Talk:Transcendental meditation/Archive14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What's the Technique?

Why is there no description of how transcendental meditation is actually performed?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.61.51 (talk)

Because the technique is owned by Maharishi, and if it were described here, that would violate various laws. Several frequent editors of this page are associated with Maharishi, and would take exception to such, as well.Michaelbusch 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This should probably be saved for a users page but since the user has no page I'll put this here with an apology to other editors and will do my best to explain to the best of my understanding. How to teach the technique is known only to the TM teachers and the practitioners who learn the technique. Both are asked to keep this a private matter between the teacher and initiate. The technique relies on the ability to be natural and effortless for benefits, and avoids concentration and contemplation. Discussion of the technique itself predispose expectation and thought about the technique, the very things which will destroy the quality of the experience. Teachers spend many, intensive months in residence learning how to teach so that the technique is always taught over time in exactly the same way safeguarding the technique from subtle or gross changes that would certainly harm the ability to gain the benefits the technique offers if done correctly. Any help?(olive 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
"The TM organization recommends that the TM technique be learned from an authorized teacher only.[78] The fee in the U.S. is currently $2,500."
doesn't that make you figure? That very line is the easiest way to tell the bogus apart from solid health care methodologies that actually care more about your well-being instead of your bank account. I would like to hear about the revolutionary methods, of course, but I think this'll be just another rip-off movement seconded by the Cult of Scientology in getting the most famous face to promote it. Three thumbs down. --Sigmundur 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Try vipassana meditation. They won't *let* you pay. After you have done at least one course, however, they will let you *donate*. But, there is no pressure. Kipholbeck (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If TM is derived from the Vedic tradition, the mantras used cannot be copyrighted. Since the procedure section is actually *absent* from the Procedure section here, I propose this information be included. Unless someone can provide documentation of the purported copyright? Naturezak (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no known copyright on the mantras. The mantras - various sets taught over the years in teacher training - have been publicly available on a website I control for close to fifteen years now, with not a single official peep out of any organization in complaint. Same goes for some of the details of initiation and "checking." Much of the initiation process, in my opinion, is a process of guided expectation-setting and manipulation which makes the experiential process of initiation - including the introductory lectures - a subject that would be difficult to include in a Wikipedia article. Without published reliable sources on this subject, any attempt to tackle this would likely run afoul of WP:NOR. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality and factual accuracy

For discussion of issues underlying the tag Dreadstar † 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking further through the references, it's not as bad as I had thought. Pretty much all the references in the lead paragraph are to tm.org, mum.edu, maharishi.org, etc... none of them "third party". That's why I replaced the "disputed" tag (I didn't tag the article originally). Rracecarr 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me if the article is tagged or not at this point . But....If we want specific information on the technique who would be better qualified to give that information than the organization that teaches the technique. If you are asking an artist what colour combinations she/he used in a painting would you ask around to see if someone else knew or would you ask the expert , the artist who created the painting. This is one place that Wikipedia guidelines may not meet the challenge at hand.Thoughts (olive 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC))
Seems like in this case the sources fall within the restrictions outlined in WP:V regarding use of self-published sources in articles about themselves [1]. TimidGuy 20:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not have much time to analyse all references linked to TM-organisations, but in general: The organisation which teaches/sells a product is only then and only then a "qualified source" if it is acting in a truthful manner. I would NEVER claim a weaponery industry to be a qualified source for an article on weapons, because a weaponery industry could never be able to be truthful. Therefore: The task to the reader is to find out: Who is truthful, who not? A task too big for everyone. Therefore an organisation can never said to be a "qualified soruce" in regard of claims which have to evaluate the organisation and its products.
The way out for organisations who are writing Wikipedia-articles is: Sources linked to itself are fine as long the organisastion/product only has to be described. Sources linked to neutral organisations are necessary as soon the organisation/products has to be evaluated.
Example: Authors X/Y found out that 85% participants of the study showed lower blood pressure (source: www.JournalAB.com; not: www.organisationBC.org/scientific research). The organisation BC interprets this finding as a sign for positive influence on health (source: www.BC.org/scientific research). Author X is connected to organisation BC, yet got a co-author which is not connected to the organisation. The article was peer reviewd by Z and was evaluated in such a way that the authors "examined their theme in a neutral manner" (source: www.JournalAB.com/editorial).
I am not a scientist. But this seems to be the only way an organisation can write articles in Wikipedia so that the articles not only sound neutral but have the character of neutrality. --Josha52 12:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Josha for making this distinction. My point wasn't about the whole article but about specific facts concerning the actual procedure and technique that only TM teachers would have, and for which we needed to use official TM web-sites. Your phrase, "which have to evaluate the organization and its products" and especially key word "evaluate" seem important. Wikipedia indicates references to self publication is ok under certain circumstances WP:SELFPUB. So as I understand it, in the intro.of the article speaking about the actual technique itself and the procedures would be ok since this requires information no one but the TM teachers would have in any kind of really accurate way, and nothing is gained for example by saying , one sits with the eyes closed for 23 minutes instead of twenty, but speaking about the effects the technique has , as in for example the research requires a neutral reliable, verifiable source. I may have not made that a clear distinction. I think we have really "sweated" through the article looking for reliable sources over time. There have been numerous discussions to that point so I think what's there is reliable, but you made an important point and distinction, I thought.(olive 13:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Seems like we're all agreed, then. The references in the first paragraph, which Rracecarr noted as the reason for reinserting the tag, fall within the guidelines. They simply are citing the official TM sites to describe the technique. As Josha notes, it wouldn't be appropriate to use those sites as sources to support evaluative claims, but in this case the article cites research in peer-reviewed journals. It's not really clear why the article is tagged. TimidGuy 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like the tag can be removed then. I'll go ahead an do that. Thanks for discussing! If someone puts it back, then the reason for it's reinsertion needs to be clearly presented here. Dreadstar † 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change

I want to make a addition "In his book Flim-Flam!, James Randi expressed his doubts about the pro-TM research in existence at the time". Since this might be a controversial change, I wanted to discuss it here. Eiler7 00:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Eiler. If I recall, we discussed this extensively back in July. We talked about how many of Randi's crictisms have been superceded. For example, he says that there are no randomzed controlled trials, but 30 years later there are dozens, including studies published in top medical journals published by the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association. We discussed the Wikipedia guideline that says to avoid citing the popular press when adding scientific information. And i tried to give you a picture of how widely accepted this body of research is. And how highly respected the researchers are in the scientific community. If Randi were a scientist who was familiar with current research, it would seem appropriate to add to the article. But he's not an expert on science (specific things in his book demonstrate this), and his book is now nearly 30 years out of date. It seems misleading to reference it. It might be better to find one of the studies that he cites, check to see how relevant the results still are in light of the subsequent research, and then if it's still relevant, cite that study. TimidGuy 11:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You say "specific things in his book demonstrate this". It sounds like you are trying to use your personal opinion in this discussion. That is not appropriate. You need to appeal to policies. You said "it is 30 years out of date". This is, once again, your opinion. Please note that a paper published in 1977 (30 years old) is mentioned in the article. Are you suggesting that anything recent be removed? If so, does any policy support this argument? If not, then you would need to make a case for it. I also checked the guideline that you mentioned and it did not rule out Randi's views. You say the research is widely accepted. However, publication, even in journals, is not the same as acceptance. You seem to be assuming that subsequent research has refuted Randi but, once again, this is not your call. It is "original research" which is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. There is a policy to this affect. Please can you review my suggestion again, not in the light of your personal feelings but in the light of what you can establish in terms of encyclopedia policy. Eiler7 12:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
HI, Eiler. As I understand it, a role of the Talk page is to discuss the merit and accuracy of sources and the expertise of those sources. I hope you agree and can assume good faith. Here's a quote from the guideline WP:TALK: "The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references." For example, I don't think Randi's book is a reliable source. Again, he says that there are no randomized controlled trials. But there are dozens. As a popular writer, he relies heavily on straw man arguments. To my mind, he's not a reliable source for information about science because he has no formal training as a scientist, because he betrays ignorance of science, because his comments are in a popular book that uses the sort of rhetorical approach common to popiular books but not acceptable in science discussions, and because he's making statements that have been superceded by decades of research.
Of course it's fine if you want to cite specific studies, if they haven't been superceded and aren't given undue weight. TimidGuy 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I wrote this and then strangely, it disappeared. I’ll throw it back in even though TG has responded
I was struck Eiler by your concern with the idea that TG was not using Wikipedia policy.
He refers to scientific studies. In the scientific world peer-reviewed studies in a established publication constitutes acceptance, and there are numerous such peer-reviewed studies cited in this article. Wikipedia requires as policies verifiability and reliability. The scientific, peer- reviewed study in an established publication is considered to be verifiable and reliable by all standards, including Wikipedia’s. You also note an early study in the article and question its inclusion. I wanted to mention again Wikipedia Reliability on this topic.
Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and has that change impacted on any of the salient points of the the source information.
The 1977 study you mention is used as an historical marker. The date indicates early research, but the article goes on to cite later research giving the reader a sense of the development of the body of research on the TM technique and as well helps to create neutrality in the section. These are important functions of this early study. Wikipedia Reliabilty also notes: "Historical or out of date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject." Randi’s book is now 30 years old and the research is outdated . We have a marker in the article that indicates historical development, and this is a scientific study - the first line for reliability and verifiability. Randi as a writer, scientist or not, uses research to support an argument in his book. A more reliable way of way of using this material would be to cite the research itself. The research itself seems to be outdated, but if you can find recent studies that support Randi’s claims then I would think that as long as undue weight is considered the studies could be included.
PS I believe OR refers to material in the body of an article but not to discussions on a talk page. Best wishes.(olive 16:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
"In the scientific world peer-reviewed studies in a established publication constitutes acceptance" - I have no idea where you get that idea. A study in Journal of Conflict Resolution suggested that TM affected quality of life in Lebanon. This affect is not accepted by the scientific community. So, in conclusion, publication does not imply acceptance. Can you explain why you think that is true? I cannot see how the facts bear you out. Eiler7 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Publication in an established journal depends on a peer-review - other scientists. The study could not have been published in this journal without the expressed acceptance of the study by the review board.Does this mean that every scientist in the known world accepts every study? No, but it does mean that the study stands up to the standards established by other well-respected scientists (otherwise they could never be on such a board),and that the procedures, conclusions and so on are diligently scrutinized. That's why peer review is so important, so necessary. Otherwise any research could be touted as significant. Standards have been established, and these studies as peer-reviewed must and do meet those standards. Could there be a group of scientists and others who do not accept certain studies despite peer-review? Sure. For an encylopedia and for the scientific world in general though, the standard of peer -review is the best and possibly only way to establish reliabilty and verifiabilty. The term acceptance does not apply to a general feeling of the public or to other scientists who don't like or can't "buy" the research; it refers to the specific scientific community that scrutinizes a study.(olive 02:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC))
Eilier, we want to be careful not to conflate research on Transcendental Meditation with research on the TM-Sidhi program/Maharishi Effect. The latter is indeed a matter of controversy (not uncommon in science). This Wikipedia article is about the former. TimidGuy 10:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not see peer-review as a standard to ensure reliability (although it may help). I have checked some wikipedia pages on science and nowehere does it say that a result is good if published in a peer-reviewed publication. The fact that you think so is not relevant. Science is determined by consensus amongst scientists. TimidGuy, I am not sure what your point is. There has been no conflation. The example I gave was that a result had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and yet was not accepted by the scientific consensus. This is precisely relevant to claims that Randi has been outdated by events. People can try to play the "it's been published so it must be true" card but that is not how science works. One important reason for replication is that peer-review is not intended to catch all mistakes. Science journals with the highest reputation (such as Nature) can insist on replication in order to try to keep out the garbage. One example was a "memory of water" claim which Nature was doubtful about. The replication failed and Nature published that fact too. This is one reason why Nature is in such high regard. Eiler7 11:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Your mention of the article in the Journal of Conflict Resolution seemed to be conflating this research on the TM-Sidhi program/Maharishi Effect with research on the Transcendental Meditation technique. I don't see how it's relevant to Randi's discussion of research on Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy 11:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It is relevant. It shows that publication does not equal truth or acceptance. Just because an article is published in peer review, it does not make outdated any previous view. This is a general point about science. Now, does anyone have a good argument that Randi's book is said to be inaccurate? Like, for example, a statement by an authority. Just citing a study publication is insufficient. Eiler7 12:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, you said. "A study in Journal of Conflict Resolution suggested that TM affected quality of life in Lebanon." I wanted to be clear that this is a study on the TM-Sidhi program/Maharishi Effect.
I feel like i've given many good arguments why Randi's book isn't a reliable source. Including that it is factually inaccurate when it says that TM research has been done without tight controls. All of the NIH studies, for example, have been randomized controlled trials. He claims, without citing a particular scientific studies, that TM is no different from relaxation. Yet several metaanalyses, including one by Dr. Ken Eppley at Stanford, show that the effects are very different from relaxation. He criticizes the EEG research, quoting a scientist who dismisses the notion of brain wave coherence as an artifact of the equipment. Now, 30 years later, this concept of brain wave coherence is widely used by neurophysiologists. The artifacts attributed to the EEG equipment used are moot, given that the research now uses state-of-the-art equipment. He qualifies many statements, saying of decreased lactate, for example, "to date no proof has been shown that such effects are unique or due to TM techniques." Such research now exists. He notes the "pitifully small sample size" of this research (5 subjects) but of course this has now been replicated in many studies involving many subjects. And on and on. Plus, he gives zero citations for his claims. Who knows whether the criticisms that he quotes would have met the standard of peer review. This is just not the way science is done -- finding some critics and quoting them. Science has an epistemology of its own. If a study shows some causal effect, a scientist is free to publish a critique of that study or to see whether the results can be replicated. This is the material from which Wikipedia should draw -- the ongoing dialog of science. It shouldn't draw from an outdated book by a magician. And this is, in part, why the guideline suggests avoiding citing the popular press when referencing science in Wikipedia. TimidGuy 15:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
"Science has an epistemology of its own" - that is not in dispute. Your argument is that Randi is outdated. And yet, you appeal to publications as if publication implies acceptance by science in general. It does not. Thus, your argument fails because it relies on this particular assumption which you have provided no evidence to support. To reiterate this point so it is clear, publication is not the same as acceptance and does not render any viewpoint previously expressed as outdated. Please read the wikipedia pages on Science and confirm for yourself that publication does not imply acceptance. It is extremely difficult to understand your views since it is not clear when you are relying on your personal opinion about peer review and when you are wishing to rely on science's view on peer review (the two seems to be different). If you wish to make points about peer review, please attribute them to a recognised expert on peer review and not just give your own impression. Eiler7 12:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eiler.... some thoughts

Peer-review AND the reputation of the publication itself is a generally accepted method, and i think the word general is important here, for acceptance of research studies in the scientific community. This opinion isn’t just held by a few people but is generally accepted. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t heated discussion in the scientific community about the complete and total reliability of all peer-reviews or that good papers are rejected or poor papers accepted. However the concern here can’t be on a discussions of peer-review in the entire scientific community, but rather on what can be used in Wikipedia as a way of defining what is reliable and verifiable. In Wikipedia, the standard for reliability for cited research is peer-review, and as has been mentioned, the publication itself. Wikipedia on Peer-review:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable publications in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research

Although one could argue these points either in the scientific world in general or in Wikipedia, and the arguments may be legitimate, the standard that Wikipedia editors generally should use and have to rely on is peer-review and quality of publication as Wikipedia states. Arguments could go on forever about the reliability of peer review as I know they have, but peer-review coupled with the “established literature” defines acceptance by Wikipedia standards.

Randi's book is outdated - 30 years is pretty outdated, and the research has been superceded by more recent research. I am wondering why you don't look for more recent research to support your claims.(olive 14:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Eiler, you begin by quoting me but then your statements seem to address Olive's arguments. If you were intending to characterize my arguments, I don't feel you've accurately done so. Among the points I'm making is that Randi's book isn't a reliable source because it is factually incorrect. And I've listed a number of points that are factually incorrect. TimidGuy 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with this TG.The real argument isn't about peer-review. Wikipedia is pretty definite about the standards . The discussion is about Randi's book as a reliable source, and those are the issues that should be discussed. The peer review issue is realy a "red herring".(olive 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

This debate has been such an education for me, I almost hate to see it end! Thanks, guys. I think when all is said and done, the TM article(s) will win the prize for the most rigorously and thoroughly researched article(s) on Wikipedia! Do any other articles receive so much constant attention? Sueyen 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that many criticisms in Randi's book still are valid, but I understand the hesitation of citing a 30 year old source. However, I am surprised that the Alberta study which reviewed meditation research, specifically including TM research, is not included. It found that there are a number of issues with methodology of the research so that little if any conclusions can be drawn as to its benefits. Here is a link to the study: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf It is peer reviewed and a much better source than the Randi source. I suggest a discussion of this study be included. Judyjoejoe (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to religion section

Hi Aksefgh As you will notice this article has been tagged as controversial and as such editors are expected to discuss any contentious material on the talk pages before adding to the article. The material you added is as the archived discussions might indicate very contentious and as well you add the material without citing a source. I have deleted the material and put it here for now. To be added to the article it should have verifiable, reliable references and should as well be discussed in terms of WP:WEIGHT(olive)

Material deleted from article:

Different religious groups, especially certain Christians, see TM as another dangerous branch of spiritualism, where one is drawn into a world of delusion not unlike the life an initiate of a cult lives. Certain people believe that the repeating of Mantras invokes evil spirits and the deliberate emptying of one’s mind leaves it vulnerable to possession by these spirits, which is why adherents feel an inner change. There are various examples of those who at first found TM as a method that achieved the desired results who later suffered ‘nervous breakdowns’, severe depression and found themselves delving into the occult.

[edit] Exspectational effect

Regarding TM-effect on cognitive function: Chalmers did not respond to the Canter/Ernst study in Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift but to an not mentioned editorial of Canter on BMJ. -- Josha52 13:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josha. I was curious who put that in there, and mysteriously there's no record of its insertion in the edit history. I was just about to delete it but then wasn't sure what the problem is. In his editorial Canter refers to this study and the conclusions he drew.. TimidGuy 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right: In one, two sentences he seems to refer also to the Canter/Ernst study (but without any reference). But main subject of Canters editorial are "therapeutic effects of meditation", where the Canter/Ernst study deals with cognitive function. Therefore I think that one should refer to the Canter editorial more detailed in "Effects on physiology", together with a detailed Chalmer reply. On the other side: The editorial is only an editorial, not a study. Relevance? --Josha52 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should simply delete the BMJ reference and instead say, "Researcher David Orme-Johnson has critiqued this study, noting errors and omissions.[2]" TimidGuy 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Davids website is a "only" website. Is it allowed in WP to use it as a source and point of view? --Josha52 18:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right in that web sites aren't generally considered reliable sources. But the exception is web sites of experts who are writing in their field of expertise. David's web site qualifies in this regard. I was once backed up by an Admin on this. TimidGuy 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, think I try it in german WP too. --Josha52 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it to this article. I really like the way you worded it. I think we may want to condense the sentences on the Canter & Ernst study. It's a minor review in a minor journal. TimidGuy 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New structure?

It looks to me like the page should be restructured. I would first like to read what TM is about, then about its history. I think the research review should be last of these three. Piechjo 09:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Piechjo, for the suggestion. I guess one reason the research is so prominent in this article is because that's where most of the documentation is -- not only in the academic journals but also in terms of popular media coverage. Are you suggesting to put the "Theory of Consciousness" section first? I'll be eager to hear what others think. TimidGuy 12:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Piechjo makes an interesting point. Stylistically it seems to make more sense to lay out all of the material on the technique, theory, history and follow that with the research . On rereading the article, though, I realized that at this point the article is organized so that the research which has been done on the technique, and not on the theories follows info about the technique. From that viewpoint, the present organization makes sense. I guess I'd leave it the way it is . Although some readers might want info on the theories, others might approach the science side with more interest. So different editors would see appropriate organization of the article in different ways dependent on their interest.At the same time, if a majority of editors want to change the organization of the article I would be fine with that . (olive 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

If you take a look at Wikipedia's featured articles you see that they are structured diffrently starting with an overview and ending with more specific details. I wanted to know more about TM since it has been in the Finnish media due to David Lynch's promotion visit. I was curious to know more about TM and its connection to religion. There's something about it but it seems hidden and pretty vague. In some parts it feels like this article is made like an advert, or maybe it's just the TM way of talking. Whatever works in the Vedic world may not work in Wikipedia. First things first, alright? Piechjo (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Piechojo for your comments . Frankly I have no idea what "Vedic" has to do with the layout of this article.I wasn't aware of any such information that in any way has to do with the layout of any kind of article. Perhaps you are aware of such info. There are numerous ways of laying out Wikipedia articles and there is no definitive guideline for that. Rightly so, since different kinds of information may require different layouts. However as I said before, I don't think it matters in a general, objective way whether the article is laid out as you suggest or whether it should stay the way it is. I really think this has to do with the subjective approach one brings to the article. I personally don't care one way or the other, but other editors may . There have been many editors working on this article ( the article has been tagged as contentious/controversial) those who are TM supporters and those who aren't so probably a consensus should be reached for the article to be changed in any major way.(olive (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
Aha perhaps you are saying the language seems Vedic to you . Again I don't see that, since actually the Vedic language, if one can say that, is Sanskrit. There has been a lot of effort lately to make sure the article reads in a more objective way and there may be more to do. So, I am very interested, as one editor, in hearing that this is your take on the article, and I'd like to work on that. Thanks for the feedback. TM is not a religious practice,but may be a spiritual practice. I think confusion comes out of the fact that in many western cultures we often do not delineate religion and spirituality. They are not the same thing. Some people may use TM or may define TM as a spiritual practice, and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi I believe has described himself as a spiritual leader. Many people as well have used the TM practice for health reasons and/or to help with stress. It seems to have multiple uses/ impacts.As I understand it:
  • Spiritual practice can be defined as a practice that some people may use to understand or achieve some higher meaning in their lives. I personnaly have no argument with most of the numerous diverse things people do to live lives with meaning.
  • Religion on the other hand, is in actuality, a system of traditions that may give boundaries, form and structure to this desired spiritual life. People of different cultures for example may construct certain practices and traditions around their efforts to live spiritual lives dependent on their cultures.
  • Perhaps spirituality could be defined as this rather abstract, vague in some cases, underlying need many people have to live lives with meaning. Human beings may all have a desire to live lives with meaning or spiritual lives but how they deal with or achieve that will be different . TM might be spiritual in that it is one way to deal with a desire for a spiritual life but it is not limited in any way to any one kind of religion,or culture, but rather for some people could underly religious or other practices rather than is a religion or religious practice itself.
  • In our western cultures we have not separated these two things very well so the ideas seem vague, mysterious, and muddled together.

My take on it anyway.(olive (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

I appreciate different outlooks and ways of expressing oneself. I believe TM can work - that you can develop a technique to practise happiness and emotion. It feels to me like this article differs in its tone and setting from most encyclopaedia articles. One thing to improve it could be to rearrange the sections. I suggest the following:

  1. Procedure
  2. History
  3. Transcendental Meditation communities
  4. Theory of consciousness
  5. Relationship to religion and spirituality
  6. Research on the Transcendental Meditation technique
  7. Transcendental Meditation controversies

There should be some changes within the sections accordingly. Piechjo (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Piechjo. Seems like some good ideas here. I'd actually like to move the TM Communities section to External Links. There are no sources on the Israeli communities, and this section doesn't really seem to add to the definition of Transcendental Meditation. This would help shorten the article, too. Seems like the section on relationship to religion and spirituality should maybe remain in the controversies section, since it's a matter of controversy whether it's a religion. Your suggestions nicely dovetail with Olive's suggestions below. For example, a condensed section on theory of consciousness would be more workable in the location that you suggest. Moving the research will help address the issue of tone that you and Michaelbusch noted. I guess one reason it was so prominent is because that's what dominates the sources, both the academic literature and popular media. But as you say, a different structure may be more in line with the typical flow of an encyclopedia article. Too bad Roseapple isn't here. She's likely away for the holiday. I think she's the one who suggested and implemented the current structure. Eager to know what Olive thinks. Thanks, again. TimidGuy (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, TM communities may not be notable and TG's suggestions for dealing with that seems fine.I hope thats ok with the editor who added that info. I'm fine with Piechjo's suggestions except that I think religion should definitely stay under controversies. I will be leaving town in an hour or so and may not have computer access,so I will not be able to do anything until maybe Sunday.I would like to make sure Michaelbusch is on board, then I think we, or however makes these changes (I could do it Sunday or Monday) could make some substantial and important adjustments to the article.(best wishes all)(olive (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] COI editing on this article

Several of the major editors to this article admit to being associated with Maharishi and his organization, and in my opinion they are consistently slanting this article to their POV. I request evaluation of this by third-party editors, and if there is consensus on it, I will attempt to re-write the article to adhere to WP:NPOV. My previous attempts to do so met with resistance from the editors concerned, hence the problem. Please consult talk Archive12 for past discussions on the matter, and the immediately above section seems relevant as well. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors with admitted conflicts-of-interest include User:TimidGuy, User:Sparaig, and User:Littleolive_oil - see here. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you think is not NPOV? It seems to be an article about a religion, and as such, should be mainly a description of the beliefs. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The lack of mention of any of the controversy surrounding TM in the lead section and the general tone of the article (which strays close to advertisement at points - consider the first paragraph). The description of Maharishi's beliefs, for example, is lengthly, and does not seem connected to the rest - I'd move it to a different article. There is nothing blatant, but the sum total of consistent choices in wording, placement, and emphasis by conflicted editors leads to bias. I would also cut down the total amount of text, which is excessive.
TM is not, and so far as I am aware, does not claim to be, a religion - the article does discuss this. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You've got a good point. At the very least, the lead needs to have a new part on the criticism. I would think M's beliefs are relevant. But I'm not really up on this article. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that TM isn't particularly controversial. If you look at mainstream press coverage, the vast majority of articles are completely positive and mention no criticism at all. A huge number simply report the results of research. Already this article verges in violating WP:UNDUE because so much of it is devoted to criticism. It would unfairly skew things to mention very minor criticisms in the lead. Take the lawsuits, for example, TM has been around for 50 years, and there's been one lawsuit claiming fraud. And that lawsuit was inconclusive. The plaintiff sued for $9 million, a lower court awarded $138,000, and the appellate court overturned that award -- and basically took away any remaining grounds for the suit, which was then settled out of court. Mentioning this in the lead would unfairly highlight something very minor. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Michael, I think you make some important suggestions. I haven't looked at this article in a longtime as a whole unit, and I agree that there is excessive material here that could be contracted. I have argued in discussions that the thing is too long and I believe at one point maybe in mediation this was also identified as a concern. I want to mention that to believe that any one editor consistently selected material so that the thing read in a particular way would be highly erroneous . Remember this article is the result of editing by numerous editors, TM supporters and not TM supporters. That said, I think that some useful changes could be made which would shorten the whole thing and would remove some of the wording that seems to me to be not laymen friendly.

These are the suggestion:

  • Remove a little from the intro . I agree with TG in that the TM technique is what we are writing about here, and there are thousands of people who go about their business everyday and who use the technique without concern. Criticism of the technique itself seems to be less than notable, and I think would violate WP:Fringe -"An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is." and so also WP: Undue Weight. Even in the schools as illustrated in the Malnak v. Yogi case the TM technique itself was not the concern.
  • The article lays out TM effects on "mind and body". The mind aspects or more spiritual aspects are contained in the "Theories of consciousness" section, so this as well as the research on that (follows immediately after the theories) should probably be kept. The section could be shortened and contracted considerably though and this would remove some uneasy language.
  • I think the history section could be shortened.
  • The Malnak v. Yogi case info. could be contracted . I believe one editor did a nice compact version of this and it may be archived so I could dig that up.I'm not sure why that version was never used.
  • The final section contains links that are not compliant since they connect to advertising sites. The section itself could be removed since it may not have much importance or just the links could be removed.Adding the price of learning the technique may make the whole article look like advertising so that could be removed too.

At any rate dealing with these issues will go a long way to removing POV language. I want to mention that both TG and I, and other editors as well have spent a fair amount of time on the different TM articles to remove less than laymen friendly language.There are however numerous editors to consider who have contributed over several years of time and this has been a highly controversial article so and one can't just hack away at articles that other editors have spent a lot of time with.We may however be in position to make the kind of changes that will shorten the article and remove less than acceptable language. I am around today so could do some or all of the editing I have suggested . Then we can see where we are in terms of the article. I won't begin of course, without consensus.(olive (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

I like your suggestions, Olive. I feel like the article is neutral, but there's something that just doesn't feel quite right about the tone in some places. I hadn't been able to put my finger on it. I think you're getting to the heart of what Michaelbusch is talking about. I'd say go for it. TimidGuy (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, Olive: you don't seem to understand WP:COI. You should not be editing this page. You have conflicts of interest, and you admit them. That much is good. But you continue to edit the article. As I explained above, the lead is not the only problem. Please let others edit the article instead of you. I would re-write it myself, but I'm on vacation and not online much. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it up the ladder or stop talking about it- I'm tired of COI being used to harass. If there is something wrong with what they are doing, then they should be sanctioned. If there is not, then you should stop talking about it. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Michael, yes, sadly, this is harassment. Please note this quote from WP:COI,

...are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace.

You will note that I clearly discussed the edits I planned to make on the talk pages, and that the single edit I made as well as the edits I plan to make given the consensus I asked for are reductions in the article. The immediate and drastic effect will reduction of POV or non-user-friendly language, and shortening of the article, both concerns you and I have had. For these to be controversial in any way would be a far fetched view since I will be deleting TM material and not controversial or negative material. I also delayed any other edits because I assumed you might be on vacation and wanted to wait for your return. I didn't have to do that. Its a courtesy I paid you despite your less than civil attitude.Wikipedia doesn't stop because someone goes on vacation or the whole thing would shut down. I did and still do want to wait until you are ready to respond again. You might also check the edits I have done on other articles before you attack this way. Please be discerning when you feel you have to attack an editor. TimidGuy made an minor copy edit for "space". This in no way changes the material in the article in any way.In the end, I don't find your accusation logical, reasonable, fair, or particularly civil and remember as well assume good faith. I hope you have a great vacation. Perhaps we can take this up again on your return.(olive (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Martin, Olive: I am not trying to harass or offend anyone. I apologize if I have given that impression. I am trying to get this article into a form that avoids the subtle NPOV issues I described above. With respect, given their admitted COIs, I don't think TimidGuy or Olive are capable of giving the article objective treatment - I do not refer just to the recent edits, but to the entire history of the article. This is simply due to their point-of-view: because the required edits are subtle, they will most likely be missed by anyone with any strong bias, no matter how objective they try to be. Olive, you are correct that you have tried to explain your edits, but again, I am not saying there is anything blatantly bad with the article - only that it is subtly slanted. I probably edit articles related to my research the same way. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But you see, I know exactly where the problems are, because despite what you might think, all people, practicing this technique do not think or act alike, and as well I didn't write this article, and I am not walking around in some TM induced fog. I find it non-compliant in some ways and it can be fixed, and I feel I do know how to help do that. The door is open for some serious editing right now to bring this article to a WP compliant state. I don't have to be the only one to do this, or the one to do it, but I do also want to be involved in this editing because I know this area. Thank you for saying you might have a difficult time being objective about your own research I can understand and sympathize with that. But once again only parts of this were written by me and none of it is mine. I don't own it and I am not interested in slanting it. And why? Because I respect the Wikipedia necessity for neutrality, and I respect knowledge, verifiability, and truth. Trying to write some kind of article to convince some person to start TM is useless. If a practitioner doesn't like it or finds out something is false he or she can walk away . What good does it do anyone to slant the material and give a false impression. I can't stop you from editing on your own but I would really suggest that you use the people like TG and myself who know this area and I think whose edits have shown that neutrality is something we are very aware of, can contribute to, and care about. All best wishes (olive (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC))
By the way, note that there are two separate threads going which are focused on proposed edits to address tone, this thread and the previous. Those involved may want to follow both. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

@Michaelbusch: As olive mentioned WP does NOT forbide editing while being an expert in a field. But it IS forbidden to mob someone out by unproven statemets as not being "capable of giving the article objective treatment". Second: Not every expert is automatically incapable of being neutral. If this would be the case any scientific writing must be doubted. Third: If you see possibilities to enhance an article, fine! If you are editing in a manner which is in tune with WP’s rules everybody would be thankful. Since the more are helping the less the others have to do. Fourth: One of the rules are: If a lemma is controversal (and there is no doubt that this lemma is) one should NOT start editing without any discussion. Fifth: The older an article the more difficult to rewrite in a whole.

Therefore some techniques have been proven to be practical: Start with the (discussion of the) structure. Since most of the time the material is long time online it does no big harm to an article when some paragraphs come into a new order. As soon the structure is consens, start right away with (the discussion of ;-) ) the first paragraph: Show your alternative, discuss it, and finally replace. Then the next, then the next. (The intro should be handled last, out of logical reasons.)

Every other method, esp. replacing the article in one stroke, is leading to a mass and conflicts with important WP-rules: since naturally there will be many discussion points afterwards, and it is very difficult to discuss all at once.

The more your work is proven as neutral and the more you show up with a broad sense for reality (means: not everything which is real is described by natural sciences, and yet it has its place in Wikipedia) the more everyone will be glad to see a further Wikipedia expert in the field. Because: It is fun to write. But it is not so much fun to defense an article from POV. And be sure: Most, absolutely most edits here were necessary because of the need for POV-DEFENSE: subtle statements, subtle connotations, subtle but totally subjective points of critics NOT because of scientific reasons but because of reasons of Weltanschauung: "We don’t like indian stuff, therefore TM is bad." "We don’t like people who have a global concept, therefore TM is bad". "We don’t like something which does not fit into our purely physical view of the world, and therefore TM is bad." And so on.

I for myself will not show up very often, since I am German and not perfect in English. But I am learning from what is going on here. Be slow. There is NO need to hurry in Wikipedia. Take into consideration that everybody else also does this job in its free time. Means: Give those who are envolved the time they need to react.

Good luck. --Josha52 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Josha, I think you have mis-understood me. My statement above does not relate to TM as pseudoscience - which it may or may not be, depending on if Maharishi is trying to invoke quantum mechanics, or my own beliefs - which are not entirely guided by science. I'm simply concerned about the writing style. I'm not saying Olive, TimidGuy, and any other TM-related editors can't be neutral - I'm saying that it is almost impossible for them or anyone else in their positions to avoid subtle bias. I'm saying that the article needs to be very carefully checked out: dissected down to the last word and put back together again to make sure nothing important is omitted and the wording isn't subtly slanted. As I said, I would have done this myself if I were not largely offline this week. I put this notice here before doing anything because the last time I tried to substantially edit the page, TimidGuy, Olive, and Spariag protested, loudly and verbosely. I could participate in a long discussion about every last wording change, but that thought wearies me and would clutter the talk page with at least several megabytes of verbage. Hence I ask for a third-party review of the history, and a request for something approximating freedom from TM employees and practioners while the article is re-written. For the same reasons, e.g., the article on the Catholic Church shouldn't be edited almost entirely by a small group of Catholic theologians. Michaelbusch (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds acceptable. For my apologize: The article went through many offences of those who are, out of whatever reasons, against TM. Therefore those who wish honestly nothing else then a neutral text are a bit sensitive as soon a new offence seems to start. – Anyway: Try to win the confidence of those who were engaged here. Therefore the procedure I layed out is a practical way: at least for the first big stepps. Another procedure could be: Write the article offline, publish it on your user page and ask for general oppinion. And then follow the discussion for implementing piece by piece. – See: There is NO reason to hurry. If a Lemma is complex and controversal (and this is) discussion IS needed. That this could "weary" you and would "clutter the talk page with at least several megabytes of verbage" is NO argument to avoid discussion. Take a deep breath: and start slowly ;-) --Josha52 (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Michaelbusch, I apologize if it seems like I've protested your attempts to edit. I don't remember that. Could you maybe supply diffs? The only thing I can remember is my long arguments that the article shouldn't be in the pseudoscience category. TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

@Michaelbusch: Saw now a bit of the earlier discussions here (February-April 2007). Wondering a bit. Points around "pseudoscience" don’t seem to be of any relevance here: from whatever side. Because: One thing is the TM technique. Its results have to be described with the best sources available – period. Its theory has to be layed out by its founder has to be layed out – period. This is already well done. The other thing are the mental experiments how to understand its effectivness: all the theories which came up year by year. Fine! Describe the most important of them as a claim of those who establish these theories – and if there are relevant sources who have another theory, also fine: describe them. But: The only one who can decide whose theory is most feasible is the reader and NEVER the author. Not the author has to determine something as "pseudoscience" or "not pseudoscience", but only and ONLY the reader.

See: A lot of things which happen during TM and afterwards are a thing of their own, because they are new phanomena. Means: These things are not in opposite to any old belief, may it scientific of religious or whatever. Therefore the process of building an explanation for these new phanomena is still underway. TimidGuy, olive and all the others know this. Therefore they do NOT say in the article "This is because of ...", but they say: "The researcher think that the reason for this could be ..." And that’s fine! The researchers think so actually! And therefore the article has to mirror this: WITHOUT any comment and WITHOUT any valuation. And if there are relevant sources who have another explanation: fine! Mirror it too! But again without any comment and without any valuation. What I and you and others think of it – irrelevant. We are only the authors of a neutral encyclopädia.

Ok, let’s see, what your suggestions are. --Josha52 (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public RfC post

Michaelbusch, I see that you used slightly different wording in the public post, which may be misleading:

Talk:Transcendental Meditation several of the major editors to this article admit to being associated with Maharishi and his organization, the founders and marketers of Transcendental Meditation. See also the request for comment logged on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

It makes it sound like I'm involved in marketing TM. And by the way, it's not clear in what sense I"m associated with Maharishi, unless you would say that because I use a Macintosh computer I'm associated with Steve Jobs. And your use of "admit to" makes it sound like I've concealed something and then admitted to it. I volunteered the info early on that I practice Transcendental Meditation and that I'm on faculty at Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa. TimidGuy (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, you are employed by an institution that is run by Maharishi and his organization. Maharishi and company founded and market TM. 'admit to' is simply that I asked if you had a COI and you gave the information. That is all that I meant by my wording. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Michaelbusch. I don't know in what sense you would say that Maharishi University of Management is run by Maharishi. It's run by a president and board of trustees, and administratively by an executive vice president and a chief administrative officer. Maharishi lives in Holland. The university is in Fairfield, Iowa. Many organizations have been founded in his name. Maharishi University of Management is one of them. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael,Ya know what? I have no clue what you want. I made a plea with you, clearly, that said nothing about trying to prevent you from editing, but that asked, that two editors who have knowledge in this area be considered. You reply again with conflict of interest charges. I asked very specifically that all edits on the main part of the article be delayed until your return from vacation. That clearly indicates that I have a desire to work as part of an editing team on the editing of this article. I believed I had considered your wishes, and had treated you with respect, and in doing so wanted and suggested that all editors delay any editing. I made a relatively simple edit on the lead that removed significant amounts of what I considered to be POV. I didn't write that lead , Michael, and I have spent time in the past trying to make it compliant. What do you want? Do you really think there is a conflict of interest here? Honestly.. Have you looked closely at the edits we have made here and elsewhere. Both TG and I have never made a secret of the fact that we have affiliation to MUM. Do you have alliations with a university that supports you in any way with furthering your knowledge of science of research. Does the fact that you work in that environment mean that you are not capable of neutrality. Should you then be editing in the area of science. All of the edits I suggested on this article and volunteered to do, with a consensus, where aimed at reducing or eliminating any possible POV. The only changes? No. Just a place to start. Michael , charges that I exhibit COI in my editing does not concern me . I edit with as much honesty as I can muster. POV editing does not benefit anyone as I said before. Who does it serve?, And if another editor comes along and fairly, with a verifiable source and with WP:Weight in mind adds something fair enough. I don't know what else I can say to you.I had thought to recommend the article either be put on the talk pages and edited from there or in a sandbox so that things could move forward. What else can I say.Do you really think its fair and neutral to want editors with knowledge in this area to walk away and leave it . Do you have awareness of what the article was like many edits ago. How many Wikipedia article are either written or edited by experts who know enough about the topics to write about them or help with the editing . How many article would remain unwritten if these people didn't or couldn't edit. Thus we have to assume good faith. The final concern isn't about affiliation according to Wikipedia but whether the editors can be neutral. (olive (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC))
I want to apologize to Michael for the tone of my above post.Its not always easy to be judged in a way that seems unfair, but the tone is not appropriate whatever the reason.I think my sense of frustration leaks through. I feel the door is open to make improvements in this article and its frustrating as well not to get at the job. Many apologies. (olive (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC))
Let’s give him a chance to win your faith. Here I made the experience that edits of somebody who seemed to be in a strict anti-mood (what I do not think of Michaelbusch) changed the article substantially to a better one. At some points there is till some discussion but the article became much more "encyclopedic": reads now much more as a lexical text. I do not mean by this that the english version is in the need of bigger changes: But may be Michael discovers the one or the other detail which could be worded in a still more neutral way. I think that all of you are in the meantime so full of knowledge about the rules of Wikipedia – much more than the majority of all who are editing in Wikipedia – that you should not be in fear of anything. --Josha52 (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes This is the point. Lets edit the thing . If Michael sees non-neutrality in the words can he begin to edit it .... after his vacation of course. I look forward to everyone working on this article and making it stronger. (olive (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC))
Michealbusch will find, as many other editors have, that this article is owned by a cabal of cultic TMers who use the classic cultic methods to pretend they are not skewing the article while attacking editors until they leave. They will discuss and discuss, even appearing "reasonable", but the basic problem somehow always remains unchanged. The obvious clue of this true state to the discerning reader is the suppression of criticism and the excessive reliance on self-published and biased sources, which nearly every objective editor who has been here notes, but there simply isn't the interest to take on this cabal at this time. Until such time as enough Wikipedians care enough about the joke this article has become in being written by the cult's advocates to even bother and exercise the force of majority, more neutral opinion, careful study shows all these critical comments by individual editors are used for is to adust the article to enhance the illusion that the article is balanced when it is not. Other than tagging the article, nothing can be accomplished by a few editors as long as the TMers own the article, and there is no point in inadvertantly aiding disinginuous cultic editors in their efforts to refine propaganda by fostering the pretence that talking will get anywhere. Over and out. --Dseer (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New changes

Since I have not heard from anyone except TimidGuy, and because everyone pretty much agreed that the lead could be changed, I have gone ahead and edited that part of the article to hopefully be more user friendly.I'll wait a few days for other editors to respond since we are going into a holiday period in the US, and if there is still no response, I'll continue editing with the view that no one has objections.(olive (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)) While we're at it moving the research section to later in the article may be more neutral. As per earlier discussions with Piechjo, I'll do that as well.(olive (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive, for moving things ahead and addressing the points raised even as the discussion of process and of participants takes place. I think your changes to the lead are good. If there are no objections to the other suggestions on the table, including the restructuring, please do go ahead. TimidGuy (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Because whatever will happen to the article: The better it’s status before any bigger changes may come the better the ground for forthcoming discussions. --Josha52 (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

«The Transcendental Meditation technique is a component of what Maharishi Mahesh Yogi terms Maharishi Vedic Science»:

This says IMHO that there is objectively something of which TM is objectively part of: if you want so "with Maharishi or not". The sentence is informing the reader that Maharishi is calling this "something" "Maharishi Vedic Science": without any question that this something existed before (could it not be inventend by Maharishi?), and without any question that TM is really part of it (if it existed really before - could it not be that TM was included afterwards?). If you read this from an outside point of view may be you get the feeling as if you do not have any chance to disagree in any way: It IS so - period.

Let’s have a look into the german formulation: «Combined with these techniques and propagated by the organisation are esoteric teachings, the so called Maharishi Vedic Science, which amongst other things includes doctrines of architecture, astrology, music and education.»

I am NOT happy with this "esoteric" thing. But if we look into Maharishi Jyotish or Maharishi Ghandarva Ved or Maharishi Sthapathya Ved we have to acknowledge that from an outside point of view these things look as if being esoteric. What about "spiritual teachings"? Or "spiritual and pracitcal teachings"?

Please see my post more as a question then as a defintive point of view. May be I learn out of this that the german formulation is POV and the english one neutral. --Josha52 (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A sensible point. I've made the recommended modification, including the term "esoteric" which is indisuputable; in English usage, the term encompasses "spiritual teachings". Naturezak (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This translation from the German has quite a negative tone in English. I think I'm going to revert it until we can have a chance to discuss it here. Also, I'm going to change the word "claims" per WP:WTA. TimidGuy (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you give me the German text I am happy to try to make a translation that will comply with NPOV. I see the troublesome word "doctrine" in the short excerpt above. This probably comes from the German word Lehre which can be rendered as "doctrine," "teachings" or "body of work" depending on context. "Doctrine" in English is almost never NPOV so we need to look around for something else. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
@Rumiton: Please see the german WP-article on TM ;-) ! There: Intro. --Josha52 (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Rumiton. We were writing comments at the same time. Here's what I wrote as you were writing your comment. That was exactly the word I noted:
Josha, as I understand it, you were asking a question and not recommending an insertion. I'm not sure I completely understand your point. I'd like to come to a better understanding why this additional content is needed. And I'd like Olive's feedback. She's the one who felt this sentence should be here.
The sentence that was inserted also has some problematic words in terms of tone: "doctrine" has negative connotations. The guideline WP:WTA says not to use the phrase "so-called." Also, Maharishi Vedic Science goes beyond those mentioned, so "comprise" may not be the best word. I'd go a long with a revised version of the sentence, but it would by nice to have clarification from Josha. TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

At all: The only point I have to "critisize" ist this:

The original sentence says IMHO that there is objectively something of which TM is objectively part of. The sentence is informing us: Maharishi is calling something as "Maharishi Vedic Science".

There seems to be no question that this something existed before (could it not be inventend by Maharishi?).

And there seems to be no question that TM is part of this something (if it existed really before - could it not be that TM was included afterwards?).

If you read this from an outside point of view may be you get the feeling as if you do not have any chance to disagree in any way: It IS so - period.

Think that this is an example of those "subtle" POVs which are possibly (!, I am german and can’t understand subtle contexts as you) part of the text and to which Michael was referring to.

Whatever corection may come out of this is fine: for the case there is need of an correction. --Josha52 (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it:
  • Maharishi Vedic Science (MVS) posits and underlying source of existence. The TM technique is supposedly the experienceof this source, and is one arm or experiential aspect of MVS. The other arm describes the theory or theoretical aspects of this so –called underlying source, and the applications this may have. These two arms are subsets of MVS, and the MVS article although not as fully developed an article as the TM article is in organizational terms, the Mother article. Including a sentence on this was supposed to make this point. This is not the first discussion on this sentence. There has never been a good agreement on what if anything should be there so maybe it should be deleted altogether. I agree TG that component may not be a good word. Component implies multiple aspects in my mind, and as I understand it, The TM technique is one of only two aspects or arms.
  • The word esoteric and or spiritual at this place in the article may not be appropriate. Only later in the article does the article turn to issues of spirituality and religion. These are controversial aspects of discussion on the technique and bear inclusion in the article. As befits an encyclopedic article, there is no definitive answer in the article but merely a presentation of the controversial issues. So, I don't think that early on in the article or probably at any place in the article can we assume the TM technique is either spiritual or religious. To make this assumption in context of this article would be POV.
  • I think I understand Josha’s point. We have to remember, though, that nothing in this article may be true. We are describing a theory and practice and the information on that practice, and verifying that this is the best, verifiable information we have on this. I would tend to think that POV word are those words that imply even subtly that rather than this being verifiable information, that this is true information. Words, implying truth, have to be weeded out. Wikipedia in most cases it seems has already identified many such words, so this is not a new phenomenon.(olive (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC))
Let me see if I can rephrase Josha's point. The way Maharishi Vedic Science is presented in the sentence doesn't make clear that it's something that Maharishi created. The reader could assume otherwise. In which case, saying that TM is a part of this science is an unsubstantiated claim and too definitive a statement, therefore possibly violating NPOV. Is that correct? If so, it's possible that this reading could arise because it may not be clear in the reader's mind why this sentence is there, may not be evident that this is simply, to use Olive's words, a pointer to a mother article. The reader could well assume, as Josha seems to be saying, that because definition typically contextualizes something to the familiar that Maharishi Vedic Science is something known to many people and that TM is simply a component of that. If this is indeed the problem Josha is getting at, then Olive could write another version, or the sentence could be deleted, or a completely different approach taken, such as in the German Wikipedia article. For example, "In addition to Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi has also introduced to a wider audience in the west a number of aspects of the ancient Vedic tradition, including Sthapatya Veda (architecture), Ayurveda (health), Gandharva Veda (music), and Jyotish (Indian astrology). TimidGuy (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Joshua is correct in recommending the change. I would not endorse the removal of the sentence; it places TM into a doctrinal context, and is therefore informative of the topic. On the other hand, the proposed elaboration -- "In addition to Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi has also introduced to a wider audience in the west a number of aspects of the ancient Vedic tradition, including Sthapatya Veda [...]" is informative of the yogi, not TM, and therefore wouldn't belong. Naturezak (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy, think you interpreted my thought in a correct manner. The current version — «Along with teachings of architecture, astrology, music and education, the Transcendental Meditation technique is a part of the Maharishi Vedic Science first developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and taught by him and his organization» — is reflecting what I thought to be better in quite a good manner. Sure, TM is the practical aspect and other things are the theoretical aspect. But: I think for a "normal" reader this sounds much to complex and somehow too academic and for my feeling not encyclopadic.

If there would be a easy way to change the order and if you do not mind to delete the "first" (think, "developed" makes clear enough that he M. is the source of all this) I would say: betterment in the sense of WP achieved. Like this: «Transcendental Meditation is a part of the Maharishi Vedic Science developed by Maharishi, along with teachings of architecture, astrology, music and education.» Decide you if it is necessery to repeat often Maharishi’s full name and the TM "technique": It seems to me important that it is once and again said like this, but may be not always. --Josha52 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josha and Naturezak. Seems fine. I'm sorry I initially reverted. (Naturezak I thought you had put back the original version and I hadn't seen Josha's comment above where he was actually recommending it rather than posing it as a question.)
My only question is that it makes it sound like these are Maharishi's teachings. He didn't in any way, or course, originate any of this. He simply encouraged people to look at other facets of the Vedic literature and offered his particular emphases and comments. But all of it is there in the Vedic literature. Take Gandharva Veda. This is a tradition of music that's been in India for thousands of years, handed down within families. Maharishi has simply sought out Gandharva musicians who have maintained the purest form of this ancient tradition and has invited them to perform before audiences of people who have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique. It's not clear in what sense it's Maharishi's teaching, as the sentence says. And as the sentence reads, it makes it sound like he teaches or has taught Gandharva Veda. He hasn't, of course. Nor has he taught Sthapatya Veda or Jyotish or Ayurveda. Maybe I'm just muddled, but would appreciate your thoughts. TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Maharishi Vedic Science is a unique system of thought, developed by the yogi. That it is largely deriviate of Vedic sources is not significantly informative of TM. To respond to your point, TimidGuy, I will assert that to my knowledge these teachings ARE attributable to the yogi; consulting Sanskrit and Vedic scholarship can confirm that what is taught under the rubric Maharishi Vedic Science is not the same as the content of the Vedas. The sentence in the article does not say that the yogi teaches Gandharva; instead, it says that Maharishi Vedic Science includes teachings of music. Nowhere in the article is there occasion to confuse the content of the Vedas (the source tradition) with the content of the Maharishi's system (a derived collection of teachings).Naturezak (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What about "formulated"? I do not think that this intro is the location for going to deep in which sense it was timeles knowledge and in which sense M. rearranged the whole thing, restructured, commented it and made it complete again out of scattered details. This should be the theme of the article on MVS itself. --Josha52 (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be the spanner in the works, but I am not comfortable with this version -in fact very uncomfortable with it. I feel that the information it provides is inaccurate and possibly misleading. That said, the lay reader probably couldn't care less.The sentence was placed here in the first place as an organizational point and to provide a link to the MVS article so that the reader could understand that the TM technique was part of a much larger body of information, a kind of umbrella, and because the link pointed to more complete and accurate information on MVS, as I said, the Mother article, and a more holistic view of all of Maharishi's programs. Noting the four areas we do in the sentence now is highly selective, for no particular reason,(for example, where is medicine/health) and does not describe MVS but lists some practical applications of MVS - an important distinction. MVS as I understand it is fundamentally first and foremost a theory, and understanding of that theory, that posits an underlying source to all of the created world. The TM technique is a method for supposedly contacting that source. The theory has practical applications -medicine music and so on. We have an entire article devoted to MVS, so there is no reason to have anything in this article in my mind unless it places the technique in context. I don't believe context means information about either Maharishi or about some applications of MVS. I think context refers to the over all organization of the entire body of information. I think we have to be very accurate here about this knowledge. There are after all articles about Maharishi himself and about MVS so we don't need this statement. If we didn't have these other articles this would be a different story and argument.If its not important or too difficult for the lay reader to grasp this contextual information then there is no reason to hold on to it.I am deleting the sentence not as a definitive move in any way but so that we can see how the lead looks and reads without it . Please replace it if any editor is attached to it. (olive (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
I guess we don't have consensus, nor a clear understanding of why this is here. In any case, we would need a source, since it deviates from the source that had been given. TimidGuy (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hhm. Nice! Now I went to tm.org and read: "Maharishi first introduced the Transcendental Meditation technique to the world 50 years ago. Since that time, he has revived many other practical programs based on the knowledge of the ancient Vedic tradition of India. You can take advantage of these programs now, even before you learn the Transcendental Meditation technique." This we find under the headline "Explore Related Programs".

Think that this shows that olive could be right: that it is not necessary to mention MVS here.

My question is: What is important? That the reader gets at least a feeling that there is "more behind"? Has WP deliver this information to him? may be WP MUST deliver it in a way, more then with some links in the bottom line of the page? Or is it the other way round advertising IF WP is putting such informations into this intro? Puh ... difficult!

In the german version decision is easier because there strong revert professionals think that the article should show the whole thing. (Well, we do not yet have any article on MVS and so on, therefore - understandable). --Josha52 (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Theories of Consciousness section

As per discussions I have begun to edit for POV. This is a first pass on this section and I'm sure more can be done. We do have to be careful to hold on to the meaning, so there may be times when language is particular to definition of a specific state and no other words will do . I used a format with bold to highlight the levels of consciousness. This may not be appropriate so please change if not.(olive (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Hi olive, one thing I see: "Maharishi’s theory of enlightenment". Is ok for the case that this is a theory’s name. But this isn’t. Then it is not ok, because: It claims "elightenment" as something which is for all the readers self-evident. But there are many opinions which say that something like "enlightenment" does not exist at all. Therefore some other wording should be found (IMHO ;-) What about "theory of consciousness"? Or you make one sentence more, like this: "According to Maharishi normal state of consciousness has the potential to evolve to what he calls enlightenment. He sees seven major states ..." (or so). --Josha52 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes other changes can be made .... The sentence is what was there before but it can be changed.... rushing out now but will look at it tomorrow unless someone else sees it and works on it .(olive (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
Sure, olive, "as before", I know. But by improving the article I see the point I made as a further chance. --Josha52 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea for how this section could be cut by two-thirds, yet be more meaningful for a general reader. Will be back in the morning to elaborate. I feel like we're really building momentum for improving this article. Once this section is condensed, then we can consider implementing the suggestion in a thread above for restructuring the article. TimidGuy (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Olive, you've done a great job of condensing this. Thanks so much. The idea I had is that maybe we don't need to enumerate the three higher states of consciousness. We could combine that into a single paragraph, and simply talk about enlightenment or cosmic consciousness or maintaining transcendental consciousness in activity. In Dr. Travis's three published studies on experiences of higher states of consciousness, his approach, in part, is to refer to the research on the neurophysiological hallmarks of the experience of transcendental consciousness and then show how those distinguishing neurophysiological characteristics are also present during activity in long-term meditators. Instead of referring to higher states, he simply refers to it as transcendence along with activity.
For this section, we could mention the three familiar states of consciousness, talk about the experience of transcendental consciousness and the pioneering research on this fourth state of consciousness. Then mention Maharishi's theory of enlightenment in which transcendental consciousness is maintained in activity, and then briefly Fred Travis's research. It would all be done in one section, rather than two, as it is now. And we wouldn't have bulleted points listing the higher states of consciousness. And we might not even necessarily name them. What does everyone think? The logic would be: what we ordinarily experience, the experience of transcendence during TM (as shown by research), Maharishi's theory of the possibility of maintaining that experience in activity and thereby achieving a state of enlightenment, and then talking about the Travis research, which clearly characterizes the experience using qualitative research and the neurophysiological markers using EEG studies. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Josha, Yes I was agreeing with you , but noting that there is material there that I am reluctant to remove because some other editors had put it there... unless there is a consensus of some kind.
I think Josha brings up, or at least his statement brings up in my mind a important point. As well several editors have made mention of this . We never talk about theory in its most fundamental way . That is what is consciousness... and how does TM work. The article perhaps from its very beginning days, is not necessarily approachable from the lay person's view. TG I think this is a great idea if we can really simplify the language. I wrote a bit last night (couldn't sleep):) that introduces theory in what I hoped was a simple way ...I will include in a few minutes as a possible place to start.It may not be useful, but we can take a look at it. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC))
Yes, olive. See, the thing is: TM is an innocent, simple meditation technique for day to day life. On the one hand. And on the other the article reads very sophisticated, very "scientific". May be this is one of the reasons why some have the feeling "they" (the TMers) are trying to give the whole thing a scientific envelope.
Sure, science has done a lot of work on it, since almost fourty years, and a lot of respectable work too. But in the moment the science thing is dominating the whole of description - sure without any intent! - a subtle POV could be seen in it.
I know what the reasons was for all this: All these attacks against TM instead against the text. But may be this time is over now.
In Germany we have a Wikipedia rule which is called "the grandma’ principle": Things should be understood easy. I know: It’s not possible always; how to describe Einstein’s theories for "grandma’"? --Josha52 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred Travis can't be considered either an objective source, nor a mainstream one. His arguments connecting electrophysiology to phenomenological states is not widely accepted, and therefore his research shouldn't be used to explain TM theory. What I heartily propose is taking a selection of the yogi's writings, and then have this followed by a lay paraphrase prepared by a Wiki editor.Naturezak (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Naturezak. Note that Fred's research has been published in major, peer-reviewed journals, which is an accepted source in Wikipedia. He is highly respected in his field and serves as a peer-reviewer for major academic journals. I can't see any reason why this would be excluded from the article. TimidGuy (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
His publication record does not affirm the veracity of the wider connections made between his research and TM. Any references to his research in this article will need to be carefully vetted, to ensure that the citations actually support statements in the article. That's a procedural point; to respond to the point you raise, I'll repeat that since Fred Travis is actually in the employ of MUM, he cannot be considered an objective source for information about TM. Naturezak (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite theory section

A possible version to follow "Procedure" Feel free to edit or discard just an idea and am not attached.(olive (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for doing that. Looks like a good basis -- just the sort of approach I was thinking of. Seems like a next step would be to add in the research. Maybe I can have a go at it tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory

Theoretically, Transcendental Meditation is a technique that helps to bring the mind from more concrete thought to increasingly finer levels of thought until the mind has moved beyond or "transcended" the subtlest forms of thought to what Maharishi terms, the experience of, the source of thought. Maharishi calls this experience, Transcendental Consciousness. He has labeled, Waking, Sleeping (dreamless), and Dreaming (REM) as the first, three states of consciousness, and Transcendental Consciousness as a fourth state. He goes on to say that the ability to maintain the experience of the fourth state while living everyday life to be an “enlightened” state and terms this fifth state, Cosmic Consciousness. The movement of the mind towards the source of thought is said to create deep rest, facilitating normalization of the bodies’ functions on both the physiological and psychological levels.

[edit] Restructuring

Naturezak. I reverted your changes, unfortunately losing a couple I agree with. Please understand that Wikipedia involves consensus and avoid making major changes without discussion. It's odd that you would start restructuring the article in the midst of an ongoing discussion of how to restructure it. TimidGuy (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly familiar with WP:CONSENSUS; I'll defer my rationale for implementing these changes to WP:CONSENSUS#Note_on_use_of_discussion_page and Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages. My changes were complemented by my participation in the ongoing discussion, and are -- I'lll hazard to say -- neither destructive nor irresponsible. Please let's talk about the changes (And your responses to my Edit summaries) before doing any more Reverting.Naturezak (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to run to lunch. But I really don't agree with the sequence. And I guess I do think it's not responsible to make such a change even as we were discussing the article. I really don't think higher states should go there. The suggestion on the table was to put history first. If you disagreed with that suggestion, you might have said something. And we had consensus among two editors and not objection from anyone else to first rewrite the section on higher states before beginning the restructuring. If you disagreed with that, you could have said something. Any chance you can wait a few days on this? TimidGuy (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Naturezak, thank you for being bold. While not the same in detail, you edits were largely what I would do were I not aware of the probable reactions from TimidGuy, Olive, etc. Hence the verbosity above. TimidGuy: like it or not, you shouldn't blanket revert good-faith edits that aren't obviously harmful, two editors aren't consensus when there are at least three objecting - and have you considered that Naturezak probably started restructuring as a result of there being too much discussion? Michaelbusch (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe I was implementing changes outside the bounds of the discussion: that is, I was raising the point that the sections under contention are in need of much more dramatic change that that being discussed. TimidGuy, reversion of good-faith efforts is de facto dismissal... please elaborate upon your disagreement, rather than saying only that you disagree, so that we can have an exchange of views rather than a duel of reverts.Naturezak (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You are correct - and that was my problem, and one reason why I put up the COI and neutrality tags. User:Philosophus has noted the same effect. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's odd to put the theory of higher states of consciousness under the heading procedure. Higher states have nothing to do with the procedure of the practice. They are the result of long-term practice. And the proposal above was to have the history section precede the higher states section. I guess I'm going to revert again. Michaelbusch, please show me where anyone objected to the proposed restructuring discussed above, as well as the discussed timing of the restructuring. Please follow the discussion. And please don't say that three people objected when in fact no one objected. I am following Wiikipedia guidelines. There's an ongoing good-faith discussion of restructuring. A new editor, who apparently hasn't read that discussion, made major changes to the structure without participating in the ongoing discussion -- in fact, without any discussion at all. In a controversial article such as this it's important to discuss major changes. I've never reverted three times in an article, but this time it's warranted. I have very specific differences of opinion regarding the structure. It's unfortunate to edit war over a change that has nothing to do with content. Please see my edit warring as a strong objection to your understanding of process. And of course to a complete lack of understanding why you would structure the article in what i consider to be an odd way. TimidGuy (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, did you delete a section? Why, when I revert, does it show that I'm adding 3,000 characters. I've got to do something else at the moment so don't have time to study the Diff. I can't understand what would account for 3,000 characters after just glancing at it. TimidGuy (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the changes again. You continue to fail to acknowledge the argument that the theory of higher consciousness serves only to contextualize the goal of TM, which given the current article structure belongs under "Procedure." Simply put, the practice TM is a means of accessing or cultivating those higher states... this seems to me to belong to an exlpanation of what is done, rather than standing alone. If you continue to not understand my reason, please state so. I am within Wiki guidelines to make these changes, and have explained them, yet you continue to revert without sufficient explanation. You'll note that another editor not only agreed with my changes, but agreed that your reverts were unjustified.Naturezak (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Timidguy's COI and ownership issues in his arbitrary and unjustified reversions have been documented, refer to discussion archives. Note that Timidguy consistently leads attempts by TMers to get bogged down in endless discussions on minutia under the guise of gaining consensus while the overall POV and COI issue remains unaddressed, thus bold changes by neutral editors are required despite protests, and will gain support. An obvious example of how this process of subtly citing and twisting words is in the portion on TM costs, which the TMers have wordsmithed a subtly pro-TM version which does not accurately represent the sources and have engaged in subtle information suppression as follows:
In response to what they feel is a high course fee to learn TM, some former TM teachers offer instruction on their own. Other former TM teachers, critical of the organization, have published what they claim to be TM mantras. TM Independent says it is their goal to make TM available at an affordable price. Natural Stress Relief states that the technique they offer does not consist of the Transcendental Meditation program.[1] The TM organization recommends that the TM technique be learned from an authorized teacher only.[2] The fee in the U.S. is currently $2,500.[3]
A more accurate and neutral version would read: The U.S. fee for learning TM is currently $2,500. [4]. In response to what they feel are excessivly high fees to learn TM, some former TM teachers offer related instruction on their own for significantly less cost. TM Independent states their goal is to make TM available at an affordable price. Another organization, Natural Stress Relief states that the mantra technique they offer does not consist of the Transcendental Meditation program [5], but "leads to the same deep state of restful alertness as the Transcendental Meditation technique, although several basic aspects of NSR are quite different as compared to TM". Other former TM teachers, now critical of the organization, have published what they claim to be the formula for TM mantras.[3] The TM organization states that the TM technique "must" be learned from an authorized teacher only.[6]
The article needs major changes, regardless of whether the TMers with COI agree or not.--Dseer (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That first version is somewhat confusing. Why mention "Natural Stress Relief" by only saying that it's unrelated? Also, using "recommend" doesn't seem supported by the source given. As for the minet source, it is somewhat more complex. I would support using the latter version with the minet claims removed for now. I expect the dispute there is based on copyright, and the policy of not linking to sites that we know infringe someone else's copyrights due to the risk of contributory infringement. Generally this is for obvious, blatant violations like links to films. Minet isn't nearly as clear: even if there can be a strong copyright claim, it seems quite probable that the site would have a relatively strong fair use defense due to the content being used for criticism. Besides, we have 09F9, which is far more questionable. But I'm not a lawyer, and we probably should get other opinions on this from editors more knowledgeable in the matter. --Philosophus T 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This I agree with you on. I attempted to do this before - but edit-warring and blanket-reversion were the result. They seem to have happened again. Hence I flagged COI and NPOV and asked for external evaluation - and was promptly buried in a sea of verbage. The TMers are most zealous, at least. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Philosophus, you hit upon the key point of why COI editors dominating this article need to be curtailed. The current version of that section is intended to be confusing and inaccurate to present TM in a better light. Obviously, the source does not say TM recommends, it says "must", but "recommends" is more palatable editorializing. The cost of $2500 should be first to make the rest of the paragraph make sense. Taking words out of context to stress that a technique is not TM when the point is they claim to be just as effective without all the TM baggage is a deliberate attempt to obscure the issue. Since TM does not acknowledge the validity of the list of mantras in the first place, they would seem to be subject to fair use. At a minimum, the sentence should state that this list is published on the internet. But the loyalty here is to the TM organization, not Wikipedia.--Dseer (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Naturezak, how can I fail to acknowledge your rational when we haven't even discussed it? This was the first time you presented your rationale -- after reverting three times. I don't agree with it. Michaelbusch, if you had an opinion about the structure of the article, why didn't you state it in the previous discussion? If you read it, we were trying to address issues that you raised in your RfC. We were talking about restructuring the article as one means of addressing your criticism.

For the third time: please read the edit summaries, and elsewhere on this page where I explained the rationale for each change. You inappropriate took it upon yourself to reject those good faith, non-destructive emendations, without explaining why.Naturezak (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, your COI allegations are harassment. You posted 6,000 words of allegations on the COI noticeboard without giving a single mainspace diff showing problematic editing. No one has ever documented problematic editing on my part. Michaelbusch, please show problematic diffs, and please do so on the COI noticeboard rather than here. Dseer,please note the section that you cite is sourced to commercial web sites, and is something we need to address. But please do it in a separate thread. I would really appreciate if you would move that part of your comment. It's disruptive of this discussion. TimidGuy (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, drop the false pretense, its getting old. I actually tried working with you until I found out what you were up to, and let me warn you you are not telling the truth once again and I can prove it if you want to take it to arbitration. The archives clearly show quotes from the COI noticeboard you were directly told you had a prima facia COI problem by the neutral editors involved. You were even pointedly called "disingenuous" for your claims COI didn't apply to your edits by one of the senior editors there, and I don't think I have to tell you what the short term for that is! You should just recuse yourself from anything except an advisory role here as the COI editors asked you to do. The article needs neutral editors, not "experts" whose loyalty lies not to wikipedian or academic standards but to apologetics for the TM organization. Let's see if you can get away with diversion on endless minutia, subtle personal attacks and misframing, and tendaciousness this time as you have in the past. --Dseer (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving COI Problem

Timidguy, I invite you to responNaturezak (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)d to the claim made by MichaelBusch that you should not be editing this article.Naturezak (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not coincidentally, this has been discussed in threads above. TimidGuy (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussed but not resolved.Naturezak (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll summarize the discussion above. Michaelbusch doesn't understand the policy. And this Talk page is not the place for discussing it. TimidGuy (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A stumbling block to consensus on the changes needed in this article are your reverts, which seem to follow from your COI rather than a NPOV. In order to calculate the weight of your arguments, your fellow editors need to be assured that you are following the same standards that they are. Since we are not, your justification of habitual reverts seems less sound. If we are planning consenus here, the perception of your COI is centrally pertinent.Naturezak (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
My reverts were because you made a major change without discussing -- and one that I didn't think was sound not from any content issue but from a writing issue. Also, it was against the consensus in an earlier thread. Please read WP:AGF. TimidGuy (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You do not own this article and should not be reverting in this manner anyway. AGF is conditional, your COI has been established and you've been told you should not be editing the article. Therefore, you should only be advising, and editors do not have to obtain your agreement. Recuse yourself now. --Dseer (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:AGF, you should NOT have reverted. This is not the first time you've directed this discussion to a procedural page, instead of explaining yourself directly. My edits were made in good faith, and your reverts were excessive and contradictory to good faith. Furthermore, my edits were not against any consensus. If my writing was problematic, you would have been welcome to emend the offending portions or to make explicit criticisms in discussion. Instead, you chose to exert an inappropriate ownership of the page. Ironically, your clearly established (it is approaching consenus) COI means that instead of unusually broad authority over this page, you should have much less than usual. I second Dseer's recommendation that you recuse yourself, and agree not to revert the page in this manner in the future.Naturezak (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I stand by what I said. There was an ongoing discussion of restructuring the article. There was tentative consensus among three editors and no dissent. You made a major change to the article structure and three reverts without any discussion on the Talk page, even after I asked several times that you do so. In addition, we had a tentative consensus not to restructure until we had revised a major section. You acted outside normal Wiikipedia process, even after one of my first actions was to go to your Talk page and point you to the guideline on consensus. It was all very odd.
Nevertheless, I apologize for reverting. Let's put it behind us. I still would like the history section to come first, as suggested in the earlier thread. But I do think your sequence could work, too. But I'd really like to have it separated by a header. And, as discussed, that section could use a major rewrite. More later. TimidGuy (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toward Consensus on a New Structure

I propose that "Theories of Consciousness" be merged into "Procedure," as they explain no aspect of TM except its operational goal. The new Procedure section might look like:

The goal of long- term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique is enlightenment, according to Maharishi. He posits a theory of enlightenment comprising seven major states of consciousness. The first three, Waking, Dreamless Sleep, and Dreaming, are commonly known. Transcendental Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, and God Consciousness describe aspects of what Maharishi calls enlightenment, a state in which the human being is said to be fully developed, and which is the goal of the TM technique. The seventh state, Unity Consciousness, is said to be a state in which all of the aspects of life are seen as expressions of one's inner life. The TM technique is taught to new practitioners in a standardized, seven-step procedure, comprised of two introductory lectures, a personal interview, and a two-hour instruction session given on each of four consecutive days. Instruction begins with a short ceremony performed by the teacher, after which the student learns and begins practicing the technique. Subsequent sessions are said to provide further clarification of correct practice, as well as more information about the technique.

The yogi's assertion that TM is derived from ancient Vedic traditions should properly be moved to the head graf. These changes would fit into a streamlined site structure more mindful of NPOV, since they would provide fewer opportunities for editorialization. At present, the research portion of this article skews POV considerably; the quantity of citations serves to augment the reputation of TM, rather than to inform the reader. I propose the following structure:

0 Intro 1 Procedure 2 History 3 Research 3.1 Physiological effects 3.2 Medical studies 3.2 Cognitive studies 3.3 Funding and sponsors 4 Transcendental Meditation controversies 4.1 Relationship to religion and spirituality 4.2 Cult accusations 4.3 Kropinski v. WPEC 4.4 Butler/Killian vs. MUM 4.5 Consciousness and the unified field 4.6 Issue of cost 5 Intentional communities 6 References 7 External links 8 Further reading

I hope we can sustain a focused discussion here and quickly reach a reasonable consensus. Article protection in this case seems to be an outcome of stubborn refusal to participate in conversation... we can do better. Naturezak (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I venture that article protection results more from refusal to accept change. However: your outline looks reasonable - although the text itself is where the controversy is. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm out of time today. Will be back tomorrow. I guess I don't understand your accusation of my stubborn refusal to participate in conversation. You were the one who made the major changes without first discussing -- and without attending to an ongoing discussion on this very topic. And unless I missed something, you reverted three times without first saying a single word about your rationale. And i'll tell you right now that I have a full time job and have gotten behind in my work today, thanks to our edit war. Please tell me what you consider what you mean by quickly.
In any case, I really really appreciate the fact that you've started this thread and are now open to achieving consensus. Michaelbusch, it is my belief that the protection results from Naturezak having made a major change to structure without presenting a rationale even while there was ongoing discussion of restructuring the article. TimidGuy (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The protection results from you and Naturezak edit warring. The conventional Wikipedian view would most likely be that you are both equally at fault. --Philosophus T 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I want to note that this article was protected after 1) I made bold, good faith changes, that transcended those under discussion; 2) Timidguy persisted in reverting those changes rather than making his own edits or providing a critique in discussion; and 3) Timidguy presented the issue to the admins as an edit war at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_in_process. In the future, I hope that all editors at this page will engage in discussion before claiming their objection to an edit as an incident. Naturezak (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
After having carefully read through the discussions, I participated to a limited degree in the ongoing talks but also decided to follow the doctine of Being Bold and implement changes that went beyond the minutiae under discussion. My rationale for each edit was given in the Talk page and in my edit summaries, to which I directed your attention. Since you seem unwilling to allow other editors to make changes before you have approved them, I've tried to be clear about what I propose in good faith to do, and why. What shortcomings do you see in this modified structure?Naturezak (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Naturezak. I can't find anyplace on the Talk page where you discussed your rationale for the new structure until you had first added it to the article and then reverted my reverts three times. I welcome you to show me diffs. TimidGuy (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to look yourself; my contributions are clearly marked with my username, and my edit summaries are succinct.Naturezak (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I sidetracked things. I like your writing and feel like you're a good writer. I guess my only question is that I really would like to incorporate the research on Transcendental Consciousness and higher states of consciousness in this context. Rather than continue here, let's do it in the thread that Olive started.
Regarding your outline, I think it's basically fine. I made a more detailed comment in another thread. Which was -- I was inclined to put the history section before the theory. But I could accept your structure and see how it could work. I would think that incorporating research would entail giving theory a separate header. Note that there's a significant body of research on Transcendental Consciousness, that is, studying physiological and neurophysiological parameters during meditation. The pioneer research was done by Benson and Wallace at Harvard. The first study was published in 1970 in Science. I would combine the lawsuits into one section, as it is in the current article. Otherwise, it gives them undue weight. The Kropinski lawsuit is basically meaningless -- just one person's opinion. He sued for $9 million. A lower court dismissed some of the claims and awarded $136,000 on remaining claims. The appellate court overturned the award, dismissed further claims, and remanded two claims to the lower court. The appellate court also disallowed the testimony of Margaret Sanger, which was the cornerstone of the plaintiff's case, pretty much undercutting the entire case. The suit was then settled out of court in a confidential settlement agreement. By the way, when I say undue weight, I'm using a shorthand to refer to a particular policy. I tend to assume participants here are familiar with the policies. If that's ever not the case, please let me know. We need to avoid multiple threads. Maybe consolidate this in Olive's thread? Or refactor the discussion? TimidGuy (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that in the thread above I suggested moving intentional communities to the external links section. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Moving the "intentional communities" section to external links is something that can be agreed upon, at least. How is it done when the article is protected from editing? Roseapple (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Including theories of higher states of consciousness in a "Procedures" section would make sense if the section were renamed; what about "Procedure and Theory"? Roseapple (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with both these proposals. The elaborate discussion of theory really does not belong here.Naturezak (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thanks to both of you. I concur as well. Roseapple, as I understand it, if we can come to consensus, then the protection is lifted after seven days. Then we can insert the material that we've developed and do the restructuring. I'm really excited to be making progress on this article. TimidGuy (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to start a thread for each section of the article and to paste comments so far. Hope this is ok with everyone . This way should be easy to respond in the appropriate section and to see what is going on . If I should miss a comment please don't think this is intentional. Just add your comment to the appropriate thread. (olive (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Other possible editing solutions

While I wrote this the entire discussion seems to have progressed remarkably but I will post this anyway. Perhaps there are solutions here.

I think the syntax edits are fine.

  • The theories material is in actuality not part of procedure. Procedure here is referring to actual teaching procedure, while theory refers to how the technique is said to work. I have been rewriting something for the theory section because even what we have now is somewhat removed from the technique itself and too long with too much laymen unfriendly language. I am not attached to this new version, and actually would like to edit it more myself, but maybe it’s a starting place. Some material could be added if necessary. I was pretty brutal in my editing. Please see discussion above where I posted a possible new, much shorter version of “theories” section.

Would editors feel more comfortable with a section that just says "Theory" and that follows "Procedure". This way all of the material on the technique itself is sequenced indicating logical progression from actually learning the technique to the mechanics and outcomes of doing it. This heading eliminates some “unfriendly language”.

  • I have also worked on a much shorter history section from which I removed anything that didn’t refer to the technique and its teaching. Again not attached to it. It may be too short but again just a starting place. I will post the “history” rewrite below the “theory” section above. My thought is to put History at the end of the article.
  • I don’t mind placing “Consciousness and the unified field” under controversies.
  • I think “lawsuits” is a different situation, though. These aren’t controversial they are just lawsuits. So I would vote they have a heading of their own.
  • Issue of cost is a section that I would actually consider removing. The links provided are not Wikipedia compliant since they link to commercial sites. As well does adding the cost of starting the technique seem like advertising?

Once the links are removed and the cost of starting are removed there’s not much left in the section. I see that there is a new suggestion on the table about this section so I'll look at it. My above comments may be moot If the section remains I guess it is about controversy, so could go under that section. However I think we have to be careful about undue weight here so that must be considered in editing.

  • Somewhere in an archived discussion there is a nice compact version of Malnak v Yogi – actually readable.

I realize this is long but we are dealing with multiple, major edits to this article. I am attempting to lay out solutions based on past discussions without resorting to an edit war (which seems to have already happened as I wrote). (olive (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

YOU WROTE: The theories material is in actuality not part of procedure.
I had eliminated the theoretical discussion, as well; the yogi's Theory of Consciousness merits its own article.
YOU WROTE: I have been rewriting something for the theory section
We can't evaluate it until you present it; please focus on the proposals that have been brought forward rather than directing discussion to unseen alternatives... we can
YOU WROTE: Please see discussion above where I posted a possible new, much shorter version of “theories” section.
I propose eliminating the section altogether.
YOU WROTE: These aren’t controversial they are just lawsuits.
Controversy is that which is controversial; a lawsuit meets this criterion.
YOU WROTE: Adding the cost of starting the technique seem like advertising?
It is neither advertising, nor critical... the mandated cost of learning this method is factual, and I think a relevant feature of the article.Naturezak (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Naturezak. I am commenting on the theory of the technique itself which is not part of the teacher's procedure. Thus I suggested these procedure and theory be separated. You can suggest removing the theories section.I would suggest that a condensed form is important in the article since the practice of the technique supposedly gives rise to certain markers discussed as as higher states of consciousness.
Some of these comments are your ideas/ suggestion as are these mine. I am suggesting solutions civilly. This is a discussion and I have yet to see a consensus on anything here. Please note as I said the theory /history rewrites are here on the talk pages .... I just moved them to make them easier to find - see immediately below the last post you made.I apologize if they were difficult to find.
I did not say commenting on the price of beginning TM was advertising. I asked if any editors thought it was. The article in past discussions had been cited for sounding like advertising.
A lawsuit is a response to a particular situation, in this case concerning the TM technique.The controversies, as they have been noted in this article are about controversy surrounding the the technique itself.I would therefor separate these two subject areas. Please note also that all of my points have been mentioned in the recent past discussions of this article, and are not new, but are responses to a collected effort to make the article more neutral and shorter. You may not have been present during those discussions.(olive (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC))
I have reviewed all the discussions. Lawsuits are self-evidently controversial.Naturezak (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
sorry rewrites are actually below my post.(olive (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Possible draft rewrites for "Theory" and "History" sections

Theory

Theoretically, Transcendental Meditation is a technique that helps to bring the mind from more concrete thought to increasingly finer levels of thought until the mind has moved beyond or "transcended" the subtlest forms of thought to what Maharishi terms, the experience of the source of thought. Maharishi calls this experience, Transcendental Consciousness. He has labeled, Waking, Sleeping (dreamless), and Dreaming (REM) as the first, three states of consciousness, and Transcendental Consciousness as a fourth state. He goes on to say that the ability to maintain the experience of the fourth state while living everyday life is an “enlightened” state and terms this fifth state, Cosmic Consciousness. The movement of the mind towards the source of thought is said to create deep rest, facilitating normalization of the bodies’ functions on both the physiological and psychological levels.

  • An idea was to add research here.

History

In 1957, at the end of a festival of "spiritual luminaries" Mahesh Yogi]] (or simply "Maharishi" to followers) inaugurated a movement to "spiritually regenerate the world. The official TM website indicates that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its inauguration including such well known personalities as comedian [[JerrySeinfeld] Dolly Parton, Andy Kaufman, The Beatles, Beach Boys' Mike Love, Stevie Wonder, and Al Jardine, jazz musicians Eric Kloss and Charles Lloyd, actor Stephen Collins, radio personality Howard Stern, actor Clint Eastwood, film director David Lynch, actor Hugh Jackman, inventor and author Itzhak Bentov, Scottish musician Donovan, actresses Mia Farrow and Heather Graham , and [[Deepak Chopra. Political leaders who practice TM include Joaquim Chissano

In the early 1970s, Maharishi launched a "World Plan" to establish one Transcendental Meditation teaching center for each one million of the world's population. Today, The Global Country of World Peace is the name of the organization through which the TM technique is taught.

(olive (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] TimidGuy et al and COI

TimidGuy is once again disingenuous and since I'm accused of harassment I'm calling his bluff. If TimidGuy considers speaking the truth about his COI and article ownership "harassment", as all other attempts at resolution including the COI Noticeboard have failed, I encourage him to walk his talk and take me to arbitration where we can resolve this once and for all with appropriate penalties for the offenses.

The following is taken verbatim from:[4].

After much debate at the COI noticeboard, in response to concerns originally raised by Philosophus which I followed up on, it appears that there is a significant body of agreement among three expert, senior editors there, Durova, Tearlach and Athaenara, that WP:COI means what it says, and that it is not necessary to demonstrate anything more than an editor has or reasonably appears to have a Conflict of Interest. One does not have to also show that a given editor is not a "good editor", or that "bad things will happen if they don't edit the article" on the main page. Attempts to refute such "waffle defenses" are unnecessary and only muddy the water.

As Tearlach has stated in clarification: A basic report of COI just needs brief evidence of the relationship ("editor X is chief of Y's fan club - see Google/diffs/whatever"). And reams of "oh but everyone says I'm a good editor and Bad Things would happen if I stopped" waffle in defence are irrelevant. If such a relationship has been shown, editor X should follow the advice at WP:COI full stop."

Tearlach also said: "One possibility for cutting to the chase: do we need to get bogged down in discussions of whether an editor with a demonstrated COI is editing fairly? Seems to me that WP:COI is as much about being seen to avoid COI, as it is about actual proof/disproof that a known COI is biasing edits. I might be the most objective ever editor of the article on the hypothetical Tearlach Wonderful Products Inc of which I'm CEO, but there would always be some level of suspicion if I took a leading role in editing it: reason enough that I should stick to the Talk page so that propriety was seen to be observed.".

Durova said: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles. The particular reference in question appears to be published legitimately and appropriate as a reference source. I suggest an article content request for comment to settle the particular debate. I hope that resolves the problems, but in case it doesn't the likely alternatives are this: a user conduct request for comment and an eventual arbitration case, which would likely end in article paroles on TM topics. Another experimental option is community enforceable mediation."

Athaeanara said in follow up: Durova said: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles." Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book. Wikipedia does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens..."

Additionally, Ed Johnston noted the concern for the dearth of criticism was valid and was something to work on. And the header has been changed to note that "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents related to the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline: that is, situations where an editor appears to have a close personal or business connection with the article topic."

In summary, TimidGuy, such a COI relationship has been established for you in particular to the TM organization, as confirmed for you by three senior editors at the COI noticeboard whom I have quoted (resulting in clarification of header guidance to clarify who it applies to), and that there are no follow up statements by the other senior editors there supporting your position on why COI requirements don't apply to you because of the "good editor" defense you raised, and can also be shown for the other TMers in the original COI complaint in general, by Philosophus.

It's time you stop fantasizing, dissembling, and spreading misinformation about the decision about the problematic and damaging nature of your editing and ownership history on TM related articles, TimidGuy, and recuse yourself to an advisory role, the only appropriate role you have here now per Wikipedia standards. The issue has been fairly decided already, TimidGuy, you just won't accept the verdict. Otherwise, if you continue despite this warning to block attempts to make this article more NPOV as you have done in the past and if you refuse to take this "harassment" to arbitration, I suggest concerned editors consider taking you to arbitration to enforce the decisions of the COI noticeboard which you have ignored, so we can resolve this once and for all and get on with a more NPOV article. The only reason I haven't confronted you recently is there are so many TMers with COIs editing here backing you up it requires a body of neutral editors to make it worthwhile. Since you have exceeded your authorized role in editing on this article, I submit and will support a determination that more neutral editors do not need your agreement or consensus from TMers to proceed. --Dseer (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:HARASS, especially regarding your suggestion above that I recuse myself. If you feel I'm in violation of COI policy, please do take this to Arbcom. And in doing so, please heed the advice that you received from those involved on the COI Noticeboard. You need to make your case by showing problematic mainspace diffs. TimidGuy (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Yogic Flying

IIRC, the yogic fliers claim that they fly as a result of this technique. Well, more like hop... using their leg muscles... but they CLAIM they can fly. Should this be noted in the article? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That particular claim has been discussed in Maharishi's biography. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Titanium. See TM-Sidhi program. Yogic Flying is a facet of the TM-Sidhi program, which is different from Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to TM article AND Beginning of threads on discussion of changes to TM article

recently changed.Is it ok as is?(olive (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

I suggest using:

Transcendental Meditation, or TM, is the trademarked name of a meditation technique introduced in 1958 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The twice-daily practice involves closing one's eyes and sitting for twenty minutes without concentration or contemplation.

The clause "is said to be effortless" is not helpfully informative, and is redundant with the non-involvement of concentration.Naturezak (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree to remove clause on "effortless"(olive (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC))
It's true -- probably no one understands that. Thanks. I concur. TimidGuy (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Procedure

consensus to combine with Theory

[edit] Theories

[edit] Rewrite version 1.... Includes Procedure and Theory

The goal of long- term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique is enlightenment, according to Maharishi. He posits a theory of enlightenment comprising seven major states of consciousness. The first three, Waking, Dreamless Sleep, and Dreaming, are commonly known. Transcendental Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, and God Consciousness describe aspects of what Maharishi calls enlightenment, a state in which the human being is said to be fully developed, and which is the goal of the TM technique. The seventh state, Unity Consciousness, is said to be a state in which all of the aspects of life are seen as expressions of one's inner life.

The TM technique is taught to new practitioners in a standardized, seven-step procedure, comprised of two introductory lectures, a personal interview, and a two-hour instruction session given on each of four consecutive days. Instruction begins with a short ceremony performed by the teacher, after which the student learns and begins practicing the technique. Subsequent sessions are said to provide further clarification of correct practice, as well as more information about the technique.


[edit] Rewrite:version 3- Includes Procedure and Theory

A combination of rewrites 1 and 2. Rewrite 2 removed by editor who wrote it as redundant and probably not usable.

Important to note that the theory itself is based, fundamentally, on the experience of Cosmic Consciousness(CC) in which Transcendental Consciousness has become a stabilized state even in everyday activity.This is said to be the state of enlightenment, the goal of the technique, so we should, I think include some simple explanation of CC. God consciousness and Unity Consciousness are in a sense extensions of CC, so some simple mention of them should be made to complete understanding of the connections of the different states.


Maharishi posits a theory of enlightenment, the long term goal of the TM technique, to be comprised of seven major states of consciousness. The first three, Waking, Dreamless Sleep, and Dreaming, are commonly known. Transcendental Meditation, theoretically, brings the mind from more concrete thought to increasingly finer levels of thought until what Maharishi terms, the source of thought is reached. Maharishi calls the experience of the source of thought, Transcendental Consciousness. He describes Transcendental Consciousness as a fourth state, and says that the ability to maintain the experience of this fourth state while engaged in everyday activity to be a fifth, “enlightened” state, called Cosmic Consciousness. God consciousness, in which the practitioner is said to experience Cosmic Consciousness in addition to refined perception is the sixth state, and Unity Consciousness in which all aspects of life are said to be seen as expressions of one’s inner life, the seventh state. This movement of the mind towards the source of thought is said to create deep rest, facilitating normalization of the bodies’ functions on both the physiological and psychological levels.

The TM technique is taught to new practitioners in a standardized, seven-step procedure, comprised of two introductory lectures, a personal interview, and a two-hour instruction session given on each of four consecutive days. Instruction begins with a short ceremony performed by the teacher, after which the student learns and begins practicing the technique. Subsequent sessions are said to provide further clarification of correct practice, as well as more information about the technique.


[edit] Procedure Rewrite

No need to explain that theory is included in the section title; this is strongly implied by the actual content, as well as being neccesary for the procedural steps to be more clear than mere jargon would be. Please note that I have removed the contestable assertion "This movement of the mind towards the source of thought is said to create deep rest, facilitating normalization of the bodies’ functions on both the physiological and psychological levels;" is physiologically meaningless.

According to Maharishi's theory of enlightenment, there are seven levels of consciousness. The attainment of the highest of these is the long-term goal of TM.

The first three states -- "waking," "dreamless sleep," and "dreaming" -- are commonly known. Progressing through increasingly finer levels of thought, the activity of the mind next reaches what Maharishi identifies as the "source of thought," the experience of which is called "Transcendental Consciousness." When practitioners use TM to continue to experience this fourth state even during everyday activity, they are said to have reached an enlightened state called "Cosmic Consciousness." In "God Consciousness," the practitioner is said to experience Cosmic Consciousness augmented by refined perception. Finally, when through the use of TM the practitioner perceives all aspects of life as expressions of one’s inner life, they are said to have attained the seventh, highest state: "Unity Consciousness."

The TM technique is taught over four consecutive days. An introductory lecture is given on both the first and second days. The next day, the instructor conducts an interview of the student. On the fourth and final day, the instrucotr performs a brief ceremony before giving the student two hours of instruction in the technique. In subsequent sessions, the student practices the method, and the instructor provides clarification of correct technique.

IMPORTANT: This section includes NO information about what the practice IS. Therefore, this is "TEACHING" rather than "PROCEDURE."Naturezak (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Its late now but in my mind there is much to discuss here. I can't agree with all of what you say,and there may be information that is not quite accurate. Research on the TM technique indicates that the function of meditating produces physiological benefits that bring the body closer to states of optimal functioning, for example high blood pressure may be brought within closer range of normal blood pressure with the use of the TM technique
I am unclear as to what you mean by the section titled "Important...This section includes information..." Would you please clarify what you mean here.Thanks, I look forward to working through this.(olive (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
What information do you believe might be inaccurate? Naturezak (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well for example see discussion below on "levels" vs "states". Also I believe Maharishi refers to these levels of consciousness as within the capabilities of any human being . A meditative technique, he says may simply make the process faster. When discussing the higher states we don't have to say the states are reached by continually using the TM technique. There are histories of those who have reached these states without any technique at all . Harder to do I'd say. I think it helpful to me at least to see the higher states as a way of explaining the human being's ability to change "evolve", and the TM technique as one way of expediating the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Olive and Naturezak. It's great to be starting work on this section. I'm glad we're thinking it through and collaborating. Not always easy, but I'm confident the result will be good.
What about my earlier suggestion that we don't necessarily need to enumerate the higher states of consciousness? We can simply characterize the procedure and the generally say that the goal is enlightenment -- the experience of transcendence along with activity. That's how Fred Travis did it in his research on higher states. I guess my question is whether these descriptions mean anything to a general reader and also whether it gives the article a POV feeling to elaborate on this teaching in detail. I do think we could make a connection here between the mind relaxing and the normalization of physiological function. There are many many studies that talk about this. If we agree on this, I could find a several good sources. Naturezak, perhaps read the section "Avoid excessive markup" in WP:TALK under the heading "Good practice." TimidGuy (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's please restrict discussion on this page to the article topic, rather than netiquette -- use editors' talk pages for such recommendations. I think this elaboration is neccesary to explicate the attested operation of TM through progressively 'higher' states of consciousness toward a state of enlightenment. The term "enlightenment" requires this kind of disambiguation to distinguish its use in this theory from similiar, but nonidentical, uses in other spiritual philosophies.Naturezak (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to include information about the methodology as it is practiced; what sources are proposed?Naturezak (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe any of the higher states is considered a state of enlightenment. They all generally share the characteristic of maintaining transcendence along with activity. Seems like the general idea of attaining enlightenment is more relevant than the elaboration of the continued refinement of that experience of enlightenment in subsequent higher states. Regarding your sentence immediately above: The sources I'm proposing would support the idea that as the mind becomes quieter, specific physical and biochemical changes take place in the body, and referred to by researchers in studies as normalization of function or sometimes as the enlivening of the body's inner intelligence. (Note that this point is continuing to address your suggestion at the beginning of this thread to delete a particular assertion.) I don't know that this is saying anything about the methodology, so doesn't seemingly address your suggestion in the first part of your sentence. TimidGuy (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is this could either way as discussed by Naturezak and TG . I think both have problems.
  • If we eliminate info on higher states and only refer to enlightenment and transcendence we do run into the concern Naturezak mentions of defining what is enlightenment,and what is transcendence as defined by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and in reference to this particular technique.Not to define these terms in context of this article would feel POV since we add language only TM practitioners are familiar with.
  • If we do define the higher states we have to be extremely accurate with the language since the language choice has been specifically chosen by the person who developed this technique. For example, "levels" of consciousness

seems more neutral than "states" of consciousness possibly because the word "states" has been more widely used in the TM literature. Levels however is not quite accurate . Levels generally implies discreet positions reached sequentially . Although the levels of consciousness as defined by Maharishi are "stabilized" in the order mentioned (TC, then CC,GC, and UC) they do not necessarily "develop" in this way, and in fact may develop simultaneously so "levels" may be too confining a term, and as I said not quite accurate.

  • I think we have to remember that an article like this can "talk about itself and refer to itself" in a section that is discussing the specifics of technique. This isn't POV if its noted that this is the opinion/theory of the creator of the technique.
  • We have to make sure we note that the language is the language and theory of the founder. The original writer of the section took care of this by using the subheading "Maharishi's Theory of Consciousness".Maybe we have to go back to heading that in a sense is a disclaimer in that it notes that this information is specific to Maharishi.So what's the solution?

(olive (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Olive, you seem to be encouraging us to use the language of the founder. While we should use the terminology of the founder -- when reporting on the factual use of such terms -- we need not use his preferred "language" or jargon. We have the perogative to explain the article topic using whatever language is most clear.
No, actually. Sorry to have given that impression. We have to be neutral. We can't sacrifice accuracy though,either. The readers deserves the most accurate information we can give them. Maharishi may use the best language to explain theory,and its ok to go with that because he is the authority on this technique.As TG says we can look for a source to make sure we have the best verifiable info going. I don't like the heading either on "Maharishi's theories of enlightenment , but it did qualify the material. The point is how much is "just enough" on theory.
I am against adding a sub-heading titled "Maharishi's Theory of Consciousness." We are not fully explicating such a theory; rather, we are bringing in just enough of that theory in order to clarify the as-yet unwritten procedure of TM. To reiterate a previous point, if you want to write about that theory, it should go in its own article.Naturezak (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
TimidGuy, I don't believe all of the "higher states" are considered "enlightenment," but that these represent successively "finer" kinds of consciousness as postulated by the yogi's theory. Of course, the problem of definition is raised here as in any pseudoscientifc formulation: finer in what sense? I'll leave that explanation open for others to respond. Likewise with the assertion that the mind "becomes quieter"... in what sense? Phsyiologically speaking, the mind isn't ever noisy. We need to be scrupulous about avoiding metaphorical explanation. Likewise with "normalization of function" and "body's inner intelligence," neither of which have a clear application to physiology.Naturezak (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Good points, Naturezak. Maybe "Maharishi's approach to consciousness"? Regarding terminology, I guess we simply follow our sources, as with everything else in Wikipedia. And as you say, beyond the terminology, we have to be sure we speak to the general reader, while at the same time being scrupulous about accurately representing sources. Regarding whether each of the higher states is considered to be enlightenment, we need not resolve that, since I believe my point was only relevant if we weren't going to enumerate the states. It seems like we're inclined toward enumerating them. Regarding the description of the mental process and the associate changes in physiology and biochemistry -- as always, I guess we simply report what the sources say. I'll start looking. TimidGuy (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
well no we don't have to debate whether a higher state is enlightenment but (yea, I know, but just couldn't resist). According to this theory (Maharishi's )CC is the enlightened state and the further states GC and UC contain as it where or include CC, as well as including further refinements

such as refined perception in GC and in UC, the awareness that the inner life now stabilized in CC now sees outer life as aspects of itself.(olive (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Example of a study

The first study I could put my hands on was ""The Physiology of Meditation: A Review. A Wakeful Hypometabolic Integrated Response," published in 1992 in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. The authors describe the subjective experience of being characterized as a "relaxed, blissful and wakeful state." (p 415) Later (p 420) the subjective experience of transcendence in those is described as "restful alertness." And the article says that this subjective experience "appears to be a patterned physiological response of overall decreased peripheral metabolism and activation in many of its features, including decreased whole body, muscle, and red cell metabolism, as well as decreaed plasma thyroid and adrenocortical hormone secretion. Electrophysiologically, increased galvanic skin resistance and/or decreased phasic skin resistance response, and decrease or disappearance of the EMG, frequently reported accompaniments of meditation, are also qualities consistent with rest. Other changes that may be described as extraordinary include alternation of the nature of intermediary metabolism by muscle and red cell; and phasic five-fold elevation of AVP."

So how about if we said something like this in the Procedure section: "During the practice of Transcendental Meditation, the individual experiences a state referred to as 'restful alertness,' in which the body exhibits characteristics of deep rest but the mind is relaxed but alert. The physiological characteristics of deep rest include a reduced metabolic rate and decreased hormone secretion." Whether we use this or not, the idea would be to characterize the subjective experience and then say that it affects the body. TimidGuy (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd aver that those physiological changes are indistinguishable from those accompanying the process of relaxation; therefore, the state which TM induces might be characterized safely -- and hypobolically -- as "relaxed."Naturezak (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, research shows that that the physiological changes in meditation, including EEG, aren't necessarily the same as relaxation. (By the way, earlier this week a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials was published showing that Transcendental Meditation reduces blood pressure whereas the studies on relaxation didn't show a reduction. I guess I'm not familiar with the word "hypobolically.") TimidGuy (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) I guess what I'm saying is that it seems appropriate to use "restful alertness" since many studies very specifically use that term to characterize a unique state of physiology. Seems like if it's in the sources, that's what we say. TimidGuy (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, seems the bottom lines in terms of Wikipedia are verifiablity -WP:V, and reliability -WP:R. If there is a source we use that, and use of the terminology in the source is appropriate. TG are you suggesting we use this and not use any reference to higher states or a little of both?(olive (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. Seems like we need to characterize the technique. Your version of Procedure had included this sentence: "This movement of the mind towards the source of thought is said to create deep rest, facilitating normalization of the bodies’ functions on both the physiological and psychological levels;" which Naturezak said is physiologically meaningless and which he deleted in his draft version. I'm finding sources that say something similar in order to show that it's not physiologically meaningless and that it may be a way of characterizing Transcendental Meditation. I was able to quickly find four good sources this morning which talk about the process of the mind settling down in meditation and the physiological correlates. (Also, they describe the differences between meditation and relaxation.) Basically just exploring ideas. And trying to think together how we might approach this while taking into account Naturezak's comments. TimidGuy (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't expect that you will be able to find a source that explains what "the movement of the mind" means in non-metaphoricall terms; what sources are you looking at? Let's please discuss them directly, rather than alluding to them. Naturezak (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources comin' after lunch. In general, they characterize the subjective experience -- described in a variety of ways -- and then show the physiological correlates. That is, during meditation the person feels specific things happening -- the mind relaxing, sometimes experiencing awareness without an object of awareness, etc. And these experiences can be correlated with distinctive physiological states. Whether it's metaphorical or not, some sort of words need to be used to describe the experiences that are associated with these distinctive states of physiology. Might be getting in over my head here, since I'm only very vaguely familiar with the research. But will have some articles in hand after lunch. Again, all this by way of exploring here and thinking together how we might characterize the technique. Prompted by the sentence in Olive's version, but not necessarily using that sentence. TimidGuy (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant my earlier statements as a call for an *explication* of the technique, not a clinical contextualization or characterization. That is: we need to explain what actual act of this meditiative practice looks like, not just what it is supposed to achieve. This explanation is noticeably absent from the article at present. If no one else wants to put together this text, I shall shortly.Naturezak (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Naturezak. I appreciate your clarification. The actual practice is simple. You sit for 20 minutes with your eyes closed. You experience your mind settling down. A specific meaningless sound is used to prompt the natural tendency of the mind to go inward. The practice doesn't involve analysis but instead involves moving beyond the level of the intellect to deeper levels of the mind. Of course, the challenge is that such a description introduces a range of new concepts that would need to be explained. This could be sourced to an article by Jonathan Shear in The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, published last year by Paragon House, an academic press. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This description is more what is needed. Needing explanation are:

  • the nature of the specific meaningless sound
  • the settling down of the mind
  • the level of the intellect
  • deeper levels of the mind

There should be physiological or cognitive explanations of these features of TM practice, as opposed to physiological correlates. I'm familiar with Shear's book, although I do not recall such high-level explications in my reading of it. Feel free to reference page numbers; I have a copy on hand.Naturezak (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you have Shear's book. This is the best and most complete description of the practice that I've seen. See, for example, page 26 where Shear talks about the natural tendency of the mind and the levels of the mind. I'm not sure of the distinction between a physiological explanation and physiological correlates. Very specific EEG patterns, for example, are associated with the practice. This would indeed be interesting -- and would give a nice basis in research. I really know nothing about this, but it would be easy to summarize the explanation given in one of the studies. TimidGuy (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for possible further characterization of Transcendental Meditation

  • "Autonomic and EEG Patterns during Eyes-Closed Rest and Transcendental Meditation (TM) Practice: The Basis for a Neural Model of TM Practice." Consciousness and Cognition 8, 302-318 (1999)
  • "Autonomic patterns during respiratory suspensions: Possible markers of Transcendental Consciousness," Psychophysiology, 34 (1997), 39-46
  • "The Effects of Transcendental Meditation Compared to Other Methods of Relaxation and Meditation in Reducing Risk Factors, Morbidity, and Mortality," Homeostasis, 35, 1994, No. 4-5, 243-264
  • "A Randomized Controlled Trial of Stress Reduction in African Americans Treated for Hypertension Over One Year," The American Journal of Hypertension 2005; 18:88-98

The first two study physiological effects during the practice. The latter two are clinical applications that include discussion of the mechanism for the observed clinical effects. This discussion characterizes the practice in terms such as this: "During the TM technique, it has been reported that the ordinary thinking process settles down and a distinctive 'wakeful hypometabolic state' is gained."

So what's my point? I'm not sure. : ) Seriously, maybe these studies can help characterize the nature of the practice by offering solid sources that use specific language to characterize the practice and then, beyond that, show that the state of the physiology during TM is well understood, such that this characterization isn't just a "teaching" by Maharishi or merely a subjective experience, but rather a specific subjective experience that has been repeatedly reported and that has been understood empirically through via scientific study. TimidGuy (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the first three studies; the physiological changes reported, such as they were, all fall within the boundaries of the lay term "relaxation." Is there something remarkable in the fourth? I'd like to observe that it would not be appropriate to assert that a phenomenom -- here, "the settling down [?] of ordinary thinking processes" -- has been demonstrated under clinical conditions if the phrasing used follows the formula "it has been reported." Naturezak (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Great that you're familiar with the studies. I guess we'd have to have the particular context to know whether the term "relaxation" is apt. One could certainly say, for example, that Transcendental Meditation fosters relaxation. But I don't think it would be accurate to say that the physiological and neurophysiological effects are the same as relaxation. Nothing remarkable in the fourth study, other than it's a randomized controlled trial published n a major medical journal. These four were selected simply because I was able to quickly obtain them and because they happened to characterize the technique. Quite right -- we need not use the scientific jargon "it has been reported." We could say, "practitioners of Transcendental Meditation say that . . . " TimidGuy (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Another way of looking at this - not writing about it, but in response to Naturezak's question about what does the technique look like is that the technique actually has a specific "look at different levels of the body. I would argue that for example the technique does not cause brain wave patterns in the brain to change but that the change of the brain wave patterns in the brain is simultaneous with the technique. That is the brain looks like this, in meditation the blood looks like this , respiration is this... and so.(olive (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC))
I think you are both misunderstanding my point. This article does not describe the practice in detail -- what is said, done, and thought, in order to induce the altered state.Naturezak (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I had made an attempt to begin addressing that point in the thread above. TimidGuy (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is potentially a gap, between what we can put into this article in terms of understanding the technique, and what we can’t according to the encyclopedic Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Perhaps you are asking, if I understand you correctly, is how does the mantra effect the movement of the mind to finer levels, what are these finer levels. In the performing and visual arts there are multiple exercises that use the brain's tendency, very simply put, 'cause I am no brain researcher but a performing arts, visual arts teacher...to shift "modes” if given the right stimulus. For example, and this is a superficial parallel to what happen with the mantra, if the so-called, "left-mode", functioning brain, the logical, critical, sequential- thinking brain is given meaningless words, or movement or language that is faster or slower than its usual functioning mode, the original mode will, as it were, tire of attempting to deal with this and give the “work” over to another mode to deal with, the whole brain mode, or what used to be called the "right brain-mode - a restful, non-critical, non sequential- thinking mode. Sanford Meissner's repetition exercises, Nickolaides' blind-contour drawing are examples of these but there are many. The mantra has no meaning. The left-brain mode won't deal with this for long so possibly a shift is made. The mantra also has vibrational qualities, which apparently effect a deeper profound response than a non-sense word used in an acting exercise would. But the parallel may be that the brain given something it can't think on, or produce sequential thought with, moves beyond logical-thinking mode to finer levels of the word/mantra. The brain in a sense allows the mantra to fade, and disappear because it can't connect logical thought to it. The brain naturally stops thinking in the left- mode way, as it were. I believe there is some research that has applied brain functioning to the arts in general, but I am not aware of any that applies to TM. The problem is we can't take that research and apply it here because we run into Original Research guideline. It’s an area I am very interested in because there seem to parallels to the arts. Maharishi has explained the place beyond thought as the creative source. Again, there is no research or material I know of that supports this. There are writers dealing with this topic in terms of understanding creativity, but again to take that information and connect it to TM is WP:OR. Unified Field Theory seems to parallel this. But again here on Wikipedia we can't make the kind of argument we could on a paper, discussing these parallels and the possibility that they are one and the same thing. We could quote other papers, and research if there was discussion of TM but not use this in the article ourselves. I realize this is a long harangue, and apologize, but this seems to me to be an important point you have raised. I also am not a scientist, but an artist, and tend to look in other place beside scientific research for sources. I'm not sure if there is a solution at this point in time, excepting material from Shear’s book and possibly brain wave research. I am not aware of research or papers dealing with these topics and TM. Maybe someone else is.(olive (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Research - Higher states

This subheading does not belong in this article.Naturezak (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If we keep a short version on Theory this would then become appropriate.(olive (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC))
It would emphatically not become relevant, as it is twice removed from the topic of the article. If a discussion of the yogi's theory of higher consciousnesses requires substantiation, it probably also deserves its own article, as I have said elsewhere.Naturezak (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that this has now been resolved below in the thread Research on the TM Technique. TimidGuy (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research on the TM technique

Comments:

Thanks, Olive. I hadn't realized that the two paragraphs on research on transcendental consciousness and higher states got cut in the editing process. I'm sure it could be much better written. Will try to work on it. One idea would be to go with the ideas the two of you have regarding the theory section and move the transcendental consciousness and higher states research to the research section. Plus, we actually had transcendental consciousness research in two different places (the section titled Effect on the Physiology is also related to transcendental consciousness). Or actually, no. I think it's like this: physiological changes are present during the entire meditation. Certain instances during the period are uniquely transcendental consciousness, with specific parameters. Then the higher states research sees these specific parameters in activity (and also in sleep -- research done at the U of Iowa sleep lab). So this could all go together, be shortened, and more clearly explained. And we could put a pointer to it in the theory section. I do think this is important. The theory section makes major claims, so it's good to show that there is research related to these claims. Joe Tecce of Boston College was a co-author on the primary study on higher states that we'll want to use (published in Biological Psychology). TimidGuy (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You are failing to take into account that I and other editors believe that the material on higher states of consciousness should not be included at all... if it is a coherent and discrete teaching, it should have its own article.Naturezak (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The teaching of the 7 states of consciousness is part of every TM-course. The whole purpose of TM is, according to the TM-course, to give these "higher states of consciousness" a chance to develop. The teaching of the 7 states of consciousness is the main recurrent theme of the main primary literature (Majharishi’s Science of Being and Art of Living, Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita). "Action in tune with Natural Law", the leitmotif of Maharishi’s teaching regarding "Age of Enlightenment", "Invincibility for Every Nation", "Global Country of World Peace", is inextricably combined with his teachings of higher states of consciounsness. --Josha52 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is the concern. Higher states is not discrete. I believe the section there now is still too long by a long shot, but a short version would be appropriate. Some mention needs to be there because the technique and its "spiritual " outcomes cannot be delineated so easily. To do so would would be to create an artificial separation. Naturezak , didn't you agree to Roseapple's suggestion that procedure and theory be one heading.That seems like a good compromise. I have written much shorter version on theory, but any would be fine with a consensus. I'm not attached to my version, and in fact think it needs more editing for more laymen friendly language.(olive) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused. Your suggested rewrite of the section now titled Procedure and Theory included higher states. Naturezak, I guess you're saying that that remain intact but the research on higher states be in a separate article. In that it? In any case, it just seems that the most extraordinary claims in this article -- that one can experience transcendental consciousness during TM and eventually higher states during activity -- should be supported by research. That's the most unique thing about TM. Research has never been done on any other group experiencing higher states of consciousness. TimidGuy (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Research has never been done on any other group experiencing higher states of consciousness... for good reason, no?Naturezak (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose the elimination of the section "Research: Higher Consciousness", and including any research deemed relevant to TM under one research heading. In my previous edits to the article, you will note that I briefly contextualized the procedure with the theory of higher consciousness. It may be feasible to title that section "Theory and Practice." There should not be an elaborate explication of what those higher consciousnesses are; if they are discrete, they should have their own articles.Naturezak (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this a major issue. The technique and higher states are not discrete.(olive (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

Naturezak, I believe you're saying the same thing that I suggested in an earlier thread - in which I suggested we may not need to enumerate each of the three higher states, but just refer to it in a general way, as Fred Travis does in his research. And I'm pleased you feel that this particular research could go in the research section. Seems like we're agreed. So to summarize, we have a section titled theory and practice or procedure and theory that includes essentially drafts that you and Olive produced. This covers the discussion of the possibility of a higher state of consciousness. We have a pointer to the related section in the research section that talks about the research on the physiological and neurophysiological parameters of the practice, on the unique neurophysiological characteristics of the epochs of transcendental consciousness during a meditation, and the evidence that eventually these latter characteristics are also present in activity. This would be a rewritten, condensed, and more reader friendly version of what was already in the article. And please forgive me if I have misunderstood. TimidGuy (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies: Religion section - Malnak v Yogi

Comments:

Use a condensed version?(olive (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

A condensed version created many moons ago (with some recent editing) when there were concerns with the TM article over length. I think this is also a more reader friendly version.Any thoughts,comments.(olive (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

In 1979, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Transcendental Meditation technique together with the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) could not be taught in New Jersey, public schools. The appellate court upheld the decision of a lower court that teaching the technique in the schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which creates a wall of separation between church and state. The court ruled that although not a theistic religion, TM/SCI falls within the legal definition of religion because it deals with issues of ultimate concern, truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions.

[edit] Controversies: Lawsuits

Since lawsuits are definitionally occasions of controversy, I believe they should be listed separated under the heading "Controversy." This has the added benefit of streamlining the article structure.Naturezak (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuits by definition are inherently controversial in that they require a response to a situation that is not accepted by some parties. Without a response the lawsuit doesn't exist. TM is however not inherently controversial unless someone for example an Archbishop decides TM is not compatible with Religion. TM exists without controversy. Lawsuits do not. We are talking about two kinds of controversy here. This section discusses and is notable because the controversy here is not inherent to the topic, TM, under discussion.Lawsuits is also WP:Fringe. Three lawsuits in over 50 years is not notable. To include this topic in a section with true controversy lends verisimilitude to the topic. Although I too, like "flow" in an article including lawsuits in the Controversy section opens the door for a lot of material that may be only of fringe importance.The section as in the past could become a dumping ground for any and all objections to TM. I'd like to keep this section clean and tight in this area, and include lawsuits in a section of its own. We have to be aware also I believe of weighting WP:Weight the Controversy section.(olive (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC))
I don't concede your distinction. The lawsuits themselves are not the controversy, of course. The lawsuits appear within, and help to create, controversy regarding TM. We'll have to get other editors in here to settle the matter.Naturezak (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't concede to your points either : ), but I will compromise and put lawsuits under controversy despite my concerns, unless other editors don't want to compromise.(olive (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC))
I'll go along with it. And I believe Naturezak wants a separate heading for each lawsuit, as in his proposed outline. I haven't felt comfortable with that for the reasons I explained above -- undue weight -- but I won't make it a sticking point. TimidGuy (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yikes! That is a sticking point for me . Each lawsuit should not have the weight for example of the whole section on religion.That is Undue Weight to say the least and isn't logical in terms of the article ... WP:Fringe.... Can we compromise and include lawsuits under "Controversies" but not with separate headings for each lawsuit. Don't think I can go that far.(olive (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC))
I agree with Olive on this. Roseapple (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 22:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Olive on this. It is not the case that each lawsuit "takes on the weight" of the "whole section on religion"... to present it thusly assumes that one think that an entry, but dint of BEING an entry under a subhead, is given a status. Since the entries under this subjeading represent distinct controverisies -- rather than categories of source of criticism -- I argue that the lawsuits, being unrelated, should be listed separately.Naturezak (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just can't see how I can budge on this. Note WP:Weight and a quote from that guideline,

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. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

. Three lawsuits in 50 years barely deserves inclusion.A subheading signals importance equal to the subheading given a larger more prevalent topic such as cult or religion.The lawsuits use greater quantity of text than warranted relevant to other sections in the article. Three lawsuits in 50 years probably deserves a few lines. Using subheadings to signal importance compounds the problem, in my mind at least.(olive (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Having each lawsuit highlighted by being in a separate section seems like a subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) attempt to discredit TM. Roseapple (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies: Issue of Cost

Comment: Links should be removed. They are not Wikipedia Compliant. I'm fine with price being in the first line. I do think that if cost does not contribute to advertising either does an explanation of what the cost "buys"... teaching of the technique , three days checking and a lifetime checking with any recertified TM teacher . Not to include this is a subtle POV. Then we can add material about TM teachers who have a problem with this cost. Should this be in controversy section .... not sure but maybe.(olive (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

The high cost is controversial; we agree. Another form of controversy, deserving of its own entry under this sub-head, is the appearance of dissenting 'splinter' groups. You'll see I propose this below, in my proposed article structure. It would be prudent to identify sources that speak to the controvery regarding the high price, which are separate from the sources regarding splinter groups. Naturezak (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Under high cost we have two entries one put there by the person who established the business, [Natural Stress Relief] , David Spector. This isn't even remotely neutral. My point is to not make to much of this in the article because the editor has a clear vested interest in including the material and link in the article. As well, this is not TM. Do we include information about every or even some techniques that are not about Tm. Again this is WP:Fringe. As for the other link,TM Independent, well, I'm not sure who added it. This as a mention may be OK since the technique used is TM . Again this is "Fringe" material and we have to really discuss whether it has a place here.
Splinter Groups : If it doesn't have to do with the technique or the teaching of the technique itself, it belongs it seems to me, somewhere else, but not in article on the TM technique.(olive (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC))
David Spector initially wrote that whole section. I do think we need to consider WP:UNDUE. Olive, I wonder if when you say WP:Fringe you mean the WP:Undue section. TimidGuy (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No actually. WP:Fringe. "An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is." Sorry I didn't explain well enough. Topics such as the cost of the technique, and two people/groups who decide the cost is too much so they go another route other than teaching TM is hardly notable in relation to the article as a whole.They have been included for some reason. The task is to make sure that their inclusion questionable at best does not "weigh" the article disproportionately.I would say that once a Fringe theory /idea has been included then Fringe and Weight become interconnected. This is my understanding at least.(olive (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
That there the teaching of this spiritual technique comes at high cost is controversial; I don't understand if you are disputing this? And there *should* be a section for splinter groups; that they exist is the substantial component of the controversy, which is a fact to be reported. If there was even one, it merits inclusion.Naturezak (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we're getting ahead of ourselves here regarding whether the high cost is a controversy until we have sources. We need to keep in mind WP:V. I agree that it may not be appropriate to cite commercial web sites that criticize the cost as evidence of controversy, since it's in their vested interest to promote their lower price, and since Wikipedia generally disallows commercial web sites as sources. TimidGuy (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intentional communities

Comments: Agreement to move to external links from Timid Guy, Naturezak, Roseapple, Olive.(olive (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Suggested structure


Suggested Structure:

0 Intro
1 Procedure and Theory
2 Development
3 Research
---3.1 Physiological effects
---3.2 Medical studies
---3.2 Cognitive studies
---3.3 Funding and sponsors
4 Transcendental Meditation controversies
---4.1 Relationship to religion and spirituality
---4.2 Cult accusations
---4.3 Lawsuits [Kropinski v. WPEC and Butler/Killian vs. MUM]
---4.4 Consciousness and the unified field
---4.5 Issue of cost
---4.6 Dissenting TMers [i.e., dissenting splinter groups e.g. TM Independent]
5 References
6 External links [w/Intentional communities]
7 Further reading

[edit] Discussion on inclusion of organization's structure - History section

Comments: Don’t want to make it still more difficult here, but: Question is, how strict Wikipedia is a , let me say lexical encyclopedia. If it is, structure seems very ok for me. If it is not, one thing could be added: organisational aspects. I opposed long time to this argument in german WP. But today I am looking at it in a different way: from the viewpoint of the reader/visiitor of the article. Because: Many people who are googling TM are not only interested into what the TM techiques would be. But also in the question "what about the organisation behind it". They often even do not know that this organisation is called today "Global Country of World Peace". So I think today that it would be at least an act of kindliness to offer in such an article some more insight into the organisation/movement: may be with the information of "In details please see ...". So: I do not think that TM should be looked at primarily out of an sociological angle as some had argued here and in Germany. But on the other side without any doubt in the eyes of its founder and organisations it is a tool by which the world should be changed to a better. Somehow it feels as if this aspect is not covered enough here (again: in details, sure, there could be another article for that). --Josha52 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Josha.This has been discussed before I think and in general the thought is to keep this article strictly about the technique to avoid an article that has been and could be again very much too long. That said the History section ... see a revised version on the talk pages... has some information about the organization that teaches the TM technique. That may be enough.This is definitey open to discussion though.(olive (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
I see. Well, then hear my proposal: Rename "History" into "Organisation". Since: "History" does not reflect the history of the TM technique (whose history – if there is any ;-) – is almost unknown, beside the fact that its founder says that the technique is part of the vedic tradition and was passed to him by his teacher). "History" reflects actually the history of the organisation. Think it’s ok if this chapter would still outline the main past steps of the organisation too: together with it’s actual form (in brief) – and an obvious link to the main article on GCWP. But change only if others agree. --Josha52 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
True enough, I agree. The title change is appropriate and you're right I think in saying History isn't the right word. So maybe a shorter version of the History section renamed organization or Organizational structure. Any other comments on this.(olive (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
I think a better word than "organization" is "Development." I'll change my proposed site structure to reflect this good suggestion.Naturezak (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I think "Development" is fine. Lets have TimidGuy, Josha, and maybe Roseapple if she's around, sign in and see what they say, and we then could have a consensus on a change of title . I want to make sure the version is shortened considerably ....I can't support the present version. I have a version that we can start with.See:[5] but another version could be fine. Good. Things may be moving forward. (olive (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
Thanks, Olive. I think that's fine. TimidGuy (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hhm. "Development" sounds as if there has been an evolution of TM. As far as I know there wasn’t. Waht to do? --Josha52 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My thinking was that development describes the origination of the TM method from non-TM precursors.Naturezak (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To me, "History" is the most meaningful title that any reader can understand without explanation. Olive offered a shorter, simpler, straightforward history re-write (see above) that could be used. Roseapple (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought Development to mean development of the organization that teaches the technique. The fact that three if us understood this differently doesn't bode well for the reader's ability to understand. "History" is OK too. Maybe its a safer choice.(olive (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
Can we agree on shorter version of the section?(olive (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
As a point. When I reduced the article size I didn't reduce the list of well known personalities.I am always a little uneasy about hacking away at another editor's work. This section in relation to the new article length, seems overly long and I would suggest violates WP:Weight.Any thoughts on this.(olive 22:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Moved here - earlier history section

Would a shorter version be better. I also wrote a shorter version of this -refer to discussion , but again not attached o it. I feel the present History veers away from info.on the technique in too many places.(olive (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

Hi Olive. Where I can read the shorter version? --Josha52 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Page becomes huge. Wouln’t it make sense to archive it automatically in some shorter intervalls? Thin 7 days are fine. --Josha52 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Have pasted copy here since it seems hard to find...made new change for POV. (olive 20:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Rewrite history section

History

In 1957, at the end of a festival of "spiritual luminaries" Mahesh Yogi]] (or simply "Maharishi" to followers) inaugurated a movement he describes as one that would"spiritually regenerate the world". The official TM website indicates that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its inauguration including such well known personalities as comedian [[JerrySeinfeld] Dolly Parton, Andy Kaufman, The Beatles, Beach Boys' Mike Love, Stevie Wonder, and Al Jardine, jazz musicians Eric Kloss and Charles Lloyd, actor Stephen Collins, radio personality Howard Stern, actor Clint Eastwood, film director David Lynch, actor Hugh Jackman, inventor and author Itzhak Bentov, Scottish musician Donovan, actresses Mia Farrow and Heather Graham, and [[Deepak Chopra. Political leaders who practice TM include Joaquim Chissano

In the early 1970s, Maharishi launched a "World Plan" to establish one Transcendental Meditation teaching center for each one million of the world's population. Today, The Global Country of World Peace is the name of the organization through which the TM technique is taught.

We should not include a list of personalities; whether Jerry Seinfeld practices meditation is incidental and uninformative of TM. The fact that they are TM practitioners should be on THEIR article pages, rather than their affiliation listed here. There is precedent for creating a "List of TM Practitioners" as a separate article, e.g. List_of_people_who_converted_to_Catholicism. Indeed, the only available rationale for including such a list is as implied endorsement of TM, contravening NPOV. Furthermore, it is fallacious to imply that the participation of celebrities is a significant aspect of this methodology's "History." Considering the contested objectivity of this article's editors, this inclusion -- as implied endorsement -- needs to be justified very clearly, very succintly, and persuasively. Naturezak 03:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Good points from Naturezak. Roseapple 13:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of the History Section

In 1941, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (b. Mahesh Prasad Varma) became a secretary to Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. Maharishi remained with Brahmananda Saraswati until the latter passed away in 1953. Although Maharishi was a close disciple, he could not be the Shankaracharya's spiritual successor since he was not of the Brahmin caste.

In 1955, Maharishi began teaching a meditation technique he later renamed Transcendental Meditation. In 1957, he began the Spiritual Regeneration Movement in Madras, India, on the concluding day of a festival held in remembrance of his deceased teacher. By 1958 Maharishi had begun the first of a number of worldwide tours promoting and disseminating his technique. In the early 1970s, Maharishi undertook to establish one TM teaching center for each million of the world's population, which at that time would have meant 3,600 TM centers throughout the world.

Since 1990, Maharishi has coordinated the teaching of TM from the town of Vlodrop, the Netherlands, through an organization he calls the Global Country of World Peace. This group reports that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its introduction.

Naturezak 03:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems like it could work. Eager to know what Olive and others think. It does seem like we would need further justification to include a list of celebrity meditators. One thing we could consider is how TM became a cultural phenomenon in the U.S. in the 1970s. Maharishi appeared on the Tonight Show, Merv Griffin Show, Good Morning America. He addressed a joint assembly of the Illinois State Legislature. The TM Book by Denise Denniston was a best seller. It would only maybe be a sentence. Of course, we'd need a good source. Just an idea. On the other hand, Olive is suggesting that any history of TM focus exclusively on TM. Not sure how this idea would fit with that. More brainstorming: we could consider including a sentence about the history of the research. After all, the research has been a dominant focus of mainstream media coverage of TM. Probably a majority of the 10,400 articles in the Google News archives are about the research. There are 764 reports just on the hypertension research alone.[6] It's great that the article is getting this sort of quality attention. TimidGuy 12:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Also, he appeared on the cover of Time magazine. TimidGuy 22:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Good rewrite from NZ. TG's two proposals could work also, as a sentence or two on the cultural phenoomena/history of research would be relevant to the article. Roseapple 13:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes this a better rewrite than mine which was actually only a edited copy of the original version. This is actually a true rewrite and is more inclusive.Good job Naturezak. As well, TG's points are good and worth entering/considering.

Points of clarification:

  • Many WP articles include notable people , so I do believe a little of this could be fine here too , but I am not in any way attached to this info and think the rewrite probably "reads" better without it.
  • I have been advocating the entire article be about only the TM technique, so making sure the History section is consistent with this idea seems important for article's integrity.The cultural phenomena was a result of teaching TM not of any other aspect of the organization's programs, so this would be a possible inclusion.
  • The research on the TM technique itself is notable and could also be included.
  • Not sure this is quite accurate,"Maharishi has coordinated the teaching of TM from the headquarters of The Global Country of World Peace, in the town of Vlodrop, the Netherlands.", since the the capital of GC of WP is in New York City, and technically seems to be administered from there.

What about:

Maharishi has coordinated the teaching of TM from the town of Vlodrop, the Netherlands, through a country without borders he calls the Global Country of World Peace.

I have emdended my rewrite to resolve the possibly mislead; but "country without borders" isn't a proper appellation for the group, IMO.Naturezak 19:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Naturezak. I'm really pleased. What about the two ideas raised -- adding a sentence about its being a major cultural phenomenon and a sentence about the science. These seem significant parts of the history -- with major media coverage. Do you agree that this could be added? TimidGuy 20:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing "country without borders"- not needed and feel we can move onto the questions posed by TG.(olive 21:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

As the article is to concern only the topic, it would be inappropriate to include a list of practioners -- although their TM affiliation belongs on THEIR WP pages. Their practice of the method is completely independent of the method. What TimidGuy sounds to be advocating would be a new section, e.g. "TM in Pop Culture."Naturezak 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Naturezak. Sorry I wasn't clear. I was agreeing with you -- that the list of celebrity meditators shouldn't be included unless some further justification were offered. I have no such justification at this point. Your suggestion regarding how to deal with the huge attention given to TM in the 1970s by including a section or subsection on TM in Pop Culture is a possibility. Eager to hear what others think. What about my suggestion regarding a sentence in the HIstory section on the research, which has also received major media attention over the decades (most recently in the Nov 19 issue of Newsweek)? TimidGuy 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Both the cultural phenomenon and media attention to research seem to be notable enough to be included in this section, well sourced of course. Roseapple 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Media attention to research seems notable and so fine. I'm not sure what pop culture means in the context of this article, and what that can or should include , so I hesitate to endorse the topic until that is clarified. (olive 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

Both the "cultural impact" and "media attention to research" are unsuitable for this section. They are historical phenomenom related to TM, NOT examples of the phenomena which comprise the history of TM. It is easy enough to see that any mention of the "media attention" to research belongs in the first nut graf of the Research section... although we should see potential examples of that text before we spend too much time deliberating it. As for the cultural imapct of TM, this is speculative; complex; and invites POV abuses, so again, let's see proposed text before we more ourselves in a discussion of as-yet nonexistent rewrites.Naturezak 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinions on this Naturezak, and I agree that cultural impact is a topic that may be too complex or difficult to define, and could as well invite WP:OR, creating POV. We are looking at topics that relate to the TM technique as opposed to any other of the programs developed by Maharishi, though,and the history of the TM technique as it was taught and developed can be traced through the histories of these phenomena. That said, I would, from my side prefer to table this discussion for now, with the idea that these topics could be covered more completely in another article rather than have us slug it out here trying to find a single sentence or two that suitably describes these somewhat vast areas of information.Wonder how TG and Roseapple feel about that.(olive 02:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC))
Thanks, everyone. Yes, let's table it for now and move on, especially since, as Naturezak says, it's difficult to decide without seeing exactly what I was envisioning. I guess I expected everyone to read my mind. : ) Maybe I can find some sources, write some text, and then we can decide whether and where it belongs. TimidGuy 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems like the next step is to agree on a version of the Procedure and Theory section. Seems like we already have general agreement, and now just need to agree on specific text. I'm really pleased with what we've accomplished. TimidGuy 16:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have added another rewrite of "theory and procedure" based on Naturezak's version and a edited version I did. Please see Theory section above. I am not attached to my version but do strongly feel we must include information on the fundamental theory of enlightenment to be accurate and informative, so any version could be used - the more succinct the better as long as its complete in terms of information (olive 20:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Controversies: Consciousness and the Unified Field

As I mentioned above in the "theories" discussion in my mind the TM technique is connected intimately to process, procedure and theory and some mention of that needs to be included . This section is once again about the connection of the technique to something else . Whatever our decisions are I believe we have to be consistent . If TheoRies section is removed so should this be . If not this section might be appropriate although Pagel's quote is not about TM but about the organization, and that should be looked at , I think. (olive (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

I disagree; there is no reason that this sub-head in the Controveries section need be removed, because we have altered another section. You'll have to explain what you mean by "consistency" if you have a stronger argument to make.Naturezak (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we can have it both ways. Either this is strictly about the technique, or we allow some connections to the process which is what theories/ higher states is about . Are you suggesting that we keep a version of the theories and use the theory procedure heading? I am unclear about that.
If we keep a version of the "theories" section under whatever title ,then we also allow in terms of consistency material on the technique and its connection the Unified Field . That is consistent. If on the other hand we make a decision to exclude all material that does not strictly apply to the technique itself, then it must be excluded everywhere in the article . We can't in my mind decide its OK to include certain kinds of information in one part of the article but not in another.Tha is not neutral and creates POV. As you know I have voted to keep some form of "theory", the actual format to be decided on, and to use a heading that includes "procedure and theory". This means I would have to vote to keep the consciousness and unified field section if I want this article to be consistent in terms of the material we include. That said Pagel's quote is not about the technique, but about all of the philosophical claims of the organization, and should be replaced by something more appropriate.If there is no such quote there is no verifiable controversy about the technique itself and its connection to Unified Field theory.(olive (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
Critics consider controversial the claim that TM mediates higher states of consciousness that are themselves aspects of a purported Unified Field. Briefly stated, there are critics who claim to have debunked TM by demonstrating the fatuousness of its theoretical underpinnings. To make this known is not an elaboration of that theory; it is acknowledgement of a controversy.Naturezak (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Olive, I don't quite understand. I didn't think the theories section was being removed. I thought we had consensus to present a shortened version of it in a procedure and theory section. And I thought that we had consensus to include the research on higher states in the research section.
Naturezak, not apropos of anything, but just to discuss terminology. I don't think that it's been claimed that higher states of consciousness are "aspects of a unified field." For example, Travis doesn't mention the unified field in his paper ("Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states"). And I don't think most of the research on TM discusses the unified field. I think it may indeed be the case that part of the theoretical framework for the hypothesized Maharishi Effect (hypothesized to be a result of group practice of the TM-Sidhi program) is discussion of a possible field effect of consciousness and the unified field. But I'm not as familiar with this research. Also, it might be more accurate to say that TM is said to develop higher states of consciousness, but maybe "mediate" is meant here as the same thing. On the philosophical side, I do think that the analogy is often made between Maharishi's teaching regarding an underlying field of existence and the unified field. Of course for decades, his teaching didn't entail any mention of the unified field, but I think now it's used interchangeably. TimidGuy (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh very sorry. I missed that, TG, and didn't realize an agreement had been reached. Apologies for the long harangue on something already decided.
I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the way we are getting rid of subtopic/headings.As an encyclopedia I think we should be more concerned with ease of reading,as well as understanding. Although removing headings and moving material into larger groupings may increase certain flow I don't think its easier to follow and understand the information . Headings help understand what is being positioned underneath.This is my personal response to placing all of the research in one place,dumping a lot of info under controversies, and to a possible homogenizing effect on the article, leaving the door open for less indiscriminate adding of material because the article becomes less specific in its topics.Just a thought to consider.(olive (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
Hi, Olive. Which in particular are you referring to? Seems like the only major change in that regard is that we've eliminated the separate Theory section, which itself had two subsections (including one on research that will be added to the Research section). Also, Naturezak in his proposed outline seems to be suggesting that two research sections be combined into one: Effects on Physiology and Range of Studies into the single heading Effects on the Physiology. But we'll now be adding a section on research on higher states, so the outline of research will be changing anyway. I think you may have a valid point, but I'm not sure where the specific problem lies. TimidGuy (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Points of consensus

I really appreciate the fact that we're collaborating and coming to consensus on a number of points. But I'm worried that we'll forget what we've decided. So I want to start a summary in this thread.

  • move the Intentional Communities section to external links
  • implement a new sequence: Lead; Procedure & Theory; Development (or History); Research; Controversies; References
  • include the two lawsuits in a single heading
  • combine the separate sections on theory and procedure in the current article into one, and greatly shorten and simplify
  • move the empirical research on higher states of consciousness out of the theory section and into the research section
  • remove "effortless" in the lead which is redundant with the latter part of the sentence
  • use Naturezak's new version of the Development (or History) section
  • exclude the list of celebrities from the article unless someone can justify its inclusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 16:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In the thread on lawsuits, Naturezak didn't explicitly agree to a single heading, but I assume consensus since he himself edited his working draft of the outline to include this change.

Thanks, everyone. This represents significant progress. We can update this as we come to consensus on additional points. The next thing we may need to do is to create a sandbox for the new versions of the Procedure & Theory and Development (or History) sections. We keep getting confused where the proposed drafts are. Also, both Olive and Naturezak have separately written drafts of the Procedure & Theory section. TimidGuy (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

oops sorry. I moved things around after Joshi's request for location of the history section, and before checking your comment about sandbox.(olive 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
I think your approach is the best. TimidGuy 12:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra points for Naturezak

I just wanted to thank Naturezak as a newer editor on this article for patiently wading through this and really considering every area. I really appreciate working with someone like this.(olive (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Closing in on a new procedure ( procedure,theory) section

Things are starting to get muddled it seems so what about starting to write a new section for this with multiple variations.

In the meantime, I would like to summarize what has been said so far. Please add on what I forget to add.

  • Theory on higher states of consciousness seems to be losing ground as a desired element in this article
  • Add what the technique looks like , and what does that mean on every level of the body
  • Is the technique the same as relaxation. Research indicates the TM technique displays different physiological markers than relaxation.
  • Added by Olive here rather than from another thread: I suspect we should be very careful about use of the terms rest and relaxation. These terms for the lay reader have multiple associations . Can we avoid the terms? As TG suggests there are several terms that if used require explanation. Can we or should we avoid explanations?
  • Should we add what the technique feels like to the practitioners. Do we have a good source for that?
  • Is information about the mind's movement from concrete to finer levels of thought included. Seems not from my reading of discussion.(olive (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

This is just a start to cataloging our points.

I'd like to start writing something the next day or so as a starting point. Any other rewrite of this section could be posted here and we could start to look at all of the versions to see which contains what we want to have in the article. I would like to suggest we edit each others versions.... perhaps by by leaving the original intact, pasting a copy below the original, and adding edits there with explanation.Not sure this procedure will work but could we give it a try. Lets not feel attached to our versions . After all the original will be there intact. I feel we could talk forever but maybe its time to nail something down (olive (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive, for taking the lead on this -- and for the summary, Yes, I do think it would be useful to begin drafting some versions. The studies I listed in the other thread give a brief characterization of the subjective experience. TimidGuy (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for the assertion that TM displays different physiological markers than relaxation?Naturezak (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Seem like the study that you have in hand, titled "Autonomic and EEG Patterns during Eyes-Closed Rest and Transcendental Meditation (TM) Practice: The Basis for a Neural Model of TM Practice," would be a good one to look at. TimidGuy (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's say I've got it here. What is the relevant passage? Naturezak (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The abstract gives a good overview. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
My point is that I fail to see any statements that would support the assertion that there are physiological effects outside those described by "relaxation" or "concerted concentration".Naturezak (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The paper documents a range of physiological effects different from those associated with relaxation. It's a single-blind experiment. The control was having subjects sit with their eyes closed relaxing. Their physiological patterns were different compared to during TM. Here's how the Discussion begins: "In this true experiment, physiological patterns during equal-length, counterbalanced eyes-closed and TM periods were significantly different." TimidGuy (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that we report the uninteresting fact that doing TM is nonidentical to sitting with one's eyes-closed; rather, my point is that all of the physiological markers manifested during this study fall into the category of "relaxation." Naturezak (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. Certainly you can create an arbitrary stipulative category and lump everything together as relaxation. But to what end? If you want to say that TM is the same as relaxation or that the effects of TM are no different from relaxation, then it doesn't seem like that assertion would be supported by this and other studies, including the meta-analysis that you deleted. If you want to say that TM is relaxing or that it's a form of relaxation, that's certainly supported by research. Sign me confused. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This exchange can be amicably closed if you'll provide an example of a physiological correlate of TM that isn't part of the conventional understanding of "relaxtion." It's my contention that there aren't any. The categorization here isn't stipulative, it's conservative. I am unaware of any markers that would differentiate states undergone during TM from mere relaxation. Naturezak (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I'm only vaguely familiar with the research. But got some help from a friend who's more familiar with it. I hope this addresses your point. I can supply refs in the morning for each point if you like.

First of all, TM has been shown to promote statistically significantly greater decreases in oxygen consumption and CO2 production, decreases in heart and breath rate, and increases in galvanic skin response (GSR -- a marker of sympathetic tone) -- these may well be found to varying extents in controlled rest subjects (in resting non-TM subjects, in subjects practicing a variety of other relaxation techniques, as well as in practitioners of TM who served as their own controls during non-TM "simple rest" periods) -- but several peer-reviewed medical studies published in top journals have shown these measures to be quantitatively different enough (with statistical significance) to warrant reporting in the journals. This alone is sufficient to justify to make the point that a simple mental technique could elicit such a profound set of physiologic changes that achieves a more significant (deeper) hypometabolic state of rest than simple eyes closed resting, sleeping or practice of alternative stress reduction techniques -- a point which is remarkable, both medically and culturally.

But in fact TM has also been found to produce statistically significant and medically publishable qualitative differences between non-stylized "simple rest" and TM practice in the following biochemical markers:

  • decreased levels of cortisol and acth levels (markers of stress and anxiety)
  • decreased levels of lactic acid (associated with stress, anxiety and anaerobic metabolism)
  • decreased red blood cell metabolism ("simple rest" has shown small increases in red cell glycolytic rate)
  • increased arginine vasopressin (AVP - associated with increases in learning and memory, and not found in simple rest)
  • decreased thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH - associated with lowered metabolic rate)
  • increased regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF - associated with wakefulness, decreases are found during stage 1 sleep)
  • decreased levels of the catecholamines norepinephrine and epinephrine (NE and E - associated with decreased anxiety)
  • increases in slow wave alpha and theta EEG (decreases are found in "simple rest" - this distinguishes TM from rest as eliciting a "wakeful hypometabolic state")
  • reduction of peripheral respiratory quotient (RQ - "arterio-venous O2 consumption / CO2 production" - indicates a shift in metabolic substrate - qualitatively distinct from "simple rest")
  • reduction in phenylalanine (as an amino acid precursor to the catecholamines, possibly associated with a reduced metabolic need)

Can you provide a source for the conventional understanding of relaxation and the physiological changes it entails? TimidGuy (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Study in Current Hypertension Reports

Hi, Naturezak. I wonder about your deletion of the reference to the study in Current Hypertension Reports. How do you know it's not peer reviewed? I actually think this may be a good study to include. Also, it may not be appropriate to delete something because you think it's "statistically suspect." But of course we would need to give a proper citation, rather than the link to EurekAlert. Or maybe both, since Wikipedia does encourage "convenience links." TimidGuy (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

CHR is a briefing publication, in which editors are commissioned to do reports upon other peer-reviewed research. It is not itself peer-reviewed. I propose that a case be made *for* the inclusion of such non-refereed metanalyses. Naturezak (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We could get another opinion, perhaps on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. My understanding is that this is a prestigious journal. And I believe that a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed research is a source of the highest standard. The editor in chief is at Harvard Medical School. I believe this is the sort of source that Wikipedia desires. TimidGuy (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I would be in favor of taking it to the RSN. To address another point, we might be wary of the inclusion of any citation whose rationale for inclusion is not given by the contributor in the edit summary.Naturezak (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Still curious how you know that it's not peer reviewed. For example, this source says it's peer reviewed.[7] I think you may be right, but I'd be interested to know, if you don't mind. TimidGuy (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this for now because the December CHR isn't actually out yet. We should know more about the source once it's actually available. It's quite possible that parts of CHR are peer reviewed, while other parts probably aren't. --Philosophus T 10:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the print edition was mailed out at the beginning of the month. But the web site hasn't yet been updated. I have a pdf. Here's a citation: "Stress Reduction Programs in Patients with Elevated Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," Current Hypertension Reports, Vol. 9, Issue 6: December 2007, pp. 520-528.

Certainly I'm open to discussion whether to include this reference in the TM article. Right now it almost doesn't seem necessary. It would likely only become relevant if we would ever want to make a distinction between the clinical RCTs on relaxation compared to TM. TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced content

Please discuss removal of apparently relevant, sourced content such as in this edit, before removing it. Thanks! Dreadstar † 02:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the previous section? --Philosophus T 10:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he removed it without discussing. He only discussed it once I raised the issue, and didn't ever share his evidence that it's not peer reviewed. And certainly didn't explain how he knew it was "statistically suspect" without having seen the article. And he never did discuss his removal of two paragraphs of research on the long-term effects of Transcendental Meditation that were sourced to peer-reviewed research.[8] Seems like the removal of such sourced material would have deserved discussion and consensus.

But I shouldn't criticize. Naturezak has really helped focus attention on some important areas, and we've come to consensus on a number of things. If we can resolve our current discussion of how to characterize Transcendental Meditation, I think the article will be even stronger. It's been an interesting discussion and fascinating to have his perspective. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Naturezak was BOLD, and someone disagreed with the edit, and so brought it to Talk. That's common practice on Wikipedia, and there isn't anything wrong with it. If it happens that the edit comment convinces everyone, then it saves wasted discussion on talk, and if it doesn't, then it can easily be reverted and brought to Talk. --Philosophus T 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering about "Protection"

Thanks to both Dreadstar and Philosophus as experienced editors/admins for coming onto the TM article. We have been involved in complex and extensive discussions on changes to the article for several weeks. To have an editor, however well intentioned, add anything new to this article right now especially as happened, without discussion, is for me a distraction that takes time and energy away from completing the already weighty task of fixing up this article.I would like very much to be able to complete the changes now "on the table", before dealing with anything else. Any thoughts about having the article protected for awhile so we can carry on until present topics being discussed are dealt with.Thanks for help.(olive (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

Unfortunately, other editors see this in an almost completely opposite light. There is a definite sense among some editors here that certain editors of this article push almost all changes into discussions on the talk, and then have these discussions go on for so long, and become so complex, that only editors who devote all their time to TM editing can hope to improve the article. This is actually why I've stopped doing significant editing in the area, and why Michael was rather upset earlier. There are editors here who have so much time to spend editing only this that they can out-discuss everyone else and prevent any changes from being made by demanding a consensus that only occurs once the other editors are driven away. Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to this.
Naturezak was just being WP:BOLD, and was then reverted, and brought to Talk. This is acceptable behavior: if no one disagreed with the rationale in the edit comment, then it wouldn't need to be discussed on talk at all. As for protecting until you finish your planned changes, that would run afoul of WP:OWN. --Philosophus T 01:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for replying.Please note many of the changes on the table have been proposed by Naturezak and most agreed on by other editors.They are not my "planned changes".Perhaps you haven't been following the discussions and the discussed changes. I suppose if all else fails I can be cited for "spending too much time on the article". Other editors are driven away because some editors spend more time editing/discussing. Good grief! What an amazing criticism! Your reply discredits all of the editors who have been working so hard on this article including Naturezak, because the progress made has been a group effort. All the editors have put in time here, and believe me I have better things to do with my time. Michael has not once added anything to this article . The door was open for him to do so. How long does it take to add a comment or edit. And please don't tell me his time is more important than any of the editors working on this article including Zac's. At the same time if Michael doesn't want to work on this, why should he? Its his choice, his time. But why would you lay criticism for that on other editors. He had control of this discussion at one point and I asked him to please include us in the editing, not the other way around... and since when is it not ok to disagree with a rationale, isn't that what discussion is for. I asked this question in good faith, but I see an answer in the same vein is not possible.So... I guess you don't think the article should be protected,eh? (olive (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
I'm a bit of a traditionalist in terms of Wikipedia policy, and so feel that protection is used far too often now. Protection should hardly ever be done because of the edits of legitimate editors, unless there is a major edit war going on. You can always sandbox the article and make changes there, and then we can reintegrate the changes in the sandbox and the changes made to the article during that time.
My comment about Naturezak's recent edit was because it seemed that it was reverted simply because it hadn't been discussed on talk, ignoring the rationale in the edit comment, and Dreadstar's criticism above reinforces my view. I can understand people disagreeing with the rationale, and reverting for that reason: I'm not even sure I agree with it. But it seems like some things here are being pushed so far in the direction of discussion for the sake of discussion that it's driving away editors and making a very high bar for those interested in editing the article. If we could reduce the amount of discussion needed, and also reduce the verbosity on the talk page, it might make editing much easier. --Philosophus T 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
And as you can clearly see, I'm the epitome of terseness and contribute significantly to reducing the verbosity and overdiscussion on the talk page... --Philosophus T 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Philosophus. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I do *not* think any good work is being done by this extensive discussion. Instead, I think intelligent changes are being corraled on the Talk page instead of being implemented. As for my removal of sourced content: I was able to see a working draft of a critical response to the article. I found it surprising that instead of the article being defended substantively, it was defended principlially -- that is, no argument was mustered to defend the correctness of the implied conclusion of the article, but instead the right to use "sourced content" as if it were above reproach and always within the bounds of NPOV seemed to be in action. Later this week, I intend to consolidate the consensus on this talk page and implement bold changes within those bounds; if other editors want to contribute to this effort, it would be great to have more of the questions above addressed so that this rather weak article can be improved without further delay. Many thanks to all involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturezak (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that no good work is being done by discussing intended edits in the talk pages prior to making proposed edits. This page has been marked as controversial and has had a history of edit wars and disputes. Certainly the value of discussing any substantive edits in talk before effecting them is to help achieve consensus and to avoid edit wars. That said, I have spent a fair amount of my limited free time over the last 10 months reviewing much of the published research on TM and look forward to contributing. It seems to me that an article describing what Transcendental Meditation is would need to include a thorough review of the known parameters of its practice. Fortunately, there are many peer reviewed publications on the physiological and biochemical effects associated with its practice. In fact, I suspect this topic is probably more well-researched and academically reviewed than 99.9% of all articles found in wikipedia. As a result, this makes improving the factual details of this article all the more straight forward and easier to implement. And I agree with Philosophus' recent comment that peer reviewed publications should be the standard of reliability that we aspire to in this article (as it is in ALL of wikipedia - WP:Reliable_source#Aspects_of_reliability) Duedilly (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The extensive discussion is not doing the work.The editors are, as I said. This article has been protected several times. It has been the scene of edit wars. This a contentious article.Making changes to this article requires consensus. Lets not pretend that any of these condition do not exist, and consensus is the Wikipedia guideline for dealing with this. Verifiable, reliable sources are the Wikipedia standard, and I intend to use those guidelines otherwise the sky is the limit and has been on what can be included in an article. Providing research to support statements in an article does not violate NPOV. Nor has there been consensus reached on where undue weight may be violated. I am certainly one who "talks" too much and I apologize for that.But I am also fed up with being misunderstood and of being accused all of manner of Wikipedia sins.So I try to explain as clearly as possible. Yes, we have talked about using a sandbox and I suggest we do that to avoid any "warring".I will support changes within consensus that are accurate in meaning, that are supported by reliable, verifiable sources and that do not violate undue weight.Thats the Wikipedia way. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it!:0) (olive (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

By the way, Naturezak deleted a addition to the article that appeared to be appropriate. The manner for dealing with concerns he might have had given the climate surrounding this article would have been to follow the delete with a note on the talk pages.I respect Naturezak's boldness but one must also be aware of the climate. Dreadstar was merely following Wkipedia protocol. Please note the procedure outlined on the tag concerning contentious articles.(olive (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

One thing that I would like explained is what people feel is wrong with the article. In my mind, with the exception of a couple things labeled controversies that really aren't, this article fairly reflects the 10,400 articles in the Google News archive and the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. Those who want to change the article seem to focus on saying what they dislike about me rather than about the article.
Yes, there are complex discussions -- the issues are complex. You can't just say that TM is no different from relaxation and then expect people to agree with you, when scores of very specific studies suggest otherwise. TimidGuy (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are misreading all those volumes of research on TM -- much of which is characterized by a lack of rigor, and much of which is produced by MUM organization for the purpose of promoting TM. I bring this point up not as a justification to dismiss that material out of hand, but to give a reason why we should be particularly attentive to potential biases.
To be very, very frank, this *isn't* a particularly complex topic... rather, a number of editors are blocking the efforts of other editors to improve this article. Right now, it suffers from an uninformative and false "neutrality", that gives priority to the questionable evidence proffered by TM advocates instead of scientific consensus. Such is the sort of bog you wade into when spiritualism claims to be scientific. I direct these criticism to the editorial practices, or malpractices, going on here, rather than to the worth of individuals' beliefs.
If you have a paper which indicates a physiological correlate of TM practice which is not within the bounds of "relaxation," I'd be interested to see it. Naturezak (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am going to assume that the editors working on this article right now are intelligent and logical. Even me. :) The discussions on this article have preferred the changes suggested by Naturezak. Can we move beyond saying, "a number of editors are blocking the efforts of other editors to improve this article". This untrue and unfair.How can that be a logical conclusion. If by this other editors is meant then perhaps they can enter the discussion.I would respectfully suggest we deal with what's here now, and deal with the editors involved in this discussion.Many thanks.(olive (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
It's sort of a relief to have you state your point of view clearly. Should I list the article titles here or in the thread above in which we were discussing this and to which you haven't responded? TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are some studies that show that the effects of TM are either quantitatively or qualitatively different from relaxation (see an explanation of the distinction in an earlier thread):

  • “ACTH and b-Endorphin in Transcendental Meditation,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 311-315, 1998
  • “Metabolic control in a state of decreased activation: modulation of red cell metabolism,” American Journal of Cell Physiology, Vol. 245; C457-C461, 1983
  • “Redistribution of blood flow in acute hypometabolic behavior,” The American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 235:89-92, 1978
  • “Catecholamine levels in practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation technique,” Physiology & Behavior 72 (2001), 141-146
  • “Marked Reduction of Forearm Carbon Dioxide Production During States of Decreased Metabolism,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 41, pp. 347-352, 1987
  • “Hormonal Control in a State of Decreased Activation: Potentiation of Arginine Vasopressin Secretion,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 35, pp 591-595 (1985)
  • “Behavioral Alteration of Plasma Phenylalanine Concentration,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 611-614 (1977)
  • “Effects on Regional Cerebral Blood Flow of Transcendental Meditation,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 399-402 (1996)
  • “Modulation of Red Cell Metabolism by States of Decreased Activation: Comparison Between States,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 35, pp. 679-682 (1985)
  • “Plasma Thyroid Hormones, Thyroid Stimulating Hormone, and Insulin During Acute Hypometabolic States in Man,” Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 40, pp. 603-606 (1987)
  • “A wakeful hypome tabolic physiologic state,” American Journal of Physiology, Vol. 221, No. 3, pp. 795-799 September 1971

All of these studies are on Transcendental Meditation, even though the article title doesn't always indicate it. TimidGuy (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Before I spend the time posting a response to each paper -- though I've got notes on many, and have most at hand -- I'd ask that you share statements of conclusion from each paper you'd intend to cite, which defend the assertion that there are dissimilar physiological signals of TM and relaxation. Naturezak (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what our objective is here. I don't see any point in your posting responses to the papers. As I understand it, the way Wikipedia works is that one puts information into an article based on published sources and then cites those sources. We haven't even discussed whether we're going to add a section on TM compared to relaxation. Seems like we should be sure we have a consensus on that first. If we do, then I'd likely write something similar to the thread above, saying that research suggests there are both qualitative and quantitative differences and give some examples and then cite some refs. If there is a study that says that there are no differences, then that can be cited, too. We'd probably also make a distinction between clinical differences and physiological/neurophysiological differences. TimidGuy (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Given our objective to compose an informative, neutral, and correct article on TM, I'd like to be able to make the assertion that the physiological effects can be characterized as "relaxation." The claim that there are effects other than relxation, and that over the long run the effects of TM practice are different from those of long-term relaxation methodologies, is what demands substantiation with PR sources. It's my assertion, from examination of the papers you've indicated and others, that there *are not* qualitative and quantitative differences between relaxation and TM practice. So what I mean to ask is, please indicate the statements of conclusion within those papers which make your point. Naturezak (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If you're intending to make an assertion in the article that all of the physiological effects as a result of TM practice that are outlined in these studies can be characterized as relaxation, you'll need to have a source that says this -- ideally a peer-reviewed publication in an academic journal. I'm sure you're familiar with Wikipedia's core policies of WP:V and WP:NOR. An informative and neutral article will present the studies I've mentioned and the studies you seem to have in mind. I believe that's the way Wikipedia works, per WP:NPOV. I will simply report what's in the studies, and the comparisons that have been made with different types of relaxation. You can report what the studies say that you've found. Then the reader can draw his own conclusion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If you meant that you'd like to make an assertion in this discussion, I'm not sure how it's relevant. These are peer-reviewed studies that are acceptable according to Wikipedia's standards, and I don't know what purpose your commentary will serve. Certainly you're free to comment on them -- any aspect that you'd like -- but I don't know that you'll be able to convince me that they are somehow flawed and don't merit inclusion in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
TimidGuy, please try to address the question at hand. I am very familiar with the relevant Wiki policies. I am asserting that you are misuing, or misunderstand, the conclusions in the research studies you are citing. Given your demonstrated COI violation, it is very important that you demonstrate that you understanding the studies cited. In disagreeing with my observation that TM markers are essentially identical to various stages of parasympathetic relaxtion, you are demonstrating that you don't really understand the science involved. The comments I offered to provide were meant to demonstrate here, in discussion among editors, that your assertion -- "TM is not the same as relaxation" -- is not supported by the research you muster. Naturezak (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Well said. Here, for example, is one of the abstracts:

The concentration of 13 neutral and acidic plasma amino acids was measured before, during and after either 40 min of control relaxation or 40 min of the process known as transcendental meditation (TM). An electro-oeulogram, electroencephalogram, and electromyogram were simultaneously monitored in these subjects. Increased phenylalanine concentration was noted during TM practice with no change during control relaxation; no difference between the groups of total time slept or sleep stage percent was observed. The stability of phenylalanine concentration in controls and lack of correlation of increased phenylalanine with sleep in the long-term practitioners seem to suggest a relationship of the phenylalanine increase to TM practice.

This study suggests that someone practicing Transcendental Meditation has changes to blood chemistry during practice that are not seen in control subjects during relaxation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to raise this question, but do you have a scientific grounding in your educational background? Three points: 1) one doesn't cite from abstracts, one cites from the body of a text, when one is referring to interpretations of study findings; 2) the findings here don't mean what you say they do; and 3) I asked for *you* to explain why this effect is outside the bounds of relaxation. I have access to the research, so while it is helpful for you to be citing specific passages, I am waiting for you to explain exactly why you are making these interpretations. As I have said before, I am asserting that your interpretation is incorrect, and that such interpretations can't be claimed from the research indicated. Naturezak (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the study used a control group that relaxed for 40 minutes and a TM group that meditated for 40 minutes. The TM group had changes to blood chemistry that the control group didn't. Can you explain in what way I'm misrepresenting the study? TimidGuy (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to "Research" section

I question the relevance of the first graf; the inclusion of a list of prestigious research institutions, and a listing of the impressively high number of studies that have been conducted on this topic, seems to imply an endorsement of the practice and underlying theory which contradicts NPOV... certainly, these facts don't report anything about TM itself. Naturezak (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's there because some critics claim that the research is insignificant and has only been done by TM scientists. This shows that the research is broadly based. But I do think you have a valid point -- it gives a promotional tone and deletion may be warranted. Thanks much for discussing. Maybe instead of this paragraph we can name the institutions when we mention specific studies. And if we're going to be addressing research issues, such as relaxation, we'll likely be continuing to add studies, so there may not be any need to mention the number of studies, let alone justification. But I'm eager to hear what others think. TimidGuy (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This section gives a promotional tone if the reader is looking for a promotional tone.I guess that's one side of understanding point of view. I would be fine with this section. It just gives a sense of the broadness of the research. I am not adverse to deleting it either, dependent on how the article starts to look once we implement changes. Its all about balance and balance depends on a holistic view of the article.So sure, I'm open to deleting the section, but lets first take care of the changes we are dealing with right now, and then decide. I think its worth remembering that an article like this is organic, and some material may be left in place after other changes were implemented creating imbalance. We, I believe must constantly view the whole if we want to maintain overall neutrality (olive (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
I'm not sure what you mean by "balance" and "holistic." Balance between what and what? I'm operating under the assumption that information needs to be informative of the article topic, and I don't see how this information is. I'm also confused by your assertion that this is an "organic" article. I don't see what Wiki guideliness this characterization would correspond to. Naturezak (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Answers to questions:
  • Organic simply means changing, constantly growing developing.Wikipedia articles by the very nature of Wikipedia are not static.Editors are constantly changing, adding, subtracting material.
  • Balance: Please check out WP:Weight. Information must be weighted in terms of noteworthiness.Some info. will need more space, emphasis than other info. Appropriately weighted sections give appropriate balance to a an article.An article on the British royalty would be inappropriately weighted if the article had a very large section on Corgis, the dogs kept by the queen.
Its good to see you editing Michael. I like this change. I believe it to be more neutral than either complete deletion or the original version.(olive (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

I've removed the prestige-enhancing list of institutions from the first graf, and invite other editors to compose a more impartial introduction to this section, which explains the historical origins of research on TM, and *why* such research is conducted. Naturezak (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I owe Naturezak an apology here. I realized that the POV he may be sensing in this section is not about the inclusion of these schools but about the selected exclusion of other schools. How to fix it. Possibly, add some other schools and list all in alphabetical order indicating a NPOV listing.Deletion though is probably not an answer given the climate here. I also realized I had said I was fine with deletion. I wasn't clear and I apologize.I think given Wikipedia guidelines on contentious articles that deletion should occur with a consensus.(olive (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
These are the institutions that have done the research. Michael's report on them is impartial. If these were tiny unknown institutions they would have to be reported in the same way. Prestige enhancing is a judgment call.
Naturezak, Michael edited this section and reduced material. He probably should have mentioned it on the talk pages, but the section was under discussion and he added a solution that stands between both the original and a complete deletion. I accept that solution for now , and I assume Michael does. I consider your deletion to be a little hasty. Can we all please remember this is a contentious article and changes especially deletions or additions of material to the article itself should be discussed, otherwise will end up in an edit war situation .... again!

I will likely re add the material tomorrow unless a discussion gives rise to a consensus on another version.(olive (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

The rationale for the removal is not my opinion that these particular institutions are prestige-enhancing; my reason is that there is *no other purpose* to including a selective, non-comprehensive list of institutions *except* to implicitly endorse the 'scientific legitimacy' of the TM methodology. That is, the otherwise superfluous information is being used to validate the legitimacy of TM as against the claims of critics. I encourage you not to re-add the material unless you can explain how a reader will learn more about TM by reading that Harvard researchers undertook a study which somehow involved it. Again, I invite other editors to compose a more impartial introduction to this section, which explains the historical origins of research on TM, and *why* such research is conducted. If you feel my rationale is poorly-founded, please explain why, rather than threatening to 'overrule' my 'hasty' edits. I agree with TimidGuy that the only place for the name of an institution is if a particular research stuyd is being studied.
TimidGuy, do you have a source for your assertion that some critics claim that TM research is only conducted by TM scientists? I continue to anticipate your explanation for the use of those cited studies. Naturezak (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
See [9] TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see the the relevance... can you explain? to be clear, I had two questions: 1) can you provide a clear explanation as to how any of the studies you are citing provide evidence that TM has phsyiological markers outside the definition of 'relaxation'; and 2) do you have a source for your assertion that some critics claim that TM research is only conducted by TM scientists? Naturezak (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am responding to your posts, and comments like," I've removed the prestige-enhancing list of institutions". If you have other concerns they should be discussed.(olive (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
Lets be fair. Michaelbusch, an non-TM supporter came in and added a revised version of this section. Without discussion in the middle of extensive discussions on a contentious article, an article that has recently been protected, you deleted the section based on your opinion, and not on discussion of the editors involved.I am not attached to this section; I am attached to following Wikipedia Guidelines. I am not threatening you, and to say that after the comments I've made is insulting.
I would like the changes to remain in place as per guidelines until they can be discussed.Your comments implying research is not valid seem surprising, and please note Wikipedia standards for inclusion as reliable, verifiable sources to be Peer review and inclusion in appropriate publication. Sources we use in this article must adhere to this standard.If they do, they are acceptable sources, despite personal opinions of any editors. (olive (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
I have no objection to the use of peer-reviewed research. What I object to is the mischaracterization of that research. I think I've been very clear in explaining this distinction, and have set out very clear guidelines for settling the issue. Naturezak (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Answering Naturezak's two questions above. 1) I replied earlier this morning in the other thread. 2) I had your recent comment in mind when I wrote that. TimidGuy (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In what other thread? Please link to it. I haven't seen an answer to either questions: 1) can *you* provide a clear explanation as to how any of the studies you cite provide evidence of phsyiological markers outside the definition of 'relaxation'; 2) a source for your assertion that "some critics claim that TM research is only conducted by TM scientists"? Naturezak (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The thread above in which we've been discussing this. TimidGuy (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe its time to let this section go. There is a lot of discussion about a section that may be insignificant. In future, I strongly suggest that deletion and addition given the climate of this article be subjected to discussion and consensus.(olive (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

To clarify . I'm talking about the section and discussion on the section on research institutions.(olive (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] To do list of changes with consensus

  • Done move the Intentional Communities section to external links
  • Implement a new sequence: Lead; Procedure & Theory; Development (or History); Research; Controversies; References
  • Done include the two lawsuits in a single heading
  • Combine the separate sections on theory and procedure in the current article into one, and greatly shorten and simplify
  • To Do move the empirical research on higher states of consciousness out of the theory section and into the research section
  • Done Remove "effortless" in the lead which is redundant with the latter part of the sentence
  • Done Use Naturezak's new version of the Development (or History) section
  • Done Exclude the list of celebrities from the article unless someone can justify its inclusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 16:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In the thread on lawsuits, Naturezak didn't explicitly agree to a single heading, but I assume consensus since he himself edited his working draft of the outline to include this change.

[edit] Revisiting Theory and Procedure

I have re added "Theory" for now since its inclusion was agreed on by all editors editing at the time. I'm not sure what it really means either, in this context, or if its the best word for this section. I think Michael raises a important point. Michael maybe you could come up with something better.There should eventually be changes to that section so maybe wait until that section is done to rename.(olive (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

I do not agree with this change, since as Michaelbusch says, this is a *definition* rather than a theory. Notably, the yogi's "theory" generates no testable hypotheses. Naturezak (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I am a trifle confused.Have we thrown out discussion and consensus,in favour of adding or deleting anything you want based on your opinion. Is this Wikipedia? Are there Wikipedia Guidelines? Are there tags on these pages? Could someone provide some enlightement.(olive (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
Let's not be argumentative, Olive. The discussion is moving forward; you simply don't seem to be pleased with it. If you have a reasonable argument that demonstrates where my reasoning went wrong, you should share it, rather than making noise that WP policy is being ignored. Truly, it isn't. Naturezak (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Theory" in heading

TimidGuy and Olive have told me that there was consensus for putting the word theory into the heading of the Procedure section. I missed this in the large amount of material above, and I would not have agreed. Theory has a particular definition that doesn't apply to Maharishi's definition of states of consciousness. I'm a stickler for proper use of the word theory. Only when it is unavoidable will I use the term to mean anything other than a set of ideas that have been tested by observational evidence - which doesn't apply here. A theory is something like 'objects in the gravitational field of a point mass will experience a force proportional to their mass and the mass of the point mass, and inversely proportional to the square of their separation' or 'Transcendental Meditation decreases blood pressure by X in Y% of American teenage female practioners'. Maharishi's division of consciousness into seven different states is simply a definition, not a theory. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any changes to the heading of the section are needed at this time. I agree that it needs revision - but of course the changes I would make are such that the TM editors would flame the talk page. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Michael. I want to reiterate a consensus was reached on this. As well, theory may have multiple meanings depending on the field being referenced. As I said the title here here may need to be changed when the new material is added. Too bad you didn't join the discussion earlier but a consensus was reached by the editors present.Discussion "waits for no man".
Since this article is under a lot of scrutiny right now pending substantial changes I would suggest that you not make changes unless they are discussed per Wikipedia guidelines on a contentious article.Try Us.(olive (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
I have largely avoided discussion because I find this page to be drowning in verbosity. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever! Discussion waits for no man.Please join us.(olive (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
Who were the parties to the consensus? Not me, for one. I think "theory" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturezak (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I know of no such "consensus" except among editors associated with TM. The term "theory" has specific implications and should not be used in this case. --Dseer (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We have been discussing procedure and theory for several weeks and there has never been a comment by any of the editors involved about concerns with the "term" theory. Any of you who read the posts will know that a.) no one commented one way or the other and b.)I was also concerned about the term but felt since major changes have been planned for that section that the term could be added at that point.There is a discussion ongoing on a contentious article and deletion or adding of material without discussion is not generally considered appropriate. My concern is with Wikipedia guidelines.Please feel free to read the discussions incoming editors so that you know what is going on. Otherwise comments are inaccurate. You're right. This wasn't a consensus in the strictest meaning of the word. The discussion never even occurred. Do I, once again, see a lynching coming on.(olive (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

read thread #15 above: "Toward Consensus on a New Structure" to review where consensus was reached at the end of November on reorganizing and re-naming. Roseapple (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues at hand

I wanted to summarize the issues at hand right now.

  • Some editors object to the word theory in the introduction. I am not attached to the word. However at this time, the theory and procedure section material has not been decided on , and if we remove theory we are dealing with a lot of material and a title that does not support what is in the section. Something needs to be in the heading for the time being.What should that be?
  • Research institution section has been deleted without consensus. I am willing to leave it like that since further discussion seems a waste of time. However does a new introduction need to be placed here and if so what? A history of the research?
  • I will add to the appropriate section in talk, the condensed version of Malnak v Yogi and editors can decide if it should replace the rather long version now in place. I doubt readers wade through the long version. (olive (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
  • Relaxation and the research on TM technique.Please refer to thread on discussion and samples of research.(olive (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Interpretations of TM research

The Jevning study indicates (but does not demonstrate) that plasma neurotransmitter levels increased during meditation. The same happens during relaxation; phenylalanine is a precursor to tyrosine, which is both a chemical precursor and a signal transducer involved in systemic 'stress' levels. The control group was a 'resting' group, not a "relaxation" group. Given clinical conditions, it is not unusual that a differential emerged between the study group and the control. This study might be included in the listing of research on TM, but it can't be used to substantiate the claim that TM has physiological markers not shared with states of relaxation. That lay interpretation is not supported by the data. Did you read the study yourself, or were you basing your interpretation on third-party reports? Naturezak (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have the study. The study uses "relaxation," so I would think a summary in a Wikipedia article could reasonably use it. If I were summarizing it, I'd say "indicates" or "suggests." (Most research studies, as you know, typically use tentative language rather than "demonstrates.") You could argue about the wording but I don't think there would be a Wikipedia policy that would disallow my using this study to distinguish the physiological effects of TM from those relaxation, whether quantitatively or qualitatively. If you wanted to dispute or explain away the findings, I think you'd have to find a published source that does so or a TM study that specifically addresses these same parameters but with differing results. TimidGuy (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This is where the issue of your medical understanding is coming into question; it's rather elementary phsyiology. The study neither indicates nor demonstrates that there are effects outside the bounds of relaxation; I'm not disputing the findings, so much as your characterization of an increase in plasma NTs being other than a sign of relaxation. Naturezak (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't pretend to have any medical knowledge. But it's not necessary, as long as I accurately characterize the study. The study did an experiment and found an "acute appearance of increased plasma phenylalanine" in the TM group that wasn't seen in the control group that used simple relaxation. So I guess this an example of a quantitative distinction. Maybe next we can look at a study that finds a qualitative distinction. TimidGuy (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no. The Jevning study would be an example of a qualitative difference since there was no change of phenylalanine concentration in the control relaxation group. A quantitative difference would be the case if both groups saw increased phenylalanine concentration but there was a statistically significant greater increase in the TM group. TimidGuy (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see your purpose in trying to categorize these findings as either 'qualitative' or 'quantitative'. The terms don't really apply here, that is, they are misapplied if you are trying to say something meaningful about the nature or implications of the data or analysis in this study. I continue to be puzzled at your inability to understand that the rather modest claims about the report of a rather non-actue effect made by these authors still doesn't support your assertion that there are effects induced by TM which are different from those induced by relaxation. Certainly, the paper doesn't contradict my asserion that TM produces effects that can safely be called 'relaxation'. Naturezak (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the terms "quantitative" and "qualitative" as applied to differences between TM and simple resting states somehow do not apply. In fact, both terms accurately apply in describing the types of physiological differences found (and while neither one is necessarily more substantial or important than the other, it may be argued that qualitative differences are medically more interesting). There have been hundreds of published studies that show statistically significant physiological differences between the practice of TM and resting states. These studies have been performed in dozens of different labs around the world for over 40 years and have involved many hundreds of researchers, reviewers and editors. The results are robust and compelling. These studies have been scientifically vetted and published in top medical journals, thus satisfying wikipedia's highest level of RS. Any argument to the contrary is factually unsupported and is simply OR. Duedilly (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the same assertion that TimidGuy has been making. I invite you to cite one of these studies, and provide, as a courtesy, just a few words indicating your understanding of how the authors' conclusion in the article supports this assertion. I'm not disagreeing that there is a lot of RS research done on TM; where I disagree is the broad interpretation that TM practice can't be characterized essentially as a process of relaxation. Relaxation, distinct from rest, mind you. Though perhaps it is a kind of OR for Wiki editors to be engaged in debating the interpretation of scientific studies. To get more to the point, could you cite a RS that makes this assertion itself, directly? Naturezak (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please define and physiologically characterize your distinction of "relaxation" relative to "rest" and provide medical references establishing this distinction.Duedilly (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Important question to Naturzak

Hello Naturezak. Could you please let me know why you are ignoring the procedure adopted on this article and on any contentious Wikipedia article as noted in this tag.(olive (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

It may be a procecure that you have adopted for the article, but it is not one I agreed to follow. Rather, I am satisfied in staying within WP guidelines. While we are on the topic, I'll observe once again that you, and TimidGuy, should not be editing the article directly, given your non-neutral POV, but instead should be restricting your participation to the discussion page. Naturezak (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Naturezak, I didn't adopt these guidelines. Please read the tags on this article. I consider your comments inappropriate especially given the recent history of the discussions on this article.(olive (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
I'm pretty surprised actually and sorry.There have been a lot of changes made to this article , and I think the article is looking better than ever. I also think there is more to do. There are big changes coming on and I think agreement is needed to implement the changes. Trying to get rid of the other editors is not the best way to get a good article out of this process. There was a lot of good cooperative work going on. I'd like to see that continue. My concern is not about the changes you made. Both TG and I tweaked them to make them more neutral, and I think they are fine, but with disregarding the method the group had managed to cooperate on the article. I can't see why you would disregard that process.... sure there was a lot of discussion by everyone, but still the article was improving with out edit warring or protection . I want to reiterate , Wikipedia is about group process.(olive (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
I refer to the guidelines you seem to think I have violated. Since I didn't violate any WP guidelines, I presumed you meant *other* guidelines, such as delaying productive edits with voluminous and obfuscatory discussion, etc. You are welcome to judge my comments as inappropriate, but I think you'd be hard put to explain how they violate civility or WP policy. I'll observe once again that you should not be editing the article directly, given your non-neutral POV, but instead should be restricting your participation to the discussion page. Naturezak (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I have in any way been insulting. That wasn't my intention.I do wonder what you would do If I just went ahead and made the edits I wanted to without discussion.Consensus protects your potential edits as well as mine. I feel like discussion creates consensus and a sense of order. I have seen some very abusive stuff on these discussions and in the article, and respecting the guideline on the tags about adding comments to the talk pages maybe helps that. Hey maybe I'm pushing for something no one else cares about, and maybe my concern is extreme.I do try to explain things carefully. There is a lot of misunderstanding , and its unpleasant.I try to explain to prevent misunderstanding. POV? Given the discussions on this pages and the agreements reached so far, that just seems insulting, but that's the game here, so I guess i just have to suck it up and not complain. Having knowledge of a subject and/or disagreeing is not POV.... its just disagreement. (olive (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

[The {Controversial3} tag, currently located at the top of the talk page, was here, but User:Philosophus removed it, because adding templates for discussion purposes can have unintended side effects and makes following the discussion difficult.]

I'm not entirely coherent right now, but it doesn't seem to me that he's doing anything wrong per Wikipedia policy right now. That tag isn't actually policy, and IAR can go a long way with things that aren't policy, especially if the edits are good and people don't disagree with them. It doesn't seem like there is any edit warring going on over his edits, so why would following some particular procedure that isn't policy be important? --Philosophus T 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing. I probably shouldn't have put it here but I am feeling relatively desperate with an editor who ignores Wikipedia guidelines for contentious articles, and the situation here in which editors have made progress in a cooperative manner on this page.Many of the changes made were suggested by Naturezak. Sure its slower than just adding whatever one wants at anytime, but that's the nature of Wikipedia.Its cooperative. This article has just gone through edit warring and was protected. I would not say ever that an editor is doing something wrong, but rather that this may not be the most cooperative way of dealing with this.We are trying to move ahead with consensus from the editors involved to prevent edit warring and protection again.From my point this action seems thoughtless and disrespectful. This may not be the case, but unless the editor explains why he is doing this and explains his edits as per guidelines thats how it seems. This particular edit may be fine, but what if I decide to delete or edit something or TG does, or if Zak makes an edit that is highly controversial. What then?.If we proceed in a orderly way, everyone has a say, everyone will feel good about the article.The bottom line is the climate of the article -highly controversial, contentious.(olive (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Characterizing Maharishi

I've tweaked the recent edits in the Origin section. Maharishi doesn't self-identify as a Hindu, and as I understand it, Wikipedia says that editors should respect the person's self-identification regarding religion. I also felt "spiritual guru" was pulling the article toward a particular point of view. We've been ruthlessly editing the article to remove POV (thanks to some good suggestions by Naturezak), so I think we want to make sure it doesn't get pulled in the other direction. TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible rewrite of Procedure section

I hope we can continue our momentum. We've made lots of changes. Thanks to everyone. I apologize if I've taxed people's patience. A next step might be to try again with the Procedure section.

I reviewed briefly the various versions of the Procedure/Theory section. There were a number of unresolved points of contention. So I thought that maybe as a starting point I'd simply condense what's currently in the article. I'm not really changing anything, mainly condensing, so maybe we can simply decide whether it's better than what's there and postpone issues such as how to characterize the process of TM.

The technique is taught to new practitioners in a standardized, seven-step procedure, comprised of two introductory lectures, a personal interview, and a two-hour instruction session given on each of four consecutive days. Instruction begins with a short ceremony performed by the teacher, after which the student learns and begins practicing the technique. Subsequent sessions are said to provide further clarification of correct practice, as well as more information about the technique.[7][8] The goal of long-term practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique is enlightenment, according to Maharishi. He posits a theory of enlightenment comprising seven major states of consciousness. The first three, waking, dreaming, and deep dreamless sleep, are commonly known. Transcendental consciousness, the fourth state, is said to be experienced during practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. Maharishi says that the practitioner eventually maintains the experience of transcendental consciousness of the fourth state while living everyday life. He refers to this as enlightenment and terms this the fifth state, cosmic consciousness. States six and seven, God consciousness and unity consciousness, are further refinements of cosmic consciousness.

A lot shorter for sure. Maybe too short. TimidGuy (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems much better than what is there now. I'd support this version.(olive (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
Since there have been no objections and a fair amount of time has passed,I have added the new, shorter, reader-friendlier version of the "old" procedure theory section. I have also added "goals" to the heading as a suggestion.(olive (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC))