Talk:Transcendental meditation/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Addressing points regarding proposed deletion of German study

Thanks, Olive, Sethie, and Tanaats. I think that the aborted RfC brought out some good points that hadn't yet been raised.

Tanaats, I thought your Statement was well-crafted. Good job. Regarding your points -- How do you know that the court didn't get expert testimony from scientists? Also, even though it could be considered NPOV given that the court decision also appears in the article, I question whether it should appear at all, especially now that Sethie has added more detail. It gives an unfair impression. It's like saying, "Bob killed a kitten." Then a judge says, well he didn't really kill the kitten. But you're left wondering about Bob. And maybe it was just all made up in the first place.. Note that the court said that in over half the cases, the person interviewed had no direct knowledge. And only persons hostile to the TM organization were interviewed. And that the "studies were prepared by religious-ideological opponents of the TM movement." I think it creates an unfair impression and that it's not what Wikipedia has in mind as a reliable source in the context of a controversial issue.

Sethie, your point about sources might be valid if the second-party source had provided a better analysis and context, but in this case he doesn't. He refers to it as a "study" without any context at all, giving the reader the impression that it was published in a scientific journal. He gives no acknowledgment of the problems associated with the study. He just presents it as evidence. Here's how WP:RS defines secondary sources: "The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." I don't think Carroll's presentation of the German study is "an informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration" of a primary source.

Frankly, when I read the guidelines I get a very different impression of what sources are considered acceptable than the impression I get from working on the TM article. I want to get a better frame of reference. One way to do that is via RfC. What can it hurt? You may be right.TimidGuy 16:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. We don't know whether the court got expert testimony from scientists, so in absence of a citation to that effect we can't assume that it did. Also, the judge is still not qualified to determine as a matter of sciencee which scientists would be right, he can only determine that as a matter of law which doesn't weigh in the scientific dispute. As for the kitten anaology, you have one court saying that Bob did kill the kitten, and a higher judge saying he didn't. Again, that is important as a matter of law, but irrelevant in the scientific dispute. Since neither judge is more reliable scientically, I think it's ok that both view be presented. And NPOV-wise, more weight is given in the article to the higher judge's position. Tanaats 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, the higher court didn't dispute the finding of the lower court. It only ruled that the lower court didn't have the power to force the ministry to retract the study. And my point of view is that a study that hasn't received peer review, that hasn't been published in a scientific journal, and that a court has determined to be unscientific is a study that's problematic.TimidGuy 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, the opinion of a court about science is irrelevant in a scientific dispute. And any problematic nature of the study is well documented in the article. But I think we're somewhat going in circles. So I'll drop repeating my stale old arguments. Tanaats 18:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
That is your POV. Thank you for open and honestly stating it. My POV is, let's keep your POV (and mine!) out of the article, cite sources and let the reader decide.
BTW, for me the German study has problems as well, but who the fuck am I? I am just a schmo on wikipedia. The German study is cited ALL over the place in TM-critical sites and articles. I for one am glad to learn more of the "the truth" (not what "is true" but the facts that the Courts responded to the study) about it and to present that to the readers. I dislike the TM movemnet imensly, however I dislike distortions of fact even more. I think I have a solution, let's see what you think of it.
I agree the German study has issues, however your solution to bury the German study doesn't work for me. It happened and it is cited ALL over the place in critical TM literature. I propse something else, see the article. Sethie 23:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that many sites critical of TM repeat something doesn't make it valid. Note that these sites are filled with the same half truths and errors that you've put into the article and that I've had to address. How many of these sites mention the court decision? If they were reliable sources, they would do so. Carroll should. He doesn't even mention that it wasn't published in scientific journal. I think I'll delete from the article your ad populum reference to these sites.
Thank you, Sethie, for trying to address the issue by editing the article. I sincerely appreciate your efforts. I still want to do the RfC.TimidGuy 12:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sethie, it took me several hours before I fully appreciated your intelligent approach to contextualizing the German study. I think you're onto something. But I feel like we'd need to leave out more detail, would need to create even more context, and also justify including something that wasn't really a high-profile controversy.TimidGuy 15:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


I am glad you like it... I think we are moving towards something that can work for both of us. I disagree that something involving a branch of a government and multiple court cases is not "high-profile" enoguh to be included.... and we'll keep working at it.
I get that you don't like it, and the more I learn about the study, I don't like it, or how it is used... and it happened. And it is notable enough that David Orme posted a reply to the issue on his website.Sethie 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


I mean WP:V, sentence one says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I mean, are you disputing that the sources I have provided are not accurately portraying what the study says? Sethie 04:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No. I'm saying that Carroll doesn't meet the definition of a secondary source.TimidGuy 12:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What part do spirituality and religion play in Transcendental Meditation?

Hi Littleolive, I'm going to change that back. It would be better to discuss something that has already proven to be a point of contention (as when Selphie reverted your prior attempt to introduce this dichotomy) on the Talk page first. Probably you're going to have quite a bit of trouble introducting this dichotomy without WP:OR and it should really be discussed first. Tanaats 22:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


religion, spirituality, and TM

I am giving this another shot.... I really think that spirituality and religion as words have to be delineated to really begin to understand the complexity of whether TM is a religion or spiritual or both .... I am using Wikipedia itself to begin the article, and I think the material on Wikipeida is neither simplistic nor cut and dried on these two topics . There is argument for both slants but I think a definition of the word is important for the reader otherwise perhaps the material immediately takes a slant in one direction. By introducing the word spirituality the door opens for a deeper explanation/information than may be possible if we just approach this from the religion angle. Although I do have many opinions on this topic I was not implying one view or another, but just like language to be clear if possible. Although, I respect Sethie's suggestion that citing someone who believes TM is spiritual... well actually there are lots of people that do inside and outside the TM movement but seems to me better to go to a Wikipedia source that is more impartial maybe than an opinion . I think after all this is a complex philisophical point that needs lots of info.... Just a few thoughts on this (olive 22:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC))\

Hi Olive. First, FYI the preferred way to start a new section on a Talk page is to hit the "plus sign" link that the very top of the page. That way your new section will go at the bottom, which is where new sections belong. Don't worry about the one you've already just inserted, but the plus sign would be best going forward.
Have you carefully read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS? If you look at prior sections on this the talk page you'll see that we're in almost constant discussion about these things. Although you can point to other Wikipedia articles in a "see also" sort of way, as I understand it they are not considered an RS (Reliable Source) so it's really not "better" to go to WP articles to support your position. In regards to "well actually there are lots of people that do inside and outside the TM movement" I tend to agree, but to get that into the article you have to cite an RS. Otherwise it is considered WP:OR.
Sorry. I didn't know about any of this either when I first barged in. You do have to know "Wikipedia Law" (actually called "Wikipedia Guidelines") pretty well, especially on a sometimes contentious article such as this one. The goal is to make WP an "encyclopedia" rather than a collection of a lot of "opinion pieces". Tanaats 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okey everyone, thanks, and points taken.However being of a somewhat stubborn nature and thinking this may be important... will see if I can make this work in an appropriate format .... thanks (olive 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

 :) By all means, be stubborn. And be stubborn for SOURCES, i.e. be relentless in finding sources that say what you want included. I would love to see some quotes or ideas from the TM movements side of this question, IF they're sourced.
So, if I were you, I'd hunt through TM literature or websites for places where they address the issue. Sethie 04:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Olive, that's the right approach. Be stubborn but seek to accomplish your edits according to the guidelines. Tanaats 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bagavat Gita

Thank you for sharing your belief that calling th Bagavat Gita a "Hindu Scripture" is an expression of a POV. I don't deny that people call it an epic. Do you deny that it considered one of THE central texts of a religion called "Hinduism?"Sethie 14:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the epic poem the Mahabharata. Fine of Hindus want to treat it as scripture. But that doesn't mean that everyone considers it scripture. Maharishi's translation and commentary had nothing to do with it being Hindu scripture. Since some people consider scripture and others view it primarily as an epic, and since Maharishi's approach is unrelated to Hindus considering it scripture, then it seems like we could simply leave that as I edited it -- neither calling it an epic or scripture. Just say that Maharishi did a translation and commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. Doing otherwise is POV.TimidGuy 15:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
When I read the "source" you provided, it calls the Mahabharata an epic, not the BG.
And, if you read the bottom of the page, it says, "Hindu Religious Texts: Baghavad Gita." So if you are uncomfortable with "Hindu Scripture" I am willing to change it to "Hindu Religious Text."
I know you are concenred that some of my sources don't meet WP:RS... and.... I don't think this one qualifies either, since it is.... well, a store. [[1]].
Also, "Siam" reffers to Thailand, not India.Sethie 15:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine of Hindus want to treat it as a scripture? Ummmm Well, it has a couple thousand years as a scripture. I think more accurate would be to say, "Fine of TM wants to treat it NOT as a scripture!" Sethie 15:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that the Bhagavad Gita is from the Mahabharata, an epic poem. On what basis can you claim that the Bhagavad Gita isn't an epic poem? If you do a Google search, you'll see that it's often referred to as an epic poem. The best solution would be to not use any qualifying phrase and simply use the Wikipedia link to let readers get more information on it if they want.TimidGuy 12:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Please show me where I claimed it wasn't an epic poem. If you read what I wrote, you would see I said, "I don't deny people call it an epic." Sethie 15:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. So if it's an epic poem that Hindus treat as a religious text, why did you revert my edit? Why can't we just refer to it as The Bhagavad Gita and neither call it an epic nor Hindu scripture? My feeling is that insisting on one over the other is POV intended to make TM look religious. And in this case Maharishi's commentary has nothing to do with its being Hindu scripture.TimidGuy 17:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"An epic poem which Hindus treat as a religious text"- is truly an.... origonal expression of how the BG is viewed. I have no response to that statement. Kind of like reffering to a church, something created specifically for religious purposes, within a religious context, for thousands of years, as a "a building which people treat as a religious place!" I am not saying it is innacurate.... I'm saying.... ummm it's POV to the extreme!
You know, some people claim TM has a connection to religion. Some people say it isn't. I say, let the facts stand for themselves and let people decide. We can cite your "source," Siam Dreams, and call it a religious text!
I think the only netural way to resolve this is to present the fact that it is considered one of the key Hindu texts and present the TM claim that it is not a religious text.Sethie 14:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Sethie. I really like your intelligent and well articulated analogy. You seem to assume that Hindus created the Mahabharata. That's not self-evident. Most people agree that it's based on events that happened, just as the Greek epics were based on the Trojan wars. Typically events such as these are retained as oral traditions, which are large bodies of varied material that eventually take on the scope of an epic. The Mahabharata was itself such an oral tradition for perhaps 1,500-3,000 years before it was written. (The dates of the events themselves are a matter of debate. They're often dated via chronologies, which put them in the range of 3,000 B.C. But none of the archaelogical evidence to date seems to support this. See a book titled "A Peaceful Realm." which might lend credence to the former date.) Claiming that the Mahabharata was created as a religious text by Hindus would require substantiation. The Hindus have approprated Vedic civilization -- even the Indus Valley Civilization -- as their own. Not everyone agrees with that. (Though note that I do agree with them that the theory of the Aryan invasion isn't completely supported.) It's a complex topic.
But happiliy, it seems like we could compromise and say "the Vedic text The Bhagavad Gita." I don't think anyone would argue with that.TimidGuy 12:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you take most of this up on the Bagavat Gita page. I am not comfortable with "the Vedic Text" that's like calling the Old Testament "A Jewish Book." It is not innacurate, and it is a very slanted presentation. Sethie 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not made a change till we can sort this out, however, it is patent nonsense to link the BG to a page on the Vedas! Sethie 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone else made the link.TimidGuy 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Twas' me. :( Tanaats 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 :) Thanks Tanaats!
Timidguy please respond to my above challenge, or I will change it back to Hindu scripture. Sethie 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
"Vedic text" is simply the most general way of referring to it. No one would argue with that -- no me, not HIndus, not historians. If you don't like it, you can delete it. But "Hindu scripture" is POV for the reasons I've given. Even the Wikipedia article on Hinduism notes that it evolved out of the ancient Vedic tradition. Since Hinduism had no founder, like other religious, it's not easy to date its beginning or say exactly where all the influences are from. Yes, Hindus consider the Bhagavad Gita scripture, but others consider it primarily an epic, and others see it as part of the Vedic tradition. And they see Hinduism as a later religion that, in the opinion of some, lost the purity of the Vedic tradition. That's POV. But the point here isi that there are many points of view, and to refer to it as Hindu scripture is adopting one of those points of view -- in violation of the guidelines. I still believe the best solution would be what I suggested earlier -- drop the qualfying statement and refer to it simply as the Bhagavad Gita.TimidGuy 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Vedic text is the most simple way to reffer to it you if you believe in the TM worldview! As I said, no-one would argue that Old Testament is a "Jewish Book," but calling it JUST that and leaving it at that, is truly an attempt to conceal.
The ONLY people would see it as part of the Vedic Tradition are people in the TM movement. That "some" you reffer to are....well, you guys. For every other Hindu in the world, there is no split between the "Vedic Tradition" and Hinduism. It is a novel split introduced by MMY. And if it was better documented, it would be all over this article.
Guru Dev IS ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE OVER IT. He was a Hindu, and unlike MMY he never once lied about it or tried to hide it.
Calling it a Hindu scripture is akin to calling it was it is, outside of TM circles. Sorry buddy, you haven't convinced me.Sethie 23:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel like you haven't addressed my arguments. The Vedic tradition existed before Hinduism, which was a later development. The Hindus didn't create the Maharbharata. it was an oral tradition that they subsequently embraced. Many other cultures in Asia have the epic as part of their culture. The Bhagavad Gita is part of an epic that plays many different cultural roles. One of those is as Hindu scripture. (Note that according to the scholar David Frawley, the Bhagavad Gita doesn't officially belong to the sacred canon of Hinduism but is "held in high esteem." (In Search of the Cradle of Civilization, p. 14).) To use the phrase "Hindu scripture" to describe the Bhagavad Gita represents one point of view. It's true, but there are other points of view. Using this phrase in the article violates NPOV.TimidGuy 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


I believe you are SERIOUSLY misrepresenting Frawley by asserting that he says it "doesn't offically belong to the sacred canon of Hinduism," especially when in the sentence before, you say "One of those [roles] is a Hindu scripture"! He may be saying it isn't OWNED by Hinduism, but to say it is not part of the canon of Hinduism is a new one to me.
I am accurately representing Frawley. Can give a direct quote if you like.TimidGuy 12:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't deny the Vedas existed before Hinduism. Tell me this. If there was a New Movement, let's say a spiritual movement, they publish their own translation of the New Testament, but deny that the book is "Christian," just teaching about the ways to live harmoniously with the truth of nature.
So, you are writing an encyclopedia article on this group (which some people have said is religious in nature, despite their denial of this) for people who are not neccesarily familiar with Chrisitanity or the New Testament. Would it feel in integrity to you to not mention the role this book played in the Christian world? Would that feel, honest and clear to you? Sethie 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this applies to my argument. The point is that the Mahabharata means different things to people in different cultures. It's an epic poem. And it's POV to stipulate that the Bhagavad Gita is Hindu scripture.TimidGuy 12:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sethie's addition regarding eduation journals

Sethie, I don't understand why you continue to add material to the article without first discussing. Why did you add the comment about not publishing in education journals? How is that a comment on the validity of the research? For example, maybe no articles have been submitted. Maybe no research has been done in this area. I feel like your hasty contributions damage the article. Look at the German study. We finally agreed that it wasn't good evidence for adverse effects. We should have discussed it first.

Again, please read the guideline on WP:Consensus.TimidGuy 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of our research has been in the area of health. And that's been published in absolutely the top medical journals. Why pick an area where we haven't done much empirical research and put in that as a criticism of the validity?TimidGuy 20:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm please show me where it says I need to discuss stuff first?
I'm suggesting it would be a good idea because you've been putting in material that's flawed. And typically when I try to delete it, you revert. You tend to have de facto control of the article because you have more time and you're more willing to engage in edit warring. Wikipedia says that consensus is important, but there are many problematic additions to the article that never achieved consensus.TimidGuy 12:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ummmm, please show me where it says I NEED to discuss it first?
It is true you think I have defacto control. However, is it true? If so, why haven't I reverted your deletion of my addition about the eductation? Why have I sought a solution to the German study? Why haven't I reverted your deletion of my "Numerous article and websites" portion of my new German study paragraph?
You ask me to discuss changes first and you make changes without disucssing them first. If you want me to do something, I suggest you actually MODEL doing it. Sethie 14:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Timidguy you tell me why I put it there. TM claims to improve school performance. TM claims to be in peer-reviewed journals. And here is a citation saying it is not in respectable education journals. So... yeah, I'll let you explain to me why I put it in.
Yes, over 160 peer-reviwed journals, including many leading journals. By the way, he's not saying our small number of education studies are in journals that aren't respectable, just that they're not in the main ones. Of course, it would be necessary to stipulate which are the main ones.TimidGuy 12:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And to be fair, there is a 2nd citation that I am still hunting for which will make this citation more significant... and maybe it's better if I wait till I find that one. Sethie 22:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding citations, note the guideline regarding citing the popular press, especially: "What can a popular-press article on scientific research provide? Often, the most useful thing is the name of the head researcher involved in a project, and the name of his or her institution. For instance, a newspaper article quoting Joe Smith of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution regarding whales' response to sonar gives you a strong suggestion of where to go to find more: look up his work on the subject. Rather than citing the newspaper article, cite his published papers."TimidGuy 12:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, speaking of "reliable sources" would you be willing to read the little box that appears at the top of that pages. Specificaally the word that begins with "p." And then would you be willing to let me know whether or not this is a wikipedia guideline or not? Sethie 14:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

German "Study" revisited...

Just so everyone understands what this study did:

The researchers were originally approached by people with complaints about TM and the TMO. They interviewed those people and asked for references to other people with complaints about TM and the TMO. They interviewed THOSE peopled and asked for more references to people who had complaints about TM and the TMO. This process continued until they couldn't find anyone else to interview. Out of what I estimate was a group of 100,000 people who had learned TM in Germany by that time, they found 10 current meditators and their spouses, 27 former meditators and 30 parents of meditators who were willing to talk privately to interviewers about issues they had with TM and the TMO. That's 37 out of 100,000 possible interviewees. And mind you, they ONLY interviewed people who had complaints. Of these 37 meditators and former meditators, 75% reported problems of some kind with TM. [2]. When I described this procedure on a sci.psychology newsgroup, one of the respondants, who happened to have a Jewish/Yiddish-sounding name, pointed out that this was a very traditional Nazi tactic. Sparaig 10:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I misread. Apparently, in no case where a non-meditating spouse had problems with the other spouse, was there an attempt to itnerview the meditating spouse. Anyone who has everf heard the "he said, she said" nature of marital problems knows that this goes beyond simple bias. Anyone who would take seriously, in the context of a "scientific investigation," the claims of one spouse about what the other was doing wrong, or whatever, without fact-checking, has gone into a form of investigation that even comic books wouldn't present seriously. Of course, Wikipedia has "different" standards... Sparaig 10:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks much, Sparaig. This is very illuminating. It's odd that Carroll would use this study as evidence in The Skeptic's Dictionary.
Now that Sethie has agreed that this "study" is problematic and isn't evidence of adverse effects, we need to figure out a rationale for it being in the article. That is, what point is it or the controversy surrounding it making about TM? Sethie hasn't really given one. If I were to include it, I would do so under a heading saying "Common Criticisms of Transcendental Meditation that Are Unfounded" or something like that.TimidGuy 12:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha. I never said it wasn't eveidence of adverse effects. Keep dreaming. I said that from my perspective it has problems.
It is true I haven't given a rationale? Or is it true you have: A)Not read it, or B) Read it and ignored it? To answer this question, please see [[3]] one of my last responses in that section.
So, a branch of a major government conducts a study (looks like three studies), and makes some strong claims about a new religious movement. There are numerous court cases, including claims of religious bigotry in the case. Yeah, that's not notable. Sethie 14:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Common Criticisms of TM that are Unfounded reaks of OR. Try somethng more descriptive. Sethie 14:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Sethie, for your responses here and elsewhere. See my qualification following my sentence about needing a rationale. We need to figure out what point it's making about Transcendental Meditation, and then the heading should reflect that. I've given you what I feel most logically represents its relationship to the article. Do you have a suggestion?TimidGuy 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"We need to figure out what point it's making about Transcendental Meditation" Is that true? Is it our job to interpret facts?
Yes. Look at the other headings. They each indicate a general category of information. Then we have the odd heading that just says "The German Study." This isn't good writing. Plus, I want it to be really clear that this isn't supporting the claim of adverse effects. Otherwise, I feel it should be deleted and will go ahead with the RfC.TimidGuy 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for saying yes to my question that you believe it is our job to interpret the facts, I will bring that up at the appropriate time in the RfC process.
You asked two questions. My "yes" was in response to the first.TimidGuy 12:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I have also moved the German study way from the Adverse effects section so as to not even insinuate a link there. If you look at the article, the German Study is a sub-header of the Controversies section. I am open to other titles, the title your presented reaks of POV and OR. Sethie 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Sethie. Hope you had a nice holiday. Thanks much for moving the study and for agreeing that it we could try a different subhead. I'll give it a go. Let me know what you think.TimidGuy 12:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"I've given you what I feel most logically represents its relationship to the article." I beleive that you see it that way. Is that in fact what is it's actual relationship to the article.
I am content with the following "POV," with the following "relationship to the article"- IT HAPPENED.
I don't feel the need to qualify, figure out a point, add my own commentary via topper heading. I leave that to the sources.Sethie 17:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. Regarding changing the subheading to "===German Court Rebukes Report on Adverse Effects of Transcendental Meditation===", where did we discuss that? I must have been asleep. Actually, the "rebuke" isn't the only thing that is mentioned in the subsection. I think that "The German study" is fine. Otherwise, to be NPOV, we'd have to introduce a balanced summary of the entire subsection into the heading, which would make it pretty long. Tanaats 21:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC) And did we agree to strip down the paragraph presenting the study? Tanaats 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We discussed it in this section. Sethie agreed to changing the subhead. You didn't comment, so I went ahead. And earlier when I agreed to hold off on the RfC I said that if this is to remain it should have less detail and more context.[4]
Ooops, sorry, I guess I missed it. I don't mind such a change in principle, but I think it may be difficult to find another subhead that is NPOV. The section is not just about the "rebuke". And regarding "less detail", as far as I can see only the detail about what the study said has been reduced. Tanaats 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I said I was open to a different one, that one doesn't work for me.... for the reasons Tanaats seem says, it does not tell the whole story. Sethie 00:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Sethie, for your rewrite. But it has a problem. How can "TM" sue the German government? "TM" is Transcendental Meditation. It's the name of a specific technique, not the name of an organization. I'll fix it by changing it to passive voice. Of course, I feel it doesn't tell the whole story if it doesn't tell the outcome, as my version did, but I can live with it for now.TimidGuy 17:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Glad we're getting closer. I'll change it to TM organization, and keep the passive. Sethie 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Denaro revisited

This is the full text of the Denaro affidavit (its not even that, apparently, but something "equivlaent" according to Denaro, as found in the TM-EX archives. These are in turn, financed by the rival meditation gruop mentioned as being a "breakaway" TM group). Note point 23: "In his more subtle and very sophisticated way Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his charlatanism is [sic] a far more destructive and dangerous cult leader than Jim Jones who induced more than 900 people to commit suicide in Guyana." [5] Any mention of Denaro should quote this sentence in order to provide balance (as in an example of his extreme bias).Sparaig 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Denaro says that this isn't the actual affidavit?TimidGuy 22:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
He says at the end that it is the equivalent of an affidavit.Sparaig 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Dennis Roark

I propose to delete the paragraph in which Dennis Roark makes claims about the research. These statements are rebutted by David Orme-Johnson, but rather than rebut, I feel this should be deleted because it doesn't meet the guidelines for reliable sources.

The Wikipedia pillars wp:5 say that it's especially important to cite authoritative sources on controversial topics: "[NPOV] means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." In addition, WP:RS says that primary sources, such as this letter from Roark to Pat Ryan, must be published by a reliable source and should be corroborated by secondary sources: "Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources."

Behind the TM Facade isn't a reliable source for a primary document. For example, it mentions the problematic German study without noting that a German court rebuked it. In addition, it's a critic site, which WP:RS says should be treated with caution[6]. And the claims by Roark need to be corroborated by a secondary source, which WP:RS defines as "The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources."TimidGuy 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of this is pure and simple baloney... I wasted plenty of time reading through parts that are in between the wiki policy quotes trying to make sense of it.... and could not. However, one sentence made sense to me the one that says behind the facade doesn't meet WP:RS. I will look into it.
For now, I have replaced it, with what I hope you feel are reliable sources. Sethie 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
My first response was, you can't be serious. But sadly, I think that you are. I believe that you simply don't realize that it's not appropriate to take something out of context like this.
I've cited Wikipedia guidelines for why Roark shouldn't be here. Your response is that this is baloney. I'm deleting this section until you can justify its inclusion based on the guidelines. (And note that the "Falling Down the Rabbit Hole" site isn't a reliable source for a primary source document.)TimidGuy 12:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Your deletion is absurd! Are you claiming that now Orme-Johnson's website suddently isn't a reliable source?
We can discuss whether Down the Rabbit Hole is a reliable source or not, but Johnson is, unless you have had a sudden change of heart.Sethie 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This quote violates WP:RS. You must address the issue that it's a primary source making claims of scientific fraud and is uncorroborated by a secondary source. In addition, as I noted above, you've made an egregious error in taking it out of context. It shouldn't be in the article.TimidGuy 16:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Please sort out your confusion, is David Orme a RS or not? Please make up your mind. If it is not, please remove all refferences to his website.
Look, Orme reports that Roark made the claims, tough luck if you don't like it. Sethie 16:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, David's site does meet the guideline: it's the personal site of an expert. But I'm not arguing that. My original argument was 1) that it came from an unreliable source and 2) that it's a primary source that needs, according to the guidelines, to be corroborated by a secondary source. You addressed the first point by referencing David's site, and in so doing, taking the quote out of context in a manner that is inappropriate, and you never addressed the second point.TimidGuy 16:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to #1, DAVID ORME IS THE SOURCE. In response to #2- "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources." What Interpretting does David Orme do? None! He just reports facts, the facts being, Roark claimed xyz. Please read and meditate on the following sentence. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"Sethie 17:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It says that primary sources may be used but only to make descriptive points about a topic. How do you interpret that? My interpretation is that the quote it claiming research fraud. That's more than a descriptive point. It's a serious allegation. The guideline further says, "Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research." To my mind, this claim of scientific fraud requires corroboration -- that is, additional evidence.
You really need to address the fact that you took it out of context. David presents the claim in order to rebut it. It's odd that you would insert the claim into the article without also inserting the rebuttal. Indeed, I would say it's unconscionable.TimidGuy 17:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please reframe from any analzying my character. If you want to exchange intellectual blows with me, let's go to a chat room and we can say all sorts of things about each other.

I am interested in facts. The fact is, Orme says Roark claimed it. Put all sorts of spin on in, ignore the first sentence of WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," change your mind about whether Orme is a reliable source or not once a week, but the fact of the matter is ORME SAYS ROARK SAID ______.

I'm sorry, I don't recall saying that David's site isn't a reliable source.TimidGuy 20:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Right here "This quote violates WP:RS." You say the quote violates WP:RS. The source of the quote is Orme's website. QED you are saying his website violates WP:RS.
 :) Which by the way would be very, very bad for you, you wouldn't have anyone to refute the German study! Sethie 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the issue of primary sources and how they can be properly used in Wikipedia, not whether David OJ's site was an acceptable source for the quote.TimidGuy 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I trust that in your mind you believe the claim of fraud requires collaberation. Just because you believe it, is it so?

Do I NEED to "address the fact that you took it out of context"? Is there a wikipedia policy which says you cannot use a citation if one user claims it is "out of context?"

Did I take it out of context, or are you just thinking that is what I did? Does David Orme somehow NOT claim that Roark made these allegations? Does Orme say, Roark claimed XYZ or not? It is really a simple question!Sethie 17:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, the crucial issue is how to deal with primary sources, especially since they're cited a number of times, including the Denaro affidavit. We need to understand the constraint on using them that WP:RS is giving. I'll ask around in the various forums. This has been an intense discussion -- but valuable.TimidGuy 20:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Markovsky quote

I'm deleting the Markovsky quote based on the proposed guideline that I cited earlier: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples. Note that WP:RS directs editors to this supporting page. Also, note that his comment is related to research on the TM-Sidhi program and the Maharishi Effect, not on Transcendental Meditation.TimidGuy 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note, for the 2nd time that is NOT A POLICY. It is a proposed policy. As such it is an invalid reason to delete something.
Then
Also, please note, for the 6th? time, despite your claims to the contray, this article is about the TM movement, not the TM technique.
And lastly, it is true you think the Barry quote is just about the TM-Sidhi, Maharishi efect, however, is it true that it is? Sethie 14:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Markovsky has been He's specifically addressing research on the TM-Sidhi program and the Maharishi Effect. This quote does not apply to research on Transcendental Meditation -- and it's demonstrably false to sggest that it does. It's wrong and misleading to have it here.
Oops, I hadn't intended to include this; I do believe that Markovsky was addressing the Maharishi Effect research, but it's not clear from the context. I wrote it but then intended to delete it.TimidGuy 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples is not meant to be a guideline for editors, why does WP:RS very prominently direct editors to it?
Please note, too, that the quote doesn't make any sense. What does "barraging journalists" have to do with scientific journals? Journalists have nothing to do with scientific journals. I'm going to delete the quote.TimidGuy 16:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Look Timidguy, all you need to do is read the box at the top of the page for examples, look for the big word that starts with the letter "P."
Please show me where Markovsky says, This quote only about TM-sidhi, Maharishi effect research.
It doesn't make any sense to you. To an outsider, it is easy to understand. He is saying that they flood journals with submissions, most don't get in, and sometimes one does, even if it is invalid or flawed. See the article published in JAMA, in which this is discussed.Sethie 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. When we do an RfC you'll get to explain what "barraging journalists" has to do with scientific journals. Maybe we should go ahead with the RfC. It would be a good opportunity to see whether we can apply Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples.
I'd like to debate Markovsky's point about prestigious journals and his assumption that TM studies are invalid or flawed, but it will be better to simply work on that section of the TM article. It doesn't reflect the extraordinary research that's been done, including saying very little about the many studies published in top medical journals in the past 15 years. This research was funded by over $20 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health. You can't imagine how competitive this funding is. This funded research has been published in the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine, two journals of the American Heart Association (Hypertension and Stroke), the American Journal of Cardiology, etc. etc.TimidGuy 16:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I hear that you would like to debate that. I reccomend doing so on a personal blog or one of the many discussion groups out there.
Or, if you can get yourself published somewhere, we can quote you.
It is interesting to me that you are having trouble acknowledging that WP:R_S/e is a "PROPPOSED" guideline and not a guideline. I look forward to a very ummmmm easy? debate with you over it in a RfC.Sethie 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
In what sense didn't I acknowledge it? See the very first sentence of this thread: "I'm deleting the Markovsky quote based on the proposed guideline. . ."TimidGuy 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You acknowledge it in word once... just not in deed! Then you say, "If Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples is not meant to be a guideline for editors" Which implies you think it is a meant to be a guideline. No wait, you don't imply that, you ummmmm, SAY IT!

Would a police officer write someone a ticket for breaking a law that had not passed yet? Yet you are using a proposal as justification for actions now. Sethie 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Using primary sources

Thanks again for the discussion on whether to include the quote from Dennis Roark alleging that research on Transcendental Meditation is fraudulent. I want to start a new thread in which we focus on the crucial issue regarding this quote: that it's a primary source and that there are constraints on using primary sources in Wikipedia. In this case, Wikipedia says that a letlter (such as this letter from Dennis Roark to Pat Ryan) is a primary source.

WP:RS says ""Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic." So the question is, what is meant by the limitation that a primary source can be used only to make a descriptive point about a topic? An admin who contributes to the guidelines gave this explanation: 'If you simply want to establish that someone said something in a letter, then the letter is a good source for that fact, although it might or might not be relevant, depending who wrote the letter, whether the letter has been quoted in this connection, etc. If you want to establish the truth of the fact itself, the fact that someone said it in a letter doesn't do it."

Further, another admin made the point that "The example given is exactly what you can't use. As described, its use is to illustrate a contentious point. Applying our policies it is original research using an unreliable source." And "What is needed is third party publication with some measure of peer review. If all that was involved was just a noncontroversial fact, its use might be OK, but alleged fraud is controversial by nature. "

So as I understand it, an allegation of fraud is a contentious point that needs solid evidence. Simply quoting a primary source isn't sufficient evidence to say the research on Transcendental Meditation is fraudulent. A corroborating reliable secondary source is required. And I believe that the guidelines suggest that it's not appropriate to include this quote from Roark.

(By the way, I'm not presenting these quotes from admins as judgment -- that can only take place in the context of the dispute procedures. I am presenting them as a way of helping the discussion along.)TimidGuy 13:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I watched your dialogue with the people on WP:RS, now that you are done, I will continue the dialogue there and we'll see what happens. I purposely did not interfere in your dialogue, I gave you a chance to "work the crowd" with your presentation of the situation, I ask that you offer me the same respect and let me have my own dialogue.
It is interesting that you think I want to "establish the truth of the fact," despite my constant repitiion that I am interested in facts, like _____ said _____. It is interesting that you think I wish to say, "Research on TM is fraudulent," I have no such interest in making such a claim. Oh well. Sethie 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that this primary source that's quoted in the article is alleging fraud and it's not corroborated in any way. Note that the JAMA article gave no evidence of fraudulent research -- it was focused in the marketing of herbal products. If the article on Transcendental Meditation is going to say that the research is fraudulent, I believe that the guidelines say there needs to be evidence beyond a quote from a letter. If no such evidence is given, the quote shouldn't be in the article.TimidGuy 16:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that I left out one of the key facts- the finding os the TM Jama article were rebuked, along with the movement.
Please show me where "the article on Transcendental Meditation says the research is fraudulent."Sethie 16:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Here[7] the article is alleging fraud by quoting Roark.TimidGuy 16:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The place you pointed to does not say, "TM research is fraudulent" (citation: David Orme's Website), it says, ____ said _____.
So, please show me where "the article on Transcendental Meditation says the research is fraudulent."Sethie 16:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the issues regarding the appropriate use of a primary source. The next step, I believe, is an RfC.TimidGuy 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem here, but can we wait until Sethie gets back? Tanaats 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
To elaborate, if we do it while he is gone, since RfCs aren't binding we'll just end up doing it all over again when he gets back. Tanaats 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Can't have a dispute procedure without the disputant. TimidGuy 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I had been looking at the guideline WP:RS but found a more clearly stated policy on the WP:OR page: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." The accuracy of Roark's claim is not easily verifiable by any reasonable person; plus, it violates the policy because it makes the evalautive claim of fraud." TimidGuy 12:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno'. I'll be interested to see how this ultimately sorts out. I see "quotes" and "so-and-so states" throughout WP. For example: "Maharishi teaches that the Transcendental Meditation technique comes from the ancient Vedic tradition of India." AFAIK this is something from a primary source that cannot be verified by any reasonable educated person without specialist knowledge. Or...
  • Maharishi has said that Transcendental Consciousness is experienced via dhyana, a Sanskrit term which he equates with Transcendental Meditation.
  • Maharishi has taught that the Transcendental Meditation technique allows the mind to contact an underlying field of existence.
  • I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. (Max Planck)

So I'm confused. Tanaats 16:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How would it be if we sort out the current issue first and then, based on what we learn, examine whatever points you want to challenge? TimidGuy 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Works for me! Tanaats 17:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm going to go ahead and delete this. No one has addressed the point I raise about the inappropriate use of a primary source and that makes a conntroversial claim that's not corroborated. And my reservation about this particular use of a primary source has been confirmed by experienced Admins who've also served on the Arbitration Board. TimidGuy 12:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

JAMA article

Hi, Sethie. Earlier we achieved consensus [8]on moving the JAMA material to the article on Maharishi Vedic Medicine, since it has to do with marketing of herbal products. Three editors thought it was a good idea and no one objected. Now you've put it back in the TM article, without discussion, without consensus. Also, you incorrectly characterized the original JAMA article by Chopra et al. It wasn't a research study. The title was "Letter from New Delhi."TimidGuy 16:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And of course you left out the part about the $194 million lawsuit against JAMA.TimidGuy 16:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my error.
You repeatedly, well, repeat, "you do things, without disucssion, without consensus" and yet you continue to edit the article without consensus and not disucss your changes first. So, each time I read that from you, and notice you do what you are asking me not to do, well, I don't really take it very seriously. As a rule of thumb, I generally don't take advice from people who contradict the advice they offer with their actions.
In that discussion of 3 editors, was part of the agreement specifically stated, AND NONE OF THE MOVED ARTICLE SHALL BE KEPT HERE? If so, I agree that I violated that concensus.
Yes. We moved it to shorten the article and to move out material not directly related to Transcendental Meditation.TimidGuy 12:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for answering a question I did not ask. Now, was part of the agreement specifically stated, AND NONE OF THE MOVED ARTICLE SHALL BE KEPT HERE?Sethie 18:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As per your request, I will now include the lawsuit against JAMA Sethie 16:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
And another request: please explain what it has to do with the validity of the research. Why did you put it in that section?TimidGuy 17:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, here is a rebuke of the findings claimed in well-respected, peer-review journal. Here are STRONG allegations that there was deciet and lies around money and research. Here is an allegation, in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION that the TM movement is FALSELY seeking to pass itself off as scientifically valid Process/Technique/Healing Modality via research and articles published in journals (more citations on this coming). Please explain to me what it DOESN'T have to do with the validity of research. Sethie 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The original article was titled "A Letter from New Delhi." It was a general article about the value of traditional medicine and Ayurveda. The subequent article was about the alleged failure to disclose and about the marketing practices surrounding the herbal products. It said nothing about research on Transcendental Meditation. (In fact, it didn't challenge any research at all.) The article authors it criticized haven't done research on Transcendental Meditation. It's not clear how it's related to the article on Transcendental Meditation, and especially unclear what it says about the validity of the research on Transcendental Meditation.TimidGuy 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That is PATENTLY FALSE on a variety of levels. The Jama article challenged the conlcusion of the Letter for New Delhi- that Ayurveda is less expensive then modern health care.
That wasn't research. It was a letter. It stated opinions. Skolnick himself, on the page you cited, describes the article as being "outside the main well of scientific articles." It wasn't a scientific study. You can't use this to discredit research. It may be that you don't understand what scientific research entails. TimidGuy 17:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You know, I do not know everything about scientific method. And, when people lie about their financial involvment in... ok AN ARTICLE which makes scientific or medical claims, and they are involved in selling the thing about which they are making claims.... I feel a bit suspicious, about the article and the organization.
Maybe I do understand it, maybe I don't, and please do not focus your commentary on me. If you feel the need to get personal, I propose we do so on another venue.Sethie 17:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
If you actually read the Jama response article, you will find that it is not soley about the Maharishi Ayurveda. It is an overall rebuke of the TM movement, including their attempts to pass themselves off as scientifically valid.
It is becoming a mantra for me, although I don't think it is having any health benefits: for the 10th time, this article is not about the TM technique, it is about the TM Movement!Sethie 16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Please show me where JAMA mentions specific research that isn't valid. I think the article makes good points. I don't mind having it menitoned in the TM article. But it doesn't belong in this section questioning the validity of the research, because it doesn't challenge any specific research. If you feel that its criticism of marketing by the TM organization somehow renders 160 peer-reviewed studies as not being valid, then that's your opinion. And your opinion shouldn't be represented in the article.TimidGuy 17:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Easy Timidguy! The quote from Jama is under a section called "Questions to the Validity of TM research," not under ALL TM RESEARCH IS WRONG! I am willing to do a new section. Let me know what you think.Sethie 17:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That would be great. In the past the section heading was "marketing of herbal products." How about: "Accusations of deceptive marketing of Ayur-Veda leads to lawsuit." TimidGuy 18:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that wouldn't work for me, since their are numerous accusations, not just related to the Letter from Delhi. Sethie 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetic changes to the prior article split?

Please see User_talk:Tanaats#Article splits. Do we want to agree to do what Dreadlocke suggests? Tanaats 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats. Will check it out this weekend and get back to you.TimidGuy 16:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. Can we revisit this? I've been on a number of other articles and what Dreadlocke suggests is indeed the defacto standard. I think that our articles would look much better by doing the same. Thanks. Tanaats 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Orme

The section is about Tax-fraud. Orme does not address that, he addresses the issue that Denaro is claiming the research is flawed, which is not claimed in that section.Sethie 16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Denaro quotations

This article includes two controversial claims originating from a 1986 affidavit by Anthony Denaro, who was employed by Maharishi International University for approximately 10 months 1975-76. The source given in the Transcendental Meditatiion article for these particular quotes is Carroll's The Skeptic's Dictionary. One quote alleges that Maharishi University of Management is characterized by, among other things, nervous breakdowns, crime, and suicide attempts. A second quote alleges tax fraud. I believe this material shouldn't be included in the article for several reasons.

1) These controversial claims from a primary source are presented in but not corroborated by The Skeptic's Dictionary. According the to the principle WP:5, it's especially important to cite authoritative sources on controversial topics. The standard is reliable secondary sources: "In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources" (WP:RS). The guideline WP:RS defines a secondary source as: "The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion." Carroll offers no informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of these claims found in the affidavit. He simply quotes the document.

2) The Skeptic's Dictionary web site cites a copy of the affidavit that's on a POV web site. That web site cites the court case. However, the document is not a part of the court record. As examination of the Document Entries List shows no such document. The courthouse where this trial was held is unable to provide this document. It is only available on POV web sites. I believe this violates WP:V.

3) Carroll's The Skeptic's Dictionary is an unreliable and biased source. It contains many errors and half truths in the article on Transcendental Meditation. One that has been amply documented already on this Talk page is his citation of the German "study." Another that's been discussed here is his reference to a study by Bob Rabinoff that doesn't exist.

Controversial claims made in a primary source such as Denaro's affidavit need solid support from authoritative sources. The affidavit and its quotation without corroboration in The Skeptic's Dictionary aren't the sort of substantial evidence necessary to the high quality of sourcing that Wikipedia aspires to. TimidGuy 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. I've been thinking about this. AFAIK...
  1. I think we've already had an RfC about SkepDic, with the conclusion that it was indeed an RS.
  2. Carroll sighted the affadavit and decided editorially that it was authentic. If his website and book are RS, then there is a presumption that he exercises adequate editorial control. All we need to do for wp:v is to established that he actually reported what we cite that he reported.
  3. Again, SkepDic is an RS. Your analysis of his TM article is technically OR. As far as his presentation of the German study goes, he probably is accurately reporting what he knows about it; I didn't know that the court had rejected the study either. That does not represent bia if I'm right (and I think I probably am) and you have more than adequately counterpointed this in the article. At the very least, "bias" has not been adequately demonstrated by this example. As far as Rabinoff, IMO that a rather small error that someone has made; it's really not a major deal who did the study/studies as it really doesn't affect the conclusions that the reader will make, one way or the other. And I suspect that the error was probably made by the guy who originally attended Rabinoff's session. Rabinoff may have been unclear about it for all we know. Even if the attendee screwed up, that doesn't make Carroll an "unreliable and biased source".

And IMO the TM articles are just chock full of extraordinary claims for which we are relying on primary sources.

Tanaats 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats, for your thoughts. We didn't do an RfC on this. And I'd be willing to. You'd need to explain why it qualifies as a secondary source in regard to these specific claims. He simply presents very controversial claims from a primary source without any corroboration. If you read the guidelines and the discussion of them, you'll see that this is the sort of material that isn't acceptable.TimidGuy 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm maybe. Maybe it is time to get outside help on this, although I believe we already have, but maybe it's time to do it formally. God knows we have tried to work it out.Sethie 08:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proper citations

Hi, Sethie. If you cite a book you absolutely must use a proper citation. Also, note that you linked to an illegal copy of the JAMA article.The guidelines disallow this[9]. TimidGuy 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy, I can't find it, but the essence is, if you find a problem, fixit.
Saying a thing does not make it so. Please show me evidence for the belief in your mind that it is an illegal copySethie 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This is copyrighted material. Articles in JAMA are not freely available online. Skolnick had it on his web site and JAMA demanded he remove it. So he did, but then he simply found the illegal copy in the Wayback Machine and linked to it. This link is in violation of the guidelines. There are quite a number of such problematic links in the article.TimidGuy 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have looked over it and agree this violates copyright, so we'll refference it and remove the link. As for the "number of..." well, as you point them out, they can be dealt with. Looks like I am going to learn how to do refferences. Sethie 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Regarding your book citations -- since you didn't do it properly one might guess that you don't have the book in hand. In which case, WP:CITE says that you should cite your actual source: "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear." TimidGuy 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about this portion of WP:CITE, I was not aware of it, and yet it makes perfect sense.
I cannot find the webpage I got this from, do you have a copy of Meditations of Maharishi in your personal possesion or easily accesible? Sethie 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have that book. It's not too common. It wasn't written by Maharishi. Someone transcribed one of his talks and then published without his permission. So it was never part of the "Canon." : ) TimidGuy 21:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

Sethie is rapidly rewriting the article again. Please see the Wikipedia policy from WP:NPOV on undue weight[10]. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." And "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. "

Look at the table of contents and the article. Approximately two-thirds of the article now constitutes criticism and controversy. I believe this violates NPOV.TimidGuy 18:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting wiki guidelines and trying and failing to state a fact (two-thirds of the article... the only objective way to do this is a word-count, not looking at the TOC).... now what is it you are actually proposing or requesting?Sethie 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I did a word count. The total number of words is 5,122, and the number of words in the TM sections is 1,683. You can do the math -- it works out to almost exactly 67% of the article being devited to criticisms and controveries sections. This is a violation of NPOV. I am requesting that you immediately cease adding critical material to the article, since it is already in violation of NPOV. And we need to address the imbalance in the article that's already there.TimidGuy 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You strike me as a mostly honest guy, however, I decided to re-do your math. I count a 5,012 word article with 1800 in the TM section (I don't count the other programs offered by TM as controvery). Personally, I don't like that proportion either.
However, this movement has a history of fraud, controvery, violence, extortion, false claims, absurd claims, sex scandal, pseudoscientific claims, poor research methodology, redefining terms (see Bagavat Gita), allegations of being a cult and controvery over it's religious status.
This however is not the bottom line, this is not the whole story- so how about if you work on the "good stuff" and I'll work on the diry laundry. I have so many more significant controvery to add to the article. I will agree to slow to down to allow you to catch up a bit with the "good stuff."
For fuck's sake- the movement claims it can make people levitate, turn them invsible and end wars with their minds. I think it was Denaro's affidavit.... and as part of his job he HAD to take a TM course- and the proffessor told his students that TM makes you invulernable to hurricanes, not that you could steer huricans away, that a hurrican couldn't hurt you. The movement teaches people mantras with a CLEAR link to Hindu Gods and Goddesses (I found my mantra in a book by a HINDU guru as a Saraswatti mantra!) and says, "it isn't a religion." This religious movement founded a political party! And the presidential candidate of that party challenged the other presidential candidates to get their brains scanned! It calls a physical excercie "Flying."
Dude your Guru... ehhh the leader of the movement thinks he is going to create Heaven on Earth!
The idea that it is benefitial to relax and has health benefits would be argued by no-one. The rest however- secret magical words of power, meditators reducing crime and levitating, that Heaven on Earth is even possible, that you must have your house facing a certain way, fire ceremonies for health, and all the Hindu and/or Vedic trapsings to name a few components are WAY outside mainstream society.Sethie 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a controversial moevement. Live with it. If you don't like the proportion of controversy, add more of TM theory. Sethie 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Now that I have presented my arguement with more civility, will you respond? Also, just for the record, I have been reducing the criticism section over the last 2 days, I estimate it is down 50-100 words, and I am holding back beaucoup very critical information. 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


The TM movement has been involved in a number of scandals and controversies. I have provide about examples of these scandals and controversies, most of which meet wiki guidelines for inclusion.

You contend that these issues are non-notable or are given undue weight. Please show how this is true? Sethie 17:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. I appreciate your different tone.
My point is that it is your opinion that the TM Movement has been involved in a number of scandals and controversies. It is my opinion that there have been no scandals, that the controversies are a matter of dispute, and that TM is respected in the popular media and scientific community. It is my opinion that your sources are inadequate, and I intend to pursue RfCs.
Given that we have a difference of opinion, you need to come up with a rationale why your opinion merits greater weight in the article than mine. ChemistryProf has proposed a couple rationales regarding proportion. His second had to do with the treatment of TM in mainstream media. He suggested using that as a gauge, and suggested that the statistical distribution would follow a bell-shaped curve. You objected to that. But at least he was trying to find an objective approach. TimidGuy 12:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For nearly eight years...

TimidGuy, in the sentence "For nearly eight years, professionals who practice Transcendental Meditation include Gary Kaplan, professor of neurology at New York University School of Medicine, Ramani Ayer, Chairman and CEO of The Hartford Financial Services Group in Hartford, Connecticut, Bob Brown, Former Division President, Ziff-Davis Inc., and James Krag, M.D., Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association", why do you say "For nearly eight years"? It seems that most of those folks have been meditating much longer. And we could probably just start with "Professionals who practice..." anyway and let people see how long they've been practicing from the cite. Tanaats 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. I really appreciate your catching that. Thanks so much. And again, thanks for all that you do to improve the quality of the articles. You've done a lot of excellent copyediting.TimidGuy 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Tanaats 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Numerous bad edits

I reverted a bunch of sweeping changes, I will discuss each one in it's own section. Sethie 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Proffessionals?

I mean I don't doubt those people practice TM and if they aren't famous enough to have a wiki article, why are we going to list them? I like your point that numerous proffessionals practice TM, why not just say CEO's, proffessors, etc? instead of listed a bunch of names that no one knows? Sethie 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not fame -- it's the fact that it shows that we're not just a weird cult. These are people who are absolutely at the top of their professions. Their credentials are impeccable. By the way, was there a reason that you deleted the link that I added at the bottom of the page to the Strss Free Schools web site? TimidGuy 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That deletion was accidental, I am fine with it.
I'm not opposed to any "evidence" you wish to introduce to show that TM is not just a weird cult. But please, add evidence that creates flow in the article, not a list of names that don't mean anything to anyone.
In some ways I agree with you. A list of names has more the sound of a brochure than an encyclopedia article. It's probably not the sort of evidence to use. TimidGuy 12:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, the webpage is a big ad! Seriously, look over the page and show me any infromation about this "Association of Professionals Practicing the Transcendental Meditation Program." There is no information about this "organization!" Sethie 05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removingt the Maharishi Quote

The book and page number are there. Because it is formated incorrectly, you want it gone?Sethie 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of formatting, it's a matter of citing material correctly. As with the instance I noted in the article on Maharishi, if you're going to cite a book, you need to do it properly. Otherwise it's just carelessness and degrades the quality of Wikipedia. You can't just tell another editor, fix it yourself. You need to show that you take this seriously, not just being more careful about the sources you cite but also doing it correctly.
And of course, if I make similar errors I hope you'll bring them to my attention. Which brings me to the point -- Tanaats, I'm curious why you went to so much work to add in ref tags. Thanks for doing that. But please let me know -- is that a preferred style? Eager to know if I'm doing something wrong. Again, I always appreciate the little things you do to improve Wikipedia.TimidGuy 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Denaro

Ummm there are maybe 10 live discussions going on on this page- how about slowing down a bit?Sethie 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


=Why removed cited facts

The Jama article makes it clear this was the 2nd such deception to Jama, and that the New England Journal of Medicine had suffered the same transgression. Why remove a cited fact? Sethie 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The second instance was completely unrelated to JAMA. You'll need to read that again. TimidGuy 02:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"Submission of the "Letter From New Delhi" was not the first time JAMA was uninformed about an author's connection to the Maharishi's organizations. THE JOURNAL had previously published a letter praising the beneficial effects of TM (JAMA. 1989;262:2681-2682) written by Brian M. Rees, MD, MPH, who gave the Rees Family Medical Clinic, Pacific Palisades, Calif, as his affiliation. Rees turns out to be the medical director of the Maharishi Ayur-Veda Medical Center in Pacific Palisades. " When I re-read this, it all seems clear to me. Sethie 05:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Otis

Regarding the study by Otis. The guidelines are very clear that research must be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It's not clear that the book by Shapiro and Walsh meets this guideline. From a description online, it appears that many of the papers collected in the book were indeed published in scientific journals, but others were not. In order for Otis to be considered a reliable source, you'd need to find out whether this paper was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and then cite that. I kind of doubt it was, becuase it doesn't follow the format of a scientifici paper. Though there's no way of knowing whether the version on the POV site that you link to accurately represents what was published. TimidGuy 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reprinted with permission from Deane H. Shapiro and Roger N. Walsh, editors, Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives (New York: Aldine Publishing Co.), copyright 1984 by Deane H. Shapiro and Roger N. Walsh. Feel free to contest this if you wish. Sethie 05:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as I explain above, the guidelines specify that research be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This isn't a scientific journal; it's a popular book. You'll need to find out whether this paper was previously published in a peer-reviewed journal and, if so, the cite that. If not, then it doesn't meet the guidelines and shouldn't be included. TimidGuy 11:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Then let's do a Rfc. You keep asserting that research MUST be published in a peer-reviewed journal. You keep adding in this MUST, depsite my repetive pointing out that this is not so.
If you wish to dispute that the site accurately represents the site, feel free to get your hands on the book.
Please show me some evidence that it is a POV site. The fact that it has a study which found negative results doesn't make it a POV site. Sethie 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources

I've been harping a bit on the need for reliable secondary sources. I wanted to point out that the JAMA article is an excellent example of a reliable secondary source (even though it was sued for libel). The article claims deception related to publicity surrounding Ayuyr-Veda products and services and then gives a number of examples. This is the kind of corroboration and analysis that a reliable secondary source should use. Plus, JAMA is a reputable publication. Its bias is toward allopathic medicine, of course, but it's undeniably one of the top medical journals. TimidGuy 02:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

TM and Religion Revisited

As I mentioned earlier I really wanted to work on the "Is TM a Religion?" section of the TM article. However, there are so many difficulties in the article that the whole article should perhaps be adjusted/ changed/ thrown out . These are the problems as I see them. All seem to affect the legitimacy of the article as an encyclopedic entry. I haven't quoted from the article, since all of these points can be traced to the article pretty easily.
  • Title: Transcendental Meditation cannot by definition be a religion, but is a meditative technique. This title sets up the article on very shaky legs.
  • As a technique, transcendental Meditation doesn't encourage or discourage anything. Maybe someone or something does but not the technique
  • SCI is not TM. As I understand it, SCI is the practical knowledge/ understanding about the technique, but is not the technique itself.
  • We can't make jumps from TM to SCI in an argument. These are not the same thing. They may compliment each other. One may explain the other, but they aren't the same thing. A title that asks whether TM is a religion and then hops off to use anything about SCI as an argument does probably not present a strong argument, and maybe a non-existent argument.
  • Maharishi came out as a teacher of spirituality not of religion.These are very different terms and mean different things. The word, God, does not automatically mean that we are talking about religion. Since we haven't defined anywhere in the article what is meant by religion we can't logically go on to

use these words as argument for or against religion. There are those who believe in God, who never went to a religious institution /Church . Emily Dickinson comes to mind. Spirituality and religion must must be defined before proof for either can be presented.

  • Material on Patrick Ryan- This is ludicrous . I have been a meditator for over thirty years and I can tell you most are not celibate, many are not vegetarian, and so on and so on . Yes, this is personal experience but i suppose we can find proof for this. Can anyone who has ever known any meditators believe this, and as for using as an argument in an encyclopedia well it seems weak.
  • Although this may not refer particularly to this article I am reminded that the use of the mantra, and information about the TM Sidhi program is proprietary knowledge and whether we want to use it or not, we can't legally use this information. This is illegal and shouldn't be part of Wikipedia as I understand the rules.

My comments about clarification of the terms religion and spirituality, bring me back to my past feeble efforts to clarify this article or deal with this idea. Many of these words must be defined before we try to present an argument in any direction. And is an encyclopedia a place to try to make a point or present an argument. How can we just present straight forward information? I will probably go ahead and try again with this article so just to let all know.(63.162.81.220 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I am guessing this is Olive Oil, if it is, please sign in when you want to comment.
If you think Wikipedia is breaking the law, please call a lawyer. There is nothing in this article that was not gotten from other sources, so go after them as well.
Olive contrary to your assertion, "Title: Transcendental Meditation cannot by definition be a religion," people have asserted it is a religion, and is religios. I am not saying this makes it a religion, I am just saying that this means other people have said it is. If you want to debate this based on your own observations, would you be willing to do that elsewhere? If you want to challenge their claims with other people's claims, find sources that say what you want to say, and bring them in.
This article is not just about the TM Technique, it is about the TM movement.
You have some interesting points. Feel free to find sources that say what you want to say, and bring them in. Sethie 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
IMO...
  • "Transcendental Meditation" refers not just to the technique, it also refers to the movement.
Transcendental Meditation is a registered service mark under the class of educational services, as a description of a specific, proprietary meditation technique. The owner of the mark is the one who has the exclusive right to control its definition and commercial use, and this is not a usage it has consented to. It is important that the term Transcendental Meditation be used correctly. As the Wikipedia entry about trademarks notes, an organization holding a trademark must actively enforce it in order to retain it. TimidGuy 11:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
IMO we're not violating the service mark by asserting that Transcendental Meditation has a defacto (although not de jure) alternate meaning of "the movement". Tanaats 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I stand by the rights of the trademark holder to stipulate the definition of Transcendental Meditation. And, hoping not to sound too stern, I also disagree with your point that this is a de facto meaning of Transcendental Meditation. Here in Wikipedia is the only place I've seen it used on occasion as the name of the organization. I've read over a thousand news reports about TM in the last five years, and not one has ever used it in this sense. You can look at the definitions in dictionary.com and see that it's not used in this sense. TimidGuy 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
An example: "These issues include challenges to the research, questions about whether TM is a religion or cult".[11] Tanaats 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a novel arguement to say that just because someone defines something one way, an encylopedia MUST agree with their definition.
And, to boot, we are not the TM organization. If they feel the need to "enforce" their trademark, that is there job, not ours, please keep TM Organization bussiness off this talk page. Here's a few refferences [12], [13], [14], Sethie 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


  • SCI is in fact taught by the movement.
  • The question "Is TM a religion?" refers to the movement.
See above statement about trademark. TimidGuy 11:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I respect your opinion on the difference between spirituality and religion. However it is Original Research and inadmissible to the article.
  • I respect that you find the Ryan statement ludicrous. But you can't put that into the article because it is OR.
  • The Church of Scientology has copyrighted its "sacred scripture". However AFAIK the Transcendental Meditation movement has not done that, so I don't think your legal argument will hold water.
Yes, this article does present proprietary information as well as link to proprietary information. This is just one of many issues that need to be addressed.TimidGuy 11:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Based on my extensive training in the law (one year of business law :) ) I observe that is is neither copyrighted nor a trade secret. I doubt that the TMO could prevail in litigation in this matter; they couldn't even come up with an excuse to file a lawsuit in the first place. We are not violating their legal rights. Tanaats 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Timidguy that is a legal issue, and does not belong on the talk page, will you take it up somewhere else? What good can come from a bunch of us argueing about legal issues that none of us has any expertise in (well, ok except Tanaats) and about which none of us can take any real action. Sethie 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are no "arguments" in this article about whether TM is a religion, and no such arguments belong here. Such arguments belong either either in Wikiinfo, or in a blog, or on your own personal website. We don't define what a "religion" is in the article. We never say that TM is a religion in the article. We merely ask the question in the subheader and then provide statements from RSs that relate to that issue. The drawing of conclusions is left entirely to the reader
  • You ask "And is an encyclopedia a place to try to make a point or present an argument?". I think that the answer is definitely no. If you can find a place in the article where an argument is being made, please point it out.
Nicely said. TimidGuy 11:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Tanaats 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You ask "How can we just present straight forward information?". If you find any information that is not straightforward then please point it out. (Information that in your own opinion is "wrong" doesn't count.) Tanaats 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Featured Article

Wikipedia’s central principle of neutrality was violated twice in the last sentence of the Introduction. Readers knowledgeable about the workings of science know that enthusiasts and detractors exist for every field, as is excellently illustrated in a widely read and respected treatise by Kuhn, the first edition of which appeared in the 1960s (Thomas S. Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996). As a result, most readers with a scientific background would have guessed that the clause concerning the validity of the research was placed there by an editor wishing, perhaps unconsciously, to discredit the Transcendental Meditation technique. Unfortunately, readers who were less scientifically aware, who may not have known that all fields have adherents and critics, may have thought the statement concerning the validity of the research was a prevalent or “official” view simply because it appeared in print in Wikipedia. Thus, the apparent wish of the aforementioned editor was achieved.

The second violation of neutrality was in the last phrase of the old last sentence. Because “the TM organization” appeared in only one other place in the Introduction, without any mention of its nature or purpose, to state in the last sentence that the nature of the organization has been questioned is another biased statement. Because of the misleading context created by the first part of the sentence, it was far from neutral. This problem could have been dealt with in many ways, but the simplest and perhaps most justifiable was simply to omit any mention of “the TM organization” in the Introduction. The reasoning here is that, if “TM organization” is mentioned without a definition of its nature and purpose, then the last phrase could have no meaning for the reader not already familiar with the Transcendental Meditation program except to discredit it. Second, it is misleading and uninformed to speak of a single “TM organization” because instruction in the technique has evolved through many organizations. There is not one “TM organization.” Third, organizations of all types are like the different fields of science in that most people know organizations have both supporters and critics just as fields of science do. Again, the only reason for highlighting such an obvious fact is that someone wishes to discredit the organization, a clear display of negative bias.

The fact these biased entries were allowed to stand, in violation of the neutrality principle, is no doubt part of what has prevented this article from becoming a Featured Article. These new changes represent a step in the direction of removing that block, at least for the Introduction. Even in the Introduction, though, and in all other parts of the article, attaining further balance will require many more edits of biased entries on both sides of the issue. I look forward to the help of all editors to make it an ideal Wikipedia Featured Article.ChemistryProf 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. First of all you are making insinuations about the intentions of other editors. Let's please all observe WP:AGF.
In your first point I believe that you are referring to "The validity of that research has been questioned, as well as the nature of the organization itself." Let's also please follow WP:BRD and discuss that here and try to reach a consensus.
In regards to your second paragraph, I don't know who introduced the "TM organization" into the article, but so far no one has objected to it regardless of their POV. That doesn't mean that you are wrong. Again, let's go ahead and discuss this.
My very strong objection was to your introduction of the phrase "as does any leading-edge scientific endeavor". This is Original Research, in that it is an expression of your personal opinion that this is indeed "leading edge research". Let's please discuss that too.
Welcome to the team! Tanaats 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You know Chemistryprof I worked on those very few sentences you wished to change for.... like a month, with someone who was VERY pro TM. We came up with it as a comprimise. Sorry it didn't work for you.
Don't sweat it about the featured article, you are the first person to ever even suggest it.
I strongly disagree with your belief that wikipedias NPOV was violated. The fact is, the validity of the research HAS been question as has the integrity of the organization. How is that violating NPOV? The only reason it was mentioned was because at some point the intro paragraph was pushing the POV that TM was all good and amazing, etc. Now maybe that sentence isn't neccesay? Sethie 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it now, maybe the last sentence should go? Sethie 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to this one?: "The validity of that research has been questioned, as well as the nature of the organization itself." Tanaats 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep. The only reason it was there, was at one point a pro-TM editor was insistant that numerous positive claims be made about TM in the introductory paragraph. Now that those claims are gone, maybe we can take this out as well?Sethie 06:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. I'm definitely not attached to it. Tanaats 06:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much, guys. Really really appreciate this resolution of the matter. Great working with you.TimidGuy 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys push hard and fast on this site. I have been trying to get my responses in for the last hour, but keep getting thwarted by edit conflict messages because the discussion has changed again. Here are the comments I have been trying to insert.

Ouch! Thanks, Tanaats for biting so quickly. A fisherman's delight. In the five minutes between the time it took me to make the two carefully thought out changes in the Intro and posting my reasons for doing so, you had deftly removed them. Is this any way to treat a newcomer? So here are the changes I suggest will be a significant step toward neutrality. Replace the last sentence of the Intro with the following: "This research has its enthusiasts and its detractors, as does any leading-edge scientific endeavor. [1]" Actually the ref cited makes a thorough case that any active field of research has its enthusiasts and its detractors, not just the "leading-edge" fields. I am not attached to the modifier "leading-edge," but I can cite reputable published sources not connected with any TM organization who have reached that conclusion. How do we find a consensus on this? My vote is to leave out the modifier for simplicity's sake. Let's hear from others on this.

Also, as per the reasons outlined in my talk of a few minutes ago, it would be appropriate to remove the phrase "according to the TM organization" in the first paragraph of the Intro. Another reason for that is that a source is already included at the end of the sentence containing this phrase, so it is unnecessarily repetitive to insert the phrase, even if it were correct. It only complicates the sourcing, and it does imply a bias on the part of the editor because there are published research papers that support this statement independent of the organization. These sorts of questions can be explored in the body of the article, but the Introduction is supposed to be short.

Hello, Sethie. Thank you for joining the discussion. Yes, I appreciate that you and other editors have worked long and hard on the Introduction, but it does, in fact, remain far from neutral. For example, the main point I am addressing now concerning the final sentence of the Intro is that all research fields have enthusiasts and detractors, even extreme ones. This is well known by scientists in any field. To say that threatens the validity of the reseach only shows a lack of understanding of research and how it evolves. Any scientist reading that last sentence knows immediately that the author of the statement wishes to discredit the research, whether he is aware of that wish or not. To maintain the neutrality of this and any other article, such statements must be avoided.

As for the goal of creating a Featured Article, my reading of the guidelines and the statements of the founder of Wikipedia seem to make it clear that each article needs to strive for that. Of course not all articles will succeed at it, but why not make this one one of those that do? It's not really that difficult. We just follow the guidelines. ChemistryProf 06:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First, if I were you I'd think about backing off a bit. According to the edit counter that was your very first edit on Wikipedia. I also started off by just barging in and making edits, which is fine (WP:BOLD) but I got knocked back a bit and justly so because I didn't know what I was doing, and also because the other editors have a right to be "bold" also.
And yes, it certainly is an acceptable way to treat the edits of newcomers who introduce themselves by inserting OR into an article. That's exactly what happened to me when I first barged into this article, and quite justly so. You can't expect us to leave in edits that blatently violate the guidelines. You need to know the guidelines before you can expect your edits to stick. Again, please see WP:BRD.
Regarding your article suggestions, my own responses (while waiting for others to chime in) are:
  • The phrase "as does any leading-edge scientific endeavor" is totally unacceptable. Even if you leave out "leading-edge" it is still absolutely OR. Have your read that yet? If not you really should or you are going to get extremely frustrated. But if you want to bring out your cites then we can certainly discuss them.
  • Are we talking about the same sentence? If we leave out "according to the TM organization" then we are left with "This effortless repetition, practised according to specific guidelines, enables the practitioner's mind to settle down until the mental activity of ordinary waking consciousness is "transcended" and a state of restful alertness is experienced." This would be stating as a fact something that is pure metaphysical speculation, which would be POV. And the http://www.mum.edu/tc.html cite doesn't support presenting metaphysical speculation as a fact, it only supports the "according to the TM organization" phrase.
  • It's generally a good idea to catch up on discussions before commenting anew. (Do you know how to use the History feature--I didn't at first and it's the only way to keep track of everything that goes on in the Talk page and in the article itself). Sethie and I both already agreed that the last sentence can come out. Since we are the only TM critics on the article, that about does it.
  • Yes, I agree, let's all follow the guidelines.
Finally, as I was told my very first night on Wikipedia, it might be a good idea to slow down a bit. This is an endurance sport rather than a sprint. Tanaats 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tanaats. I appreciate that WP has its own culture and some unique methods. Your help in working through those is valuable, and could be even more so if you would spend just a little more time explaining the critical ones. For example, concerning your first point, I cannot, for the life of me, see how my suggested sentence constitutes OR. I believe we can all agree on the first part of the sentence: “This research has its enthusiasts and its detractors,...” It is amply illustrated in the remainder of the article, and for that reason appears not to need a cited source to back it up. The second part of the sentence: “as does any leading-edge scientific endeavor” or alternatively “as does any scientific endeavor” is not OR but comes from the source cited at the end of the sentence, a highly reputable, published source, which clearly meets the WP:CITE guidelines for sources. Kuhn spends hundreds of pages illustrating and explaining how all scientific endeavor unfolds at the hands of enthusiasts, detractors, and others that fall somewhere in the middle. He spends time examining situations that exist at the leading edge of a field, but his illustrations and arguments also make a powerful case that all scientific research proceeds in this manner, through individuals with many different relationships to the core ideas—proponent, antagonist, and more neutral. His theme is that it is a common property of science to evolve in this way. To me this fits the CITE and the OR guidelines to a T. Please carefully explain to me how you see it doing something different.

On your second point, I disagree that metaphysical speculation is the only choice here. Direct personal experience is another alternative. Citing a source describing the direct personal experience seems preferable to me over the present citation, and I am working on a draft of a new sentence that would do just that. The citations presently used are good as long as the reader is made to understand that some of them come from individuals or non-profit education institutions that are more on the enthusiast side of the spectrum. That is one more reason it is important to insert my suggested sentence. The Introduction is supposed to be a lead-in to the whole article. This new sentence would prepare the reader to expect to see material in the article that represents the full spectrum—from enthusiastic supporter to adamant detractor.

I want you to know that we probably agree on many more things than we disagree on concerning the Introduction. It can pass for a while as written, but I find problems with several other parts of it and intend to submit for discussion a more global rewrite that I think you and the other editors might like better than the current one. As you suggest, I will take my time and not rush this into the discussion tomorrow, but expect to see it sometime in the next week or so. I have seen also that Sethie has similar intentions. Maybe that will make it go even more smoothly. He/she certainly responded cooperatively to one of my suggestions.

Finally, I want to comment on why I feel bold about contributing and editing. It’s not just because I am a professor. The reason I already feel comfortable with key aspects of the WP contribution process is that it is practically identical to the process of publishing in and reviewing papers for peer reviewed scientific journals, which I have been doing for more than 35 years. This may be a long discourse, but I hope you will read it carefully. If you have not published in scientific journals before, you will be struck by the similarities.

Publishing in peer reviewed journals involves the author(s) first writing up a paper in which each background statement is referenced to a previously published, appropriate source. The source is cited at the end of the statement and listed in a Reference list at the end of the paper. The article is then submitted to a journal editor who sends it to two or three peer reviewers or referees. These then offer their critical comments and suggestions, usually anonymously, on all parts of the article and send this back to the editor, who passes a copy back to the authors. The authors then respond in writing to each of the reviewers’ suggestions, describing any changes they may have made in the article and, in some cases, explaining why some of the reviewers’ suggestions may be incorrect. These responses then go back to the journal editor, and he/she either sends them on back to the reviewers for another round of comments and corrections or, in some cases, may decide that the responses are entirely adequate and accept the paper for publication. This latter result would be likely only if the reviewers found relatively few or minor things to comment on in the first place. Usually after one, two, or sometimes three iterations of this process, the paper is either accepted or rejected for publication in the journal. This whole process is conducted in an orderly, respectful manner, and has worked pretty well for 200 years or more.

The main differences in the WP approach seem to be the absence of an editor who oversees the whole process and the speed with which the exchanges take place. Also, journal publishing appears to be less consensual than the WP contribution process, which may be one of the stronger points in favor of the WP approach. One problem with the WP approach, though, is the potential for emotional involvement that may arise in part from the fast and furious pace at which comments fly back and forth. Perhaps if WP editors spent a little more time contemplating their input, it would be more constructive in the long run. I will strive to do that myself.

Again, thank you for taking me under your wing and leading me into the special WP culture and methods. I appreciate that and think we can all have more fun with this than appears to have been the case before. ChemistryProf 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have removed it if he hadn't beat me to the punch. I don't know if I would have labeled it OR, however I also can't say that I wouldn't have labeled it that, either especially the 2nd component. See, YOU, Chemistry Prof are labeling TM a "a leading-edge scientific endeavor." (#1) That is clearly OR. Also, YOU are making a a connection between Kuhn and TM, saying, "Yes, his theories apply here." (#2)
Kuhn's work is a theory, yet you stated it as if it were so, as if it was a rock-solid fact. (#3) So I personally count three places where you, ChemistryP slipped yourself into the short phrase "as does any leading-edge scientific endeavor." Sethie 06:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi ChemistryProf. You're quite welcome. I'm sorry that your first experience on WP was a bit rough. To address your points...
The part that I considered to be OR is "as does any leading-edge scientific endeavor." You did give a citation. However, the phrase implies that it is a known fact that TM research is in fact "leading-edge". Whether or not TM research is leading-edge is completely a matter of individual judgement. Implying that it is a known fact is IMO OR.
I have the same problem with the removal of the qualifier "according to the TM organization" leaving "This effortless repetition, practised according to specific guidelines, enables the practitioner's mind to settle down until the mental activity of ordinary waking consciousness is "transcended" and a state of restful alertness is experienced". Yes, some meditators report this experience. However whether they are "transcending" or experiencing (for example) a state of dissociation that is a result of trance and suggestion is open to debate. It must be clear that the sentence reports either a claim by the TM organization (I know that there is no such legal entity but it becomes tedious in Talk to use a fully qualified expression) or else a claim by individual meditors. What we were left with in article implies that this claim is a known fact, which IMO is unacceptable.
We're all happy here to discuss anything related to article content with you here.
Yes, WP is almost entirely edited by a bunch of amateurs almost completely without editorial oversite. I say "almost" because there is an "arbitation committee" that, when appealed to, will wield absolute editorial oversight. However appeals to Arbcom are quite rare. What you have described is a well-known and quite significant weakness of Wikipedia. WP itself is actually considered an unreliable source and an article cannot cite a WP article as an RS. But that's the nature of the WP beast.
Yes, there is a lot of rapid fire. That's also nature of the beast, it happens an all the articles I've participated in. It's fine that you were [[WP:BOLD|bold] and made your edits. It's also fine that they got reverted (I really like WP:BRD). The rapid fire nature of WP is also the nature of the beast.
If I failed to address any of your points satisfactorily, please let me know. Tanaats 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good. I’m glad both of you (Tanaats and Sethie) responded on this point. It is a critical one. To fulfill the goal of creating a neutral (NPOV) and verifiable (Verifiability) article on Transcendental Meditation, the main editors must agree on their interpretation and use of at least the three central guidelines. When we have that consensual agreement, then things can move more quickly, and many arguments and reversions will be avoided.

My previous entry was focusing on OR, which, with NPOV and Verifiability, make up the three central guidelines. An entry of mine was removed when it supposedly did not adhere to the guidelines. To me, it seems to adhere closely. So to get by this impasse, we need to reach a consensus on what these guidelines mean and how to apply them.

First, I am trying to get totally clear on how you guys interpret and use OR. In responding to my question, you have given more clues, which I will attempt to restate. You will, of course, correct me if I wrongly represent your view. I will respond to Tanaats first because he was the first to level the charge of violation of OR. Here is his argument:

‘The part that I considered to be OR is "as does any leading-edge scientific endeavor." You did give a citation. However, the phrase implies that it is a known fact that TM research is in fact "leading-edge". Whether or not TM research is leading-edge is completely a matter of individual judgement. Implying that it is a known fact is IMO OR.’ Quote from Tanaats 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find anything about fact anywhere in OR, nor can I find that word in either of the other two central guidelines. I did, however, find the word truth, a synonym for fact in my dictionary, in one of them (Verifiability) as follows: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.” So, now I am doubting the correctness of Tanaats’ use of truth or fact as a criterion for OR.

In the particular phrase I used ("as does any leading-edge scientific endeavor") there is no citation for “leading-edge.” Rather the Kuhn citation I used was to back up the whole phrase. If other editors insist on having a verifiable source for the concept that research on the Transcendental Meditation technique is leading-edge, then I can provide that. (I mentioned earlier in our discussion that I know of a published source, a statement by someone known not to practice the technique or to be affiliated with any organization related to the technique, but I will need to dig around to find it again.) If this second citation is required for the sentence, then to make the sentence less awkward, it would need to be revised anyway. We will come back to that later. Right now, I am still trying to establish that I understand your reasoning and would like to hear more clarification of your usage, in this and other situations. As for your next statement, concerning the appropriateness of the qualifier "according to the TM organization" in another sentence of the Intro, I agree that the sentence needs a clearer attribution, either to a person or to one of the organizations. I am reworking that and will present it for discussion in a few days.

Now to the points made by Sethie: His first point in the discussion above is essentially the same as that of Tanaats, namely, that characterizing the research on Transcendental Meditation as “leading-edge” was OR. I said about all I have to say about that in the previous paragraph. His second and third points are as follows:

‘Also, YOU are making a a connection between Kuhn and TM, saying, "Yes, his theories apply here." (#2) Kuhn's work is a theory, yet you stated it as if it were so, as if it was a rock-solid fact. (#3) So I personally count three places where you, ChemistryP slipped yourself into the short phrase "as does any leading-edge scientific endeavor."’ From Sethie 06:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Again, we have the word “fact,” which does not appear in OR, but its synonym “truth” does appear in Verifiability, as discussed above. Fact or truth is not something that is easy to establish, either in science or in law. We can only present evidence for or against truth or fact, and it seems to me that what the WP guidelines are asking us to do is simply to provide a “paper trail,” a published source for every statement we make, as is the custom in scientific articles and in most academic articles, for that matter.

In response to Sethie’s point # 3, yes, Kuhn’s work is absolutely a theory, a theory so sweeping that it is intended to apply to all areas of scientific research. In my reading of the guidelines, however, that does not matter. The important thing is that the cited source is reliable (see RS). Kuhn’s theory and book happen to be known and highly regarded by enough people, mostly scientists and philosophers of science, to now be in its 3rd edition. No one could argue it is not a reliable source.

So, I am having some pretty serious doubts about the manner in which both Tanaats and Sethie are using the guidelines. If possible, please respond to my points in a manner that will lead us to a greater consensus. Your time and effort to reach a level where we can really cooperate are important, and you might be surprised what we can produce when working together. I appreciate your caring about this issue and look forward to a successful outcome of our efforts. ChemistryProf 05:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi.
Regarding "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So, now I am doubting the correctness of Tanaats’ use of truth or fact as a criterion for OR"... You are going to have trouble finding a verifiable RS that provides anyting other than an opinion that TM research is leading edge. Then you still have to qualify it with something such as "According too..."

Thanks for the quick feedback. It takes us another step closer to cooperation. The way I read the guidelines, “truth versus opinion” is not the relevant question. (And it’s good it’s not, because who has the truth?) The only relevant question according to WP guidelines is whether the observation or opinion is backed up by a reliable source, and reliable source is pretty clearly defined (seeWP:RS). The qualifier “according to…” is not necessary when a source is cited because the act of citing the source automatically attributes the foregoing statement or word to the source’s author or to another author mentioned in the source. This is standard convention in academic writing. Otherwise we would have to similarly qualify virtually every sentence and every clause or phrase we write. ChemistryProf 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "We can only present evidence for or against truth or fact"... Again, I doubt that you'll find evidence for anything other than it is someone's opinion that TM research is leading edge.

As I said before, it’s not our business as editors to claim “truth” or “fact.” We, all of us editors, are making available to readers of WP the published observations and opinions of others on the subject. This is the way I read the guidelines, and if your reading is different, then show me explicitly the words that differ from that. ChemistryProf 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Kuhn’s theory and book happen to be known and highly regarded by enough people, mostly scientists and philosophers of science, to now be in its 3rd edition. No one could argue it is not a reliable source"... It certainly sounds like an RS, yes. Does Kuhn state that TM research is leading edge? If so, you can say "According to Kuhn, TM research is leading edge". but you can't introduce "TM research is leading edge" without qualification.

It is not Kuhn that says TM research is leading edge, but someone else in a source that will take me some time to relocate. When I have the source, I’ll put it into a new sentence and put it up for discussion. As claimed above, in scientific or most any other form of academic writing, when a citation is placed after a word or statement, it automatically means the cited source is either the sole source or one of many sources of that statement or idea. It is not necessary to verbally qualify each sentence or clause. This would be too cumbersome. ChemistryProf 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts towards understanding each other and working together. Tanaats 06:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, I think we are inching closer to a take-off point that will free us all of many cramping concerns and will lead this article to take on the balanced, neutral status we wish for. ChemistryProf 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


1- It's soooooooo easy. "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories" To misquote Jerry McGuire, "SHOW ME THE CITATION!" You said you can, at which point I will retract this portion of my claim to OR.
2- "Any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article" This is the main problem- you need a citation which unequivocable demonstrates that TM research is the kind of research Kuhn was talking about. You need to find someone else, not ChemistryProf, who has made that link and whom we can cite. If there is such a person out there, I am in error, it was not you who made the connection. Sethie 09:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that he said several times that he understands this point and is in the process of locating a source. TimidGuy 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
How can I note something I already know? If you read #1 and #2, I clearly indicate, hey, IF and WHEN those citations appear (not before) I will drop these specific contentions. 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
3 Let's say there is a theory that most NRM's (new religious movements) have their strong supporters and strong detractors. It is published by a prominent sociologist (no empirical research done on it though). I think highly of this theory and I write in an article on a particulare NRM, "Movement blah-blah-blah-blah has it's supporters and critics AS DOES ANY NRM.(citation, citation). Without an according to, or a softer expression of this, I have basically let my esteem and belief in a theory presnent my opinion- "Hey Guys, this theory is like, TOTALLY TRUE!" Without a Blah-Blah psychologist claims/thinks, etc., I have sneakily snuck in MY belief that their theory is true!
Yah know, though, this is a rather subtls and nuanced understanding of OR I am expressing here, so for the sake of keeping it simple, I formally remove this from my list of OR concerns.
And, I move it to my newly created list of NPOV concerns: "representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."
To replace the now vacant third slot on my OR concerns, I would like to add another OR concern. It has been awhile since I have read Kuhn, however it is true that Kuhn says that ALL "leading edge research" has detractors? Or is that your interpretation of it? You said "as does any," which, means "all." Did you accurately summarize Kuhn? Does he say, 100% of the time, without fail "leading edge research" has detractors? If Kuhn does not, then you have created a novel interpretation of Kuhn, which is clearly OR. If he did state it in such strong language, I remove this from my concerns. Sethie 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
So I now have 3 OR and 1 NPOV concern about your desire to add this sentnece. Thank you for the dialogue, it has been ivigorating and clarifying.Sethie 09:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
How are points 1 and 2 different? And why keep harping on something that ChemistryProf already understands and is intending to support? TimidGuy 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Please watch your tone. I would LOVE to negatively label your reply and will resist the temptation.
If you read carefully the above discussion, ChemistryProf is very concenrned that we are all on the same page around understanding of policy. He wants to know how and why I see it as OR. Are you asking me to not respond to him?
How are #1 and #2 different? #1 Says: see, YOU, Chemistry Prof are labeling TM a "a leading-edge scientific endeavor. #1 Says- give me a citation for the label "leading edge research." NUmber 2 says: YOU are making a a connection between Kuhn and TM, saying, "Yes, his theories apply here." #2 says give me a citation for someone else making a link between two different ideas. Sethie 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


I noticed you chopped up Tanaats' reply to insert your reply. If you plan on doing that with mine, please add one of my signature tags to each paragraph, so we can stay clear on who said what. Sethie 09:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sethie 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ChemistryProf. You're doing a fine job of moving us toward agreement on fundamental principles -- a necessary step. And thanks to the other participants. This is a useful discussion.TimidGuy 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi ChemProf,

Regarding "This is standard convention in academic writing"... Is this the convention even when the cited source is making a disputable statement? It's not as though we're citing someone who says that the earth is round.

Regarding "it’s not our business as editors to claim "truth" or "fact"... Yes, that's why we don't introduce a phrase that implies it is "truth" or "fact" that TM research is leading edge.

I think that it will be very fruitful to discuss this when you've located the actual cite. Tanaats 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, that's why we don't introduce a phrase that implies it is "truth" or "fact" that TM research is leading edge." BINGO! Sethie 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! I’m glad all the frequent editors are chipping in. We’re making some good points and good progress towards a consensus here. I’ll start my observations and responses to these points now, but if I do not get finished tonight, then I’ll continue tomorrow. We’re getting to the real heart of the matter here.

In response to the first two points of Sethie from Jan 6, 07, yes, I think we’re all in tune with the need for citations. This point has been established in the last few exchanges. In your point 2, however, there appears to be a slight but important difference between the statement of your understanding of OR and in the way I read the guidelines. The key statement from the guidelines reads as follows: “the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.” Your statement reads: "Any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." It’s the last part of this sentence that seems different from the WP:OR guideline. “Directly related to the topic of the article” to me means that there is an obvious connection, not that the exact topic of the article (Transcendental Meditation, in this case) has to be mentioned in the reference cited, which you seemed to be indicating in your paraphrase. But maybe you did not intend the latter to be the meaning, in which case, we are in agreement here. If you did mean that you interpret it the latter way, then how do we determine which is correct? Possibly we can read a lot of other WP articles and see how others have interpreted this. Personally, I think the latter interpretation would be so restrictive that it would be difficult to put together a cogent article on any topic. Can we hear input from others and try to get on the same wavelength here?

Concerning the example of the Kuhn citation, I remind you that this is just an example for us to play with. It may not belong in the Intro any longer. If you remember, it was introduced as an alternative to a sentence that was later eliminated by Sethie and Tanaats. Now the context is different, and so the consideration is different. In any case, just to refresh our memory of Kuhn, his book has to do with the progression of active investigation in any scientific field. He draws on examples from many areas of science to illustrate his points, but the only key requirement is that the field is actively progressing. He illustrates how any such field has members who are enthusiastic about a particular area or direction of study, and detractors who find that same area or direction to be suspect. Ultimately, it turns out that the two types of researchers disagree because their views of the field or even their world views are substantially at odds with each other. How these differences work themselves out over time defines much about the progress of that field of science. At two points in history, usually more than a generation apart, the dominant views underlying the research may become entirely different, constituting a “revolution.” During this process, multiple controversies arise and play themselves out. Historians of science now appear to recognize that Kuhn’s work is a far more accurate picture of the progression of scientific discovery than the earlier concept that science progressed through the orderly accumulation of discoveries of different scientists over a period of time.

Anyway, getting back to our example sentence, if we keep the modifier “leading-edge” (which I earlier indicated is not necessary to the point being made) we may need another reference stating that research on the Transcendental Meditation technique fits this description. I indicated that such a reference has been in my hands some years ago, but it may take a while to relocate it. I remember very well that the point was made by Professor David Edwards, a social scientist at the University of Texas, in reference to the research on the societal effects of the practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi techniques by a sizeable group. I am still searching for the reference, but we can go on with our critical discussion of the guidelines without it.

I agree with Sethie that it’s important we turn some attention on the NPOV guidelines, especially: "representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." I had planned to examine those next, in relation to our example and beyond. This is great. We’ll pick up here tomorrow. ChemistryProf 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


ChemProf, I hear that "my paraphrase": "Any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article" differs from the "way I [ChemistrypPrfo] read the guidelines." To resolve this, would you be willing to read the last sentence in the paragraph, "What is excluded?" [15]
Under that same section you will also see the following is excluded: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"
It sounds like your quote reffers to the Maharishi Effect, in which case, when you find the quote, I would reccomend the [Maharishi Effect] instead of this article. What I asked for was a citation that says TM research IN GENREAL is "leading edge."
Personally I have no difficulty writing WP articles given the constraints, in fact I feel a kind of freedom, because my opinion means jack! I don't get to connect the dots! No conclusions, no say. I don't get to have my little "insights" or cleverness. I just get to summarize, without adding anything, other people's ideas. Sethie 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Chemprof, yes, we would need an RS saying explicitly that TM research is leading edge. Even then you would have to say "so-and-so states that TM research is leading edge", which is too much detail to belong in the intro. You'd need to put it in the research section farther down. Tanaats 14:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me on that one, Sethie. I mistook your statement for a paraphrase of the earlier statement in OR about “direct relation to the topic.” The sub-section of OR that you quote, however, appears to give approval to the sentence I proposed. One of the points about which entries are not allowed, namely, this one: “It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position” does appear to allow introduction of an argument, so long as it has a reputable source and does not reflect a new interpretation by the editor. The argument of Kuhn that I attempted to introduce was not of my own making. Kuhn says that scientific investigation proceeds through a process that involves various controversies between those who are enthusiastic about certain directions, results etc. and those who attempt to detract from those directions or results. Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation technique is clearly one example of a field of scientific research. No one can deny that. Thus, while Kuhn does not mention this field of research in particular, his work is nevertheless directly related to the TM research, and, therefore, citing his work seems to satisfy the requirement for RS in this case.

Your point, Sethie, about “leading-edge” (which is really a separate point, since I indicated before that this term could be dropped for simplicity’s sake), may be right, but I cannot tell until I retrieve the paper I read some years ago and go through it again. The paper as a whole was emphasizing the Maharishi Effect, but Edwards may have alluded to the whole body of research on the technique at some point in the paper. We’ll have to revisit this topic when I relocate the source. And in response to the comment by Tanaats, yes, I agree that given the current context in the Intro, the sentence would fit better in the Research section. ChemistryProf 07:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


WP:OR, What is excluded (not allowed): "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" You have made your position quite clear, and you have not atributed the analysis or synthesis to a reputbale source. It is OR until you can find Kuhn himself mentioning TM research, or unless someone else mentions Kuhn and TM.
I am also noticing I asked you if Kuhn said this applies to ALL scientific research. You declined to answer that question.
"therefore, citing his work seems to satisfy the requirement for RS in this case" Citing Kuhn may in fact satisfy RS, however, I don't understnad why you would bring that up. Did I challenge you on RS? I challenged you on OR. So countering that it satisfies RS is a pre-emptive counter!, to a challenge I have not, nor will I. Sethie 08:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your statement/interpretation of OR in this case. In the first paragraph of yesterday’s entry in this discussion, I spelled out in detail that the source is Kuhn because his analysis is intended to apply to ALL active fields of research. This is not something I have stretched to connect with Transcendental Meditation research, but something that is directly connected with research of any kind. Moreover, this same first paragraph from yesterday answers (and was intended to answer) the earlier question from Sethie about ALL scientific research. The only scientific research areas Kuhn’s analysis might not apply to are those that are “dead,” that is, they are no longer active, or those areas that do not challenge anyone’s paradigm in the field. Neither of these fit the research on Transcendental Meditation. So, the Kuhn citation is the appropriate RS for the sentence, assuming we remove the term “leading-edge,” which I said long ago was not necessary and could be dropped. Because the sentence has a valid RS, there is no OR. I like your humorous allusion to pre-emptive strikes, but that was not my point or my direction. Quoting OR, “Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources…”

I am disappointed that no one responded to the important question I brought up on the NPOV guidelines, especially the question about proportionality. This is absolutely critical to our reaching a consensus on using the guidelines. I know the point is long, but the most important things cannot be dealt with effectively in “word bites.” We need some thoughtful input here. Please respond. ChemistryProf 06:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the NPOV I moved that to the bottom of the page, and both Tanaats and I have responded there. I also explained the move.
Historically you have not done well with labeling my direct quotes of the WP:OR policy as intepretations, and my predicition is history will repeat itself!
Thank you for spelling out how it is clearly OR for us to discuss Kuhn and TM. You say, " The only scientific research areas Kuhn’s analysis might not apply to are those that are “dead,” that is, they are no longer active, or those areas that do not challenge anyone’s paradigm in the field."
Funny you should say that ChemP, because MY opinion is that most of TM research does not challenge anyone's paradigm! Some studies like the supposed Maharishi Effect certainly do, however those are the minority. The majority of ths studies say things like, "TM Lowers blood pressure," or TM helps you live longer. What paradigm is being challenged here? That relaxation is good for health?
Regardless of my OPINION, regardless of maybe YOUR OPINION that TM research DOES challenges paradigms, this is exactly why it is OR and cannot go in. It is too freaking subjective! To put it in the article, we have YOU ChemistryProf saying "Yes, the MAJORITY of TM research is paradigm challenging."
So, find me a citation which says exactly that, the MAJORITY of TM research is paradigm challenging. Thank you for this dialogue, when we began it, I thought this was a borderline case of OR. Now I am clear it was a very serious case of OR. Sethie 07:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Chemprof, I think that we are beginning to go in circles, each of us repeating the same questions and statements. I don't think I really have anything new to say, but here goes...
  • Yes, you can definitely turn something from a verifiable RS into OR. You state that it is Kuhn's theory that you want to cite. Since you have a verifiable RS, it is not OR to say "Kuhn's theory is such-and-so". It is OR to imply that his theory is a fact' by leaving the "Kuhn's theory" part out.
  • I did respond to your proportionality discussion. Please see above. Tanaats 14:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, when cited as a theory, I doubt that it will be relevant to the article. But please find your quote and we can discuss it then. Tanaats 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh!

Pouncingtiger, please discuss with us before making any more massive deletions. Tanaats 07:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as noted by others, I am a newbie and was not aware that this forum existed. It wasn't intentional vandalism. This is a completely different form of writing/maintaining online content than what I am used to. All content that I deleted was copied from my side and saved because I was going to start researching some of the claims and add any additional information that I thought would be appropriate and/or helpful. But I see that someone else also keeps a current record of content and has already undone "the damage". Pouncingtiger

It's been a busy night here, Pouncingtiger! And yes, Wikipedia is a whole different world/culture/pheonomen, etc. I have been doing it for over a year and still can't make heads or tails of it. :) Peace!Sethie 09:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Surprising to see some newbies show up. Seems like ultimately it will be useful to have a variety of perspectives. It's mostly just been the three of us in recent months. Thanks, Tanaats and Sethie, for not attacking the newbies and helpfully pointing to specific guidelines. TimidGuy 12:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Disingenuous

I was just looking at the archives and got a real feeling of deja vous. Many of the topics we've debated in the past two months have already been covered. For example[16] The problems with the German study, the Otis study, etc. It's a bit dispiriting to see that we've simply been covering the same ground. And to realize that an editor simply resurrected material that had been discussed earlier, and deleted. Here I am starting the process of discussing Otis and noting that it's not in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, etc. and then finding that this has already been discussed in great detail and that there are other problems surrounding it. Sort of depressing.TimidGuy 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Roark, Denaro, the Bhagavad Gita.TimidGuy 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you please clarify who or what is disingenuous, "lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness"
Lumiere was on the edge of being banned before she stopped editing here, [17], for her novel interpretations of wiki policies and attempt to re-write wiki policy, mostly to discredit detractors of pseudoscience while Peterklutz was banned without an rfc [18] for lack of civility.
So, you find it depressing? Although I would never compare you to either of these people, look at it from my side. You're the third person to make the same arguements that I have had to deal with and the other two were discreted by the wiki community and left.
Please note, Lumiere and Peterklutz brought A LOT of admin attention to this page, and not once that I am aware of did any of them comment about the article being problematic.Sethie 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, for example, if Roark was discussed in January and the same arguments were made -- uncorroborated primary source document from POV site -- and it was then deleted, what would merit its inclusion in December? Did it somehow take on more credibility during that time? To me, it just doesn't seem like the way to create an encyclopedia. It doesn't seem above board.TimidGuy 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
And my apologies for the manner of Lumiere and Peterklutz. I'll sincerely try to do better. Please let me know if I mess up. And I really appreciate your saying that I don't compare to them.TimidGuy
Well, you would have to really be off your rocker to be anything like Peterklutz!
I am still waiting however to hear an open and honest answer as to who or what is "disengious?"Sethie 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Outsider Comment

At User:Sethie's request, I've reviewed this article and the debate on it. I will not comment on the debate, which is lengthly, but I must agree that the article is unbalanced: the majority of it reads like an advertisement. This would be fixed to a significant extent by removing a lot of material: we don't need the details of the technique. More prominent discussion of the controversial and pseudoscientific aspects of TM is also needed. There is a very critical review here: [19], which provides references for various notable errors made by TM. Michaelbusch 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I recognize you from the article on What the Bleep. It's hard to justify your argument that the majority of this article reads like an advertisement when two-thirds of it constitutes criticism and controversy. And, we've already discussed Carroll's article on TM which has many errors. Pseudoscientific aspects of TM? Where's the evidence? Perhaps go to PubMed and do a search on Transcendental Meditation. There are over 100 peer-reviewed studies, including recent ones in top medical journals, such as journals published by the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association. TimidGuy 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I must note that I strongly disagree that the article reads like an advertisement, and that it is unbalanced toward a pro-TM stance. The entry does indeed contain a great amount of controversial material, and in my mind it contains negative opinions that are made to seem (to the unknowledgeable reader) to represent a large number of people, while the majority of meditators disagree with those viewpoints, or have had very different experiences with practice of the TM technique. The challenge of Wikipedia, of course, is to find valid sources that state both sides of the picture, and ideally represent them in a realistic, accurate proportion. A number of editors have conscientiously put in time to reword a phrase, add something here or there, to restore the delicate balance (oh, the power of a single word...). Skepdic.com is cited and therefore accessible to the reader - but to put even more attention to its narrowly accepted viewpoints would certainly be a flagrant distortion of the subject, and throw this entry even further from becoming the "good" Wiki article that the guidelines are striving for.Purple Iris 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly true that the majority of meditators will disagree with the viewpoints presented in Skepdic and are having very different experiences. But to rely on that too heavily is selection bias. This is because anyone who does agree with Skepdic, and/or who has is or has had negative experiences TM, will usually leave the sample set. So if you only sample those who remain of course you will get positive results.
I disagree that Skepdic presents "narrowly accepted viewpoints". That would only be true if selection bias was involved (again) and only current meditators were sampled. I think that if you polled the public at large (i.e. if selection bias weren't a factor) then you'd find that it is the official TM position that is the "narrowly accepted viewpoint", and by a truly huge margin. If we start evaluating "undue weight" by popularity in an biased sample set, then it would actually be the very "narrowly accepted" TMO position that is currently receiving the undue weight. Tanaats 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea that it is benefitial to relax and has health benefits would be argued by no-one. The rest however- secret magical words of power, meditators reducing crime and levitating, that Heaven on Earth is even possible, that you must have your house facing a certain way, fire ceremonies for health, and all the Hindu and/or Vedic trapsings to name a few components are WAY outside mainstream society.
If you could know what the majority of meditators think, would that be significant? If the TM stats are right 6 million people have learned. 6 million out of 5 billion is roughly .01% or 1 out of 10,000. Anyway, in the court of public opinion, with little to no exception, EVERY conservative Christian believes TM is a satanic cult.Sethie 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
That would require citation and verification. Michaelbusch 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually... Regarding "argued by no one" see Meditation and search for "meditation-related problems". Tanaats 02:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
lol! Crap, I thought we had at least one non-controvery! Sethie 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
They're describing what happened quite intensely to a lot of people on my tracher training course, only we called it "heavy unstressing." Tanaats 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some of the material from the intro. There are two separate problems with the article, in my opinion. One is the representation of TM, the other is the style of the article. Given that there is considerable debate on the first, I have restricted myself to the second. Material such as 'TM ... is a technique practiced is a mental technique practiced for twenty minutes twice a day while one sits with the eyes closed. A distinguishing feature of this meditation program is its lack of effort, as contrasted with techniques involving concentration, or those involving contemplation or active thinking' read like advertising, and are largely irrelevant at best and violate Wikipedia is not a soapbox at worst.

There are still severe style problems with the article, aside from the content. Michaelbusch 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Personally I am glad to see that info go, out of the intro... I was never comfortable with it there. I do think it is pertinent material for introducing the article... I will place it under the procedures and theory section. Feel free to comment Michaelbusch if you really think it's off.
Btw, thanks for hanging out here- I would like as much outside input as possible.Sethie 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm you know I am noticing that you took out the "research" setence as well. I have mixed feelings about that, one of the "big deals" of TM is how much research has been done. I personally don't put a lot of stock in the research, however, I am wondering if others see the sheer amount of it, as noteworthy for the intro. Sethie 01:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I've rv'd it, actually, let's Talk about it all first. Tanaats 01:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I know that you are trying to help, but I'm actually not comfortable with the idea that you're going to come in and make large edits without discussing it first. Tanaats 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what this thread is for. Michaelbusch 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. My point is that you didn't use it first. Tanaats 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I really think you should stop. Now you are deleting well sourced material because you don't happen to agree with it. It's going to be a lot of work undoing all of this. Tanaats 02:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I only have one revert left without violating 3RR. Carry on and I'll just wait to do one big revert tomorrow. Keep deleting well sourced material and I'll report you for vandalism. Your input is most welcome but having you take over unilaterally is not, at least not as far as I'm concerned.Tanaats 02:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


I agree with Tanaats that removing well sourced stuff isn't helpful Michael, and I do think you have a point about the effortless part. Maybe there is some middle ground. I will play with the wording some, let me know what you think.Sethie 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not removing the material because I don't agree with it. I personally don't care one way or the other. I simply removed it because it was largely irrelevant to the article, unverifiable by nature, and made the article read like an advertisement ('TM, the easy way to meditate'). Sethie's revision is better, but the article still needs considerable work for style. I have no intention of a unilateral takeover. I did not anticipate a few stylistic changes causing this much debate. Michaelbusch 03:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Whoa there Nelly!(Michael) I am reminded that in writing an article on TM , we are reporting what the organization says about itself. If the TM Organization describes its techniques as effortless than thats what we write . I can't go in a decide I don't like that and change the meaning or word. It may read like a soapbox speech, to someone but if thats what they say about themselves thats what we say.They are the experts on their own material, and we are writing about them.The article is somewhat awkward but that can be remedied. I am not sure it has been a priority with all that has been going on.(olive 03:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Well..... just because they say it is effortless doesn't make it so. The Pope may be an expert of Jesus, but I am not going to take his word for it that Jesus is the son of god, nor should such a teaching be presented as fact. So once again it is the question of how do we present a claim. I hope my languaging is a step in that direction. Sethie 03:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No, of course not. However,this isn't a claim this is a description of what TM is in the organization's own words, because they are the experts on who they are and what they believe. If I am writing about the Pope - who he is, and what he believes in then I might write, "the pope says he believes in Jesus" .... thats what I report. I can't, it seems, decide that the Pope doesn't or can't say he believes in Jesus, because I myself don't feel this can be right, or logical, or a fact. If the pope says he believes in Jesus then I write , "the pope says he believes in Jesus". If the TM organization says this technique is effortless I write that. I don't have to believe it. All I know is that the organization believes it, and thats what I am writing about. The reader is reading about TM, and this is what TM is, not what I think it is, or if its true, or believable. Part of what TM is about is also how it sees itself,defines itself. That view of itself, helps define what the organization is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 04:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
sorry didn't sign above(olive 04:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Michaelbush says these statements are "unverifiable by nature." In fact, EEG data and neural imaging have verified, for example, that Tibetan Buddhist meditation, mindfulness meditation, and the Transcendental Meditation technique are very different. Tibetan meditation is strenuous, with EEG readings in the 40 Hz range, or otherwise known as gamma waves. In addition, neural imaging shows that the brain is very active. In mindfulness meditation, the brain appears to be imbalanced, with considerable activity in the left front cortex -- the part of the brain associated with evaluating.

In contrast, EEG patterns during the Transcendental Meditation technique characteristically show global coherent alpha waves, which are correlated with the simplest form of awareness. This EEG pattern isn’t seen in other practices of meditation. Neural imaging of the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique shows that the front and back of the brain, the attentional system, are more awake and active than when one is just sitting with one’s eyes closed, while the thalamus, which is the gateway of experience, is less active. In other words, this indicates an experience of "restful alertness." The attentional system is alert, while the mental experience is inward rather than outward.

I agree that it is intuitively difficult concept for people to understand that the Transcendental Meditation technique is effortless. One would typically assume that it entails concentration, but the EEG and neural imaging make clear that the mind is in a restfully alert state, especially as compared to the other forms of meditation. And by the way, the characteristic EEG patterns are seen within two months of an individual’s first beginning the practice. TimidGuy 12:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I find your arguement reasonably strong, so I have comprimised and moved the info out of the intro... I don't want it in the intro, Michealbush doesn't want it in at all, and Tanaats hasn't said directly either way, so I hope this satisfies everyone. Sethie 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive and RfC

Creating an archive is long overdue. I propose creating an archive through item #44.

One reason I want to do this is so that page isn't so unwieldy when we do an RfC. Are we agreed that we'll be doing RfCs on Denaro and Otis?

Regarding the fact that Otis wasn't published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Sethie questions whether that's required in Wikipedia. Here's what WP:RS says: "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." TimidGuy 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to view your quote from WP:RS in context. WP:RS doesn't speak in absolutes, but rather in terms of preferences. It says "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criteria can always be considered reliable" and then gives the criteria for meeting this category, but it doesn't say that anything that doesn't meet that criterion is ipso facto completely unreliable and therefore inadmissible.
It then lists less reliable but still quite acceptable sources. I think that the Otis quote meets the criteria for "Non-scholarly sources". "Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature)." However, to emphasize, it says that a source that doesn't meet that criteron is less reliable. It doesn't say that it is inadmissable.
I think that the Otis quote is admissible. Tanaats 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I really, really, really appreciate your acknowledging this Tanaats. I thought I was going crazy. I kept saying, "It doesn't HAVE to be from a peer reviewed journal" again and again and to have someone actually acknowledge this is true feels frackin great! Anyway, I think that the Otis quote is gonna require an rfc. I went around and around and around with Lumiere on this one... till Lumiere gave up and tried to re-write wiki policies to exclude it! I kid you not. I'm done with this disucssion. I have stated a fact and asked you Timidguy 10-15 times to show me where it says it is an absolute REQUIREMENT that this be so and you have not, because you CANNOT. I dropped the Roark arguement, because my position on it was weak. Now it is time for you to be a man and admit you're wikilawyering and you're just wrong. It's okay to loose sometimes. If you can't do this, I say it's time for a Rfc, which I love, because the more outside imput on this page I can get, the more my position is backed up. Sethie 18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What's the point of having the guidelines in general, if they aren't meant to be followed? Yes, Wikipedia says that they shouldn't be a straightjacket and that they can be violated, if it improves Wikipedia. But does that mean that one should never try to follow the guidelines? When I read the RS Talk page, I get the impression that Admins take the guidelines seriously.
And also, what then is the point of having the guideline about peer review if it's not meant to be followed? In what situation would you feel it should be followed? Never? TimidGuy 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice try to engage me in dailogue after I said I'm done, thanks, I'll pass. Sethie 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My take on it is that WP:RS establishes a hierachy of preferences. It establishes that something published in a peer-reviewed journal is greatly preferred. But I think that the only sources to be absolutely disallowed as RSs are those that are explicitly forbidden in WP:RS. Tanaats 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Tanaats, a nice clear expression of the policy as it is written. Sethie 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:5, which says that authoritative sources are especially important when the topic is controversial. In my opinion, you can't just say, well this is a study, but it's not really a scholarly source, so we'll treat it as a non-scholarly source, and this isn't really controversial issue, so we can just use whatever evidence we find, including a study that's not been published in an academic journal and hasn't been peer-reviewed. You probably know that researchers are desperate to get published in academic journals -- "publish or perish." If it wasn't published in such a journal, it was likely flawed. Otis's work had problems. David OJ's site describes the serious flaws in another study that he did.

On the other hand, the TM research has been published in top journals. Not one of the studies in the top medical journals mentions adverse effects. Otis's findings are atypical, which sends up a red flag. Here's a quote from the New York Times from the principal investigator for one of the most recent studies in which she says there are no side effects (and by the way, she doesn't practice TM):

"The good thing about meditation is that it has a very nice quality-of-life component," said the senior author of the study, Dr. C. Noel Bairey Merz, professor of medicine at the University of California , at Los Angeles. "There's no ongoing financial cost, no side effects and a lot of data to demonstrate that it has a beneficial effect."[20]

This study was published by the American Medical Association.

Peer review is the standard -- especially for such controversial claims. Once I've worked on the section on TM research some more (so that people can see the quality of the peer-reviewed research on TM), then we begin dispute procedures. It'll be great to get feedback. Maybe you're right. But my reading of the guidelines says that if it's a study, it needs to be peer reviewed.TimidGuy 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This and the other TM articles are just chock-a-block with controversial claims that aren't supported in peer-reviewed journals. We could discuss completely eliminating all controverial claims from all such articles. Otherwise, I don't see why we can't introduce the opinion of a respected scholar (he must be respected in order to be at SRI) even though that opinion isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal.
We're discussing the same things over and over, though. I doubt that further discussion will serve any useful purpose. Personally, I'm ready for the RfC. Tanaats 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. I'll probably hold off for a week or so, until I can get a copy of the book and also get the research section fixed up a bit. And I think I'd like to do Denaro first. TimidGuy 12:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Added subheads to research section

I've mentioned a number of times that one goal I have is to rework the section on research so that it better represents the more recent research, espcially the NIH-funded research that has appeared in the past 10 years in peer-reviewed medical journals. To that end, I've added subheads as a first step in rewriting that section. TimidGuy 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Tanaats 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, gosh, thanks for your support. Sometimes I feel like any change I make will automatically get reverted. Appreciate it. I hope I'm able to improve that section, but it will likely be gradually over the coming couple weeks.TimidGuy 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats -- happened again

You seem to have deleted part of the Talk page. Can you figure out how to restore it? TimidGuy 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OMG, I did it again??? :(
Sure, I can definitely restore it. The only problem is that I can't seem to find it in History, and I've been back to the morning of Jan 2. Maybe I still don't quite know how to read History properly. Can you help me out and give me the URL of the appropriate History change page? Thanks. Tanaats 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I was able to find it. I think everything is back to normal.TimidGuy 21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I will strive to exercise more caution. Tanaats 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey! I finally noticed the "Show Changes" button right next to "Preview". That measns I can diff my changes before making them. Hopefully that will keep me from blasting a whole in any more pages. :) Tanaats 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I, too, hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out.TimidGuy 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the interleaving of comments in a discussion

Hi all,

I recently got strongly corrected on another article by an extremely experienced editor and Admin. I had interleaved my resonses into the very long comments of another editor because I thought it would make the interaction clearer I was informed that this actually created confusion, and this it was considered bad etiquette in WP.

I see his point now. The main problem IMO is that we end up with a lot of discussion fragments that don't have a signature, making the interaction very hard to follow.

I propose that we observe this point of etiquette in the future. It is a bit more work composing replies, but I think that is much more clarity in the long run.

What do you all think? Tanaats 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally preffere what you are advocating as well, it is more work, and man can it make a mess when people don't do it.Sethie 17:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I vote yes.TimidGuy 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well... and to that point want to apologize for cutting up Sethie's point the other day .... in a quick read I had took it to mean that this applied to unsigned points, and I wasn't sure where to put the comment without really cutting it the discussion up, or s well putting it so far at the end it didn't apply to anything ....will definitely go by this rule in future (olive)

Please use "fact" tag first

Hello 151.202.185.21... Please hang a "fact" tag on unsourced statements if you want to challenge the statement. That gives editors a chance to find a cite. Thanks. Tanaats 16:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you're new to Wikipedia. So... The way to point out that a statement is unsourced is to add "{{fact}}" immediately after the statement that you want to challenge. Tanaats 16:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

very strange... the below was a new thread - a new page.... and it has popped up on this page ..... sorry about that(olive 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

No problem. Want you wanted to was to use "==TM and Religion==". I've fixed it. Tanaats 19:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

TM and Religion

Thank you all for the feed- back on my points.

  • I did sign my points on the discussion pages but found later I hadn’t been automatically logged on as I had in the past so the signature, (I’m guessing here), didn’t appear - Apologies for that but unintentional.
  • All of my points are meant for discussion and never for inclusion in any article. These are discussion /talk pages and are loaded with opinions that become salient discussion points for change hopefully for the betterment of the site. Like all of you, I added an opinion or two to begin a discussion of points that may weaken the site. I do not consider adding anything because I might think its “wrong”. I am, however, interested in how an article is formatted, its syntax, its logic because that contains clues towards how the article will “read”. Although I have spent time working as a lab assistant and editor for a reputable and well known, corn biologist, and am familiar with the scientific approach, the “read “ of the article, I suspect, is as important, and I have generally found myself navigating in that area.
  • Yes, TM is sublicensed under a educational corporation, as are the many other programs, and as TimidGuy said this corporation owns the word and its meaning, and we would be inaccurate in redefining it.
  • The format of this article begins with a question. The question begs an answer, and so information in the article must become the answer to the question. This is not a straightforward use of the information but invites the reader to form an opinion on the material. This might be acceptable in another setting but is this appropriate in an encyclopedia? I don’ t see this format anywhere else in Wikipedia.
  • I would like to suggest reformatting the whole article with a heading that is not a question, for example, TM, Religion and Spirituality, and then defining the words by linking them back to Wikipedia, as a standard Wikipedia convention, one that is suggested as a first step in defining a word, and present in every article I’ve read in Wikipedia. Why not here? Taking this step would delineate the words and clarify the article.
  • Using both words in the article as indistinguishable in meaning confuses the points being made.
  • As a remedy to that, what about adding subheadings such as TM and religion, TM as compatible with religion, TM and spirituality, and placing appropriate information under each subheading. Clearly delineating these words, and placing information under the appropriate subheading would go a long way towards presenting clear information to the reader and lessens the need for the reader to form an opinion, This, then becomes more of a fact gathering format. As an encyclopedia, the reader should just have clear and straightforward information. This by the way is what I meant by straightforward and was not making an inference that anyone was personally trying not to be straightforward. So sorry if that was implied.
  • The Michael Ryan quote seems pretty much over the top in terms of logic. The only way of proving that this is either accurate or inaccurate is through OR, and the quote itself is illogical given for example the number of kids running around with meditating parents. Again though, does this present clear and supported information for any part of this article.
  • Finally, I was not suggesting a lawsuit in regards to the use of proprietary material. I am suggesting that this is not a good way to gather material, and possibly not appropriate since those who do begin to meditate or to do the TM Sidhi Program sign agreements to not disclose this information. This makes their action illegal. Is this an appropriate reference? Second, these programs may have changed over time and very likely have. We have no way of knowing if this information is accurate, and OR is not a permissible Wikipedia form of gathering information.
  • In summary, I would like to suggest the reformatting of the document with appropriate subheadings that will include all the different viewpoints on this subject. I would be happy to do this, subject to the approval of the group. You could edit what you don’t like.
  • I would like to remove the Michael Ryan quote, as not supportable, but that’s my viewpoint of course.
  • Eventually we may have to revisit the subject of proprietary information. Best to everyone.(olive 18:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
Hi Olive.
  • Yes, I've forgotten to log in too quite a few times. No problem. You'll learn to make it a habit.
  • Oh, yes, Talk pages are full of opinions.
  • I look forward to your contributions as an experienced editor in the field of science.
  • I can understand your position re usage of "TM". I would have to repeat my earlier arguments. Maybe you could look back in the Talk page and have a look at them? Then we can discuss further if you like. I suggest making a separate subsection for just that one topic if you want to continue to discuss it. This section is going to get a bit confusing very quickly if we don't.
  • Actually, the heading does not technically "beg the question"[21] because it merely asks a straightforward question without any implication of what the answer should be. However, if you want to discuss putting a different header there that would be fine. Oh, on reading your next bullet point I see that you have done that. Great. Yes, start a new section please and we can discuss it. FYI, Wikipedia is so generally unreliable that Wikipedia articles can not be used as RSs. You can "wikilink" to them as a form of "see also", but you can't cite them as RSs.
  • I didn't notice any negative implication but thank you for being sensitive to the possibility.
  • Regarding the Ryan quote, when I first showed up at WP I thought that my opinions actually counted. I quickly found out that they didn't count at all. The only thing that counts is being able to find sources that are verifiable and from an RS. It is "clear and supported" that Ryan said these things, and it is supported by a verifiable source from an RS, and that's actually all that counts. I'd love to take things out that I find illogical too. :)
  • It's not really "illegal". At the most it would be a civil case. But the TMO wouldn't get away with even that and so AFAIK they've never even tried. But even if revealing certain information was baldly illegal, still the only issue here is whether is it verifiable and from an RS.
  • As ChemProf has pointed out, properly sourced information doesn't have to be "accurate". That's because we're assumed to be not in a position to judge its accuracy. And the "OR" rule only applies to WP editors, it doesn't apply to sources.
  • It sounds like what you propose is to make some major edits. We really need to discuss this in detail first, preferably in a separate section for each of your major proposals.
  • Actually, Ryan doesn't have to provide support for his position. It would be better if he did, but IMO it's still admissible. We are not allowed to judge the truth of it, otherwise I'd be making some pretty major edits of my own; I'd start by deleting all of the TM claims that are not supported by research. :) But in fact the quote only needs to be verifiable and from an RS. However, we are most definitely not all in agreement on this. AFAIK we are going to take this to DR, which is the proper thing do to when editors are deadlocked on an important question. I suggest that we all table our discussions on this until DR starts. Then we will all have a chance to state our positions. Tanaats 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Heya Olive. You want to subdivide up into spirituality and religion sections, however, to justify that, we would need people who say TM is spiritual and not religious. You would need to find OTHER people who make this division.
Olive I am feeling a little frustrated right now with maybe 50-60% of your participation on this page. I have said numerous times that the way to go is to find sources that say what you want. Thus far you have not presented one. The solution to this entire quandry about TM and religion is to FIND SOURCES that say it isn't a religion, or to find sources which say it is spiritual, not religious. Not a single change you discuss or present, without sources will or can be implemented.
A LARGE amount of information has been gathered which supports the claim that TM is a religion/religious. Despite this, we have left it as a question! I personally think it is very generous. As the section stands now, I don't see a reason to rename it to TM & Religion.... with the all the citations there, the only new title that would make sense is TM IS a religion! Just kidding, but something like, TM claimed to be a religion would work for me.
We are not lawyers. Even if we were, umplementing, disucssing or debating the law has no part here. Would you please take legal disucssions elsewhere?
Oh my! From my perspective, we are all just a bunch of goobers who can barely agree on some simple wikipedia guidelines! If we are in charge of ENFORCING the law too....I think we're all in big trouble. If you believe the inclusion of this material violates a WIKIPEDIA policy, please raise it here. If you think it violates a legal policy, please disucss this with a lawyer or a member of the law enforcement community. Sethie 21:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

From bottom to top:

  • I am not trying to enforce the law by a long shot ..... we are citing information that may not be accurate because we can't even check it .... I am asking if you all think thats fine. Hey if so what can I say .....
  • thanks Sethie, I can understand that you are frustrated. I would say I am dealing with this material differently than you are, not better not worse just differently. I am concerned with environment we place the references, citations and so on in. That's all. I have found sources but I don't know where to put them on this page because the page has a format that is not easy to deal with .... putting something else on this page would just chop up the whole thing more... I am not trying to delete anything I'm trying to set the page up so information can be added easily as it is found.... not in two categories but in as many as are needed on this topic

This isn't an argument its a request to reformat so that we can include more information easily...

  • and Tanaats....This is definitely a reformation but in many ways not an big edit because no material will be lost and until everyone is comfortable with it .... should that happen:) I will delay adding anything i've found .
  • and by the way I am not a experienced science editor....in my mind I was in a position to learn the ropes as it were and so have an understanding of this process..... I'll leave the experience part to "chemistry prof"
  • I guess we could continue this discussion on TM but there are two ways of looking at this .... one TM as in common usage, your point, and one as in the way the corporation that owns the word uses it ..... maybe what has to be discussed is not the words meaning but which way can or should we use it. Thanks guys for reading all of this and staying with it (olive 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
Olive, let's wait on the proposed edits until we discuss them, anyway. I'm afraid that you'll do a lot of work for naught. IMO it's better to discuss and plan a bit. As for the proper use of "TM", I'm not sure what good further discussion will do. I think we'll just end up repeating ourselves. As a matter of fact, I'll only have to repeat myself now if I respond to the issue again. So I'll drop my side of that discussion. Don't take offense if I don't respond again. But if you feel strongly about this issue you might want to take a shot at DR. No hard feelings if you do. Tanaats 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Olive. I don't think a case can be made for common usage. Only POV sites use it that way. Great to hear that you have some sources. And it seems like we have consensus on adding subheads to begin to clarify the material and provide a context for Olive's material. Regarding the heading: Olive objects to a question. She has a point. But if it's to remain a question, how about if we say, "Is Transcendental Meditation a religious practice?" Malnak actually would answer no, since it speficially objected to the Science of Creative Intelligence. I agree that this section is kind of a jumble and that things could be clarified. And I think the citations to Hassan's site should be removed, given that it's a POV site and is violating copyright. In particular, the Edmonton Sun citation should be directly to the Edmonton Sun. The U of Iowa citation is to a discussion group, which isn't allowed. The citation to Rick Ross's POV site isn't appropriate. The reference to the Paul Mason biography of Maharishi needs a proper citation and page number or else it should be deleted. The quote from Maharishi needs a proper citation or it should be deleted. In general, there are serious problems with sources, and this also needs to be cleaned up.TimidGuy 12:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that all of that material got dumped in there without discussion.TimidGuy 12:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Re "Is Transcendental Meditation a religious practice?". The problem with that is that the question doesn't just apply to the meditation technique. IMO that's pretty straightforward and I agree that the technique is not religous. The actually issue is whether or not MMY's entire corpus of teachings constitute a religion.
I'm not sure I understand. Are we not allowed to cite news articles and such that appear on a POV site? Would that also apply to the TMO's sites, all of which are strongly POV?
Go ahead and hang a "fact" tags on the Mason stuff if you like. I'll try to get the cites. I'll look around and hang fact tags on other uncited statements. Tanaats 15:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The guidelines say not to link to copyrighted material that's illegally hosted on a site.[22] He clearly exceeds the doctrine of "fair use." The POV sites, especially Rick Ross's, tend to violate copyright. It's better to link to the original.
I like your point that the technique itself is not religious. Which is why the section needs clarifying. For one thing, trademark issues aside, the rest of the article uses "Transcendental Meditation" to refer to the technique. Heading off to play tennis. Can't believe I'm here on a Sunday morning. : ( TimidGuy 16:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Didn't know that about copyrights, thanks for contributing to my WP education. Which is the site that references a copyright violation?
I changed the RR cites to reference the original work.
Yes, the technique itself it not religious. However initiates are taught religous concepts during the third night of checking, which is a part of the "basic course". And those who proceed to take more and more advanced offerings are more and more introduced to TM religious doctrine. However, I could go for a clarifying introductory sentence like "Maharishi teaches more than just the TM technique".
Yes, I can't believe I'm here on a Sunday morning either. I guess I need to get a life.  :) Tanaats 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


"Only POV sites use it that way." Interestng claim Timidguy. Can you explain how that is true, in refference to these three non-pov sites (which BTW I posted above) [23], [24], [25]? I also have a little book in front of me called "TM and Cult Mania" which reffers to TM not just as a technique, but well, as a cult. How is that a "POV site?" :)

Adherents.com lists it as a religion.[26], and lists the following refferences which call TM a religion or a sect: Occhiogrosso, Peter. The Joy of Sects: A Spirited Guide to the World's Religious Traditions. New York: Doubleday (1996); pg. 66.,Crim, Keith (ed.). The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions. San Francisco: Harper Collins (1989). Reprint; originally published as Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions, 1981; pg. 765., Chryssides, George. Exploring New Religions. London, U.K.: Cassells (1999). [Original source of 50 thousand worldwide figure: web site: New Religious Movements (University of Virginia)], O'Brien, J. & M. Palmer. The State of Religion Atlas. Simon & Schuster: New York (1993); pg. 35., etc., etc., etc. I count 8 sources that call it such - excluding those that call it a cult. Sethie 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


New Introduction

With this many solid scholarly refferences, it is time to put into the intro the fact that outside the TM organization, Transcendental Mediation reffers to the technique and the movement. It will also settle the long-standing issue of what this article is about- the TM Movement, and in the mainstream society (and more importantly, in the scholarly press) what "Transcendental Meditation" means. Sethie 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this?
The Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique is a form of meditation introduced in 1958 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It is a mental technique practiced for twenty minutes twice a day while one sits with the eyes closed.[2] A distinguishing feature of this meditation program is its lack of effort, as contrasted with techniques involving concentration, or those involving contemplation or active thinking.[3] The TM technique involves an effortless repetition of a specific sound called a mantra.[4] This effortless repetition, practised according to specific guidelines, enables the practitioner's mind to settle down until, according to Maharishi, the mental activity of ordinary waking consciousness is "transcended" and a state of restful alertness is experienced.[5]
Extensive research has been done on the Transcendental Meditation technique in order to determine its effects on the mind and the body.
"Transcendental Meditation", and its abbreviation "TM", are trademarked as referring exclusively to the TM technique. "Transcendental Meditation" is also sometimes used informally to refer to Maharishi's entire corpus of teachings. Tanaats 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Good research, Sethie. In my opinion, all of those sources have a point of view. They are all religious or anti-cult. I think this is a serious issue and that we should do an RfC before making Tanaats's change. Nicely phrased, though. TimidGuy 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
But those cites do still establish that "TM" is indeed quite often informally used that way.
And not just by critics. When I was involved we used "TM" all the time to refer to all of MMY's teachings. To be constantly using phrases like "Maharishi's entire corpus of teachings including the technique" was (obviously) way too cumbersome. So we just referred to the whole thing as "TM".
BTW, Dr. O-J uses it informally too[27].
But I don't mind an RfC. Tanaats 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

TG you believe "They are all religious or anti-cult." It is true that this is your opinion. Now please look at the actual sources and see if your opinion is in line with reality. Your stance is just flat our wrong here.

I took TimidGuy to mean that the "point of view" was from the religious or ant-cult point of view not that the sites themselves were religious or anti-cult .....does that make sense(olive 00:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Actually it doesn't make sense to me.Sethie 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Olive. Please take a quick look at the earlier chat about interleaving comments in a discussion. It's best to only place new comments either at the bottom of the section, or else in the middle but always only after someone's signature, not in the middle of someone else's block of comments. Otherwise it quickly becomes impossible to tell who said what to whom. Thanks! Tanaats 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Yahoo is religious or anti cult? [28] So, Marian-Webster's encyclopedia of World Religions is religious or anit cult? [29] So, A Spirited Guide to the World's Religious Traditions. New York: Doubleday (1996); pg. 66.,Crim, Keith (ed.) is religious or anit-cult? So, The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions. San Francisco: Harper Collins (1989) is religious or anti-cult? So, Adherents.com is religious or anti-cult? So, The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions is religious or anti-cult? So, Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions is religious or anti-cult? So, Univ. of V, New Religious movements website is religious or anti-cult? [30] So the article "Patterns of Diffusion and Religious Globalization: An Empirical Survey of New Religious Movement" is a religious article, or anit-cult?

These are all refference which call "Transcendental Meditation" a NRM, a movement, or a religion. And, ALL of them (please note I have not listed all of the ones I have found) are "religious or anti-cult?" Sethie 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your new intro is a good start Tanaats and we have 10+ refferences here that "Transcendental Mediation" reffers to the entire movement, not just Maharishi's teachings. Sethie 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you're arguing that all of these religious sources aren't representing a particular point of view. The only neutral one is Yahoo, and their statement is incorrect. It's not a service mark for a religious movement. In this case it's not a matter of usage or opinion; they're stating the referent of the service mark, and they've got it wrong. And also, they should refer to it specifically as a trademark. Seems like iit's pointless to count references. We'd be at it forever. That's the job of lexicographers. And dictionaries tend to indicate that general usage is that "Transcendental Meditation" refers to a meditation technique. Anyway, we'll do an RfC. The RfC will deal with whether to include usage not allowed by the trademark holder, and if so, exactly what that sentence would be. TimidGuy 12:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I am not argueing "that all of these religious sources aren't representing a particular point of view," it would make sense to me that you are not able to understand what I am saying, since I am not saying what you think I am saying! Mostly because the sources I have listed aren't religious! How is the Perrnnial DICTIONARY of World Religions Religious? How is the Univ of B New Religions Movements website religious? Do they hold services? Sethie 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you were unable or unwilling to answer my question, I will ask again.

So, Yahoo is religious or anti cult? [31] So, Marian-Webster's encyclopedia of World Religions is religious or anit cult? [32] So, A Spirited Guide to the World's Religious Traditions. New York: Doubleday (1996); pg. 66.,Crim, Keith (ed.) is religious or anit-cult? So, The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions. San Francisco: Harper Collins (1989) is religious or anti-cult? So, Adherents.com is religious or anti-cult? So, The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions is religious or anti-cult? So, Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions is religious or anti-cult? So, Univ. of V, New Religious movements website is religious or anti-cult? [33] So the article "Patterns of Diffusion and Religious Globalization: An Empirical Survey of New Religious Movement" is a religious article, or anit-cult?

Above you claimed all of my sources were religious or anti-cult. Please show how this is true. Sethie 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, read the part in WP:RS regarding tertiary sources, which suggests that their use be limited. TimidGuy 13:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How about this part of the tetriary sources, my emphasis added: "Tertiary sources can be used for NAMES"Sethie 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right -- I'm not able to understand your point.TimidGuy 12:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You made the claim "They [the sources I listed] are all religious or anti-cult." I have asked you four or five times to show how this is true and you have not, until you can show otherwise, your contention is patently false and wrong.
As for what I am saying about tetriary sources, if you read WP:RS, tertiary sources, you will read that "Tertiary sources can be used for names." That is all I want to use the sources for!Sethie 18:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Trademarks are generally respected by reference works. When an organization finds that its trademark has been incorrectly represented, they contact the reference work. We did this, for example, with the Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which had in incorrect definition and didn't recognized Transcendental Meditation as a trademarked term. They were very responsive and made the change. The lastest print edition is correct. We'll likely follow up with the reference works you mentioned.

The definition of a trademarked term isn't a matter of usage, but a matter of law. If a handful of specialized reference works misuse it, it doesn't, in my opinion, signify anything. And anyway lexicographers are generally agreed that the general usage is as a meditation technique. See, for example, the American Heritage Dictionary, the Random House Dictionary, and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which correctly recognizes it as a service mark.[34]TimidGuy 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to mix TM Organization bussiness with the writing of a wikipedia article. I do not deny they have trademarked the term! Why even bring that up?
Whether the TM organization LIKES it or not, whether it violates trademark or not, PLENTY of sources call the entire movement "Transcendental Meditation." We are editors on an encyclopedia, not lawyers. It is not our job to judge our sources, or evaluate the legality of what they are saying!
The line you are argueing along is rather unique. It is illegal to make racial slurs in most country, yet would you seem to think that we should not allow wikipedia to report "so and so made so and so racial slur," because the slur itself is illegal? You want us to cover up the fact of the matter that lots of sources call the movement Transcendental Meditation because it is trademarked? Show me a single wikipedia policy that says that if our sources violate trademark, we can't use them? Sethie 21:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suspect the following:
  • Webster's either added an explicit mention of the trademark, or else added the tradmark symbol, or both.
  • However, they did not make the usage change because of trademark issues. Instead they made it voluntarily because they accepted the TMO as an authority on proper usage.
We can add the trademark symbol. As a matter of fact, I suggest that we do that without waiting for DR to complete. As far as usage, I don't accept the TMO as an authority on its common usages. As for for the lexicographers, I don't as yet know of a WP guideline that requires us to strictly adhere to dictionary definitions. Tanaats 21:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sethie asks, "Why even bring that up?" This article is about Transcendental Meditation. "Transcendental Meditation" is a registered trademark. Other reference works consider that to be relevant, so it seems like Wikipedia should as well. TimidGuy 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to quote me, please do so in context. "I do not deny they have trademarked the term! Why even bring that up?" i.e. Why are you asserting something I don't deny and am not even challenging? It would be like me asserting, "MIU in in Fairfield." Sethie 20:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the last sentence of Tanaats proposed new Intro, I do not see how this is necessary. In my 36 years of practicing the technique and attending large assemblies, meeting thousands of other practitioners and teachers, watching hundreds of hours of videotapes of Maharishi, I have never heard the term “Transcendental Meditation” used to refer to the whole body of information Maharishi has brought to the West. I have heard the term used as a modifier to identify things other than the technique, such as “movement,” “teacher,” “research,” but I have never heard “Transcendental Meditation knowledge” or “Transcendental Meditation teachings.” I have heard “Maharishi’s knowledge” or “Maharishi’s teachings” used sometimes to refer to the broader field of knowledge, but never have I heard the expression “Transcendental Meditation” alone used to signify the whole body of knowledge that Maharishi gives out. The fact that some reference sources use it that way does not convince me that we need to mention it in the Intro. I do not see how it is relevant to the topic of Transcendental Meditation. ChemistryProf 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


And your personal experience convinces me even less!
I spent some time at MIU and was told that by the students and considered taking a class and living on campus and was told that any "Non-TM" spiritual literature would be confiscated. I would love to have that fact in the cult? section, however, on wikipedia, I am a nobody. My opinion and direct observations are worthless, unless reported in a RS.
Your own first hand experience is not a reliable source, ESPECIALLY when I have provided 10+ citations which use TM in the way Tanaats is proposing. Sources, sources, sources! It is kind of a wiki mantra! Sethie 04:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It’s pretty much impossible to have any discussion at all on this discussion page if experience and opinions are not allowed. As far as I can tell, the discussion page is all about the opinions and experiences of each of us. Am I wrong in this? ChemistryProf 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand Sethie to be saying that our personal experiences and opinions have no place whatsoever in the article. They are of course appropiate in Talk as long as we are talking about what should or should not go into the article. Tanaats 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I was reading it out of context. Now I read Sethie to be saying that he doesn't find your recounting of your personal experiences to be a persuasive argument, and that it does not constitute a reliable source upon which the article should be based. Nor do I. I was into TM much deeper than I suspect you ever were, and as I believe I've said before in this discussion, we used "TM" all the time to refer to MMY's body of teachings. There was no way we were going to say "Maharishi's body of teachings" all the time!
But... I don't mind keeping that sentence out of the intro at all. I'm certainly not going to fight to keep it in. Tanaats 06:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Tanaats, great summary of me, on both counts.
And to continue "and that it[personal experience] does not constitute a reliable source upon which the article should be based," or upon which decisions about the article should be made! Let's stick with what the sources say, not what ChemistryProf says, what Tanaats says, Timidguy says or Sethie says. Sethie 06:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this really a discussion group?

Hi TimidGuy. How is the UNIVERSITY OF IOWA NEWS DIGEST a discussion group? Thanks. Tanaats 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tanaats. You're right. When I saw "listserv" I assumed it was an archive of a discussion. However, I still question whether a press release from the public affairs office at the University of Iowa is a reliable source. TimidGuy 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If you read it, you will see it is a direct quote from an article.
In order to clear up any confusion or question, I shall refference the article and provide a link to where the article is available online.Sethie 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


NPOV and proportion disucssion

Now I would like to kick off the discussion of the NPOV guidelines that I put off last night. I agree with Sethie that "representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias" deserves special attention. Of all guidelines, this is the one the creator of Wikipedia has placed at the top, above all others, and for good reason: it is undoubtedly the hardest rule with which to comply. It is clear from my short time on the present article that every editor involved has a point of view, either negative or positive, regarding the Transcendental Meditation technique. Sometimes the hardest thing of all is to monitor our own biases. We tend to be blind to those and keenly aware of any other person’s views, whether they are open or concealed, that may be different from ours. The sentence I objected to in the Intro that has now been removed was one such sentence. Although the sentence itself may have been technically correct, because of the context and the way it was stated, it jumped out at as a biased statement. It is true that a few scientists have published objections to one or more published research papers on the Transcendental Meditation technique. It is also true that others have rebutted those criticisms in print. To mention the critical papers without also mentioning the rebuttals is biased and unfair. On the other hand, neither the critical papers nor their rebuttals form a very significant part of the research literature on the technique. The question then becomes, “When does an especially negative or positive point of view deserve mention in a WP article?” What I would like to argue here is that by “proportionate” representation, the guideline means that each article should represent the knowledge about that topic in a manner proportionate to the knowledge that is available on the topic. Thus, if 95% of the 200 or so peer reviewed research papers on the Transcendental Meditation technique show statistically significant positive effects and 5% show no significant effect or a significant effect that is interpreted to be negative, then that point should show up somehow in the article. To choose a paper from the 5% to present in the article would not be proportionate representation. Proportionate representation would mean for every 20 of the positive articles presented, there should be one negative one to make it proportionate. There are other ways to deal with the requirement of proportionality, but I am throwing this out as one example and a possible way to deal with it. How about some feedback or other opinions on how to maintain proportionate representation?

Keep up the good work all of you editors involved in this article. We need this clarification and consensus to make more rapid progress and to make our lives easier! Oh, and I apologize for chopping up Tanaat’s paragraph two days ago without clearly identifying each part as his. ChemistryProf 07:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of bad form for me to move the disucssion page around like this, and that subsection was getting to large for my tastes. So, in the future when you start a new topic, would you please create a new header at the bottom of the page? It makes discussions infinitley easier to follow.
I am not sure how to respond to your concern about disproportion. I see 18 studies that cite positive results and two that cites negative results. Does this somehow seem unreasonable to you?
As for your percentage proposal I support it totally in spirit and not even remotely in terms of a litteral aplication, talk about a frickin' can of worms! :)Sethie 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Sethie that an 18/2 ratio is not disproportional. I don't think that the guidelines require us to maintain a strict mathematical proportion. Tanaats 13:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sethie, I think may be a violation of the guidelines to edit someone else's post. I agree that it was a good idea to move it, but it might have been a good idea to ask first. There were two other instances where you inserted new headings into the middle of a discussion. Maybe avoid doing that, since it creates a context for a person's comments other than originally intended. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to get after you -- but just trying to establish protocol. Like we did regarding not inserting comments in between someone else's comments. Thanks. TimidGuy 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I am always open to look at guidelines- ChemistryProf actually has me very interested in doing so. Please point to the guideline you have in mind and we can discuss it.
Please come after me! I value feedback, especially from someone I tend to disagree with. If I can't face and respond to what you have to say, my position is weak and invalid. Although I consider Theosophy a bunch of bunk, there motto resonates with me "There is no religion higher then truth."Sethie 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if anyone wishes to move other people’s paragraphs around and start new threads, at least put something in the previous place to indicate that. Better yet, leave the paragraph where it was but leave a message saying it is duplicated in a new thread. Even then, it may be better to move the whole entry rather than one paragraph. In any case, I apologize for making the thread so long. I see the value in keeping them shorter. However, I don’t want to lose the heading of the previous thread. Perhaps we can duplicate the original heading (title) of the thread, with a word or two added to show its current direction.

Concerning the NPOV paragraph, I introduced those numbers of peer reviewed papers to elicit some discussion of the meaning of “proportional” in the NPOV guidelines. This was one way of interpreting the guideline. Thus, if 5% of the 200 articles have weak data or data that could be taken as negative in some way, that would represent a proportion of 1 article in 20. Another way of maintaining “proportionality” is to think of the full range of published opinions on the technique, since much of the content seems to revolve around those. I suspect, as is the case with other natural phenomena, the frequency of highly positive, neutral, and highly negative opinions follows a bell-shaped curve, with the vast majority making up the middle and the extremes being somewhere around 2.5% on each end of the curve. Does NPOV then mean that in representing the topic, we should devote 95% of the content to the “middle” opinions and 2.5% to each extreme? If so, then we have some work to do, as we all know. The middle is nowhere near fairly represented in the current version. ChemistryProf 04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal wreaks of OR. Who is going to decide what is weak data? Who is deciding what is extreme? Who is deciding what is middle? Super-serious-can-o-worms.
How can you conclude we "have work to do?" There are 2 critical studies listed and now that TG added more, 18+ positive studies?
BTW I have lots more negative studies, and am holding back for TG's request for me to slow down. Sethie 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good points, but I seem to remember comments in the discussion from various editors, even from Sethie, in which such judgments were made. As for “have work to do,” there also, I seem to recall opinions from Sethie and Tanaats that the article is imbalanced toward the positive. In fact, in Sethie’s statement just now “18+ positive studies,” who said they are positive? Isn’t that Sethie’s opinion?

In digging deep into NPOV, I’m just trying to find out what the possible metrics are for determining balance or proportion and how we can apply them fairly. If my formulae are unworkable, what ideas do others have? It is not clear to me that just because we can find positive and negative opinions in the published literature that we should have an equal mix of both. What if there are 1000 positive and 50 negative? Would it be balanced to present equal numbers of each? ChemistryProf 05:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a hard science like chemistry but rather is one of those "fuzzy subject", like sociology. :) There are no metrics, just personal judgements. In my own personal judgement, an 18/2 ratio is NPOV. I certainly don't think we should take our pathetic two studies down to one or zero. Tanaats 06:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be vague. If you want to refference specific comments of mine, refference specific comments. Vagueness achieves nothing.
It is true you have a memory of me saying the article is unbalanced towards the positive. However is it true that I actually made such comments?
"Who said they were positive?" Nice try ChemistyProf, and your analogy fails. Badly.
Your proposal was that we could somehoe divide studies up into various categories, like: "highly positive," "neutral," "highly negative," "the middle," and "extremes."
I on the other hand was not making a judgement call about the studies, but merely reffering to the FACT that they listed all "positive" or benefitial results for TM. I do not conceede the validity of your analogy, at all, that somehow I was making a judgment about the studies. I do conceede that I did not use the most clear precise language possible.
What other ideas do we have? Well, how about answering the question I posted above (modified now that TG has added more)? "I see 25+ studies/citations that cite positive results and two studies that cites negative results. Does this somehow seem unreasonable to you?"Sethie 06:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You've criticized ChemistryProf's various suggestions for addressing undue weight but haven't really given a valid reason for the fact that the article is roughly two-thirds criticism (including some of the proprietary material in the beginning sections). The only reason it reflects this proportion, in my opinion, is due Sethie's regular "sweeping changes" -- adding a ton of material without any discussion, and much of that material being problematic. And any deletion of that material gets reverted. So what we have is simply the imposition of one editor's will without any discussion of proportion or validity of the sources. Thanks, ChemistryProf for pursing this.TimidGuy 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note- ChemistryProf did not raise the issue of two-thirds criticism, nor the issue of undue weight, so why would I address them here? His querry/concern was about STUDIES.
Also, please note, I have already addressed the overall issue of undue weight, to which YOU did not respond! :) So please turn your thinking around to yourself, YOU have not given a valid reason for why the article shouldn't contain roughly two-thirds criticsm. On the otherhand, I have! Please see the section "Undue weight."
Is it true there has not been discussion of the sources or the my additions? Ummmm this is talk page is HUGE. Sethie 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read again what ChemistryProf wrote. TimidGuy 18:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


"On the other hand, neither the critical papers nor their rebuttals form a very significant part of the research literature on the technique. The question then becomes, “When does an especially negative or positive point of view deserve mention in a WP article?” What I would like to argue here is that by “proportionate” representation, the guideline means that each article should represent the knowledge about that topic in a manner proportionate to the knowledge that is available on the topic. Thus, if 95% of the 200 or so peer reviewed research papers on the Transcendental Meditation technique show statistically significant positive effects and 5% show no significant effect or a significant effect that is interpreted to be negative, then that point should show up somehow in the article. To choose a paper from the 5% to present in the article would not be proportionate representation. Proportionate representation would mean for every 20 of the positive articles presented, there should be one negative one to make it proportionate. There are other ways to deal with the requirement of proportionality, but I am throwing this out as one example and a possible way to deal with it. How about some feedback or other opinions on how to maintain proportionate representation?"

So sure, he is talking about undue weight of THE STUDIES. That still does not explain why you think I should be responding to your the 2/3 thingie. Sethie 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See the section that begins with this sentence: "Another way of maintaining 'proportionality' is to think of the full range of published opinions on the technique, since much of the content seems to revolve around those. " He's making an alternate proposal, one not related to the studies. He's giving a reason why the two-thirds portion may not accurately reflect the reality of the situation and trying to figure out a way to decide on a proportion. Again, I appreciate his efforts. TimidGuy 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummm I see it, however, are you seeing it? Please note that you asked me to start mid-paragraph. Sure, if I chop things up and only look at certain sentences, it may look as if he is talking about any-old-opinion. However, I preffer a more holistic and context-honoring approach, instead of focusing in on one sentence! So I will look at the whole paragraph: "I introduced those numbers of peer reviewed papers to elicit some discussion of the meaning of “proportional” in the NPOV guidelines. This was one way of interpreting the guideline. Thus, if 5% of the 200 articles have weak data or data that could be taken as negative in some way, that would represent a proportion of 1 article in 20. Another way of maintaining “proportionality” is to think of the full range of published opinions on the technique, since much of the content seems to revolve around those.
In the begining of this discussion, he said: "Thus, if 95% of the 200 or so peer reviewed research papers on the Transcendental Meditation technique show statistically significant positive effects and 5% show no significant effect or a significant effect that is interpreted to be negative, then that point should show up somehow in the article.
You are welcome to make whatever claims you like, however the facts speak very clearly for themselves.Sethie 17:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
When he says "the full range of published opinions," he's taking a different tack. He's shifted topicsi and is now talking about popular media -- like newspapers and magazines. I think he's suggesting that we note that the majority of articles on TM are positive, that that reflects a general perspective, and that this one would be another way to establish relative weights. So to explain his paragraph structure, he began by summarizing his earlier point and then introduced a second way of looking at it.TimidGuy 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a crazy-ass idea. Instead of you intrepretting his words, why not ask him? Sethie 18:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
TimidGuy, I don't see how we can note that the majority of TM studies are positive without introducing OR. I think that putting such an observation in article would require finding a tertiary RS that says that. Tanaats 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(Sethie and TimidGuy, FWIW I protested on another article when someone copied one of my comments to a new section and replied to it there. I eventually went to the Help page and asked about it. I was told by two different people there that this is called "refactoring", and that refactoring was perfectly legitimate if it adds clarity and reduces confusion. IMO Sethie's refactoring accomplished that. Your mileage may vary, of course.) Tanaats 18:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tanaats. I don't believe that anyone is proposing noting in the article that the majority of studies are positive. Chemistryprof is trying to find a rationale for proportion, given the NPOV guideline of undue weight. He's made two suggestions now, one having to do with giving an amount of coverage in the article (could be, for example, word count) in proportion to the number of peer-reviewed studies. His question is, why do the two studies mentioned, one of which isn't peer-reviewed, merit so much coverage when there are over 200 peer-reviewed studies showing its effectiveness? His second suggestion is related to overall proportion in the article. He's suggesting using the "full range of published opinions on the technique" to get a sense of proportion. (And I assume by "published opinions" he means popular media, since he notes that this article frequently relies on such opinions.) He's suggesting it would fall into a bell curve, and is suggesting that the middle ground should be mostly represented here, rather than two-thirds negative.TimidGuy 22:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, let him speak for him, and let you speak for you.
This will be, I believe, the 3rd time I have addressed this issue with you within the last month and not once have you responded. Would you be willing to stop raising your "undue weight" claim and please respond to what I wrote here [[35]]?
I am sorry, wikipedia articles are not written by using bell-curves! Sethie 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
TimidGuy,I suggest that we create a sub-article called "Research on Transcendental Meditation". Then create a summary in the main article referring the reader to the Research article for the details. Then I personally don't mind if you expand on the positive research. We could have subsections named "Positive research on Transcendental Meditation" and "Criticism of Transcendental Meditation research". (And I still think that we should implement Dreadlocke's suggestions. :) ) Tanaats 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sethie, I basically saw your comnents in the thread on undue weight as an abusive, POV rant, not meriting a response. Tanaats, in my mind it's the research that characterizes Transcendental Meditation more than anything else. It's a significant body of work, respected in the scientific community. I'd be reluctant to move it. I meant to add Dreadlock's suggestion to the list of priorities. Will do so. TimidGuy 12:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the reasons that we created sub-articles is that the main article was too big. If we expand on 20 studies then that would make the article ratther massive. Perhaps expand the pro-TM research here enough to make it clear that there are many more pro-TM studies than then is there is criticism of TM-research. Then expand all that you want in the Research article. Tanaats 14:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tanaats. Good suggestion. TimidGuy 16:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I can imagine that it would be hard for you to read them, and nearly everything I mention there has a WP:RS to back up the claim, minus the hurricane incident, extortion and violence (all of which are contained in the Denaro affividavit, which I still have high hopes for!).
You are welcome to view it as a POV rant, and that doesn't change the fact that most of what I listed there, which you are not willing to respond to, are backed by RS's. Please reconsider... if you are not willing or able to face certain facts, I am not sure how dialogue can procede.Sethie 16:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
All of those points reflect your point of view. This isn't the place to discuss our various points of view. And simply expressing your POV isn't a rationale for the relative weight in the article. If you state a rationale, then I'll respond. TimidGuy 20:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will spell it out for you, see the above section. Sethie 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sethie's supposed "Control of the article

You have expressed both on this page and on your AMA request that you think I have control of the article, however is that true?

Via your input, the reportings of the German study were decreased. Via your input Roark was removed. You just removed the screening for pyschiatric issues which I won't touch. You say I revert every change, however, when you removed the "disucssion group" did I revert it? You have added numerous studies, have I erased them? You added the unified field/science stuff, did I erase that? You wanted "Hindu Text" not linked with the BG, is it? You rewrote the section on Canter and Ernst study, which I shortened, however is the essence of your contribution still there? I provided a CITED critique that TM research has not made it into the top education journals- you removed it, did I revert it back?

I provided a citation that the JAMA case was dismissed. You removed it, placed your own interpretation of what happened, WITHOUT A CITATION. And that is how the article reads, right now! You included a partial rebut of Denaro, did I remove that? You have included a rebuttal by Orme to the claims of TM being a cult. Have I erased that? While Orme's website is a primary source, have I challenged his reliability to report on a GERMAN Court Case?

You have asked me to stop adding material and I have.

I know it must be frustrating to have me around. Unlike me, you had pure and actual de facto control of this article for months.

Anyone can say anything. You can say I am in control. And is it true? Or, is it more true to say we have been working together for months, vigiriously debating things, and sometiems what you want happens, and sometimes what Sethie wants happens?Sethie 18:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you did remove the partial rebuttal of Denaro. I'd appreciate it if you'd put it back. We can discuss your other points in the context of mediation. TimidGuy 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
When I read the article, I see: "According to the affidavit, Denaro was employed by Maharishi International University for approximately 10 months in 1975-1976. His affidavit, which was superseded by his testimony in court, was submitted as part of a lawsuit alleging psychological and emotional distress as a result of the practice of Transcendental Meditation. The suit was dismissed by an appellate court"
I look forward to having outsider eyes on this article.Sethie 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You deleted the following, which I feel violates NPOV:
David Orme-Johnson, author of over 100 studies and lead researcher at the time Denaro was employed by Maharishi International University, answered Denaro's charge about science by saying that Denaro was not in a position to be familiar with the university's science and had no basis for his statement that Transcendental Meditation is not scientifically based.
"I hardly knew Tony Denaro at all, and several other faculty that I have talked to don't even remember his ever being there. That I didn't know him is significant in this context, because he, being a lawyer, was never involved in the research, so he is hardly in a position to comment on the research process. Even if he had heard second- or third-hand accounts, I have not heard of any specific instances cited by him to back up his claims, which are untrue."[36] TimidGuy 13:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Currently, there is no claim by Denaro in the article which says the research is flawed. How is my removal of a rebutal to something that isn't in the article, a violation of NPOV? Which portion of the NPOV policy are you thinking I violated and how do you think it is harmony with NPOV to include a rebutal to a claim which is not in the article?

I believe the majority of wiki editors would actually argue that your desire to include it violates NPOV! Sethie 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good additions

Good additions on the research. Tanaats 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto!

And, I am wondering about the word choice "reduced death rates"..... I don't think the Maharishi has yet provided anything that can stop death!Sethie 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, guys. I really appreciate your support. Yes, the study specifically found reduced death rates. I can point you to the PubMed abstract if you like.TimidGuy 12:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And thanks, Tanaats, for inserting the subhead in the states of consciousness section. I like it. And thanks for your ongoing cleanup of the article. TimidGuy 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Your're welcome! Tanaats 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

ChemistryProf's Removal in Intro

With all the disucssion about Kuhn, I overlooked something. Chemistryprof, you removed a key idea from the intro. "The validity of that research has been questioned, AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF THE ORGANIZATION ITSELF."

I consider that a significant change. Please follow the guidelines at the top of this discussion page, specifically "and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box."

That sentence contained two ideas. You changed one with the Kuhn and flat out deleted the other. Leaving that deletion out of the summary field I do not consider accurate. If the sentence contained only one idea which you played with, I would consider that accurate.

Given the sheer amount of controvery surrounding the organization I believe having that idea expressed in the intro fits... even Lumiere conceeded that! However, I am unsure how to do it, I battled for nearly a month with her to construct an intro that worked for both of us. I am open to suggestions. Sethie 07:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Sethie 07:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, I believe you were the one who removed it.[37]
I really did remove it, after Chemprof did first. What I am asking for is a accurate summary field notation. Chemprof removed one idea and changed another- and without that accurate depecition in the edit summary, I missed that deletion. Sethie 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not remember the exact words I put into the edit summary, but I tried to be complete in my description. I probably said "removed last sentence and replaced it with another," or something to that effect. My intentention was to put something more neutral than the sentence that was there. In my discussion, I included both parts of the sentence and the reasons they do not comply with NPOV.ChemistryProf 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sethie 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Lately some external links have been added. I've recently been looking at the guideline WP:EL, which clearly constrains the use of external links. Many of our external links shouldn't be there. WP:EL says that external links should adhere to WP:RS. That would mean, for example, no personal sites and no POV sites. The guideline encourages brevity and says that there should be a good reason for adding an external link. Seems like most of our external links should be deleted.TimidGuy 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That is really, really, really not true. TG. Please explain to me how you can read: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." and conclude: "WP:EL says that external links should adhere to WP:RS"
Look, I don't mean to be rude and if you edited other pages, you would know that it is a common practice to link to POV sites. Your interpretation is: a)a misrepresentation of the policy and b) not in tune with how wikipedia actually functions. Sethie 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
See, for example, what is arguably the most contentious article on Wikipedia. Tanaats 18:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
AHA Moment!....I had seen this when I first came to Wikipedia, that is, that an editor should link to Wikipedia first, and then if there was no Wikipedia Link to link to an outside source, but I think someone suggested that I not do this, but link to an outside link since this would be more reliable-which may well be the case.In the Wikipedia guidelines it says,"Avoid using an external link when it's possible to accomplish the same thing with an internal link to a Wikipedia article." I guess the point will be centered around whether "its possible to accomplish the same thing"...it makes a lot of sense for Wikipedia to ask that editors to use Wikipedia as a first source since this links the site together in a kind of giant internal web of information. I think this definitely needs to be looked into . I notice also that my attempt to make an article read in a neutral way , as in the Sthapatya Veda Article by writing "According to", is also not a good convention to use . As I wondered at the time, if I am writing about a particular program, isn't that just what the article is about? The neutrality issue doesn't come into it since all I am doing is reporting on the site.Interesting and clarifying(olive 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
Ooooh, I think that you are in for a hard time.
Which guideline are you quoting? Actually Wikipedia has been specifically declared in WP:RS to not be an RS. All of the wikilinks that you see to other articles are implicit "see also's" rather than citations of an RS. Only an external resource can be an RS. (WP has been specifically declared not to be an RS because all Wikipedians soon come to realize that WP is a very unreliable source.)
Exactly which sentence in the SV article don't you think that "according to" belongs in? Yes, SV is what the article is about, but it doesn't mean that official TMO teachings can be implied to be facts. Tanaats 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying but can you see what I am saying .... If I am writing about Maharishi Sthapatya Veda .... then that is what I am writing about, sorry that is relatively obtuse, but I guess what I am saying is , I am not in a position to add anything to this article one way or the other .... I am just reporting what this organization says about itself. I can't compare it to something else and I can't comment on it. All I can do is report the material ... thats all ... If I want to say something about whether that is verifiable or not ..... well that is another topic. I am not allowed an opinion here. I'm not writing about whether TMO teachings are facts or not I am just reporting.If I am reporting my dog's coat ... the dog I wish I had, I can report on its colour or length , but I can't say , I love this dog's coat or the dog should have a different coat .... I can only say this is the coat she has (I will get any point in about my imaginary dog, that I can:) ...)

I am citing "External Links", as TG had commented on links, and I agree that Wikipedia is not necessarily reliable. Frankly I would never send a student here to look for information. It could be inaccurate or accurate, equally. I am interested in the guidelines and how we interpret them, and administer them. I am commenting on a discussion page, and don't feel its appropriate for you to tell me I'm in for a hard time. This is a game, not life, and I am trying to understand the rules as are we all, if I understand the comments made. I am entitled to discuss as are you and the others, and I am allowed to make mistakes and to come up with insights as are we all.

I think that the linking an article for whatever reason and inside or outside Wikipedia is not a cut and dried situation, and find that Wikipedia itself seems contradictory on this. Its worth discussing.(olive 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

And actually no this isn't about SV, its about Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, and thats a an important distinction, I think. If I were writing about SV than I would have to go to a multitude of references. MSV might be one reference I'd look at,and maybe not. This is the so called "TM" site so I have to work within that boundary, and report on MSV as opposed to SV (olive 22:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)).

My responses:
  • Yes, you are reporting on what the TMO says. So you have to say (figuratively) "The TMO says such-and-so". Is that what you meant?
  • Please don't take offense about the "hard time" comment. I'm just trying to save you some quite certain frustration. People helped me to avoid frustration when I first showed up, and I'm trying to "pass it along". I should have said "you are in for some frustration." If you find that sort of advice unacceptable then I can certainly stop and you can make all the mistakes you want. That will be ok with me, I learned a lot that way too; I found it indeed quite interesting but not at all fun.  :)
  • It it is definitely a cut-and-dried situation regarding the use of Wikipedia articles as RSs. You quite absolutely cannot do it. And in the body of the article you can only link to external pages that are RSs. In "External links", however, you can link to anything that is relevant to the article, it doesn't have to be an RS. Is that what you meant?
  • Sorry, I meant "MSV".
Either I am misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding me or not accepting what I'm saying. In either case, I'm just repeating myself and will drop out of this conversation now. Please don't take offense if I stop responding. Tanaats 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't necessarily expect responses.Some misunderstandings but thanks for clarifications ....enough said(olive 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
Olive, just one more thing. I can think of three ways that a person can go with edits:
  • One can discuss it in order to achieve consensus before making the edit.
  • One can observe WP:BRD. This would mean that you go ahead and be bold and make the edit without discussing it. If anyone objects they are liable to revert it; don't take this personally. If you get reverted, open a discussion on Talk:
  • Be bold and make the edit. If it gets reverted, then revert it back. If it gets reverted again, revert it back again. This is called an "edit war", and I don't recommend it.
In all cases be sure to always make edit comments explaining your edit.

yes thanks, I am very aware of these guidelines. I think there were two cases were i added a letter or replaced a missing word that had no impact on meaning in any way and entered these as minor edits. Are you expecting to be ambushed with an edit war....just kidding(olive 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

No. :) Just exercising my tendency toward pedantry.
More pedantry: Yes, a minor edit is any edit that doesn't change the meaning of the article. It's quite a good idea to mark such edits as minor because many editors save time by setting their watchlists to "Hide minor edits". Tanaats 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A possible approach to fixing this article

I feel like this article has many problems. Some of them we've discussed, such as Otis, Denaro, and undue weight, which are unresolved, as well as many that haven't yet been broached. At the risk of being crucified, I've created a sandbox page in which I list the issues. Ideally this could serve as a guide in helping us to prioritize our concerns and to proceed. And it serves as a cautionary note regarding adding new material, since so much of the material alreardy here has problems.

The list would be to list the points of contention, prioritize them, and then tackle them one by one. What do you think? TimidGuy 17:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A sandbox page is a great place for you to keep notes and do trial runs of articles.... and I am confused at the idea of having two project pages? I am also concerned at the thought of moving dialogue to a place where one editor has editorial control and has the valid ability to erase things at any momemnt. Splitting disucssion off into two places, for one page is something I have not seen done, especially when the 2nd place is not a neutral playing field. Sethie 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Disclosure I am acting as Sethie's AMA. I suggest you move this to be a subpage of this talk section not due to mistrust, but to allow better co-ordination, a more official look, and to reinstate support for a neutral point of view. Computerjoe's talk 18:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
TimidGuy, what I suggest is that you use your sandbox to keep your own notes. Then peel off issues from it a few at a time, in the order of the priority that you place on them. Create a separate discussion section for each one. Then we can discuss each issue individually here. If we don't discuss each of these many issues in separate sections, we're all going to get completely and totally confused, and very quickly. Tanaats 19:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
And if we try to discuss them all at once, rather than prioritizing them for discussion a few at a time, it is also going to create total chaos. Tanaats 19:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ComputerJoe. I hadn't thought of that possibility. I agree that that would be much better. My idea was that all of the discussion of the points would take place here, except for the discussion of priorities. And I imagined that we would all edit the list of priorities.

So far no one has said they like the idea. . . . No point in going ahead unless people feel it's useful. I see it as a vehicle of collaboration as we work to make this a better article. TimidGuy 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest a complete archive of this talk page? I believe it'll make things much more productive as there's over 70 items! Computerjoe's talk 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. I'd have to read up on how to do it, though. Tanaats 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
TimidGuy, I really applaud your taking such trouble to try to get a better collaboration going. Thanks for doing that. I just think that we can collaborate here, a few issues at a time, just as well. You haven't lost any of your effort, as your excellent issues list can still be used.
As for prioritizing, I actually don't have a preference. As far as I'm concerned you can start with a couple of issues of your own choice. Tanaats 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats. Appreciate your kind words. No problem doing everything here.

ComputerJoe, I'd been planning to create an archive for some time -- as you'll see in an earlier thread -- but hadn't gotten to it. I usually do it early in the morning when no one else is around. I'll do it tomorrow morning instead of beginning to follow up on the mediation, as I'd been planning. We do need to decide how much of it to archive. I'd proposed through #44 but I guess we can do more of it. Some of the threads may still be active. TimidGuy 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)