Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:15, 27 November 2007

Alternative medicine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Archives

Index 01 (Pre - Feb 2005): 02 (Nov 28 2005 - Nov 30 2005) 03 (Nov 30 2005 - Feb 10 2006) 04 (Feb 10 2006 - May 28 2006) 05 (May 28 2006 - Jun 25 2006) 06 (Jun 25 2006 - Jul 19 2006) 07 (Jul 19 2006 - Oct 31 2006) 08 (Nov 01 2006 - Nov 25 2006) 09 (Nov 25 2006 - Dec 21 2006) 10 (Dec 21 2006 - Jan 11 2007) 11 (Jan 11 2007 - Feb 28 2007) 12 (Feb 28 2007 - Apr 16 2007) 13 (Apr 16 2007 - Oct 01 2007) 14 (Oct 01 2007 - Dec 31 2007) 15 (Dec 31 2007 - Feb 9 2008) 16 (Feb 9 2008 - June 14 2008) 17 (June 14 2008 - Oct 2 2008)

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 • contribs)

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. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages’s. You also note an early study in the article and question its inclusion. I wanted to mention again Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages as a way of defining what is reliable and verifiable. In Misplaced Pages, the standard for reliability for cited research is peer-review, and as has been mentioned, the publication itself. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and the arguments may be legitimate, the standard that Misplaced Pages editors generally should use and have to rely on is peer-review and quality of publication as Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages! Do any other articles receive so much constant attention? Sueyen 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

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." 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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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))

COI editing on this article

Template:RFCreli

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. ——Martin ☎ 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. ——Martin ☎ 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ——Martin ☎ 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.Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages) the more everyone will be glad to see a further Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages – much more than the majority of all who are editing in Misplaced Pages – 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)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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))

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))

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.

• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics