more robust from a Western scientific perspective. He contacted John Ellis of CERN with this information who then contacted Dimitri Nanopoulos and the three published many papers on the subject over the next several years."
Now, you can claim that this is nonsense, but in fact, I've heard Hagelin claim exactly this in a public lecture, and if it is NOT the case that he did the initial revisions to Flipped SU(5), you're left trying to explain why Ellis and Nanonpoulos bothered to seek HIM out when they did their initial publications on revised Flipped SU(5). And, only Hagelin can say what prompted him to make the original modifications that he did, and he has. -Sparaig 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The personal opinions of string theorists do not constitute scientific consensus, and Hagelin is not a reliable source (he has of late advocated yogic flying). Scientists lose any claim to the name when they do such things. In any case, Hagelin's modifications to his particular string theory do nothing to support the assertions of TM that consciousness has some metaphysical connection to the universe or the even more absurd claims of 'enhanced national security'. TM is pseudoscience because of the gibberish so initimately associated with it. It could be disassociated, but it is not. It is something like intelligent design and literalist biblical creationism in that respect. As a technique of mediation, it has measurable effects. That I do not dispute. I used biofeedback and placebo effect in the general sense: biofeedback is simply forcing control over body processes that are usually automatic, and the placebo effect is the mind convincing itself to change its reactions to stimuli. These are what all mediation techniques are based on. Again, TM has measurable and verifiable medical and psychologic effects, but it cannot escape the absurdities and blatant pseudoscience that are contained in it. Perhaps the distinction can be made, but it has not been. Michaelbusch 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch, with respect, I feel that it is important to reiterate, and fundamental to an understanding of the TM technique and the related TM Sidhi Program that Transcendental Meditation is a technique for something else and is not an end in itself. TM and its effects, as you put it, cannot be separated. One does the technique because the technique affects, it is said, the body, mind, environment - as an extension of the practitioner, and affected by the practitioner, even something as simple as how the practitioner feels, but always for the effects of the technique on the one who meditates. Scientific Studies are simply attempting to record that in every avenue possible. I believe then, that if you wish to prove that the technique does not affect the individual in the ways that the numerous, scientific, peer-reviewed studies indicate, perhaps somewhat of an insult to the "peers" in the scientific community who have reviewed these studies, you should, if you wish to undo what these studies show, return to science. Anything else would be, ahum... pseudoscience. (olive 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC))


You take much on yourself when you declare John Hagelin is no longer a reliable source because he "advocates" yogic flying, and that all meditation techniques consist of bio-feedback and placebo affects. If there are distinctions to be made, who decides what these are, who makes them? A single individual on a discussion page,entertainment personalities attempting to deal with the paranormal, supernatural , and the occult, or a scientific community. Perhaps you would consider supporting these statements in the appropriate way, given Wikipedia Policy. These are sweeping generalizations with no support given, and as such constitute only, a very personal opinion, and in no way support defining TM as a pseudoscience. (olive 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

We seem to have a problem of definition here: I distinguish TM as a philosophy and form of pseudoscience, from its effects. You do not make this distinction, and insist that statements contradicting all of physics are not reason to call this pseudoscience. I am greatly confused by this. We can separate religion and its effects, we can separate other meditation techniques and their effects, so why can't this be done for TM? You may say that we can equally well separate the pseudoscience from TM. That is not possible without some grievous changes on the part of the TM community. I say again: the effects are not in dispute. The underlying pseudoscience is what must be recognized. I don't think I do anything to disparage the medical and psychologic research on TM's effects. Re. Hagelin, and pseudoscience in general, per Wikipedia ArbCom decision, the definition of pseudoscience is to be interpreted broadly and be in accordance with the understanding of the scientific community. Hagelin is alienated from that community (see his article), and, as I noted above, even if he were not, his math does nothing to support the claims of Maharishi and TM. Michaelbusch 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply. We live in a cause and effect universe. Any distinctions we make separating anything from its effects is artificial and exists only on paper.TM exists only because of its effects as does any other kind of meditation. No TM, no effects, no effect, no TM.Even this distinction I create as I write is artificial. The sheer numbers of peer reviewed articles constitutes a acceptance by the scientific community of the effects of TM.A counter to that from the scientific community would have to be massive.Since this counter doesn't exist at this time, we as editors of an encyclopedia, must act with what we have - not underlying philosophy or personal opinion. No one disputes the right of anyone to have an opinion, but we have to use reliable sources, verifiable sources, and as editors we have that. We can't ignore that in favour of philosophy not here at least.(olive 16:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC))


TM is a technique. The theory (philosopohy?) of TM may or may not be pseudoscience, but the practice of TM is not pseudoscience. And TM is NOT biofeedback. You are using that term in a non-standard way. From wikipedia itself:
By providing access to physiological information about which the user is generally unaware, biofeedback allows users to gain control over physical processes previously considered automatic.
By this, we can see that TM is antithetical to biofeedback. TM allows the mind to settle to a restfully alert state where neither thought nor senses are active. This can be verified by measuring the activity of the thalamus via MRI and other brain imaging technologies along with EEG. When the activity of the thalamus becomes less, sensory input into the brain becomes less as well, so you CANNOT call TM a form of biofeedback. As for your statement about Hagelin and the scientific community, that's silly. Hagelin started running for President of the USA on a minor party ticket in 1990 and no longer had time to publish. Most of his professional career was spent delving into Flipped SU(5) and related theories, and the initial modifications to Flipped SU(5) came about due to the guidance of his philosophy. Many scientists would prefer to ignore where Hagelin's inspiration came from, and of course, inspiration does not equal scientific enquiry, but to say that Hagelin has been alienated is to ignore the history of Hagelin's scientific contributions. Without his philosophy, he wouldn't have gained his reputation. It's like claiming that Newton was a pseudoscientist because his religion guided his enquiries into the nature of reality. -Sparaig 08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method." I submit that research on the Transcendental Meditation technique follows the scientific method. I further submit that research on the Maharishi Effect follows the scientific method. Studies have been published in the peer-reviewed "Journal of Conflict Resolution," which is based in the Department of Political Science at Yale University, and in the peer-reviewed "Social Indicators Research," published by a major academic publisher. In what sense do these studies not follow the scientific method? Each study had a hypothesis, methodology, etc. Each used standard statistical tools. Their use of time series analysis seemed to be beyond the bailiwick of critic Robert Park, whose scornful attitude suggested that he doesn't know time series analysis and doesn't realize that it's the standard tool for this sort of statistical analysis. I do think, though, that you've done a good job of making your point clear that you're referring to certain theoretical conjectures -- such as the suggestion that consciousness and the unified field are the same. But these are philosophical conjectures. No one has claimed to have done research to show this. Therefore, it's not clear in what sense this is said to be scientific claim, and therefore, it's not clear why this falls under the definition of pseuodoscience. TimidGuy 12:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what any of this conversation has to do with the Pseudoscience category. Disputing whether or not the theories behind it are actually pseudoscience is outside the scope of this talk page. To quote from the description of the Pseudoscience category,

This category comprises articles pertaining to pseudoscience, to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects, or subjects which a significant portion of the scientific community fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another. Some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community.

As can be seen, this is far broader than a category of pseudoscience, and it is likely that the topic fits. --Philosophus T 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it fits this broad definition either. Who in the scientific community has termed Transcendental Meditation research as pseudoscience? Not the National Institutes of Health, which as given $24 million in grants (you must be aware how competitive these grants are and how absolutely rigorous the research must be in order to be funded). Not the Centers for Disease Control, which has invited Transcendental Meditation researchers to present. Not the American College of Cardiology, which has elected researcher Robert Schneider, M.D., a fellow. Not the journals that have come to respect Maharishi University of Management researchers enough to invite them to serve as péer reviewers. Not the major universities and research centers that have done research on Transcendental Meditation, including Harvard Medical School, Yale Medical School, Stanford University, Princeton University, MIT, Purdue University, UCLA, UC Irvine, UC Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the University of Michigan Medical School, and the University of Texas. TimidGuy 15:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of anything else, some parts of it are clearly pseudoscientific or can clearly be criticized as such, such as the attempted links to physics. --Philosophus T 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This is merely your opinion and as such is OR on your part. Further you seem to persist in ignoring what has been repeatably explained to you here, that transcendental meditation is a mental technique that has demonstrated broad and robust physiological, psychological and biochemical effects in its practitioners. These effects have been vetted by the scientific community and published in refereed journals over a 40 year period of study, comprising close to 700 academic research papers, over 200 of which have been peer reviewed. This establishes TM as clearly within the framework of accepted science, and likely among the most well researched and scientifically validated subjects on all of wikipedia. Persistance in denying the validity of the substantial and long standing scientific acceptance of TM is much more a reflection of a critic's bias, or else a fundamental ignorance of what constitutes scientific methodology and process. Duedilly 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Further, if some particular investigations into various applications of TM are unusual and happen to push the envelope of current scientific orthodoxy (such as the so called Maharishi Effect), then the community of scientific scholars who review such research submitted to their journals have the opportunity and the responsibility to probe and question the methodology and results of that research. And they would either then accept those studies or not. The act of submitting this extended application research on the TM technique to established science journals to the scientific peer review process, regardless of the outcome, is clearly the accepted process of science. If the research is considered and then deemed publishable, likely meeting higher standards of critical review than ordinarily required due to potentially unorthodox implications, then even this research is fully within the established framework of scientific methodolgy. Duedilly 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no rule against OR on talk pages. As for your repeated responses about the quantity of papers published, and how this "establishes TM as clearly within the framework of accepted science", this has nothing to do with what I am referring to. Having papers in one particular area does not mean that the scientific community accepts TM as a whole. Chinese and Amazonian medicines are often subjects of respectable papers, and the papers sometimes find them to be effective. This does not imply that the authors also believe the explanations given for their efficacy to be effective. I am not, despite some searching, able to find any paper in a respectable physics journal about the physics aspect of TM. Considering the descriptions given, why are there no papers in PRL or PRD for the "Maharishi Effect"? --Philosophus T 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I point out that this is OR only to preclude any main page edits based upon erroneous opinions. TM is a mental technique. There may well be some theories and theorists who extend the application of TM into other fields, or who opine on the neurology or physics underlying its practice. But that would just be their theories and opinions, and if published, would be published as such. And that would be perfectly acceptable. And if based on further theories, there is an experimental paradigm that is designed to be tested, and data that is collected, then those protocols and results would be submitted to critical review in refereed journals in the respective fields, and either determined to warrant publication or not, proceeding exactly as scientific method and process requires, completely within the framework of accepted science. And if there happen to be some researchers who do not follow this process (on whatever topic and in whatever field of study), then even their insufficient efforts would not impugn or invalidate the cumulative results of the many hundreds of researchers, reviewers and journal editors who have followed due scientific process. Personally I know of no research in the field of physics related to TM. There may well be some, but I have never seen it, and if it exists, it may or may not have been peer review published. But this is not relevant in a discussion of whether the mental technique of TM is pseudoscientific. I believe the "Maharishi Effect" has been peer review published in several sociology or criminal science journals, but I don't have those references, and again this is simply an extended application of the TM technique. Given the substantial body of research on TM in the literature, there is simply no justification of labeling TM as pseudoscience, your contrary opinions notwithstanding. Duedilly 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There are two major peer-reviewed studies on the Maharishi Effect that I am aware of:
Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1988), pp. 776-812. David W. Orme-Johnson, Charles N. Alexander, John L. Davies, Howard M. Chandler, Wallace E. Larimore
Effects of Group Practice of the Transcendental Meditation Program on Preventing Violent Crime in Washington, D.C.: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June--July 1993 Social Indicators Research, Volume 47, Number 2 / June, 1999, pp.153-201. John S. Hagelin, Maxwell V. Rainforth, Kenneth L. C. Cavanaugh, Charles N. Alexander, Susan F. Shatkin, John L. Davies, Anne O. Hughes, Emanuel Ross and David W. Orme-Johnson
As you would expect, there are numerous critiques of the studies--So many that the editors of the respective journals stopped printing them. You can find a reference to the most widely-known criticism and an authors' response here.-Sparaig 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the irrelevances. In this spirit, I won't bother debunking TM further. As User:Philosophus correctly noted, the definition of pseudoscience has nothing to do with the number of papers on TM or its effects. TM makes statements that blatantly contradict verifiable and verified physics. That makes it pseudoscience. This is not subject to alteration unless TM stops making pseudoscientific claims. Again, this is about physics, not medicine, psychology, or sociology. I do this because I understand something of physics, and it is here that TM's pseudoscience is most evident. Michaelbusch 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Be specific about what you mean. It is NOT "most evident" that TM is a pseudoscience because "TM makes statements that blatantly contradict verifiable and verified physics." For one thing, you haven't defined what "TM" is. For another, you haven't given examples of "TM" making such statements. -Sparaig 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

TM = technique and philosophy of Transcendental Meditation as taught by Maharishi and his students. Explicit examples are given in the current controversy section of the article (I agree with Philosophus that the article needs massive revision), and in the references I provided above. The most blatant is this (I quote from the current article): Maharishi has taught that the Transcendental Meditation technique allows the mind to contact an underlying field of existence. This underlying field has been characterized by teachers of Transcendental Meditation as being the same as a hypothetical unified field described by physicists. That is pseudoscience: unified field theories deal with many things, but the human brain and mind are not one of them. Timescales, length scales, and energy scales are all completely different. Claiming such blatantly contradicts such effects as quantum decoherence. Philosophus may care to comment. He knows this better than I. Michaelbusch 08:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So the "Philosophy of TM" makes it a pseudoscience? That a Hindu monk makes claims about something in a philosophical way makes it pseuduoscience? What kind of research would be required, in your mind, to remove the article from this category? -Sparaig 08:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of research that needs to be done, nor a matter of most current research being pseudoscience, nor even a matter of TM being pseudoscience. The problem is that there is a technique here, and a theory here, and the two are on wildly different scientific levels. There are many instances of this sort of thing: many cultures have forms of medicine, for example, which are now studied by the scientific community, and some of the techniques and substances are found to be quite effective. But this doesn't mean that the explanations those cultures have for why their treatments work are at all scientific, and in nearly all cases the theories are complete nonsense. This is the issue here as well: it is quite possible that the technique is effective, but this doesn't mean that the theory makes any sense, and it doesn't mean that the researchers who have found the technique to be beneficial also believe in the theory. Unfortunately, everyone assumes that this is self-evident, and so don't spend time debunking every one of the countless similar theories. However, it should be possible to find sources about the basic concept here, which is essentially identical to many other pseudoscientific theories related to the mind and quantum mechanics. This would allow an accurate portrayal of the theory without being OR. Perhaps Michael knows of some sources like this. --Philosophus T 09:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The theory of how TM and enlightenment works follows a very neat progression, in my opinion:

1 The essential nature of the mind is to seek objects of attention that are satisfying in some way. This seems tautological.
2 One can take advantage of this fundamental nature and turn the attention inward and experience "finer levels of the mind" and gain deep rest and relieve stress. Parts of this are reasonably well supported by research.
3 The deepest state of rest gained during meditation is called "Pure Consciousness" or related terms and allows the mind and body to repair different, "deeper rooted" stresses than sleep, dreaming or simple relaxation can. This is measured at least partly by high alpha EEG coherence in the frontal lobes along with reduced breath volume or even apparent breath suspension. This is more controversial, but some aspects are supported by research published in the past 20 years.
4 Repeated exposure of the nervous system to the meditation state, alternated with normal daily waking, dreaming and sleeping activity, gives rise to a condition of the nervous system where some of the physiological correlates of "Pure Consciousness" (e.g., coherent frontal lobe Alpha EEG) are maintained along with normal physiological patterns of waking, dreaming and sleeping. Since the most permanent aspect of our mental landscape is always identified as "self," one naturally labels this permanent "Pure Consciousness" situation as "self," but since it is more permanent than any other aspect (being always there, even during deep sleep), it automatically gets bumped up to the status of "Real" or "True" self as opposed to transitory mental states/objects like personality, beliefs and feelings/emotions. This is more controversial still, but there is recent (in the past 10 years or so) research to support this.
5 Analogous to the "finer states of the mind," it is possible to refine the senses to perceive finer states of relative existence. This is certainly controversial, but EEG and brain imaging research done in the past few years suggests that there may be a physiological basis for such an experience: increasing levels of EEG coherence that involves the sensory centers in the brain in addition to the EEG coherence of the frontal lobes found during the Pure Consciousness state during TM, if found, might explain this state. MMY chooses to call the ultimate degree or near-ultimate degrees of such refinement "God Consciousness."
6 The final stage of growth, "Unity," is supposed to be where one perceives "Pure Consciousness" as the basis of all thought, emotion, sensation and perception. This would easily be explainable by an extension of the God Consciousness state due to higher and more broadly based EEG coherence throughout the brain. In fact, Fred Travis published his PhD thesis on the EEG of Yogic Flying in the International Journal of Neuroscience 17 years ago, and reported just that: EEG measures made of yogic flyers just before hopping started showed broadband EEG coherence in many parts of the brain simultaneously. Since the TM-Sidhis techniques are supposed to facilitate Unity, you can say that there is even some (one study) published research that supports even this aspect of the theory.

Now, if this was all TM theory said: that physiological changes induced by various mental techniques brought about altered states of consciousness, with concomitant health benefits, you wouldn't be objecting. Where your concern with pseudoscience comes from is the fact that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, being a devout Hindu monk, firmly believes and claims that these aren't merely altered states of consciousness, but are glimpses of the "Fundamental Reality of the Universe" (R) and that someone who is fully in Unity won't simply hop when practicing Yogic Flying, but will actually levitate in the James Randi Challenge-winning sense of the word. I can understand your concern, but in fact, it is ill-founded. None of the preceding asserts anything that can't be falsified. In fact, the final true test for genuinely being in Unity, according to MMY, isn't merely some altered state of consciousness as measured by EEG and so on, but the ability to float and do other sidhis ("super" powers) while in this altered state. That's perfectly falsifiable. Whether or not someone who is otherwise thought to be in Unity actually CAN float has yet to be tested. Until that time, you can't claim "pseudoscience," and will only be able to if the state of Unity is confirmed by the TMO and no changes are made in the theory if the person isn't floating for James Randi. You see, it doesn't matter at all if standard scientific theories say that something is impossible: It only matters if that something is demonstrated or not. If it is falsified and the theory isn't changed, then it is pseudoscience. If it IS demonstrated, then the "pseudo" prefix is dropped. -Sparaig 11:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You do not understand my concerns, and divert into irrelevancy again. My concern is not that Maharishi is a devout Hindu. My concern is that TM mis-uses physics to advertise the technique. If all that was said was that TM brings you closer to the 'Fundamental Reality of the Universe', that would be fine, because it cannot be argued. When TM tries to phrase that in terms of field theory, then its statements are subject to testing, validation and verification. It fails on those counts. It is pseudoscience. End of discussion. Michaelbusch 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Example that might help you to understand: Christianity is not pseudoscience. Literalist biblical creationism is. No, we will not start the creationist debates here. Michaelbusch 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The term "unified field" is often used because the TM founder believes that it is identical to the Vedic/hindu concept of consciousness at the "universal" level, as does Hagelin. And, in a sense, the claim IS testable, should Yogic Flying ever be observed in the floating stage. Of course, there would be an infinite number of alternative explanations of such a phenomenon if it existed, but given the context of the YF technique and its physiological/experential effects, the "consciousness = the unified field" explanation would be an obvious contender. People like MMY and John Hagelin merely indulge in explanations for a phenomenon that has not been observed, and most people believe will never be observed, but this is a time-honored tradition in modern physics called "thought experiments." That they don't make a distinction between a thought experiment and reality shows their own extreme bias, but still doesn't make their speculation pseudoscience. The way they USE their thought experiments could be considered pseudoscientific, however. -Sparaig 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JAMA controversy

In the interest of keeping the main ideas of the article focused on TM only, and trying to keep the size of the article manageable, how about moving the JAMA controversy section to the Maharishi Ayur-Veda article? Roseapple 21:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. In fact, we did exactly this a few months ago, for exactly this reason. Tanaats suggested it, and we had consensus from three editors to do it: Tanaats, Dreadlocke, and me. No one objected. Then, without discussion, Sethie put it back in late December or early January. TimidGuy 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There has already been much discussion here of article bloat. I think we could move from this entry whatever doesn't refer specifically to TM to more appropriate entries. Further, due to the extraordinary amount of high quality RS in the peer review published research on TM that we have available to us, I think we would also significantly increase the SNR (and further conserve limited and valuable article space) of this entry by removing the discussion of and references for the much lower quality RS non-peer review published scholarship. Duedilly 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
SNR? Signal-to-noise ratio? Might have to explain. : )
Anyway, let's take one step at a time. TimidGuy 21:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"In July 1992, Dr. Deepak Chopra, the Lancaster Foundation, and the American Association for Ayur-Vedic Medicine filed a $194 million libel suit against Lundberg, Skolnick, and the American Medical Association alleging in part that statements in the article were false and defamatory. The case never went to trial and was resolved in 1993 by a confidential settlement agreement. [citation needed] No statements in the JAMA article were retracted."

It is my understanding that there was no settlement and that this view is promoted by TM promoters to imply that some damages were awarded. Is that not correct? -Ste|vertigo 11:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a correct understanding of Skolnick's version.
At this point, we have differing accounts, and the only real fact we have in hand is the judge's order: "This cause of action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate if settlement is not effectuated. All pending motions are hereby moot." The definintion of "effectuated" is "put into force or operation." In my revised wording in this article that I had proposed in a thread above and that I subsequently inserted, I tried to take into account the fact in hand and the differing interpretations: "Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the suit was dimissed by the judge at the request of the plaintiffs, with the option of reinstating pending completion of the settlement."
It's obvious that there was some sort of agreement, because even Skolnick says there was, and that it was according to this agreement that the plaintiffs asked that the suit be dismissed without prejudice. Beyond that, I don't know who to believe. But I think my wording satisfies all parties. It uses "settlement agreement" rather than "settlement" because apparently there was an agreement that a discussed settlement would be effectuated if JAMA took some sort of action. I believe your quoted paragraph is from the Maharishi Vedic Medicine article. This is an old iteration that hadn't yet been updated with the new wording. I can update it. TimidGuy 12:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There has been consensus from opponents as well as proponents of TM that this section should be moved to the article on Maharishi Ayurveda, so I'll move it there. Hopefully that will help focus the discussion on these pages to TM itself. Roseapple 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There has been? I certainly don't agree with the move, and I expect MichaelBusch doesn't either. --Philosophus T 08:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe Roseapple was referring to my first post in this thread. TimidGuy 13:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max Planck as source, QFT section in general

I've removed the paragraph based on Max Planck's speculation as his writings in a non-scientific source from the 1930s aren't at all indicative of the opinions of modern physicists on modern topics. In addition, from the perspective of a high energy theorist, parts of the section currently read like patent nonsense, but I'm not certain as to how to remedy the situation. --Philosophus T 13:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'm removing the quote from Pagels since it is redundant; what he said was summarized in the preceding sentence. Roseapple 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia style and excessive quotations

I've added the Wikipedia tag regarding excessive quotations at the top of the criticism section. As I understand it, proper Wikipedia style generally entails finding a qualified secondary source, adding a summary of that information to the Wikipedia article, and citing the original source. Especially in the religion section, which tends to string together random quotes rather than summarizing a source in encyclopedia style. I hope that we can gradually address this. TimidGuy 16:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review of the article

I've read through the article briefly, and have some suggestions on improvements:

  • Information about research is sometimes repetitive. I've removed one instance of the exact same text occurring twice. Most likely, the research should be merged into one section, rather than having multiple sections. In addition, research which found TM to be ineffective should go into the same section, as it is research as well.
  • Theory of Consciousness: the descriptions here need considerable NPOVing. One way of doing this which wouldn't require repetitive disclaiming would be to use quotes for each, since right now most of the text assumes that all of the theory behind TM is correct.
  • Learning the technique: This section is rather short, and could probably be integrated into the procedures section, which is also rather short.
  • The current Research section: This is rather disorganized and repetitive, again. The funding from the NIH is talked about, and then the papers stemming from that is talked about, and the NIH funding is talked about there again. Much of the section could be shortened considerably by more compactly and less redundantly summarizing the research. In addition, the actual researchers are rarely mentioned. It is possible that some of the papers shouldn't warrant their own mentions, since there are too many and just adds disconnected sentences on less important results that trivializes the more important ones. Subsection divisions seem to be arbitrary, and in most cases aren't necessary. I may consider rewriting this section in the near future, since I think it would be a far more effective section if it were not so convoluted.
  • Validity of TM research should go into the research section, as should the studies on adverse effects. They are all research, and aren't the same as the other controversies considered.
  • Lawsuits: these read like individual news articles. They should be shortened and summarized. They certainly shouldn't each have their own section.
  • Cult/religion: as with the lawsuits, these could probably be combined.
  • The "See Also" section appears to be left over from an earlier part of the article. Templates of the form that is currently there usually don't have their own section, and are often placed on the bottom of pages or in a sidebar.

More generally, I think that the largest issue here is a convoluted writing style which arbitrarily divides topics and repeats itself. This makes the article very hard to read, and much longer than would be optimal for an effective article. --Philosophus T 07:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Philosophus. This is excellent. I think you're the first person to actually read the whole article. Some of these changes are identical to recommendations that I made in the "Mediation proposal" thread above. It feels like we're ready to take the article to a new level. So much time has been spent in edit warring since mid-November that there's been little time to actually improve the article. I have the feeling that you're relatively neutral -- unlike some editors in the past three months whose only goal has been to make the article as damaging to TM as possible. (You can see that I assume good faith. : ) ) TimidGuy 12:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC) I feel bad about my disparaging comment regarding two editors. One did much to greatly improve the article, and the other had some good insights on occasion. TimidGuy 15:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's take it one step at a time. Maybe we could start by putting the study by Canter and Ernst and the one by Otis in the research section. I'm working under deadline today, so won't have time to do it, but can do it Monday morning if everyone agrees this is a good step.
I guess my only reservation regarding all of these suggestions is the proposal to merge the research into one section. TimidGuy 16:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Which, by the way, I assumed to mean getting rid of the subheads. But maybe you didn't mean that. If you simply meant making it more integrated and moving up the studies by Otis and by Canter and Ernst, then of course I like that idea. TimidGuy 01:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revision of lead

Am pasting here the new version of the lead by Philosophus. I think that it does improve some things. But it would be good to have consensus first regarding such an important change. Olive, especially, will want to have input, since she worked hard on the current version.

Transcendental Meditation' or TM is a trademarked form of meditation introduced in 1958 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that involves the repetition of specific sounds, called mantras. According to Maharishi, the technique enables the practitioner's mind to "transcend" to a state of "restful alertness", without the use of concentration or active thinking prevalent in many other meditative techniques. The paid practice taught in a seven day course is said to have been taught to over 6 million people.Considerable medical research exists that describes the effects of the technique.This includes many studies describing health benefits. The accuracy of some studies has been questioned.

add "Maharishi explains "Maharishi's Technologies of Consciousness" (of which the Transcendental Meditation Technique is one aspect) to be the experiential side of Maharishi Vedic Science"


Hope this isn't construed as edit-warring. TimidGuy 12:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Think I messed up here.Very sorry.I did some copy editing here, and then realized that the original version pasted on talk page would not be available for others to see.I'm afraid I don't know how to find it and paste it back, and am rushing here today so don't have time to figure it out.Actually I think Purple Iris did the work on this but I am happy to plunge in. I think this is fine with some copy editing, and a little discussion.I am very happy to see an overview of the changes that could occur in the article as a whole.Thanks for doing that.I am slugging away at the Religion and cult material, attempting to reduce material to short statements rather than long discourses as you mentioned, and as per our discussion a month or so ago adding material on TM and spirituality, and should have that up here for discussion in a few days. I think many good suggestions have been made,and I would be relieved to actually work on the article rather than so much time on "Talk". Some points
  • Not sure we need to include here at this point questions about accuracy of research.The intro I would think might be best just stating what TM is rather than introducing controversies. This statement seems to be stuck on and opens a door that we don't do anything about until much later .... Just a thought.
  • There may be a way to talk about transcending in a more non-meditator, user- friendly way.(olive 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Olive, note that this version omits your sentence referencing Maharishi Vedic Science.

I guess my only reservation is the last two sentences. I'd almost rather not get into the benefits in the lead. Makes it seem promotional. The article had a real problem with this in the past. Also, the study by Canter and Ernst suggests that the expectation effect explains the large effect size in four randomized, controlled studies related to coginitive function. It can't be generalized beyond this. Their rationale is that the subjects who participated had already planned to learn TM. This cannot, for example, be generalized to the NIH RCTs, which recruited subjects who had no interest in TM. I don't see how their conjecture regarding these four studies merits inclusion in the lead. TimidGuy 15:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Had to leave without finishing comments. I realized as well that it is necessary to keep in the MVS reference. The move of material to the MVS site was dependent on an agreement from the editors to have the MVS reference in the article for two reasons. First, we obviously had to reference the material to connect MVS to the TM technique material physically. Second, after much explanation and discussion we are using the methodology that places TM as one arm of MVS and the TM Sidhi program as the other arm. This neatly categorizes the material, and is very accurate in terms of the organization's explanation of the material. When putting together the MVS article i felt that this would simplify explanation and discussion later on.
Like Timidguy, I do have concerns with the last lines. In addition to what I mentioned in my last entry, I felt on further thought that introducing just medical studies was inappropriate. We either put in something like:

"Over 600 hundred research studies exist on the TM technique and related programs,200 of them peer-reviewed.Some controversy exists on the reliability of some of the studies".(would have to check numbers for accuracy)

Or we take the whole reference to studies out. Referencing just the so called medical studies is very specific in an introduction that is devoted to the general aspects of TM.If we include studies we make a general reference to be consistent in the style we have established in the intro. As TG suggested the whole "studies " section may sound too promotional so perhaps we should just take it all out for that reason as well.
I am adding an MVS reference as I discussed. I will put it inside quotes to mark what I've added. We can remove quotes if there are no objections to the material.

I would like to make this small change as one that is easier for the reader to understand.... instead of "restful alertness" change to restful but alert.(olive 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

The introduction needs to be an introduction to the material in the article. Right now, it is just a paraphrase of things that the introducer has said. We need to take information from all parts of the article—what it actually is, what the theory behind it is, that it is taught in a single course for a fee, that there have been studies that have found health benefits, and that there is controversy over its efficacy and (when I prepare the sources for it) that its theory is based on ideas widely dismissed by the scientific community. It also should probably link to MVS. By the way, TimidGuy, the pasted rewrite that you posted above and attributed to me does not, in fact, appear to be mine, and I am somewhat confused as to where it came from—there are significant grammatical differences between that version and the version I put on the page.
As for the references to the studies, I cannot understand why there is such an emphasis among some editors on giving raw numbers of studies. There were only two human genome studies, but I think that no one could deny that those were most likely more important than many of the studies published that year. The NIH funding is quite possibly more important than the number of studies, as mentioning it dispels somewhat the general feeling in subjects like this that the studies might be all paid for by the inventor, and published in a "peer reviewed" journal reviewed by the inventors friends (I have seen this many times). In addition, per the ArbCom pseudoscience decision, studies that are not in reputable peer reviewed sources are pretty much unacceptable for scientific references, so we shouldn't need to list the number of them that have been peer reviewed. That should be implied by the fact that they are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Philosophus T 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That takes away virtually all criticisms of TM, save lawsuits, you know. -Sparaig 09:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
RE: "restful but alert" vs "restful alertness": that's OR. The term used all over the place in the TM literature and TM research is "restful alertness." There's a reason for that. "Restful but alert" implies something entirely different. TM apparently reduces the connection of the senses to the brain via the thalamus and reduces the cortico-thalamic-cortico loops that give rise to thinking and dreaming processes, just as deep sleep does, but the brain remains in an alert mode, unlike sleep. Using the term "restful but alert" implies that one is still completely aware of the outside world, which is not the case during episodes of pure consciousness. -Sparaig 09:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Restful but alert is not OR its a paraphrase. I don't care which phrase we use. I would like the material to be non-meditator, reader friendly. (olive 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

Philosophus, I'm guessing that the difference between what appeared and what you wrote is explained by Olive's first post in this thread in which she said she did some copyediting. Seems like we have consensus on the first part. Good points about NIH and number of studies. I guess based on the ArbCom decision, we should simply exclude the study by Otis on adverse effects, since it wasn't published in an academic journal nor was it peer reviewed. TimidGuy 12:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

yes sorry that was me. I did some copy editing for grammar and then realized I had lost the original. Sorry about that .... Nothing was changed in terms of meaning though... and Yes MVS material must be left in. (olive 19:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
Considering that there really isn't much content in the MVS articles, and most of them failed to withstand even SPEEDY consideration, I'm not sure why they are kept as separate articles at all; there really isn't enough independent material to put in them. As for the copyediting, I can't quite understand its purpose, as the effect seems to have been to essentially remove all conjunctions. Do note that the pseudoscience AS criteria only applies to sources of a scientific nature, so the Otis study falls under its purview (it is unclear to me whether it actually satisfies it or not), whereas the Markovsky quote and Pagels affidavit do not. --Philosophus T 00:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I edited for grammar. My undergraduate degree and one of my graduate degrees is in English Literature and includes hefty doses of grammar and syntax/sentence structure. I edit automatically if I see grammatical concerns - I edit equally my own stuff. Most writing requires several edits often by someone else. I find I can easily read past my own errors. Again, I apologize for jumping into the editing and then too late realizing the original material was gone.
  • The MVS article: MVS can be a huge topic since there are 40 aspects of Vedic Literature. 5 I believe have been developed. Then there are the programs that utilize MVS. This article with a consensus of editors was created as an outline soon to be filled in with information on these 5 aspects, and with extended information on the programs that utilize MVS . We are concerned about bloating the main article and again with a consensus moved this to a page that had a stubb on MVS . Using MVS, as I mentioned, is an important organizational format for the Material we are dealing with. I wanted to mention that the group of editors working on the TM and related material did so with extensive discussion. Almost always major adjustments in the articles here were done when a consensus was reached and not otherwise. The TM technique and related material is highly controversial material and I for one can't make major editing adjustments unless we have a consensus.I believe that whoever deleted the page (is that what you are referring to) did so as an act of vandalism rather than because the article wasn't worth reading.Would be happy to explain the use of MVS as an organizational format.
  • I am concerned by your insistence on using the term pseudoscience. I would suggest that this is OR and unless you can find a reliable, verifiable source that states that TM is Pseudoscience, then how can we use this classification. This is like saying TM is a religion.Whoever makes this kind of statement must support the claim with a verifiable, RS. Producing arguments to support a claim or position is OR, and as I understand Wikipedia policy is not usable.(olive 04:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
There is no need to apologize for the loss of the original version, as it is actually in the history of the article, along with every other revision. I will admit that our differences in opinion concerning the merits of your changes may be due to differences in aesthetic views. Although the "which"->"that" change is inarguably correct, the change to the second sentence seems overly lengthy and repetitious (remove "meditative", at the very least), and the changes to the last sentence have the effect of entirely removing the narrative flow of the text and creating a consecutive series of disconnected simple sentences.
In regard to the MVS articles, I see no such consensus, and much of the material is not notable or verifiable. Indeed, much of the material was not even able to survive the A7 and G11 criteria of the CSD policy, which is what I refer to in my previous comment.
Finally, with regard to your concern about the pseudoscience categorization, I am in the process of collecting sources to support this. The purported physics connections are quite obviously pseudoscience, and are of a general class of pseudophysical theories that have been widely rejected by the scientific community in a broad sense, so much so that in many discussions they are assumed to be pseudoscience by default, and articles are written about how to best educate physicists to avoid being unwittingly used as support for such theories. Your use of the religion claim as an example is strange, since despite what the article states in its very poor coverage of the matter, it appears that the court did, in fact, classify TM as a religion rather than just SCI. --Philosophus T 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my last post under 'Conflict of interest' for a few relevant references. Michaelbusch 07:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe, that all editors are all very aware that this is article is convoluted, over heavy with quotes and so on. The article is not frozen but is an ongoing work in progress and has been worked on by editors with divergent viewpoints. The convolution in the format of the article comes in part because the material has never been properly organized. We are attempting to do that. Convolution in the articles themselves comes out of poor syntax, excessive use of quotes and a fair amount of OR. We have been attempting to address that issue. This is slow work because almost every move made entails discussion, and there has been an attempt to respect the views of all editors.

Moving the MVS material was an organizational move. Consensus was not formal as in a vote, but the move and writing of the article was made with a suggestion I think if I can remember by Tanaats, and was made with notification in the article's history, on the discussion page, and with the comment that the article was open for discussion and editing. No concerns arose concerning the article excluding some small minor edit. This was considered a consensus on the material given that the idea came from Tanaats, and that I posted notifications in every way I could to alert all editors to the move and extension of the article, and then waited a week for possible responses before deletion of the old material.

Ah, yes , I see. I haven’t been keeping up with the MVS site. However, I do remember that I transferred some of the material from the original TM site, but cannot imagine that I didn’t check to see if there were actually pages internally linked. I would have thought I ‘d have used external links to connect and verify the information. This seems strange to me but I can’t really remember anymore what I did or didn’t do in the actual body of the article. The point was that there was talk of developing some of this material, and nobody wanted it on the main page because the page was already lengthy. I can tidy this up, I guess - should have caught it earlier.

No I didn’t edit for aesthetic reasons. I didn’t think it was my business to make changes that way without discussion - As is the way these pages have been functioning since I came on. I considered this a preliminary edit on top of which the author or a group of editors could change to make it a better read. “The practice, said to have been taught to over 6 million people in a paid seven-day course, has had considerable medical research into its effects, with many studies finding health benefits, though the accuracy of some studies has been questioned.” Comments on editing – “has had considerable,,,” The “practice actually doesn’t have anything because it isn’t alive, and isn’t capable of “having”… “There is research on the practice…” is a less awkward way of saying this. One can change that to make the sentence more interesting, but the underlying grammar must be there first. “with many studies finding” –again the studies don’t find anything…. One could say, “a paid- for seven day course”-more accurate, less awkward. The statements in the last sentence should probably not be connected . Although they are connected in terms of the article as a whole, they are two or three different thoughts and as such should be separate sentences.

I’m afraid I can’t agree with you on the topic of pseudoscience and am uneasy about it. I felt that you came on to prove that this was pseudoscience and were perhaps less open-minded about the material you met with than one might have been. Using material like Skeptics dictionary seems unscientific to the extreme. If one is going to prove pseudoscience one had better go to Science it seems, and use these less reliable sources, that are sometimes downright silly.(olive 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Etne animas rerum auferes? --Philosophus T 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
not sure what "essence" I am "taking away"or what this statement refers to , but no matter.(olive 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC))
I have been watching this article since long before the pseudoscience tag was removed. I cited the Skeptics dictionary because the CSICOP and Randi know their science very well, and science is to a large extent skepticism. If you are going to deem those sources 'less reliable', you will find that hard to defend. I also referenced Carl Sagan, whose scientific reliablity is not in dispute. I provided the references I did because the skeptics are the ones who have taken the time to identify and debunk pseudoscience. Michaelbusch 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
CSICOP is not an authority on science, nor is Randi, who is actually a magician. Sagan is/was an authority on astronomy, and presented basic scientific knowledge to laymen in his TV shows and writings, but was never noted as an authority on "Science" any more than Asimov was (else he'd be listed as a Philosopher of Science). Hagelin's statements purporting to link the unified field to consciousness are philosophical, though he may well cross the line into pseudoscience by not drawing a distinction between his own unfalsifiable interpretation of the relationship between the two and what scientists can say on the matter while speaking as scientists.-Sparaig 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts of Interest

Recently, in an off-line conversation, another editor made a suggestion which is somewhat distasteful to me, but which should probably be addressed in the interests of full disclosure. The suggestion is this: given the lucurative nature of TM and the zeal of its practioners, it is possible that some of the editors of the article are guilty of serious conflicts of interest. Many of you edit through layers of anonymity, for good reason, but I feel I should ask, particularly of frequent editors of the article: do you have any involvment with TM that would constitute a conflict under WP:COI? Michaelbusch 17:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on faculty at Maharishi University of Management, and my pay is $400 a month plus room, board, and health insurance. That's lucrative?
In my experience, everyone who comes here either practices TM or opposes it in some way. Admin Will Beback once suggested that all parties contributing to this article have a conflict of interest -- they're either fer it or agin' it. But I think that we can improve the article in spite of that. I feel like Philosphus has made some excellent suggestions and I'm eager to gradually implement them. I suggest we try following the advice of the conflict-of-interest guidline: "Discuss the article, not the editor."
You've given some good input, and I think that the discussion of pseudoscience has been useful. TimidGuy 20:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a long time TMer (33+ years) --not a TM teacher, faculty member, or compensated materially in any way by the TM organization or anyone associated with the TM organization for posting here--with too much time on his hands. You might want to ask the editor who suggested it what THEIR involvement with TM is. One person who participated in the editing of this article until a few months ago was sued by the TM organization for $194 million, for example. Several others who participated maintain websites hostile to the TM organization. Another former editor was the owner of the website that promotes his own "TM-like" teaching, that is still mentioned in the WK:TM article, which in turn is affiliated with a rival meditation school (also linked to in the WK:TM article) that maintained the archives of the anti-TM trancenet for several years. A current editor, who is listed as a "contributor" to the TM free blog and as a founder of trancenet, wrote the Down the Rabbit Hole essay. Still another, or at least he contributes to the talk page, created the minet archives. COI cuts both ways. -Sparaig 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If we are all stating our biases here, I suppose I should do so as well: I am a theoretical high energy physicist who had never heard of the topic before coming to this page. I believe this is the case for MichaelBusch as well. I am heavily involved in editing articles on pseudoscience and especially pseudoscience involving quantum mechanics and high energy theories; in fact, that is all I do with this account, which I created to avoid harassment, since there are some very threatening nuts on Wikipedia. I found this article due to the WTBDWK article, which I have been editing, and saw that, from a strict Physics perspective, the article was highly biased, as it said nothing about the theory espoused being of a type widely dismissed by the physics community, and also that it was written in a terribly convoluted and repetitive style which made reading difficult. I've therefore been trying to fix these problems by searching for physics sources on the underlying theoretical ideas (although there are none specific to TM, there are many on the general ideas), and by rewriting sections of the article in order to make them easier to read and much shorter (the article is currently far too long). --Philosophus T 05:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already provided one paper by Hagelin on this issue. THere's another. Neither addresses the issue of the Maharishi Effect directly, but they DO give Hagelin's opinion on the matter. DId you read the paper? -Sparaig 07:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I had heard of the topic before, but only in passing. I found the article because of my edits to What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Again, Hagelin does not represent scientific consensus and does not constitute a reliable source.
Re. Littleolive oil's last post: what constitutes a reliable source for what constitutes pseudoscience is likely a matter of dispute. However: per Wikipedia ArbCom decision, pseudoscience is to be interpreted broadly and includes anything making claims in direct contradiction to current scientific consensus. TM fails on this count. No further justification is required. That said, other sources that have deemed TM pseudoscience include the CSICOP (e.g. Skeptical Inquirer, March-April 1998, Maharishi Management University's frequent fliers), James Randi (e.g. [3]), and Carl Sagan (in The Demon-Haunted World). These sources are reliable by any sensible definition of the term. The people concerned may not be polite, but they are very rarely mistaken. Michaelbusch 04:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Since this has been debated to the point of nausea here .... note did not use the Latin:)

We can wait to debate this , and from my side hope Philosophus can up with more RS than for example Skeptic's Dictionary that admits to "no peer or professional review process". and "does not try to present a balanced account"(olive 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Unified field

Thanks, everyone, for your discussion of pseudoscience. It's been fascinating. It seems like we have consensus that the TM research is science and not pseudoscience. This is a big step. There are two issues that remain: 1) the philosophical conjecture regarding the unified field, and 2) the research on the TM-Sidhi program/Maharishi Effect. Right now it seems like the main concern of Michaelbusch and Philosophus is the former. Also, since the latter is the province of the Wikipedia article on the TM-Sidhi program, then I suggest that if that's an issue, we take it up there.

So regarding the unified field, I'm not quite sure what the concern is. Philosophus suggested that while the empirical research is sound, it's the accompanying theory that's pseuodoscientific. But the unified field isn't referenced in the research publications. The theory that explains the results is nicely summarized in an article that I was just looking at in the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation: "“We hypothesized that practice of the TM technique would promote self-development in prison inmates through a dual process of transcending and the release of deep rooted stresses. Transcending allows the activity of the mind to settle from its usual incessant activity into the silent level of transcendental consciousness, the Self.” And “The profound physiological rest gained through transcending sets the initial conditions for the body’s self-repair mechanisms to normalize long-lasting effects of stress. A wide range of evidence indicates the TM program normalizes effects of stress.”

It's true that we sometimes use interchangably transcendental consciousness, pure intelligence, the absolute, pure being, pure consciousness, and unified field when discussing the Vedic understanding of existence. But it's just one term among many that we use. As far as I know, we don't use it in marketing, we don't say it proves anything, we don't ever say that the unified field has been proven to be the same as pure consciousness, we don't use it in our empirical studies. And the usage comes from John Hagelin, who wrote a seminal paper in the mid-80s titled "Is Consciousness the Unified Field?" He's no slouch. He has his PhD from Harvard and has been a researcher at two of the top particle accelerators in the world: CERN and SLAC. He's thought deeply about this.

It's a philosophical conjecture. And it's unrelated to our research and the theory that undergirds the research. And it's just a small point in a large body of philsophical understanding. So it confuses us when you seemingly demand that TM be categorized as pseudoscience because of this minor philosophical conjecture. That said, it's not really a big issue. We hadn't even noticed that categorization until recently when an editor came through and added a UFO category, which I also deleted. TimidGuy 20:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The TM organization has put out big newspaper adds that expound on the theory in the context of the Maharishi Effect, and during the time when they were afraid that the "Transcendental Meditation" trademark was about to expire (thanks Mickey!), they started using the term "Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field" as an unwieldy replacement for TM and related techniques. The theory conflating consciousness and the unified field pervades MMY's theories of conscioiusness, life, the universe, and the number 42, but that is inevitable, given that he is Hindu, and any universal "thing" with enough similarities to consciousness MUST be consciousness, by his way of thinking. Hagelin established a great number of similarities in the essay that you mention and in fact, his professional reputation is founded on his using them as a guide to tweak Flipped SU(5). It's certainly important for discussion of how Yogic Flying might be possible, and is at the heart of MMY's assumptions (personal perceptions?) about the identify of consciousness and reality, so I guess its impossible to eliminate from the discussion completely. Should the main TM article be categorized as pseudoscience, or only the auxiliary articles where the nature of the beast REQUIRES such a theory to explain the phenomena? -Sparaig 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by the trademark expiring. Trademarks never expire, though patents and copyrights do.--Philosophus T 06:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You're correct on the trademark issue. I have no idea why they stopped worrying about using the "Maharishi Technologies of the Unified Field" label, save perhaps that its too long to use effectively in the first place. -Sparaig 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I never stated that I believed the empirical evidence to be sound. I believe that certain (non-"Maharishi Effect") papers on medical effects to individuals who are themselves practicing the technique could be sound, but that the physics and action-at-a-distance are pseudoscientific and due to their nature can be presumed to be so, as there are many scientific rejections of the general ideas. Using Hagelin as an authority on high energy theory really isn't appropriate. --Philosophus T 06:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that there's no scientific explanation for why something works doesn't mean it doesn't. it is up to scientists to figure that out, assuming the evidence mounts to the point where they are persuaded to bother. However, you show that you're aware that action-at-a-distance issues are central to the Maharishi Effect, and that is separate from the main article on TM, so why do you want to use the label on the main article? -Sparaig 07:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
See my response below. --Philosophus T 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Philosphus, the peer-reviewed research on action-at-a-distance is related to group practice of the TM-Sidhi program. I understand that there is considerable debate on that, and I was suggesting that will be appropriate to the article on the TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy 12:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that controversy is being moved to little articles on specific subtopics which has the effect of hiding it, and is quite similar to making a POV fork. TM-Sidhi is still part of TM, just like everything else, and the controversy still needs to be mentioned here. --Philosophus T 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware that Stevertigo, in mediation, pushed heavily for a split that we declined to proceed with. Moving material has unloaded material of off the main site. The site was as many editors noted becoming unmanageable because of its size, and was only getting larger. I really request that you not undo weeks and months of discussion that brought us to a consensus on making some of these moves. As well,saying that the TM Sidhi program is part of TM is not quite accurate. MVS however, contains within it the TM technique on the experiential side, and the TM Sidhi program, as an advanced program on this same experiential side of MVS. The Vedic Literature,a knowledge component rather than an experiential component stands on the other side of MVS. The TM Sidhi program is not part of TM technique, but is rather a separate program that has its own body of information.I believe we have all worked hard in the last months to clarify the way in which this material exists, coexists, influences, is influenced, remains separate, and so on. In the end we have to go to the experts in this area to understand this material. We found, and I think this refers to all editors, that there were many times that with checking the TM web-sites, and with extensive discussion could we begin to understand the complexities of this material.We can refer back to those discussions, and hopefully don't need to start this process all over again.(olive 05:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
The length of the article is mainly due to the convoluted and repetitive writing style. Once this is fixed, the article will become more manageable. In addition, just because the bulk of a topic is discussed in one article doesn't mean that it should be excluded from the main article, as is happening here. I am planning on writing a proper article on Malnak vs. Yogi, but that doesn't mean that it would be acceptable to remove mention of the case in this article, just as having a TM-Sidhi article doesn't make it acceptable to remove all mention of that criticism. This article is on the TM movement as a whole, and trying to remove criticism of parts of that movement by relegating it to other names is not appropriate. --Philosophus T 08:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Note, past due: there is not consensus that TM is not pseudoscience. In the scientific community, there is consesus that it is. Michaelbusch 07:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

MichealBusch, I take exception to your claim that the consensus in the scientific community is that TM is pseudoscience. Transcendetal Meditation is a trademarked term. It refers to a specific type of meditation. That specific type of meditation has been extensively researched and that body of research is widely respected in the scientific community. NIH has granted over $24 million in funding. Only the most rigorous research gets funded. Robert Schneider, a principal investigator in many of the NIH-funded studies, was elected as a fellow to the American College of Cardiology. The research has been published in top medical journals. TM researchers serve as peer reviewers on major academic journals. They have been invited by NIH to review grant proposals. They are currently among a team of researchers invited by NIH to do a comprehensive review of research on meditation. And on and on. What more can they do to establish it as a science? They've published over 200 peer-reviewed articles. This research has been conducted at major universities and medical centers around the country and in the world. Some of the principal investigators, such as Archie Wilson at UC Irvine, don't themselves practice Transcendental Meditation. If by "TM" you mean something else, then please be more precise.

Philosophus, there are many different organizations associated with Maharishi, and he has introduced many different techniques and technologies based on the Vedic literature and Vedic tradition. Transcendental Meditation is one of them. It was the one that he introduced first, it's the one that's the most widespread, it's the one that's most mainstream, and it's the one that's been the most researched. If you're uncomfortble with a hypothesis associated with research on the TM-Sidhi program, I don't see a problem with mentioning that briefly in this article and then directing readers to that article. But this article can't possibly be on the TM organization as a whole. There are too many organizations, nationally and internationally, and too many different technologies. And whole categories of TM research haven't even been mentioned yet. TimidGuy 12:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you must distinguish the effects of TM (which are apparently legitimate) from the metaphysics that it proglomates. That is the pseudoscience, and I know no-one who would be considered a reliable source on physics by the scientific community who would not deem it such. Such statements have been common in TM (assessed by claims made by Maharishi and others regarding it) since almost its beginning (ex: I cited Carl Sagan's essay in the Demon-Haunted World. That is drawn from an earlier assessment, dating from the mid-1970s, a few years after Maharishi started advertising heavily in the US). Re. subdividing, as Philosophus noted, this can have the effect of artifically minimizing the controversy surrounding TM, and is therefore deceptive unless it is done properly. Michaelbusch 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dang, it seems like we're going in circles. : ) I guess there's not much point in discussing further until I have some inkling of what you're objecting to. I presume that will become clear when Philosophus finishes his research. I am confused, though, when you say that it's the metaphysics that's pseuodoscientific. My dictionary defines metaphysics as being "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things." Are you saying that a philosophy can be characterized as pseudoscientific? I guess I just assumed that to qualify as pseudoscientific, something had to present itself as science rather than philosophy. TimidGuy 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the point: TM can do all the philosophizing and metaphysics it wants, but when it starts trying to connect that to things like unified field theory, then the metaphysics becomes pseudoscience and it must be recognized as such. I suspect that Philosophus will agree with me on this. I see no logical circles in my statements. Michaelbusch 05:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I didn't mean to imply logical circles in your statements. I was referring to the fact that I repeated myself in almost identical fashion in response to a statement that was nearly identical to an earlier one. By the way, I'm realizing that part of the problem is that you use "Transcendental Meditation" in a very different sense than I do. TimidGuy 13:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest notice board

Philosophus, I see you've listed us on the Conflict of Interest notice board. From my perspective, we've been having useful discussions of issues that aren't obvious and merit discussion. Is there anything wrong with those knowledgable about a topic being involved in editing an article on that topic? I don't see why those opposed to cults or to pseudoscience don't also have a conflict of interest. Again from my perspective, it feels like they try to commandeer the article for their own agenda.

The article for most of its history has been under the control of those opposed to TM. It was wretchedly written and horribly POV. I began working on it last September to try to make it more balanced and to improve it. My work has received praise, including from Bishonen, an experienced and respected admin, and even from opponents such as Sethie and Sfacets. Sethie has accused me of trying to delete negative material, but I feel that everything I proposed to delete fell well outside the policies and guidelines for what's acceptable. On occasions where I sought input, I received solid support from such prominent Wikipedians as Fred Bauder, ALR, and Jossi.

From November through January, the article was almost exclusively edited by opponents Tanaats and Sethie, and by myself. Because they had such a lock on the article, and because Sethie tended to be indiscriminate in the material the he added, and to enforce those additions via edit warring, I began a mediation process. Tanaats agreed to mediation but never showed up. Sethie participated a bit but has largely disappeared.

Frankly, so far I feel like you're much more neutral than they are and that you adhere to the policies and guidelines. I think we're going to make this a better article. I hope we can continue the discussions and make changes based on consensus. I think you're a good writer. And I'm delighted that we can possibly finally have the opportunity to improve the writing. So much time has been wasted in warring.

Regarding reverting critical edits, in general I've done very little of that. And when I did, I was always on the losing end. The exception being my revert of your edits to the lead. And another exception being Duedilly's revert of the pseudoscience categorization. I think it was reasonable to suggest that we discuss these things first. And I think that my arguments were sound regarding the characterization of Canter & Ernst. And I think I was right to point out that a court didn't rule that the organization is a religion.

Regarding your point about delaying indefinitely -- I have a day job. I suspect the others do, too. Things can't happen immediately. If I hadn't had to spend my time this morning arguing one more time regarding pseudoscience, trying to figure out what AfD and SPEEDY is and what happened there, and then seeing the COI allegations, I could have contributed to the discussion of the lead and was ready to insert something based on what you wrote. But now I've run out of time and have to go to work. TimidGuy 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy (WP:COI), having your room, board, and allowance paid for by MUM constitutes a serious conflict of interest for this and related articles. It does not preclude you from being able to edit, but it means that you need to be exceptionally careful, and that this conflict should be known to other editors. Generally, Wikipedia discourages you from editing articles where you would have such a conflict, because of the potential for problems. Michaelbusch 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm... Are y ou suggesting that TimidGuy should just go away? Who would take over for him if he did? And... If t were any other university, even one affiliated with a religion, would you accuse the faculty member of "a serious conflict of interest " rather than a "non-serious" one? Where is "serious" defined for COI, BTW? -Sparaig 09:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Michaelbusch, I see you posted this on Sethie's Talk page:
"The medical effects of TM match those of biofeedback and placebo, but that is not the main area of dispute. Talk:Transcendental Meditation illustrates the problem: we have three or four editors who have severe conflicts of interest (one is given a total of >10000 USD in compensation each year, from the Maharishi group), are studiously ignorant of Wikipedia policy, insistent that TM is not pseudoscience, and intent on making the article more favorable than the subject deserves. I think your input would be quite valuable. Michaelbusch 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)"
You would like to ground Transcendental Meditation in science, yet you ignore science when you make the statement that the medical effects of TM match those of biofeedback and placebo. You may not have studied research design, in particular randomized, controlled trials.
A major concern behind WP:COI is that if one is paid to edit Wikipedia, which I am not, the fear is that that person may not be neutral. You seem to be suggesting that I'm not neutral and you are. I think you have an obvious bias and that it's clearly reflected in the edits you've made to the article and here on the Talk page. I don't understand why you would characterize someone like Sparaig as having a conflict of interest. He practices Transcendental Meditation and is knowledgable about it. Does that disqualify him from editing the article? TimidGuy 12:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting tactic. Common sense would suggest that anyone with a PhD who is teaching for room, board and a $10,000/year allowance would be considered a volunteer worker doing it for the love of the organization, which shows far greater bias than accepting large sums of cash, but its not sexy enough to merely say that you're obviously biased: he has to imply a "financial COI" in order to get you out of here. Likewise, he's tried to get every other person working on the "pro" side out of here as well since only a person practicing TM would have an interest in and knowledge to see that the "pro" side was represented in the first place in the article. He's also misinterpreted virtually every thing I have said in the various talk pages, misrepresented it to the rest of the wiki world, etc. Anyone who read what I wrote about "business practices" here who got the idea that I had actually made an edit obviously misread. Anyone who bothered to check my history of contributions would have seen it spelled out... Skolnick made the same kinds of mistakes dealing with me. It's a certain kind of emotional blindness that pops up in extreme skeptics, I've noticed. -Sparaig 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sparaig. Indeed, I wish my "allowance" were $10,000 per year. As noted in an earlier thread on COI, my stipend is $400 per month. TimidGuy 15:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about this version of the lead?

Transcendental Meditation or TM is a trademarked form of meditation introduced in 1958 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that involves the repetition of specific sounds, called mantras.[1] According to Maharishi, the technique enables the practitioner's mind to "transcend" to a state of "restful alertness," without the concentration or active thinking of other techniques.[2] The practice is said to have been taught to over 6 million people in a paid course involving about two hours a day over a seven-day period. Extensive research has been done on the effects of this meditation technique on mind and body, ranging from its effects on cardiovascular disease to the experience of higher states of consciousness. The Transcendental Meditation technique is one aspect of "Maharishi's Technologies of Consciousness," which are the experiential side of Maharishi Vedic Science. [4]

Just offering a new working version of the lead that incorporates revisions by Philosophus and includes the sentence that Olive thinks is important. Plus attempts to characterize the research. TimidGuy 21:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems fine to me unless editors want to go to something more extensive in describing more of what is in the article itself.

A note:There was a discussion earlier debating whether to leave the link and few lines on MVS here in the body of the intro. or to add a short paragraph on the main page and then a link to the MVS, as is generally done in Wikipedia.In the interest of keeping the article shorter and because TM is actually a subset in some ways of the more inclusive MVS, I did leave the link and statement in the body of the intro.I believe Philosophus made a comment on this earlier.Either option is a possibility in my mind(olive 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Proposed lawsuits section

Philosophus and TimidGuy both suggested that the lawsuits be summarized and put into their own section. Below is a draft of a new section on the lawsuits. Each case would include the proper citations, of course. Comments? Roseapple 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Do note that Malnak v. Yogi covered SCI and TM. --Philosophus T 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the wording below - is it accurate now? Roseapple 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe so. Most of the documents refer to SCI/TM, so saying TM and SCI is probably the best way of representing that. --Philosophus T 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If we move the Malnak/Yogi case out of the the TM/religion section into a new lawsuits section, that leaves the religion controversy largely quotes (newspaper reporting style rather than encyclopedia style). Is anyone working on a revision of that section? Philosophus suggested combining it with the cult section. Roseapple 04:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Roseapple I missed this question earlier, Yes I am slugging away on this section and am working towards combining religion/cult material Now that the mediation seems to be over I am back working on this material again.(olive 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC))
I would suggest that Malnak v. Yogi be put in a Religion+Cult section, since it really is of a different nature than the other lawsuits. --Philosophus T 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
i May have missed this point , but why is there going to be a separate article on Malnak vs Yogi? Not sure why this warrants a longer article rather than a summary. Was this agreed upon by editors? Sorry if this was already dealt with.(olive 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC))
Another editor suggested that I do so, since it is a notable case with implications that are significant enough to warrant description in sources having nothing to do with TM. It is quite possible that there are readers who don't care about TM at all, but care about the implications of the case. I may or may not make the article, but I am gathering sources to do so. As a bonus, it would mean that we wouldn't need to have the lengthy discussion here of the minutiae involved, such as the ultimately immaterial puja disagreement. --Philosophus T 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks(olive 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC))
Good work, Roseapple. I'd say go ahead. Maybe, per Philosophus, just combine the two cases for now. TimidGuy 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuits

Kropinski v. WPEC

In a civil suit against the World Plan Executive Council filed in 1985, Robert Kropinski claimed fraud, psychological, physical and emotional harm as a result of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs. The district court dismissed the claims concerning intentional tort and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and referred the claims of fraud and negligent infliction of physical and psychological injuries to a jury trial. The jury awarded Kropinski $137,890 in the fraud and negligence claims. The appellate court overturned the award and dismissed Kropinski's claim alleging psychological damage. The claims of fraud and physical injury were remanded to the lower court for retrial, and the parties then settled these remaining claims out of court.

Malnak v. Yogi

In 1979 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that TM and the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) could not be taught in New Jersey public schools. The appellate court upheld the decision of a lower court that the teaching of TM and SCI in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which asserts that the government may not support any religion financially. The court ruled that although TM/SCI is not a Theistic religion, it falls within the legal definition of religion since it concerns itself with the same search for ultimate truth as other religions. (This would also link to the new article Philosophus is writing about the case.)

Butler/Killian vs. MUM

Two lawsuits were filed as a result of a stabbing at the Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa on March 1, 2004. The family of the murdered student and a student who was assaulted earlier in the day have sued MUM and the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. Their separate suits allege that the twice-daily practice of Transcendental Meditation, which the university requires of all students, can be dangerous for people with psychiatric problems. They also charge the university with failing to call the police or take action to protect students from a violent, mentally ill student.

[edit] Heather Graham

Why did someone put the "verification needed" tag next to Graham's name when she was listed as a TM meditator?

She appeared on the Time Magazine cover as a meditator and it was identified in the article as TM, for heaven's sake. Her bio says she meditates TMly. The wiki article on Heather Graham says she does TM. -Sparaig 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That someone was an editor with the username Slash. And the rationale in his/her Edit summary was "weeee!". I guess that explains it. : ) I've added a link to the Time magazine cover photo of her. The caption says she's practicing Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion /cult article

I have begun to trim down this article. I removed any references that were not directly related to "God". The line, "A new destiny of mankind will dawn when Total Natural Law -- the Constitution of the Universe..." Refers to Natural Law and then refers to God.In the interest of shortening the quotes in this article, I determined we could do without this since it is initially a reference to NL rather than to God . This is a beginning to trimming the article but I will be adding material on religion and spirituality as per our discussions. Also I believe this area especially to be OR , and in particular references to God imply religious practice but is of course in no way proof of religious practice,and so should eventually probably be deleted in favour of more reliable information and sources.(olive 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

PS.In the interest of just getting this article moving I didn't ask for discussion on this but I am not attached to any of this at this point . I was trimming in what seemed to be the most obvious places. So feel free.(olive 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Philosophus, I like the editing you did in the religion section. Roseapple 04:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Olive and Philosophus for taking on this section. I also really appreciated the rewriting of Malnak. I made one small change -- deleting "however" according to the guideline WP:WTA, and making the opposing material a new paragraph.
I wonder about the Paul Mason biography as a source, since it's self published. WP:ATT says that self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Also, we don't have proper citations for the Beacon book and Meditations book. An editor put in those references from web pages and didn't have actual bibliographical info. This would be good to know, since I wonder if Maharishi is given as the author. As I understand it, both of these books were put together by editors from notes or transcripts of things he said. (And Beacon is attributed to Maharshi Bala Brahmachari Mahesh.) TimidGuy 12:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Beacon LIght is used as a reference in Coplin's thesis. -Sparaig 15:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Presumably, then, he's used an appropriate bibliographic citation, which we can borrow. (I see on the WP:ATT Talk page regarding the thread you started is that the consensus is that dissertations are RS. And someone just suggested this be added to the WP:ATT FAQ.) TimidGuy 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
He cites it thusly:
79. In lecture delivered at Spiritual Development Conference at Cochin, October 23-25, 1955, reported in Beacon Light of theHimalayas, p. 45, (Souvenir of the conference, published at Ernakulam).
Thanks. Seems like at the very least, we should say that these statements in Beacon and Meditations are attributed to Maharishi rather than saying he said them. TimidGuy 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments As per our discussions several weeks ago I have been working on the religion /cult material off-line, and had planned to add the material when completed. When I first began to edit Wikipedia, I was aware of the slant of this article but wasn't sure how to fix it. The article definitely uses a fair amount of material that is OR. Editors at that time were not open to changing the article but agreed at least Tanaat, Sethie and myself did, to add a section or material on spirituality and TM, as the other side of the coin as it were. Before I go any further with this project I want to get opinions from editors on a format for this article. My points are these:

  • In order to expand the scope of this article to include: TM as a religion, TM as compatible with religion, TM and spirituality, and TM and Cult, I want to throw out the idea of calling this section something like "Frequently asked questions about the TM technique", or some heading that is neutral and all-inclusive.
  • All of these categories can be dealt with neatly and succinctly because we don't have to attempt to connect the topics from one question to the other. Right now the article although improved, is dealing with several different aspects of this question about TM and religion, and the editors are trying to make it all work together -to flow togther.
  • Having several short topics under this all - inclusive topic means also that this is an open-ended format under which other questions about TM can be placed.
  • The sections referring to the use of the word God as proof that TM is religion is OR.

For example, Maharishi uses the word God. Some religions reference God or gods in their beliefs, therefore this form of Mediation taught by Maharishi must be religion-a classic case of ORitis. This should be deleted but I would like to wait until some new material is added. It could be deleted now although that will leave a very short article. Looking forward to comments. (olive 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

PS. Passive voice considered to be weak structually

Hi, Olive, I was a little confused but then realized that when you say "article" you mean "section," right? I believe these are good points. This would be a good approach to implementing the suggestion of Philosophus regarding combining the religion and cult sections. One disadvantage of this is that it heavily weights the criticism section in the Table of Contents. MIght be nice of we could keep it to three subtopics. I'd say a next step would be to paste a draft here or in a sandbox on your User page. Thanks for going ahead with this. We really do need to deal with what seems to be OR in the religion section. That is, it seems that we need to have a reliable secondary source which states that Maharishi's references to God are evidence that Transcendental Meditation is a religion. TimidGuy 15:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea that passive voice is somehow structurally weaker than active voice is quite unsupportable, and its use in places such as encyclopedias is perfectly acceptable. The examples of the use of "God" by Maharishi are not OR, and in my opinion, are not trying to show that TM is a religion; in fact, their purpose isn't really to be examples of the use of the particular word. That Maharishi calls TM "a path to God" is important to the religion section in its own right, regardless of the use of the word "God". The point is that Maharishi says that TM is not a religion, but also says that it is related to religion, a distinction which is quite possible. Also, considering the notability of the topic, I would greatly prefer that the section only cover the specific topic, so that the topic will not be artificially marginalized. "Frequently asked questions about the TM technique" would not be appropriately professional, and wouldn't accurately describe the contents of the section. "TM and religion", or "Religion and cult disputes/claims", or just "Religion" would be better possible choices. --Philosophus T 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Good points. And some good suggestions regarding the heading. Are you saying that when Maharishi says that TM is a path to God he is necessarily saying that it's related to religion? That point isn't obvious to everyone. Some people might say that God can exist outside of a particular religious context. They make a distinction between religion and spirituality. Which is why it would be nice to have a secondary source which addresses this. (Personally, I rather like these quotes and don't have a problem with this paragraph, but would support finding a secondary source if anyone is interested in doing so. If we had such a secondary source, it could replace the matierial from anti-cultist Hassan's book and the material from the self-published biography by Maharishi. I feel that the material in the religion section following the court case is weak.) TimidGuy 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about confusion TG. Thanks for comments Philosophus and Timid Guy

  • Actually point about weakness of passive voice is highly supportable given the number of times I have metaphorically had my fingers slapped in my literature/writing background by literature /writing professors for using passive voice and given the writing manuals that discuss this, but passive voice is also used widely on Wikipedia as an acceptable format for an encyclopedia. I never intended this to become a discussion as I innocently made the changes in the introduction, am in no way attached to what I did, and would hate to waste anyone’s time with further discussion.
  • Title of “religion section”: If we don’t change the title to include more subtopics then I see no need to change the title at all. “If it works don’t fix it” My thought was to provide an umbrella for the Cult, religion and the spirituality topics. I think this could be done in several ways but if there is concern that this would marginalize important material then lets just leave it as is.
  • I agree that Maharishi’s comments are important in relation to the claims that TM is a religion. He says TM is not a religious practice, and is in fact compatible with religious practice, but oddly here he talks about God. He does not at any time as far as I know, though, say that TM is related to religion, and especially in this section of the TM article. His comments about God in fact never even when in context reference religion. I believe, I may understand what you are saying here, though, and I have argued this point before. He does say that TM is spiritual, and his references to God may in fact suggest that. However, in this section, there is no way of knowing one way or the other because the quotes are a primary source out of context, and leave us the readers to draw our own conclusions which are; This section is about religion. If many people as part of their religious practice reference or believe in God, then if Maharishi references God this must religion. The distinction between, and the delineation of these two terms is critical to an understanding of TM or at least in explaining it. Whether anyone believes this is true is not my point but simply that this distinction is clearly made and exists in the TM literature. My job as an editor I think if I understand the Wikipedia guidlines /policies is not to judge that one way or the other, but to be neutral as much as I humanly can, and to just report that information. After several discussions, Sethie and Tanaats and I agreed to include reliably sourced material on TM and spirituality in the section to illustrate this distinction. (olive 18:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC))
I recall MMY saying that TM is the original religion, but that was in the context of the etymology of the word: religare --to reconnect to. The WP entry on the etymology of the word religion goes into this a tiny bit. It's apparently from St. Augustine's analysis, originally. -Sparaig 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I remember this comment clearly, and as one in which he was talking about the experience of TM as a preparation, and a kind of spiritual root for the diverse religions of the world rather than as a replacement for any of them. He has said follow the religion your parents have given you. I will have to reread St. Augustine. (olive 04:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC))
On a different but related topic: I once added some information about about TM being used in public schools subsequent to the Malnak decision. I did that as a way of showing that the Malnak issue was TM togther with SCI, not TM alone. But Jefffire deleted it. I think my source was the International Herald Tribune. Should we put something back into the article about that? TimidGuy 15:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newspapers as secondary sources

In the Otis section I added a reference to an article in the New York Times. But truthfully, in my reading of the policies and guidelines, and the discussion of them, the NYT article isn't a qualified secondary source. That's because although it quotes a TM researcher (who doesn't herself practice TM) saying that there are no side effects, it doesn't offer any other information about it. The article is simply reporting a study that was published in a journal of the American Medical Association, and the quote is made in passing. To my mind, a proper secondary source goes more deeply into a topic. If the whole article were about side effects and quoted various researchers, etc., then I'd say yes. But a quote in passing, without any additional evidence offered, to me seems like it doesn't qualify.

Which is why I think the Markovsky quote from a Dallas weekly tabloid isn't a secondary source. The idea isn't developed or supported. He just makes a statement in an article about John Hagelin running for president that implies that all of the research is weak. He doesn't say how he knows this. Indeed, he couldn't possibly know whether researchers are constantly barraging journals with articles unless he were to have surveyed the hundreds of journals that the studies have appeared in. (Plus, the article has the weird typo in which the word ""journalists" is used instead of "journals.") And it's odd that he claims that it's almost never the case that the research is published in prestigious journals. That statement is contradicted by the facts. TimidGuy 12:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty much a given that researchers barrage journals with article submissions. Barry Markovsky has a certain bias of his own concerning TM research and TM researchers. I personally like Barry, having corresponded with him over the internet for several years, and having eaten lunch with him when he was in Tucson for a Tucson Consciousness symposium about 15 years ago (?). That doesn't mean he isn't biased though. EVERYONE is biased. -Sparaig 08:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the problems with this quote, and given my points regarding whether this and the NY Times are acceptable sources in these instances, I propose to delete the Markovsky quote and the NY Times citation. The Markovsky quote can't be paraphrased because it's not possible, given the typographical error, to know exactly what he meant. And he only implies that the research is weak, he doesn't say it. And there's no other context on which to base a paraphase or make his point. If someone can find a notable researcher who clearly makes a case that TM research is controversial or lacks validity, then it would be fair to include that, if it is given appropriate weight.TimidGuy 11:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joaquim Alberto Chissano

Added reference to Chissano as prominent TMer. -Sparaig 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Maharishi a "reliable" source?

Id like this question answered, because it goes to the heart of the RS issue, and this in turn answers the concerns that the controversies be split, or that certain notes be removed. Note that RS has been superceded by WP:ATT, which fits in with NPOV. Is Maharishi a reliable source, particularly given the fact that he has a vested interest in defending his practice, his status, his views, and his system? -Stevertigo 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Bill Gates a reliable source about Microsoft activities when he was speaking as founder and CEO of Microsoft? -Sparaig 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how the "activities" of a business would translate to statements concerning the meaning or validity of a practice. -Stevertigo 11:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly endorse the policy stated by WP:ATT that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." Please let me know what sources you feel aren't qualified secondary sources, and I'll find a better source or we can delete the material. TimidGuy 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is that anything Maharishi has said on his own sites, or in the promotion of his own systems are not "reliable" in the objective sense. But that doesn't mean we should exclude them. The central subjective term here is "reliability", which might apply to either reliability of the source, or reliability of the claim, in which case a claim is promoted to "fact." Concepts which are trademarked, managed, or otherwise unprovable by independent means are never considered more than claims, of course.
Keep in mind we also value WP:IAR, in the sense that we often find policies which are contradicted by valid and agreeable practice. Life is full of paradoxes and Wikipedia is no different. So, for example even though we have a policy regarding "primary" and "reliable" sources we also have articles which reference newspapers referencing Wikipedia (note), references to statements made in blogs, and newsgroups (Linux and Minix for example). The point is that the world of publishing, as Wikipedia itself testifies, has far exceeded the boundaries which limit the traditional materials which can be cited for attribution. Im glad to see that RS has been replaced by ATT, because RS was never feasibly consistent with NPOV. Further people disagree endlessly about what constitutes RS - a newsgroup posting for example might be considered more reliable than a news website for example, as newsgroups postings are archived permanently in a distributed network, while news sites commonly revise stories with corrections, perhaps indicating a change, but typically hiding the previous versions. Do you see my point about how subjective your usage of the "reliability" concept is? Do you see how NPOV and ATT are sufficient, and that any subjectivity is handled by ordering views in proportion? In that context its advisable to do less trimming and more explaining. In mediating a case which was described as a "battleground" between TM proponents and opponents, I must consider the possibility that every exclusion is an act of censorship, (given that we dont have size constraints for articles). -Stevertigo 11:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
So, what you are saying is that MMY is "just another source" when it comes to his own stated goals, the organizations he has founded, and the techniques he teaches (via his cadre of TM teachers, etc)? That any other source should hold equal weight on those, since they're all opinion anyway? IOW, in a battle of opinions, MMY's opinion about TM et alia is no more important than the opinion of someone he trained? Or, in the case of the Beatles' problems with MMY's behavior from 40 years ago, that a sociologist reporting 3rd hand on their opinion should be given equal weight with the Beatles' own current opinion on the matter? -Sparaig 13:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Any point of view must be treated as such. Naturally his views have greater "relevance" to this subject, but no greater "reliability." Important distinction. -Stevertigo 00:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Stevertigo, in my opinion, your approach to Wikipedia is somewhat idiosyncratic. I saw that you inserted it into WP:ATT and it was deleted. And WP:ATT has a major section on RS, so considerations of reliability are still clearly part of policy. In any case, I'm not sure that any mediation is necessary at this point. Sethie has formally withdrawn, Tanaats never showed up. Plus, a couple of major issues have been resolved -- such as the undue weight on the studies by Otis and Canter & Ernst (which at the suggestion of Philosopus, and earlier Jefffire, were moved to the research section). I feel like Philosophus has given excellent feedback, and if we can continue to work on the points he has raised, I think that the article, with his help, will be much improved. I'd also liket to formally withdraw from mediation. I do appreciate your willingness to help, and I do believe that your approach is useful in resolving disputes. But I'm not confident that it's the best way to produce excellent content in Wikipedia. I don't think debate of sources is problematic; I feel like it's an important part of the process. I'm a fan of the book The Wisdom of Crowds, and I think this debate is an example of diverse opinions adding up to a greater truth. TimidGuy 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I consider this mediation to be a continuous process, and I will continue until I get the impression that an appropriate balance is the norm. Note that the changes to RS in whole conform in spirit to the commentary I made there, and the caveat of "wherever possible" is an extremely important counterweight that I often find to have been ignored. This is of course no reflection on you personally, so please don't construe this comment as such. -Stevertigo 00:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It seem that if I am writing on TM then the person who created TM would have to be the best authority of what that is.An official site that is devoted to this material would have to be considered the most accurate in terms of what the creator of the technique BELIEVES that technique to be. I stress believes. My job as an editor it seems is not to judge the accuracy of this in terms of some outside standard I may have . I get around that by stating as I write on TM that Maharishi "states" or "says" or "believes" . This places the material in context of the founder/creator and establishes that this may or may not be a universal but is what the founder believes this to be. This is an integral part of collecting information and presenting it in an unbiased way. I am simply reporting on the material involved.If I don't include a view from all different directions my information is incomplete This of course can only make up a very small part of an article on TM, but to have a complete and accurate perspective I think this is an important part of describing TM.I do rather find it alarming and sad that in an editor's mind "assume good faith has been superseded by "assume every exclusion is an act of censorship". Yikes!
Sorry,forgot to sign.above is (olive 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC))
I agree with most of that, though the issue of "creation" and "authority" are entirely subjective. I will ignore the personal comments.-Stevertigo 00:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize profusely if the comments were felt in anyway to be derogatory or hurtful. I would never intend that, and did not intend that. I truly feel badly about your statement because I feel that no matter what I do, I will always be judged to be censoring material for the sake of censoring it rather than working within the policies/guidelines, and trying to create a level playing field. Since I truly try to be neutral I feel saddened by the fact that what I am doing is not seen that way. I am not sure who created this particular form of meditation if not Maharishi. Perhaps you disagree with the word itself. I do mean created in the everyday sense of the word and could have easily said developed.If he developed TM why would be not be the authority on it? Who else could be? I am confused by this.(olive 03:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

"I feel that no matter what I do, I will always be judged to be censoring material for the sake of censoring it rather than working within the policies/guidelines" - Certainly everyone who is honest enough to admit a bias will naturally be held suspect, according to any different point of view, of infusing that bias into their writing. That's just par for the course on Wikipedia, and people learn to develop a thicker skin. The important thing is that we try to be neutral, while never assuming that we are neutral, and likewise others should respect our efforts to do so.
Hence I find the personal attacks to be a bit ironic, as my comments were largely addressed toward what I perceived to be your and Timid's reliance on RS, best referenced as WP:RSWP, which is now simply a note within ATT. In the context of "reliable sources whenever possible" (as applied to non-scientific subjects) we naturally have make some allowance for proponent and opponent views: in this case any deference given to Maharishi as "authoritative" must naturally be given (afterward) to the critics. Its not an argument of TM versus science. Its an argument of TM versus TM critics. -Stevertigo 04:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but are all TM critics of equal notability? -Sparaig 06:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We were discussing "reliability", but we can discuss "notability" also. -Stevertigo 07:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

I'd like to separate the two lines of argument in the Maharishi-as-authority thread. Regarding Maharishi as an authority, I just don't think it's an issue. He's hardly used as an authority in the article, and if there is an instance where he is used as an authority, it would be easy to change. Every claim he has made about TM has been researched, and any statements can be made in the context of scientific research -- with no need to reference Maharishi.

Stevertigo, you're welcome to participate as an interested editor, but the mediation is done. According to the mediation page, it ended when Sethie withdrew.

I'd like to address head-on the issue of censoship. I think censorship is essential to creating a quality encyclopedia. I'll state the obvious: there are religious-ideological opponents of Transcendental Meditation who typically repeat falsehoods and errors on their web sites. Indeed, there's a certain canon of falsehoods, errors, and half truths that are common to all of the sites that oppose Maharishi and Transcendental Meditation. And some of these find their way into print. Any responsible expert or authority or journalist will take the time to check the accuracy of the demonstrably false information on these sites, and in so doing will realize the problems and will not give this information credence in his or her writing or reporting. Many of these errors and falsehoods have been inserted into this article on Transcendental Meditation. (And I believe in some cases it can be shown that an editor has actually deliberately inserted material into the article that he knew was problematic.) I have spent most of my time in this article the past few months dealing with these errors and falsehoods. If we were to limit the sources rerferenced in this article to qualified secondary sources, we could keep a lot of the erroneous information out of the article. That's why the policy existis, and that's why I'd like to respect it. It's especially important on a topic such as this, given that there are opponents such as anti-cultist Rick Ross who seemingly deliberately deceive. I'd much rather spend my time improving the article and adding information to this and related articles that's based on solid research and secondary sources. Heck, if I had the time, I'd even rewrite the religion and cult sections, basing the information on qualified secondary sources on both sides of the issue. But I don't have time. I have a day job, and the little time I have is spent arguing points like this. TimidGuy 10:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, according to Jimmy Wales, another term for censorship is "editorial judgment." And, he says, that's what we do in Wikipedia. TimidGuy 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your direct approach. Naturally there are partisans for any subject - Ive been dealing with them for years. I am one, in certain cases. We find though, that its better just to address the quack concerns in the article than to omit them. Even the most ridiculous can be stated. Naturally we have people who have real world interests and associations and take an interest in how those are represented on Wikipedia. Im certainly sympathetic to the view that practices like TM face a lot of opposition from not just notable practitioners of science, but practitioners of competing practices, and of courses people who make a point of criticism - the "cult awareness" term of course has a lot of subjectivity. It does seem to be a difficult thing to defend.
But if it werent for the opposing viewpoint, it is likely that many of these articles would wind up being uselessly sanitised. BLP for example has been a problem, because it tends to lend itself toward sanitization rather than exposition. I have been critical of many of Jimbo's actions on that matter, but of course I can see his point of view: Wikipedia needs a real-world infrastructure to continue, and that means that the operators of that infrastructure will be to some degree bound by real world factors like laws and even social standards (though less so). To put it bluntly, its much better that we have people like you and Olive who actively work on Wikipedia, (rather than just calling up the foundation to complain) and through so doing, come to understand the nuances of our culture and the insane process by which things get done here. Things are improving though. Given your time constraints, any suggestions you might have might be best summarised on talk first, and maybe others can sort of jump in and do some of that work. Regards. -Stevertigo 11:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Stevertigo, for not being offended or defensive regarding my pointed disagreement. And thanks for your support for our coming here to work on the article. Indeed, my work on the article has uniformly been praised. Opponents Sethie and Sfacets have said several times that I've really improved the article. Opponent Tanaats complimented my work on the research section. And Bishonen, who I'm sure you know is a very experienced editor and admin, praised my work after I'd been here for a few months: "I've been watching you improve the article a lot."[5] TimidGuy 14:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Timid, and given your work on this article, I completely understand any hostility you might have felt toward my questions. We can of course disagree somewhat on certain matters of censorship. Im not sure that Jimbo quote is accurate by the way. Interestingly, I was just looking at the Jack the Ripper article for the first time in years. Though quite different, its another controversial subject, in that there are the general facts and then there is this enormous number of claimed facts which may as well be fiction. These are distinct enough to warrant some separation, and theres a nicely done separate article thats just a list of people claimed to be JTR. I think it works quite well. The JFK assassination is another example, where there is some pretty basic separation between the known or generally accepted facts, and the various claims made. These are of course in a separate "conspiracy theories" article. I just thought I would mention these, considering there was some misunderstanding between us about the nature of an article split as a "POV fork." Of course I meant nothing of the kind. -Stevertigo 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, but since I'm singing my praises, how could I not include the following from Dreadlocke? "TimidGuy, I am very happy to have you as a contributor to the TM article, as it said on the now-removed expert tag: ]This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.' You are definitely an expert and have made incredibly good contributions to the article - without any apparent bias. I see no signs that your close association with TM in any way compromises your ability to edit the article. I think you are an excellent editor and an asset to Wikipedia. .Dreadlocke ☥ 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)"

I believe it was Duedilly who raised the issue of POV fork. In any case, I just can't agree to a split because I can't agree with you that Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of information regardless of the quality of the source. Such an indiscriminate collection already exists: it's called the Internet. Wikipedia, in my opinion, should be a cut above. Your rationale for splitting seems to be that you'd like to see information included that doesn't meet the standard of WP:ATT. How could I agree to that? TimidGuy 11:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Its easier to tell people that the crap belongs at the bottom, than it is to say it doesnt belong at all. This basic compromise is all I can really offer to mitigate the perpetual battles between experts like yourself and "experts" like them. -Stevertigo 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Stevertigo. I understand.

When I began the advocacy process and mediation, and when I listed "battleground" as an issue in mediation, it was largely because of a particular editor. He was constantly abrasive, even abusive, he introduced many errors into the article, he never sought consenus and enforced major changes to the article via edit warring. Otherwise, participants have been reasonable. Who knows, maybe heated discussion among diverse viewpoints is an essential mechanism for improving an article. Where it breaks down is when one person refuses any reasonable objection and enforces his view via edit warring.

Right now the situation is better, and I credit this whole process of advocacy and mediation. It brought major issues out into the open. I thank you, and Wikipedia, for making these mechanisms available. TimidGuy 11:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose to add paragraph on physiological effects

Effects on the physiology

Research has suggested that practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique has specific effects on the physiology. During meditation, these changes include decreased respiration rates, blood lactate, and basal skin conductance levels[3], as well as increased coherence and integration of brain functioning.[4] These changes suggest a restful yet alert state. Studies suggest that this state of physiology promotes regulation of cortisol and other hormones associated with chronic stress, showing reduced baseline cortisol (a hormone associated with stress) and a healthier regulation of serotonin (a neurotransmitter associated with mood).[5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I have read material suggesting that TM induces a trance state. I would think that EEG showing increased integration and brain functioning would indicate that a trance state has not been achieved, but a restful yet alert state has. I wondered if this point has a place in this section. Just a thought.(olive 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC))
nope,not appropriate in this section, please ignore statement(olive 02:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC))
I would support a paragraph on th physiological effects. Seems to me this is for many people the most important aspect and the only aspect of the TM technique they are interested in; the possibility that deep rest can be achieved and stress relieved as this research indicates. I realized this is an important aspect we don't do much with.(olive 15:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. Good point. I'll go ahead and put it in -- maybe later today. TimidGuy 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consciousness and the Unified field

In Heinz Pagels' letter he says his comments "may not be used or published for any other purpose [than the court case] without my written permission." To me this means they shouldn't be used in a Wikipedia article. Roseapple 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I just checked this ....I would think we are obliged to remove this unless some permission was given we are not aware of.(olive 02:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
Fair Use doctrine applies. Also, once he makes statements menat to be used in court, they become public domain, as far as I know. -Sparaig 05:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mantra paragraph

To the person who inserted the section that included the mantras: if the article makes a claim that the mantras are unique, it would be appropriate for you to add a sentence disputing the claim and then cite the book you noted. Your insertion of a long paragraph with a separate header in the midst of the research section wasn't appropriate. TimidGuy 12:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The section discussing the mantra is the appropriate location for a reference to disputes. Note also: large quotes from the book are WP:COPYVIO, unless properly referenced. It doesn't matter what language the words are written in. I would like to see the references: if this is correct, it is certainly notable. Michaelbusch 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Michaelbusch. Neilrobertpaton, I don't really understand your point now that I look at your paragraph more closely. You inserted this sentence: "The central claim of Transcendental Meditation has always been that they provide the student with a personal mantra which is the right mantra for that person as an individual." Why does Steve Richard's list of mantras assigned according to age dispute this point? It supports it.

By the way, you would also need to give a source for this "central claim." (And note that mantra selection is not really "the central claim of Transcendental Meditation.") TimidGuy 00:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's never, in my memory (33+ years of TM practice), been a claim that TM mantras were created or composed for a given person, which is the only way it would make sense to claim that each person gets a unique mantra. Instead, TM teachers (at least in the early 70's) would tell people that there was a limited list of mantras, and that the student's mantra was chosen specifically (not uniquely) for them from that list based on a simple mechanical procedure using information found on the application form. The only information on that form was name, address, telephone number, age, sex, and optionally, any health problems and other comments. MMY's own exposition of mantras claimed that there were two types of mantras, those suitable for householders, and those suitable for recluses and that the tradition in India had become distorted sufficiently that only mantras suitable for recluses were now used, presumably because only recluses were teaching how to meditate. The current official FAQ on mantras in the TMO is along these lines:
What is a “mantra?”
A mantra is a specific sound used during TM practice as a vehicle for the effortless settling down of the mind to the experience of the source of thought, pure consciousness. The mantra has no meaning but is known to produce beneficial, life-supporting effects. When you learn to meditate, you will receive your own mantra—and then, equally importantly, you will learn how to use the mantra properly so that your mind and body settle down to a profound state of restful alertness. It is important to receive complete instruction in how to meditate properly from a trained teacher. The reason is obvious: if you are going to take two 20-minute blocks of meditation time out of your busy schedule, you want to be sure to be meditating correctly and making best use of that time! -Sparaig 05:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mantras again

Thanks to both TimidGuy and Michaelbusch, but your observations are not grounds for deletion. they are grounds for discussion, not deletion. If everybody went around deleting things they didn't like, there wouldn't be much left. Are either of you the person who was responsible for the deletion? Neilrobertpaton 08:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

HI, Neil. I was the one who deleted it. Note that if you click on the History tab, you can see who has done what to an article. There were a number of problems with the material you added. A main problem was the unsourced false claim that your insertion was based on. From WP:ATT: "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." I also felt that the inserted material had a problem regarding undue weight. See that section of WP:NPOV. TimidGuy 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with TimidGuy re. undue weight, and cannot assess the statement that the claim was false. That said: the sourcing was incorrect, the interpretation of WP:COPYVIO incorrect, and the format terrible. So I have not added it back. Michaelbusch 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mantras again

Thanks for nothing, TimidGuy. You had no right to delete my contribution when all you had to do was discuss it first, and any potential problems could have been sorted out. On Attribution (and I quote): "...in practice, not all material is attributed... However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found." I can see why the TM article has a big notice at the top saying "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article have been disputed." Gee, I wonder why. Can't understand it. Neilrobertpaton 09:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

so... why do you want to put mantras in anyway? -Sparaig 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Neirobertpaton, with respect - I wanted to mention that discussion on these pages have developed in a certain manner with everyone working hard towards civility and cooperation. TimidGuy has a reputation for being probably the most civil and best mannered of us all, and as well he has received very positive feed back from outside editors who keep an eye on this project. The discussions on mantras are not new, so you might want to see if there is anything on mantras that might give you a perspective on what has been happening in this discussion. The tags on these pages were probably placed there as I understand it, by pro-TM people since the article at the time the tags were placed was in very poor shape, not even remotely neutral, and definitely poorly written for the most part . TG has been one of the major editors who has brought this article towards more neutrality.Please note also that there will be great difficulty in verifying whether or not these are TM mantras since:

  • no information on any official TM sites discusses the mantras
  • TM teachers have very recently been retaught of re certified so only they know if these are the real thing or not,and I suggest that "they ain't telling". Web sites by old TM teachers or meditators are outdated given the recent recertification
  • mantras are proprietary material so anyone revealing them may be suspect in terms of their neutrality. Why would they want to reveal proprietary material one wonders?

Removing the material as TG did makes sense given that this material cannot be easily or reasonably located. In truth it can't be verified. I would suggest that the most neutral thing to do unless something changes in the "mantra department" would be to dispute the claim and cite the reference.One cannot really list these as fact or verifiable, but one can dispute and call into question a claim with the appropriate references. (olive 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Mantras again and again

Thanks, Olive, but my basic point remains: things are being deleted unnecessarily when a bit of discussion could have cleared it up. Michaelbusch filled me in on what happens around here, namely that the article is watched by a lot of "fervent" TM people who will delete contributions if they do not follow guidelines "to the letter". In other words, if the contribution says something they don't like. One of the first things I learned on Wiki is that some articles are watched over by people who seem to think they own the article. They don't like other people trespassing on their property and won't hesitate to delete anything they don't like. The TM article isn't the only one by any means; there have been a couple of other articles where I made a perfectly legit contribution and it was deleted overnight. Why? Because someone thinks he owns the article. Neilrobertpaton 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. However what you came into was a situation in which discussions had already taken place about mantras and a general sense was that even linking to a site about mantras, and concluding these were TM mantras was not particularly verifiable. Even Sethie an editor around at that time who could become quite 'fired up” about things let this go. So you coming on and adding contentious material with out going to a major discussion, stepped back into an old discussion where a general non-written agreement had been reached - maybe not to take way or to add anything. You unwittingly added a lot.
I wanted to mention that I am not sure Michaelbusch's analysis of the environment here is quite accurate. If what he is saying is true I doubt if TimidGuy for example would have the kind of reputation he has with the experienced editors, mediators. He and I from his example try to very carefully maintain neutrality. The only way to really gain neutrality is to stick to the rules, and I'm not sure why that would be considered a negative point. A site that contains material that is contentious, and possibly argued to a stalemate must fall back on something to make progress and fortunately we have Wikipedia policies and Guidelines.
Another point to consider is that the people who are the so-called pro TM ers are often the experts on this knowledge, and that’s OK. You could argue that they are biased but I don't accept that given the comments made by outside experienced editors who pop up every now and then. But I think these people and I am one, want to see very accurate information for lots of reasons .You can argue something like, lets say, and this has been argued, the TM research is not reliable. Intelligence would suggest this couldn’t be the case unless all of peer reviewers are all somehow controlled by TM people, and frankly that doesn't make sense. I am an expert in gymnastics and a few times have edited on that site. There is a lot of different kind of material on that site by editors with varying levels of experience in this field. I know that if some coach comes to the site and the material is not accurate - even the speed of a run on a vault can impact a child's safety, and believe me it does and has, then I am interested in that material being accurate, to protect the coach and especially the child. My view of what is accurate is different than the beginning coach or gymnast, and if I had the time I would argue till I was blue in the face for those points because a lot hangs on their accuracy. I would like to suggest that TM people feel the same at least those I know do. Most people I know just do their mediation and go about their everyday business, and this helps them. My brother -in-law brought his high blood pressure down with TM so that’s a good thing. If we fool with the accuracy of the knowledge then maybe some guy somewhere once freely having decided to meditate using TM, doesn't get the benefits he needs. So I guess we argue for accuracy of how TM is taught, and of the material that exists around the practice. No one can force anyone to meditate but everyone who does should have all of the most accurate information available. The "Wiki-rules"help all of us editors to do that. That seems fair to me. Thanks for comments and best wishes (olive 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Is TM a Cult?

I have replaced this question-form title with "Cult allegations" so that it has less of a FAQ feel to it. Sfacets 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite religion section

Relationship of Transcendental Meditation to Religion and Spirituality

Although controversy exists as to whether the Transcendental Meditation technique is a religion, official Transcendental Meditation websites state that the TM technique is a mental technique that does not require faith, belief, or a change in lifestyle to be effective. [6]

Some clergy find the TM technique and the philosophy underlying it, that of a technique for gaining deep rest and potentially contacting a field of unlimited potential, to be compatible with their religious teaching and beliefs. Rabbi Allan Green finds the Transcendental Meditation technique to be calming, and the philosophy to provide insight into his work as a rabbi. (The Winnipeg Free Press, March 21,2006), while Rabbi Raphael Levine discovered that TM theory contains many of the same insights found in the teachings of Hebrew Prophets. [7] Father Adrian Smith, has written one book on this subject called, A Key to the Kingdom of Heaven: A Christian Understanding of Transcendental Meditation, and edited another, TM an Aid to Christian growth.

Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, believes as he outlines in his 1984 pastoral statement, that the TM perspective conflicts with Christianity. For example, unlike the Christian idea of God - a personal god caring for every individual – Cardinal Sin, understands that the inner reality one reaches through the TM technique to be impersonal. Man as described by TM philosophy is capable of increasing levels of perfection, but not born in original sin, a foundation of Christian doctrine. Pain and suffering as redemptive, another foundation of much Christian thought, are lacking in TM theory. Cardinal Sin also noted the use of mantras that he describes as apparent invocations to deities. [8]

In contrast, Father Basil Pennington, a Trapist monk believes that the deepest self described by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as the Absolute is known to any Christian as” our God of love, Father, son, and Holy Spirit” (Pennington 1977:73) Father Pennington describes peace and joy, as explained by TM to be the human being’s truest self, and the TM technique one possible source for reaching and experiencing this true self. (Pennington 1977). No comments or information on the TM mantras as described by Cardinal Sin exists in any of the literature and websites connected officially to the TM technique.

In 1979, the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Malnak v. Yogi (592 F.2d 197) that the Transcendental Meditation technique together with a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) could not be taught in public schools because it violated the Establishment Clause[6] of the First Amendment, which creates a wall of separation between church and state. His decision was based on a set of criteria involving whether the practice dealt with issues of ultimate concern, Truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions[6]. After applying these criteria, he concurred with the lower court's decision that it violated the Establishment Clause.[7][6] Because the ruling focused on the curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence, and because the Wallace_v._Jaffree decision in 1986 allows for quiet time/meditation with a secular purpose, instruction in the Transcendental Meditation technique has continued in public charter schools, despite comments like those of sociologist Barry Markovsky, who felt that in teaching TM in the schools, there might be an undercurrent of religion. He labeled this as “stealth religion”. [9]

The Fletcher –Johnson school, a public charter school over run with violence, and located in Washington DC, implemented the TM technique into the school program. George Rutherford, principal of the school and a Baptist, described TM as not religious, and as instrumental in creating a safe haven in a neighborhood once riddled with drug use and homicides. In Detroit, the Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse, has implemented an optional Transcendental Meditation program. To concerns some parents had about whether TM technique was in any way connected to religion, Ms. N’amdi, principal of the school, explained the TM technique, is not religious, helps the children release the build up of stress in their lives, and hopefully makes the school day more successful. [10] [11]

Although, Maharishi calls Transcendental Meditation, "a path to God"[8], and in his teaching often makes references to "God" or a creator, Transcendental Meditation Programs websites make no reference to Maharishi’s religious affiliations. [9] Kelly Zellers and Pamela Perrewe clearly delineate the difference between religion and spirituality, and describe spirituality as broader than religion, a search for higher power, the sacred, defined for some as God. They describe meditation, yoga, and the TM technique as one form of meditation, as spiritual, but not as religious,and are coping strategies people may employ in business and in life in general. (Perrewe and Zellers 2002).


References

  • Condon, Patrick ”Meditation enters schools” Desert News (Salt lake City), October30, 2004. Accessed March 18, 2007.
  • Levine, Raphael. “A Skeptics Encounter with TM”. Accessed March18, 2007.
  • MIcucci,Dana. ”International Education: Meditation helps students”. International Herald Tribune, February 15, 2005. Accessed March 18, 2007
  • Owens, Nancy, K. “Man Fails to Fly Sues Camelot Owner”. International Herald Tribune, February 15, 2005. Accessed March 18, 2007.
  • Pennington, Basil. “TM and Christian Prayer”, Daily We Touch Him: Practical Religious Experiences. Doubleday, 1977.
  • Vesely,Carolin, “Its All in Your Mind” Winnipeg Free Press, March 21, 2006.
  • Zellers, Kelly L., Perrewe, Pamela. “The Role of Spirituality in Occupational Stress and Well-Being”, Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, M.E. Sharp, December 2002. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] comments on religion rewrite

I have rewritten this section as per discussions many weeks ago.I included new references, and will integrate with old when section is put into article. Since I am new at the Wikipedia reference formats, i hope this looks right .... as well any comments are welcome I will put this up in a few days after time for discussion. (olive 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)) bullets not usual format for references ..... used them here on "talk" for ease of reading.(olive 16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

Just so it is understood, this edit as it is is now recognized as primarily TM apologetics based on talking points, supported by editors associated with the movement who as one recent editor said and I have observed, collectively watch over and exercise article ownership to exclude critical information they don't like. The problem is noted, and the apparent COI here needs more more attention. It seems worse here than in similar articles. What is really needed is more editors not associated with the movement who want to see more than one side presented fairly, being civil is no substitute for objectivity. While I was never attracted to TM, I know from studies the revisionist pattern very well. If you put this in the article as is, without allowing more rebuttal than you propose, and continue to interpret the news articles to alter the balance in them, of course I will use the COI noticeboard for this article also. Maybe the attention will correct the imbalance here. --Dseer 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are untrue. This article contains most of the material not pro TM from the old article not written by a TM supporter by the way, and I have added new material not pro TM as well-Cardinal Sin material. Please note that I am using parts of newspaper articles as well that are not pro TM in articles that are mainly positive in terms of TM, as in the Markovsky quote.I also removed material on mantras and on MMY because no material that can be verified seems to exist on these topics . Any non official TM literature has material showing both sides of this discussion but would take a great deal of space to explore. At this point in the writing of this article I felt we should add this material later if the editors wished to do so . Thus this section has been placed here for discussion where it can be accessed by all of the editors interested in working on a neutral article. Unfortunately your comments are massive generalizations, blanket statements, and at times the assumptions you make are rather astounding. In fact I have attempted to be neutral, but decline to argue this since you have already decided, sadly, that those from MUM cannot be neutral, another generalization, and that attempts to stick to the "letter" of Wikipedian law within a controversial laden topic constitutes bias as you did on the MMY article. I have spent weeks writing this section with the most scrupulous detail to neutrality,weighing each section to make sure that neutrality was maintained both in tone and in content. Your statements show ignorance of the material, the discussions that led up to the writing of this section and the section itself. If you feel that it is necessary to place this section the COI notice board please do.I challenge anyone to rewrite this section on TM religion and spirituality and make it more neutral than it is . Neutrality by the way does not mean throwing anything you disagree with or that supports TM . It means as I have tried to do to show both sides fairly.You use the COI notice board in a threatening way which I find to be unfortunate. If you see yourself as the COI police please be sure of what you are doing and saying.(olive 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
Apologies if comments to Dseer seem harsh. I spent a lot of time making this article neutral and still readable so accusations hit a nerve.I also felt bullied and that does not sit well. Still no right to be harsh - very sorry.(olive 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
I am not concerned about harshness in your response, I much prefer honesty, even if I seem harsh and I know already you won't understand. You truly feel I am hateful but feel uncomfortable with that feeling, but it is fine for you to speak your heart, it doesn't offend me as much as lack of honesty, so ease up on yourself. I now understand the nature of your organization far more clearly than I did a short time ago, and in that sense, I thank you all for the education. Of course you think you are being fair and generous to critics while presenting your beliefs in the most favorable lights, true believers usually do and have no trouble with that. In that sense, you worked hard and produced a workable product. But you don't want sound criticism, just the token level of criticism, which you pass off as NPOV. Your rewrite is well done for that purpose, and it does not take occultism to predict it will garner support from your fellow TMers. Normally, I might consider "writing for the enemy" but in this case, anywhere my criticism might stick will be rewritten in more obtuse language, so I'm not going to be very helpful there, I'm afraid. And your edit nicely limits criticism, too. Controversial claims like concern about sin and contradiction of religious doctrine highlighted, no reference in current TM literature to hindu dieties (and I see nothing wrong with that other than the attempt to hide it) that anyone who isn't well versed on mantric science and hinduism would understand from the subtle meanings in the sylables and pujas; excludng the older works to hide the controversy, along with anything that nasty Mason said, he's irrelevant. As an aside, it is amusing when TMers claim as fact that their mantras have no meaning, when actually they are at most levels ignorant of the meanings of sounds, but of course that would be excluded as irrelevant because only initiated TMers could possibly know. There are issues with the links and how you've employed them. Sorry to say but the Religious Movements Page, for all its flaws, is much better written. You will dismiss this, make this the article's section after the pro forma comment and when you do, I will point out the COI once again. --Dseer 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I admire Dseer's intuition. He says, Olive, that your proposed section is supported by editors associated with the movement, but as far as I can tell, no one had commented yet. He's right, though. I think you've done a good job of fixing problems in the current religion section, which is quite slanted as it stands. Your new version is more in accord with NPOV, citing experts on both sides of the issue. Thanks much. And I appreciate your attention to process: writing a new version, posting it here, and inviting comments.
This seems a little awkward: "potentially contacting a field of unlimited potential". Also, a sentence about Cardinal Sin and the mantras seems to be in the wrong paragraph. In the Malnak paragraph should we make "Truth" lower case? Also, there's no referent for "his." You're apparently referring to Judge Adams' opinion, but you haven't named him. Seems like we need a transition sentence into the paragraph about the schools. And maybe a little less detail, in case someone thinks that that paragraph is starting to sound promotional. Ideally we'd have page numbers for your sources that don't have convenience links, such as the Winnipeg Free Press. TimidGuy 15:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
OK.Good. I think those are good points and will attempt to make the changes. I simply cut and pasted the Malinak material without editing it so glad you caught these errors and will fix them. I cut down all of the newspaper articles so much but will try to cut more to make sure this is inline with NPOV and is not promotional. Not sure what is meant by the last few lines since I am new at referencing on Wikipedia but can hopefully figure it out.Thanks for comments(olive 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Final detailed comments of religion rewrite

I do not consider you hateful, but perhaps you have a strong bias that allows you to see this information from a particular angle.I am however much less devious than you make out, maybe smarter and definitely more aware. Despite your comments I assure I am not a mindless member of some cult. That said, I would like to address your concerns with this section, out of respect for your comments but also for other editors who have the concerns you do. I realize you have pretty much laid out a scenario in terms of how I will act and react.I suspect I will disappoint on that count.
  • I did not use Paul Mason or Patrick Ryan because I attempted to set this material up specifically as a reference to religion. Material on the subjects of religion and spirituality and the delineation of the two, indicates that mention of God does not specifically reference religion or spirituality.Statements by these two do not clearly reference religion. I therefore went to an expert in the area of religion who spoke strongly against TM and who covered every concern I have come across the religious experts seem to have and then some , note original sin and redemption . Although a non-religious person might not consider these important many Catholics/Christians would, and many would consider these controversies serious enough to impact their salvation. This seemed a fair trade off, and a tidy compact way of referencing the objections religious persons find in TM.Please note editors have attempted to shorten the religion section so compact is an operative word here.
  • I entered some strong material, again from experts - clergy who supported TM. Many people feel TM works for them. This is their voice and balances the Cardinal Sin's statements.
  • All material presented on TM in the schools only references religion. There is now a lot of material on the positive effects of the TM technique in the schools. I did not use any of this becuase again I am strictly adhering to the topic of "religion and TM" in the schools, and not just "TM" in the schools - an easy red herring to follow that could weight the article towards TM.
  • Note that to my knowledge there has only been one court case concerned with TM as religion in the schools. This material was original to the first religion section. I could have compressed but did not, to give it the weight some editors might require for NPOV.
  • I compressed references to god again because this does not necessarily refernce religion or spirituality
  • As per discussion in past I included a small section on spirituality that does reference TM as a spiritual practice. Both non-TM editors at that time supported the inclusion of this material.
  • I deliberately did not go into discussion on Maharishi's religion if he has one, mantras, and extended material on spirituality.All would have required considerable material from several vantage points to present fair and neutral information. Since there seems be no definitive information on the TM website on this I left this alone for now rather than deal with a lot more material that would impact the length of an already long section.Included in this material would have to be discussions of the Vedic civilization which predates Hinduism but did spawn Hinduism. Numerous discussion could ensue on this topic without any clear winners. If editors wanted to go this way they certainly could. This is why this rewrite is here on a discussion page.
  • I am completely in the dark as to problems with my referencing. TG mentioned something I will try to work out.If I have made some mistakes I would appreciate knowing. I am new at using the variations of the Wikipedia referencing systems and could certainly have made mistakes.
  • You have made your point about COI and I clearly state mine-feel free.

I have attempted to present clear reliably sourced material; showing both sides of the material. I did not go to emotionally driven material the sources of which have come up for discussion in the past, because this is a contentious topic, and as per Wikipedia guidelines I attempted to be scrupulous in the sources I used. I did go to religious experts as reliable sources on a topic like religion.(olive 05:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

It is only the results that matter, not your noble intent. I got some good advice on how to deal with this problem and members of your organization and I'm sticking to it. I will not further enable you, but I do not want to seem unkind in not explaining why. Having come in contact with your organization here, and after researching it from more neutral sources, I am now quite familiar with your organization's real history, the revisionism, the mindset, propaganda tactics, methods for recruitment and undermining valid criticism, etc., and I realize I initially misread the extent to which your group controls what was going on here. I would never question your or any other of your group's intelligence, because research shows those who join organizations like yours tend to be well above average in intelligence (often extremely high IQs) but have suggestability issues and confuse tangible changes of mental and physicial state with something more profound based on indocrtination about the nature of the results. I am also aware that the attempt to misframe criticism as implying members are not very smart is just another diversionary, propaganda tactic. Again, I do not say TM does not "work", only that there is more to the story which it is in your interest to suppress. Any group of your nature has to produce results or nobody would join. In the case of your organization, mantric science is much more broadly understood in various circles than you most likely understand and there are many other sources than the Maharishi one can use to develop a more complete picture. Even the Maharshi, who was not fully initated into the highest levels of his tradition but learned a lot, taught early on that mantras that have effects on one level may have different, even conflicting effects on another level. That the significance of the implications of that is beyond the membership just because effects are demonstrable is just how it is. Carry on. --Dseer 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please remember the guideline: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Roseapple 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Such misframing of the issue from the TM gallery is once again just another known, repetitive technique those associated with TM adopt, amply documented in various sites they have suppressed. The article would be improved if you TMers actually allowed sourced criticism to be given the weight it deserves instead of editors with clear COIs suppressing it. Maybe some will buy your diversionary tactics, but there is nothing I said that isn't relevant to improving the article and more accurate information on the subject, despite what the group of you say. Once again, the issue remains the COI from those associated with TM that biases this article. It is not up to those with COI to determine how criticism should be framed, and NPOV is non negotiable, and that is that. I and other editors will continue to raise that concern. Please stick with the primary issue at hand, that being COI, which includes you. Thanks. --Dseer 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
From WP:COI: "Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor." TimidGuy 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
From WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". --Dseer 21:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate clarification of "issues with links"so that this can be corrected. Thanks.(63.162.81.220 00:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)) above is olive was not logged in sorry(olive 00:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Hi Olive. Check the links carefully and see if they actually say what you claim at that point in the article. When I looked, the order didn't match. Also, I'm what they call an inclusionist, meaning I like to maximize links that present alternate views and rebuttals, and let the reader make judgements, as opposed to deletionists who would rather delete than simply rebut. A good article needs a balance and should not be dominated by deletionists, particularly when associated with common COI issues dealing with criticism. The Cardinal link only represents a small section of the controversy over whether TM has religious elements, and I have no objection to it, only the weight it is given due to the excluson of additional, more balanced, reputable source than the ones I suggested. What you wrote would be a good start if you simply allowed for a larger range of critical views. Wikipedia in "writing for the enemy" recommends putting yourself mentally in the shoes of those who disagree with you and pretending you were writing on their behalf too when there is appearance of a COI, even if you don't believe it exists, and not trying to frame or assign value to criticism based on your own views about it. A simple thing most of learned in advanced writing and speaking while in school. The bulk of an article will always present the subjects framework anyway, so inclusionists believe as a matter of principle it is much fairer and simpler to cite sources rebutting criticism that suppress it.
Keep in mind that Mr. Wales has stated that NPOV is non-negotiable, and all policies are to be interpreted in a manner that serves Wikipedia. Consider this from WP:NPOV:
Information suppression
A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. In this manner, the full range of views on a subject can be unfairly presented or concealed whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Remember that Verifiability is just one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are NPOV and No original research. All three are necessary for an article to be considered compliant.
Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:
Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics). Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors. Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance: Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds). Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value. Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
I will point out again that a number of editors not involved with TM or influenced by those associated with TM have repeatedly said not complying with NPOV instead focusing on narrow interpretations of WP:ATT in isolation along with COI is the basic problem in these articles. I have no problem with defending TM putting their best foot forward provided they give critics appropriate balance. If this reasonable request continues to be discounted as irrelevant in an article dominated by proponents, then AGF has caveats, and that COI becomes the overriding issue. The choice is up to you, individually and collectively. --Dseer 05:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for comments. I will attempt to deal with any problems with links. I will agree to disagree with your other points.
  • I am bound by the article's length. This article has been criticized for its length. I can't build up one bank of the river without building up the other. This will create unmanageable length. I will try to compress some material to shorten the article.I don't feel it should be lengthened given past comments by non-TM editors.
  • I feel bound to use some of the original material which I did
  • I consider Cardinal Sin to be the most objective source on TM and religion I found, and by far the most expert. His statements are not emotional or personally driven.His statements do not indicate personal involvement. He is a leader in a major Christian religion. This gives his statements weight and authority. I believe this makes him as neutral as is possible so a very strong source.I used some of the material. There is no room for all of it. Anyone who wants more can go to the source. Its clearly marked.
  • I am confident in this article's objectivity given its length. I can't say more. Best wishes.(63.162.81.220 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC))
Thanks, Olive. Good points.
It occurs to me that simple ideological differences aren't really matters of controversy. After all, there are an infinite number of points of view when it comes to spiritual or religious beliefs. Given that, I wonder how the material on Cardinal Sin is related. Seems like it's not enough that he simply believes it conflicts with Christianity. At this point I'm not suggesting any changes. I think you've done a fine job. But this occurred to me, and I thought it should be discussed here. TimidGuy 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry. Dumb mistake. Cardinal Sin's comments are perfectly related given the context -- a priest saying it doesn't conflict and the Cardinal saying it does. TimidGuy 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There is an element of truth in this. Why focus on this one aspect?

There is a lot of information out there on both sides of the coin.I felt I should retain some of the material in the original article ....schools, court cases. Then I had to select something to narrow the field down to give a clear view of both sides in a very little space .... the context becomes the arena the writer selects to work in.... In this case I went to so-called religious experts where there is clear conflict and controversy about what TM is and its effects .....rabbis priests cardinals .Someone else might have selected another area . I did feel that a concern with the original article was the attempt to approach this from too many different angles, and in the end there was no way to connect them.I also felt that these sources were strong and would give a fair view that might satisfy editors on both side.(63.162.81.220 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

I looked at the history and wondered who hadn't signed in .... found it was me oops .... not automatically signed as have been for several months (olive 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC))
Hi, Olive. EdJohnston, from the COI Noticeboard, took a look at your work and noted the following: "I don't know the full story on the Cardinal Sin citation, but the link that I did see, one that claimed to be quoting his words, did not look reliable enough for Wikipedia." I don't believe he's saying not to use this, but rather I believe he's suggesting that we find a better source for it. TimidGuy 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit after comments -TM and religion

Comments:

  • I am missing a newspaper article about the Nataki Taliba school that references religion and that school. I am still looking for that. I had and thought I'd book marked it but its elusive . I'll leave that in right now pending finding that article.
  • I am looking at another source for the cardinal Sin reference. I don't agree that the source i have is not strong enough since it is in an online publication of a Catholic publication and is a statement by A cardinal .... "second from the top" after the Pope. I have found this on many Catholic sites, so this seems verifiable in that sense. Not sure what the issue is here, I will try to find something else as per comments.
  • This section is here on a discussion page so it can be discussed and changed if needed. Because this is a controversial site, I elected to put this here so all editors could see it deal with it. Please note that I am writing about religion so that should I think be an issue in whatever is added or subtracted.
  • I am still working on the references.(olive 03:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC))


Relationship of Transcendental Meditation to Religion and Spirituality

Although controversy exists as to whether the Transcendental Meditation technique is a religion, official Transcendental Meditation websites state that the TM technique is a mental technique for deep rest and for contacting a so - called field of unlimited potential, and that does not require faith, belief, or a change in lifestyle to be effective. [12]

Clergy who find the TM technique be compatible with their religious teaching and beliefs include Rabbi Allan Green who finds the Transcendental Meditation technique to be calming, and the philosophy to provide insight into his work as a rabbi. (The Winnipeg Free Press, March 21, 2006), and Rabbi Raphael Levine who discovered that TM theory contains many of the same insights found in the teachings of Hebrew Prophets. [13] Father Adrian B. Smith, describes Transcendental meditation as compatible with any religion because of pertinence to human nature rather than to religious virtue. (Smith1993:11)

Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, believes, as he outlines in his 1984 pastoral statement, that the TM perspective conflicts with Christianity. For example, unlike the Christian idea of God - a personal god caring for every individual – Cardinal Sin, understands that the inner reality one reaches through the TM technique to be impersonal. Man as described by TM philosophy is capable of increasing levels of perfection, but not born in Original sin, a foundation of Christian doctrine. Pain and suffering as redemptive, another foundation of much Christian thought, are lacking in TM theory. Cardinal Sin also noted the use of mantras described as apparent invocations to deities [14], although no information on mantras exists on official TM web sites, and information on mantras used in the TM technique is controversial.

In contrast to Cardinal Sin’s pastoral statement, Father Basil Pennington, a Cistercian monk believes that the deepest self described by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as the Absolute is known to Christians as” our God of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Pennington 1977:73) Father Pennington describes peace and joy, as explained by TM to be the human being’s truest self, and the TM technique one possible source for reaching and experiencing this true self. (Pennington 1977).

An early controversy on the use of TM in the schools arose in 1979, when the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Malnak v. Yogi (592 F.2d 197) that a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence, which included the Transcendental Meditation technique, could not be taught in public schools because it violated the Establishment Clause [55] of the First Amendment, which creates a wall of separation between church and state. [56] The lower court, under Judge Meanor, based a ruling in part on the brief puja ceremony involved in Transcendental Meditation instruction and also in the fact that the Science of Creative Intelligence dealt with issues of ultimate concern, truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions. Because the ruling centered around a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence, and because the Wallace v. Jaffree decision in 1986 allows for quiet time/meditation with a secular purpose, instruction in the Transcendental Meditation technique has continued in public charter schools, despite comments like those of sociologist Barry Markovsky, who felt that in teaching TM in the schools, there might be an undercurrent of religion. He labeled this as “stealth religion”. [15]

Principals of public charter schools, Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse in Detroit and the Fletcher-Johnson School in Washington, D.C., note that in their views the TM technique is not religious, and point out the benefits of the technique, one of which is to help to relieve stress in the students. [16][17]

Although, Maharishi calls Transcendental Meditation, "a path to God" "[10], and in his teaching often makes references to "God" or a creator, [11], Transcendental Meditation Program websites make no reference to Maharishi’s religious affiliations. Kelly Zellers and Pamela Perrewe clearly delineate the difference between religion and spirituality, and describe spirituality as broader than religion, a search for higher power, the sacred, and defined for some as God. They describe meditation, yoga, and the TM technique, one form of meditation they note, as spiritual, but not religious, and are coping strategies people may employ in business and in life in general. (Perrewe and Zellers 2002:301).(olive 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Looks good, Olive. Thanks for doing this. I don't have any major suggestions at this point, just a couple possible minor changes in wording. TimidGuy 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is a good start for the pro-TM portion, but another example of COI and information suppression relative to critical information. I will acknowledge that Olive is trying and TimidGuy in particular has done a lot for the article from the TM side and in dealing with obvious BLP violations, and participation including comments here on critical material is desired, but despite some evidence of good faith, it is in the area of critical and controversial statements and that those deeply involved in TM are not yet able to properly assess or effectively "write for the enemy", or avoid reframing issues. In that limited sense alone, I cannot say he is a "good editor", and I am not alone in that assessment. In regard to critical material, in view of his COI, assert that his input is valued but not paramount in making decisions regarding critical material.
Let me point out again what Durova said: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles. The particular reference in question appears to be published legitimately and appropriate as a reference source. I suggest an article content request for comment to settle the particular debate. I hope that resolves the problems, but in case it doesn't the likely alternatives are this: a user conduct request for comment and an eventual arbitration case, which would likely end in article paroles on TM topics. Another experimental option is community enforceable mediation." (Note: I will pursue either of those options, let me know which one is preferred, and if we have to go to Arbcom to get compliance with COI at the end of the road, so be it.)
And what Atheanara said in follow up: Durova posted: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles." Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book. Wikipedia does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens....
And what Tearlach has said: "One possibility for cutting to the chase: do we need to get bogged down in discussions of whether an editor with a demonstrated COI is editing fairly? Seems to me that WP:COI is as much about being seen to avoid COI, as it is about actual proof/disproof that a known COI is biasing edits. I might be the most objective ever editor of the article on the hypothetical Tearlach Wonderful Products Inc of which I'm CEO, but there would always be some level of suspicion if I took a leading role in editing it: reason enough that I should stick to the Talk page so that propriety was seen to be observed.".
Having exhausted what the COI noticeboard can do, that position, from experienced and neutral editors, is the position I will take as far as necessary to get full resolution.
With that in mind, the latest proposal from the TM advocates on the religion controversy in the TM article which they think satisfactory is yet another example. You have not really incorporated my previous input, including my suggestion to use the relatively neutral University of Virginia site to help identify more of the significant issues regarding the secular/religious controvery, and so it still vastly understates the scope of the issue while presumably inadvertantly suppressing information and minimizing the criticism. Specifically:
Although controversy exists as to whether the Transcendental Meditation technique is a religion, official Transcendental Meditation websites state that the TM technique is a mental technique for deep rest and for contacting a so - called field of unlimited potential, and that does not require faith, belief, or a change in lifestyle to be effective. [12]
The only source used is the USA TM website, a partisan and suspect source by wikipedia guidelines. No critical rebuttal is provided to amplify the controversy. For example, no mention of MMY being called "His Holiness", or of his mission of "spiritual regeneration".
Clergy who find the TM technique be compatible with their religious teaching and beliefs include Rabbi Allan Green who finds the Transcendental Meditation technique to be calming, and the philosophy to provide insight into his work as a rabbi. (The Winnipeg Free Press, March 21, 2006), and Rabbi Raphael Levine who discovered that TM theory contains many of the same insights found in the teachings of Hebrew Prophets. [13] Father Adrian B. Smith, describes Transcendental meditation as compatible with any religion because of pertinence to human nature rather than to religious virtue. (Smith1993:11)
Being calming has nothing to do with whether TM has religious overtones, neither does shared insights with Hebrew Prophets which are only "discovered" in one Rabbi's view, or the statements of one church father. And as sources, a feature article in a newspaper, and particularly and a section of an endorsement from the partisan TM webpage as representative sources are weak; not sure what the Smith source is.
Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, believes, as he outlines in his 1984 pastoral statement, that the TM perspective conflicts with Christianity. For example, unlike the Christian idea of God - a personal god caring for every individual – Cardinal Sin, understands that the inner reality one reaches through the TM technique to be impersonal. Man as described by TM philosophy is capable of increasing levels of perfection, but not born in Original sin, a foundation of Christian doctrine. Pain and suffering as redemptive, another foundation of much Christian thought, are lacking in TM theory. Cardinal Sin also noted the use of mantras described as apparent invocations to deities [14], although no information on mantras exists on official TM web sites, and information on mantras used in the TM technique is controversial.
Cardinal Sin's message sourced on a Catholic bulletin board does not deserve this weight as token criticism, but the primary editor is Catholic and would think so. The bigger issue is whether a hindu based conception conflicts with the norm in Christian theology and whether most Christians see TM as religious. There are many better sources to show that a majority of more deeply religious Christians probably think so. Of course any details of the TM mantras would not be on an official TM website, because they are a product, and cost $2500 to obtain. Here again is where the a priori exclusion of Mason, who has documented the history of and essential rationale behind the mantras which use known hindu syllables with special religious significance, despite my objections, is helpful to illuminate the controversy.
In contrast to Cardinal Sin’s pastoral statement, Father Basil Pennington, a Cistercian monk believes that the deepest self described by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as the Absolute is known to Christians as” our God of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Pennington 1977:73) Father Pennington describes peace and joy, as explained by TM to be the human being’s truest self, and the TM technique one possible source for reaching and experiencing this true self. (Pennington 1977).
While ironically this supports claims of TM's religious nature and hindu origins, again, these testimonials by liberal Catholic Monks like this are given excessive weight, there are other significant views.
An early controversy on the use of TM in the schools arose in 1979, when the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Malnak v. Yogi (592 F.2d 197) that a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence, which included the Transcendental Meditation technique, could not be taught in public schools because it violated the Establishment Clause [55] of the First Amendment, which creates a wall of separation between church and state. [56] The lower court, under Judge Meanor, based a ruling in part on the brief puja ceremony involved in Transcendental Meditation instruction and also in the fact that the Science of Creative Intelligence dealt with issues of ultimate concern, truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions. Because the ruling centered around a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence, and because the Wallace v. Jaffree decision in 1986 allows for quiet time/meditation with a secular purpose, instruction in the Transcendental Meditation technique has continued in public charter schools, despite comments like those of sociologist Barry Markovsky, who felt that in teaching TM in the schools, there might be an undercurrent of religion. He labeled this as “stealth religion”. [15]
This is not that bad, but the case link should be sourced, and noted that objections come not just from sociologists, but rationalists/atheists, religious groups, and watchdog groups on church state issues. While not needed in this section, the Maharishi's quoted dislike of democracy mentioned in the source is significant and another suppressed controversy that needs highlighting, Maharishi's controversial, fringe political beliefs.
Principals of public charter schools, Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse in Detroit and the Fletcher-Johnson School in Washington, D.C., note that in their views the TM technique is not religious, and point out the benefits of the technique, one of which is to help to relieve stress in the students. [16][17]
These Principals are as seen by the article advocates of TM, and their credetials for evaluating what is religious dubious, so what would one expect? Furthermore, the sourced article is presented in a skewed way, the article illuminates in depth a cotroversy regarding these claims that is not mentioned at all.
Although, Maharishi calls Transcendental Meditation, "a path to God" "[10], and in his teaching often makes references to "God" or a creator, [11], Transcendental Meditation Program websites make no reference to Maharishi’s religious affiliations. Kelly Zellers and Pamela Perrewe clearly delineate the difference between religion and spirituality, and describe spirituality as broader than religion, a search for higher power, the sacred, and defined for some as God. They describe meditation, yoga, and the TM technique, one form of meditation they note, as spiritual, but not religious, and are coping strategies people may employ in business and in life in general. (Perrewe and Zellers 2002:301).(olive)
The claim that TM is spirituality which is distinct from religion can be made, but is legally suspect given case law, and highly controversial when referring to organized practices, and the qualifications of Zellers and Perrewe for making such statements are not identified, yet no rebuttal is given.
Looks good, Olive. Thanks for doing this. I don't have any major suggestions at this point, just a couple possible minor changes in wording. (TimidGuy)
That in a nutshell is the problem with having a COI or even an appearance of it, even if motives are noble, its hard to recognize the issues and problems from a critical perspective, and to recognize information suppression, not to mention appearances created by the disparate scrutiny given pro-TM material vis a vis less favorable material. Just because the article was skewed more towards a critical position once does not mean the balance has not gone the other way now, restoration to NPOV is now what is needed. Refusal of TM associated editors to acknowledge what multiple, more neutral editors recognize and abide by COI by limiting controversial edits and observing neutrality towards TM and MMY on the main page, will be addressed until resolution is obtained. Since talk pages, personal dialogues, mediation, and COI input has still failed to resolve this, any futher failure to comply with COI guidance will be dealt with through dispute resolution means as outlined by Durova's guidance. My currently limited time to work on this should not be construed as an intention not to proceed in due time. --Dseer 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do pursue further means. Whichever you prefer -- RfC or ArbCom. Frankly, the only neutral editor to actually look closely at the situation was Ed. His opinion was somewhat different, as you know. I really don't think the COI debate accomplished anything other than embarrassing ourselves. I believe they were pretty annoyed. I really regret that I got involved. Notice that they archived it about four minutes after you posted the extensive material in the Transcendental Meditation thread -- suggesting that they'd had enough. I don't think you undestand the purpose of the COI Noticeboard. And I don't think you enhanced your credibility. TimidGuy 19:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We could have done much better, it was painful, of course they were annoyed, but COI determinations should be fairly cut and dried, and if it got them to look at taking a harder line on COI editing even in appearance, I consider it worthwhile. Better than being in limbo for long time as was the case. I appreciate we both think we are right. You have the burden of proof wrong, IMO, given your personal relationship with this topic, the burden of proof should be on you, not me, as I believe COI states, and there are Arbcom cases to support that. You believe you can make an issue of credibility and perhaps civility, but under the proper burden of proof, my credibility isn't the decider in COI cases. Nor do civility and endorsements trump NPOV. Ed's more recent opinion I believe was that the source was attributable and the lack of criticism/sufficient criticism was a concern. The problem here IMO is your double standards for sources in principle, one for sources for pro-TM, another for sources like Mason, a demonstrable result of COI. IMO, you simply aren't motivated to build a robust critical section for intuitable reasons, whereas a neutral editor looks for the best sources for all sides, so I will work on improving the criticism/controversy portions, demonstrating the extent to which you have incrementally skewed this article, moving toward Arbcom since somebody needs to make a binding, lasting decision on this. This issue has been simmering for many months, and looking at the big picture, what has been done and what ever results from it will have applicability beyond these articles, so I see something positive here. Some issues just need to be resolved by fiat rather than the endless talking Philosophus complained about which never gets anywhere. The tendacity here is the worst I've seen on any of the manner similar articles I help edit. Lacking stronger, neutral but experienced editors here to informally arbitrate these things and force resolutions, it can become the wild wild west. The TM associated editors thrived under the status quo, but my take is whatever it takes to bring in the Sheriff and bring law and order here, that's what needs to be done. --Dseer 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
As a followup to the COI dialogue, TimidGuy, et al, before you choose to up the ante in haste, besides the above, note that Tearlach has stated in clarification: ''A basic report of COI just needs brief evidence of the relationship ("editor X is chief of Y's fan club - see Google/diffs/whatever"). And reams of "oh but everyone says I'm a good editor and Bad Things would happen if I stopped" waffle in defence are irrelevant. If such a relationship has been shown, editor X should follow the advice at WP:COI full stop." Such a relationship has been established for you in particular to the TM organization, as confirmed for you by three senior editors at the COI noticeboard whom I have quoted, and can be shown for the other TMers in the original COI complaint in general, by Philosophus. In particular TimidGuy, if you want brinkmanship and continue to disregard WP:COI after repeatedly being told it applies to you and your editing in the TM related articles by using an irrelevant waffling defense, and given precedent at Arbcom, I'm serious about raising it to a level where real penalties are assessed for the sake of precedent and Wikipedia. It's true I wasn't quite sure how to handle this before and obsured the point by unnecessarily trying to address your defense on the COI noticeboard, but I now know exactly what to do if you do not cease, so I sincerely hope you do. --Dseer 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am not sure what else I can say. Is it appropriate to begin comments on this religion section with a lengthy diatribe against another editor? Can I explain any further why I made certain choices in writing this section? Should I repeat again? I feel that you should continue with your “dispute resolution means” and I will once again explain what I did and why.

  • This article was badly written and heavily slanted when I began editing
  • I am not writing this but redoing or rewriting if you will - attempting to introduce balance to this section
  • If you reread all of the discussions leading up to this rewrite you will note from several editors, Philosophus, Stevertigo, Tanaats, what I take to be legitimate concerns with the length of the TM article, and in some cases with extending any of the sections beyond their present length.
  • I took the information about length as a serious guideline for whatever I would do with this article.
  • The opening statement was in place when I came to the TM article. I explained it somewhat and attempted to smooth the transition into the next section.
  • This is a section about TM and religion. I cited the official position of the TM organization from, of course, an official TM site before opening the discussion to all other information. This present perspective in terms of all of the other material then added. This format was already in the article.
  • Religion and TM are compatible for some people. I use as examples these rabbis and a priest. These statements are made by these clergy as to how they view their interaction with TM and religion and in what ways they find these compatible. I am not discussing these myself only reporting these comments. This section is about the relationship of religion and TM. This is one relationship.
  • I use a leader in a major Christian religion as an example a clergy with authority, who does not find TM in any way compatible with his religion. He cites almost every reservation I have ever seen anywhere on this subject. I am trying to do things in a small space. So I use this information.
  • MMY being called "His Holiness", or of his mission of "spiritual regeneration. Neither of these statements is a specific reference to religion. Since I clearly am trying to delineate Spirituality and religion I am using only what has a very clear reference to either.

This delineation is not controversial. There is much literature in mainstream literature/journals that relies on the delineation of spirituality and religion - the implications this presents.

  • A pastoral statement is not a message on a bulletin board. A pastoral statement is a statement given to the followers of the religion concerning important information on their faith and salvation. The pastor or father gives this to his charges and does so with grave intent for their care. Church members take it seriously. I am looking for another source for this statement as I have already mentioned.
  • The court case and Markovsky quote were already there. I left them in.
  • “the Maharishi's quoted dislike of democracy mentioned in the source is significant and another suppressed controversy that needs highlighting, Maharishi's controversial, fringe political beliefs”.

Note: I am rewriting an article on religion and TM and not Maharishi’s political beliefs.

  • The principals of charter schools are not religious experts but educational experts and we are including information on TM in schools. The court case is an obvious negative view. Two principals find TM helps their students. Their relationship with TM is a positive one and from their view does not conflict with religion.
  • I am not in a position to use any complete book/ article/ dictionary. I am using some material form these sources. The newspaper articles are no more skewed towards TM than away from it.
  • There are three areas where I make a short mention of topics not included in this section in any length. They were only remotely mentioned in the original article. These require a lot of information and a lot of space. They are: mantras, Hinduism and spirituality. This is a short section with space limitations. Suppression implies something repressed. The case is rather a careful selection of material based on what was in the original section and a balance of material so that everything evens out in terms of weight. It is possible to add sections on these areas but I believe they need more than a few lines in fact require much information to show the complex relationships these have with TM.

The kind and number of comments / information that you would from your suggestions have me include would create a section almost completely negative in terms of TM. My point was to show examples of the controversial relationship between TM and religion. – to create a short version of this evenly balanced. There is much material on both sides. I am using some of it, and not using a lot from both side of the controversy. I have probably left out as much for as against. This is on a discussion page. I am not stopping anyone from adding anything. Although, it must be balanced one side to the other. If I had really wanted to suppress material I could have just put this material up. I didn’t respecting the Wikipedian guidelines given a highly controversial topic. I cannot find any comments you made to me on the University of Virginia pages. They may be there, just can’t locate them.(olive 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/Talk%7ETranscendental_Meditation_1511.html"