Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:14, 23 May 2009

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

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.

Alternative views Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance 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.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

2005 British Elections

This is fascinating, but I'm at a loss to decide if it goes better in this article, the MMY article, the NLP article or somewhere else. I'm inclined to say here, since this is supposed to be about TM and the instruction in it, so MMY banning the teaching of TM in the UK would seem to belong here. It is definitely notable.

In 2004 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi directed his followers at the Maharishi village, complete with golden meditation dome, at Skelmersdale, Lancashire to meditate with the aim of influencing the British electorate into overturning the Labour government. The day after Tony Blair's Labour Party won reelection in May 2005 despite these efforts, the Maharishi ordered that all instruction in TM cease in the UK. The ban was lifted in August 2007, two months after Blair resigned as Prime Minister.

I'm new to all this discussion on TM, but, as we know about any media story, they can spin the facts into a story that may be far from the truth, or just present a version/view of the truth. Perhaps we will never know fully why the Maharishi stopped teaching TM in the UK at that time, and therefore it may be better in a "neutral" Wiki article to just say that TM teaching was stopped in UK from x date to x date. 5/12/2008 Bigweeboy

I think you're right that the wording you suggest would be more neutral, but Misplaced Pages is primarily a place where sources are used and cited to give second and third party information. So in this case what is in the article as added by Fladrif, I believe, is based on those sources. The media for the most part says about the same thing on this topic, and Faldrif has, if I remember attempted to make the report of the source as neutral as possible. So what we have in the article is probably fine.(olive (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

I am new to the whole debate here. Also, I am not familiar with the history of the TM organization. However, it seems strange to me that there is so much discussion of this one point under the "History" section of this article. From reading the article I learn that the Maharishi started to teach TM in the late 1950's. Elsewhere, we learn that TM is part of a global organization. So, given the fact that TM has been around for 50 years, and is an international thing, why are there so few items in the "History" section? Surely some more newsworthy things happened to TM in these 50 years? Why then give so much importance to the British election item? Perhaps more items could be added to the History section. Bigweeboy 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Where should we put it?Fladrif (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC) One more detail. Fladrif (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This may be interesting, but notable is another issue. As I said to Will, until we can decide on some standard for what is significant or notable, I don't agree to put anything else into this article. I don't intend to make this discussion difficult but i also feel we are wasting our time talking in circles since we have no baseline of agreement on standards for this article.(olive (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Then discussion is not merely difficult; its pointless. Fladrif (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest mediation. We then have a neutral party assisting us through some of the difficulties we've encountered, and so we can hopefully establish some baseline consistent standards for editing here(olive (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

But you have at least two neutral parties already. Me and WillBeback. A huge part of the problem here is your misperception that neutral parties are hostile to you and to the subject-matter of the article. Fladrif (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Being noted in prominent, mainstream newspapers is a good indication of notability. The fact that it had an impact on the teaching of TM in a large country is another indicator of notability. The material is well-sourced and neutrally presented. I can't see any reason not to add it to the article, and I don't see any policy-based reason given here to omit it either.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The addition is not worded in a neutral manner. Its notability has not been established.

Mediation provides a neutral party. If you were truly neutral you would consider the opinion of another editor here when she asks for a simple discussion to establish consistency instead of pushing through this change at this point in the discussion. I am asking fot a freeze on this article until we can come to some agreement. Neutral editors would honour that. You aren't either of you .

This is inconsistent with your comment about Allen Green. Green appears in a prominent Canadian newspaper. A newspaper that comes out of the provincial capital is a notable newspaper in Canada, but I believe you said this wasn't notable. I guess I don't see that we have any consistency here. I have asked repeatedly that we set a standard. Looks very much like if I do it its not right, but if you two do it is. Interesting dilemma. If you add this to the article you do it without a real consensus. I note Will's comment on the COINB "So if there are, for example, five "pro" editors and two "anti" editors, the "pro" editors can't claim consensus as an excuse for violating NPOV, even if talk page discussions show a clear preference for one version over another." You both believe you are neutral, I don't believe you are , and your addition of this information while innocuous indicates a clear and deliberate attempt to override what ever I have to say or suggest as has been the case through out all of these discussions . Yet Fladrif has refused to be available for mediation . That is his prerogative. Yet, don't try and tell me that either of you cares about the neutrality of this article above what you believe is neutral. If you make this addition at this time you risk an edit war.(olive (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

"Its notability has not been established." Huh? Can you explain, especially what you mean by "notability" and "established".

Also, for everyone here, I think this discussion (and all discussions on this talk page) would benefit by concentrating on content issues and avoiding discussions of editors. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz. In addition to his questions, I'm not sure how the presentation of the material is non-neutral. (FWIW, I'd edit out the "complete with golden meditation dome" which seems extraneous to the assertion but which might be suitable in a discussion of the village.)   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that change to the proposed language. Fladrif (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right! Did anybody call Rracecarr.(olive (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Oh and we should be discussing the edits and not the editors ... stick around Ronz and see how that goes... and maybe check the discussion and the archives.(olive (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

You have constantly stated that editors - me especially it seems - are "attacking" you personally yet every-time someone here wants to include something that TM Limited dislikes you make personal attacks on them - see above. As to your most recent comment above, well, Will has been especially patient with you and has always shown neutrality.

This is starting to look "silly". 2 I will repeat, this obvious intellectually dishonesty is reflecting VERY badly on the academic credentials of MUM and it's academic staff in my opinion. And any future perspective students would be wise to make notes - again in my opinion.The7thdr (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any more discussion of the proposal. If there's no objection to it based on policies then it should be added.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been no substantive objection based on any Wiki Policy. I put it in the article with your changes.Fladrif (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a collaborative environment. The successful efforts to isolate an editor here are a poor reflection of that environment. You are ignoring a legitimate request. And you are interpreting policy to suit your needs and that interpretation is not consistent. The edit, except for its language may or may not be the concern. I ask again that we define what and how you determine significant, notable not just here but in other places in the article. (olive (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Why was well-sourced and neutrally-presented material deleted from the article? What policy basis was there?   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I do not agree with the edit. It is not neutrally worded ... that's WP: NPOV. There was no discussion on its placement... and frankly in my opinion it was forced in despite requests for discussion to establish terms for editing ... so you will be able, I'm sure to override my deletion but I do have right to refuse the edit by removing it.(olive (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

"I don't agree" is not a policy reason. You've been asked repeatedly to point out what isn't neutral so it can be fixed if necessary. The placement issue is not a reason for outright deletion - it's a reason to move it to a different section. Again, please either suggest a correction or restore the material.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For myself I don't think the edit that Fladif contributed is relevant to the article on Transcendental Meditation. I think it would be more appropriate to appear in the article on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. However I think it is notable to comment on the fact that TM was not taught in England for those two years in the TM Article due to the organisation that teaches it not agreeing with the policies of Tony Blair...I'm not sure the reception section is the place for it though...maybe history? The part about Maharishi asking his followers to meditate so Tony would not be re-elected is not so relevant to the TM article...more so to the article about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, or the Natural Law Party...--Uncreated (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We have quite a bit in the article about TM being used to affect physiology, but we don't have anything about its use to affect political elections. So that and the suspension of TM training both appear relevant to this article. It might also be relevant to those other two articles, but if we're going to describe one set of affects of the meditation then I don't see why we wouldn't include this one as well.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Will, can you point me to the bit in the sited articles where it talks about TM being used to influence the elections in Britain.--Uncreated (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood:

• At the same time he ordered his followers ... to beam peace-loving thoughts to the British electorate with the aim of overtuning the Labour government.

I haven't had a chance to investigate this further. Isn't this along the lines of meditating to reduce crime and warfar - the Maharishi Effect? Or is it something different?   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know TM does not in any way, shape or form involve "beaming peace loving thoughts". To be honest I am unsure what that sentence means...I could guess but it would be OR from my side.--Uncreated (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is. The leaders in village lamented that they only had about 400 people, and the reason the Maharishi's plan didn't work was that they needed twice that number meditating for TME to influence the election. Fladrif (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif it doesn't mention that the effect would be created through Transcendental Meditation...I would guess the article is probably referring to the TM-Sidhi program and not Transcendental Meditation, but that would be OR from myside. --Uncreated (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of mediation. All the editors on the page have a bias. This is obvious because we can rarely agree on content or even interpretation of Wiki policies or a agree on a set of procedures for discussion and decision making. There is alot of emotion here, that means editors are not neutral. A mediator would save us all a lot of time and effort. I support Olives application for mediation.--Kbob (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can't even agree on Wiki Policies, then you have no business editing here. And there is no reason, based on the behavior of the TM-connected editors here toward Will, to think that the involvement of yet another impartial Admin will have any effect whatsoever. There is consensus among neutral editors to include this material. It is reliably sourced, neutrally presented, relevant and notable. No subtantive objection whatsoever has been raised to it; no Wiki policy has been cited why it should not be included. Olive simply announces that she won't agree to anything and promises an edit war if anyone crosses her. What's next - holding her breath til she turns blue and passes out? If that isn't reason for her to be blocked, I don't know what is. Fladrif (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Commnets: We have on this page, an implied method, that has been adopted because this is a contentious article, of proceeding slowly to make changes into the article. Kbob asked for permission to add two words, and I suggested a couple of days on a consensus-reached edit before saying I would remove the edit in question. Last night an edit was added so quickly into this article that all editors did not have time to see or comment on the edit, and although I was here, the edit was again added so quickly I didn't have time to even check the sources . The original edit was non neutral. I noted, that in my mind it violated NPOV. I notice there have been changes to it. Its only fair, and speaks of neutrality to give all editors active on this article time to check and think about an edit. This wasn't done. Moreover, when I mentioned (no, not threatened,) the possibility of an edit war if this edit was added, miraculously the calvary showed up. Its perfectly fine in my mind to notify editors of a pending change in an article, but it is also only fair to give all editors with an interest in a contentious article time to comment, possibly a couple of days. People have lives and jobs outside of Misplaced Pages after all and aren't always available. Yesterdays edit was forced into this article because there was no time given for all editors to comment, and my concerns and comments were ignored.

I will mention that constant references of editors in terms of NPOV, COI and other highly negative personal comments are disruptive and if they continue I will ask for admin assistance.

Suggestions: I have had the time now to look at the sources Fladrif links to. They are highly misinformed in many ways but reliable, verifiable sources and the fact that there were several newspapers in the UK carrying this story would possibly makes the edits notable in a more general sense. Adding them to the reception section seems misplaced since they refer to the Maharishi Effect. I would suggest adding a short comment on the Maharishi effect as a lead into this edit, and then adding the edit. Followers, should be in quotes.

I am adding a draft version of an edit describing the Maharishi effect and then a version of the material on the UK elections . I'm also adding Fladrif's edit. I'm not attached to either my or Fladrif's version.

I would suggest that Fladrif remove his edit for now until we can reach agreement, which shouldn't be difficult. I am attempting to limit myself to a one revert rule so will not make another revert.(olive (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Version1

The Maharishi Effect is described as a positive influence created by 1% of a population practicing the TM technique, and the square root of 1% practicing the Yogic flying technique. In 2004, Mharishi Mahesh Yogi withdrew teaching of Transcendental Mediation from the UK after efforts of Yogic Fliers in Skarmsdale, England to influence the election failed. In 2007, two months after Tony Blair,the British Prime Minister who was seen by Maharishi as responsible for England’s war-like position, resigned, the teaching of TM in the UK resumed.

Version2

The Maharishi Effect is described as a positive influence created by 1% of a population practicing the TM technique, and the square root of 1% practicing the Yogic flying technique. In 2004 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi directed his followers at the Maharishi village at Skelmersdale, Lancashire to meditate with the aim of influencing the British electorate into overturning the Labour government. The day after Tony Blair's Labour Party won reelection in May 2005 despite these efforts, the Maharishi ordered that all instruction in TM cease in the UK. The ban was lifted in August 2007, two months after Blair resigned as Prime Minister.

(olive (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

search on google for "TM square root 1 percent population" to get 27,000 hits. i checked the first five pages. only ONE link was something to do with mathematics, not TM Lkcl (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

I really am trying to stay out of this but - the main point of the references is nothing to do with the M effect - it is the fact that TM Limited's CEO - or whatever title you want to give him - officially "banned" the Teaching of TM during a number of years because a political party he did not agree with - and who would blame him as things turned out - won an election. There is no need here to "colour" this part with the "M effect".

Apart from the fact that it is not the "thrust" of what is being said here i have seen this "tactic" used in this article previously. It goes something like this:

1 An editor introduces something that MUM or TM marketing is "uncomfortable" with.

2 "They" then spend much time arguing that it is not "notable" (a favorite) not reliably sourced or "not part of this article

3 it becomes impossible to sustain this argument in the light of rational discourse and the item is included.

4 MUM or TM marketing make a suggestion; it is actually linked to the M Effect", Yogic Flying, Walking through walls, etc and this should be briefly mentioned.

5 In the interests of "keeping the peace" none faculty staff of MUM, TM marketing, etc agree.

6 Things go silent. Editors move on. Other subjects are examined.

7 Members of MUM who could just as easily discuss this over lunch in the MUM canteen. Start a discussion stating that because it has some mention of M Effect, Bunny Hopping or whatever, it belongs in the back-end of TM WIKI they have created that regarding Yogic Flying, etc.

8 off it goes.

This can be found repeatedly through the history of this article. Indeed, if one goes back to this time one will see this article - and all but two editors agreed - that this article was considered to be about the TM "movement" not the mediative practice alone. The7thdr (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask that the addition by Fladriff be removed as the discussion on the topic was not completed. As you know, there has been a common practice on this page to review additions and their wording, here on the discussion page before making changes to the article. This procedure was not followed and so it would be good if it was removed while the discussion is continued.--Kbob (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The process was followed. Not a single substantive objection was presented. The language I proposed was simple, straightforward, accurate, perfectly sourced, impartial, relevant and notable. Neither you nor olive nor Uncreated nor anyone else have advanced a single specific substantive objection. 7th is exactly right about the editing process in these articles. I am not going to permit this to turn into yet another Caucus Race. As for olive's "alternatives" I do have specific, substantive objections: (i) Why discuss TME and the theory of 1% if the population meditating vs SqRt of 1% yogic flying at this point? It's out of place, and unsourced. It might go elsewhere in the TM article, because TME is not exclusively a TM-Sidhi concept. But not here. (ii) her alternative #1 omits the relevant dates, all citations, and that the plan to influence the election was ordered by MMY. Fladrif (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

search on google for "TM square root 1 percent population" to get 27,000 hits. i checked the first five pages: only ONE link was something to do with mathematics, not TM. you should be able to find something in there, Fladrif, which satisfies the craving for sources. Lkcl (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

try this one, which, joy of joys, is the new york times. i'm sure that if you put a little effort in, you would find other sources which regurgitate this 1% and square root of 1% effect jobbie. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/22peace.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/M/Meditation Lkcl (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Still trying to "stay out of this" but i have to agree with Fladrif and disagree with Kbob. There is no need for constant discussion of anything that the TM movement is uncomfortable with; as long as it is relevant, notable and reliably resourced. Fladifs edit is all of these. No one has yet provided a rational reason why it should not be included in its present form. Goodness, this is tiring sometimes. Can't the TM movement see what a negative light this is putting you and is throwing doubt on the academic honesty of your movements research and editing? I address this to no one editor,. Really, from the outside it is embarrassing and somewhat painful to read. The7thdr (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif you have have failed so far to site sources showing how your addition is relevant to this article. I agree that something should be mentioned about TM not being taught in the United Kingdom for those two years...but the information that you have added "In 2004 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi directed his followers at the Maharishi village at Skelmersdale, Lancashire to meditate with the aim of influencing the British electorate into overturning the Labour government." Doesn't seem to have anything to do with Transcendental Meditation from the sources you have provided. Perhaps you could site the relevant sentence or paragraph from the sources you have provided.--Uncreated (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncreated, you are kidding aren't you? S/he hasn't cited resources to say its not relevant to the article? Perhaps you want him to cite a resource saying that this can be cited in WIKI? :-) "

"but the information that you have added "In 2004 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi directed his followers at the Maharishi village at Skelmersdale, Lancashire to meditate with the aim of influencing the British electorate into overturning the Labour government." Doesn't seem to have anything to do with Transcendental Meditation from the sources you have provided"

So, let me get this right, its ok to cite that the CEO of TM limited said that TM could not be taught in the UK but not why he made this decision. No context? No rational? Please. The7thdr (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The7thdr: the reasons were several - and you're not going to like them. 1) Tony Blair was a war-mongerer who was not in the slightest bit interested in stability or peace. having such a person as a Prime Minister was a seriously bad idea. 2) not quite in exactly these words, but close to it, Maharishi stated that if the UK population was so stupid as to vote in a war-mongerer, then they were not welcome to benefit from the stabilising effects of TM. 3) on the basis that evil tends to become more obvious when there is less stabilising to counteract it, Maharishi ordered everyone OUT of the country, or to get as fast as possible into Vaastu (spiritual-protecting) homes. 4) in this way, Maharishi surmised that the UK population would, thick as two xxxxing short planks as it was (overall - not all of it, obviously), be able to get through its stupid thick collective head that there was something desperately wrong with its leaders, much quicker and much more obviously than if the TM meditators were "accidentally" stabilising the country. 5) additionally, TM practitioners, by leaving the country, would not be subjected to quite so much stress. The7thdr: you should by now be going "oh. ah. um. err. i see." and perhaps now have a clearer idea of why it would be inappropriate to put such a description onto the page which describes the "Transcendental Meditation Technique" rather than describing "The History Of The Transcendental Meditation Movement", yes? Lkcl (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would I not like the fact that you state Blair and the entire - with one or two exceptions - Labour cabinet were a warmongering cabinet. Is this something I am not supposed to know? :-). But this makes no difference to the inclusion of the piece in this article. The facts are, TMs CEO asked a bunch of TMrs to bunny hop to stop a political party being elected (this raises some interesting questions about the M effect by the way. TM maintains that it generates "peace and love - man" in the surroundings of those doing it. However, in this instance tms ceo seemed to think it would have the effect of changing peoples thoughts about who to vote for - a form of occult "mind control"? Interesting. Secondly, if Labour had not won the election the |Tories would have done and they were just as pro war as labour.

Secondly, and as commentators have mentioned, why was the teaching of TM not withdrawn from the USA for the very same reason - a pro war, war mongering country? Indeed, TMs CEO had requested America's TM bunny hoppers to bunny hop to stop G W Bush Junior being elected also - once again without success.

Am I going ""oh. ah. um. err. i see."? Alas no. The7thdr (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My Evaluation of Recent Changes

Overall, recent changes to this article have improved its organization. It is now clearer, cleaner, and more professional-looking.

Unfortunately, it now contains less information and is highly skewed towards criticism of Transcendental Meditation:

• It gives details about lawsuits and court decisions against Transcendental Meditation, yet says very little about how the technique is practiced and its many benefits. One would have to follow all the scientific research links to discover just the few of its benefits that happen to have been studied. The most egregious omission is an explanation of how transcending is different from ordinary relaxation. Some psychiatrists, psychologists, and physicians routinely recommend Transcendental Meditation to patients with anxiety and stress-related illness, yet one would not discover this important fact from the article.

• It fails to mention alternatives to Transcendental Meditation: other organizations that teach transcending techniques.

• It fails to mention the fact that Transcendental Meditation has the highest course fee of any self-improvement method that is presented as meditation.

• It fails to mention that both Transcendental Meditation and TM are registered trademarks. Such usage does not protect the legal rights of the trademark holder and weakens the trademark.

• It cites Cult Awareness Network as an authority, in spite of its current status as subservient to a religious organization which itself has some cult-like aspects.

In summary, although the form of the article has been improved, its content, in my opinion, is still woefully inadequate in terms of coverage of the subject.

One reason for this may be that editors of this article have specific points of view which they want reflected in the article, instead of balanced, objective, and factual content. I have seen small attempts by me and others to improve this article result only in eventual deletion. Controversy is one thing, but "managing" an article to prevent improvement is quite another.

Disclosure: I am president of a volunteer, nonprofit organization offering alternative instruction in transcending. David spector (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for your insights . Its always good to have an evaluation from someone who hasn't been around for awhile. I think you make some good points and some are points that may have reasonable explanation.

• Since this article is about a very particular mediation technique that claims to facilitate transcending, rather than about transcending in general, information should be limited to that technique. If the article were to open its doors to techniques that claim help to create transcending it would be enormously long since there are many such techniques. As well making the connection between TM and other techniques and transcending is original research. There is an article on meditation and other technique information could be included there. As well links that are considered spam links and that link to a site selling the technique can't be used. In the case of TM since the article is about TM itself the article may in some ways self define by linking to information by and about itself. Spam links are not good sources in any case however, and are best left out.

• Yes, many editors have worked hard to try and make this article more Misplaced Pages compliant. At the moment the article is skewed towards the negative especially if one compares the article to mainstream news sources which are predominantly positive on the topic of TM. Using mainstream sources should be a good reference point for determining the weight of the article. However, not all editors have this view.

• Noting the connection to Scientology would be original research and would be disallowed. The bigger question is the use of the information on CAN itself . There are more reliable sources out there, but its worth noting that hits on TM and cult are, in Google news archives, few and so the mention of it although insisted on by editors in the past, may be a minor fringe note, and possibly should be excluded, or at the very least reduced in size. However, part of writing of this very contentious article has been to include considerations from all editors. And believe me this would be a contentious point.

• Noting that TM has the highest course fee is also OR, and is not compliant. Such an inclusion requires that the editor make comparisons and then include the results of those studies .... OR. The reader must do that work himself of locating course fees of different techniques and make those comparisons. There were editors who felt including the course fee for TM was a kind of advertising, so at one point that as per discussion was removed. That information I believe was recently re added.

• You're right the trademark has been removed... not sure when but it should be readded.

• Yes, your points about omissions in terms of benefits is a huge omission, as is more detail and how the technique works, but if you check the archives you'll see that just getting the article to this point has been an enormous struggle. The more abstract information has been objected to by other editors, and so was either removed or or not added in the first place. These points have been discussed and hopefully can be addressed again in the future. I urge you to look at the discussion page archives if you want a real sense of how this article has been "forged". There is something to be said for simplicity and using concrete language that the average reader with no knowledge of meditation techniques can understands well, so that has to be taken into consideration.

• If you want to help make the changes you have concerns with I urge you to stick around and join the discussions. Thanks David for you input.(olive (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Good points from both Olive and David. If either party, or another editor wants to folow up on anything I would suggest that we take each point in a seperate section otherwise there are too many cross conversations and nothing gets settled. You have both brought up several good points but also ones that in the past have been quite contentious. So a word to the wise; break it down into parts and discuss one section at at time if you want to make progress. Thanks. --Kbob (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased (and pleasantly surprised) by your sensible responses to my evaluation. This is a big change from what I encountered in some of my previous visits here.

Having spent over six months in teacher training with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and having taught over 100 people, I do know something about Transcendental Meditation (although I do understand and usually agree with the prohibition against OR). I am certainly willing to contribute here, but I am not willing to spend time researching and writing only to find my contributions deleted.

If someone wants to make a list of specific points that can be added safe from deletion (particularly positive points specific to TM), I would be willing to research/and or write the material. David spector (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

David we welcome you to the article. In recent months there has been a general consensus that because the article is so contentious, that we always bring up proposed changes, additions or deletions here first. Then after proper research, discussion and often times consensus, we write the copy, get it approved here and then add it to the article. This avoids the unpleasant experience of getting one's copy reversed etc. Its quite a laborious process but with some many editors with different points of view that is what we have found to work. You are welcome to particpate in all or part of that process. All the editors try to be as neutral as possible and civility is highly prized here. So jump in as you feel you have the time and inclination. --Kbob (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your pleasant welcome. I look forward to helping improve the article as ways to do so become possible. David spector (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made some minor grammatical changes and some changes in punctuation. I am willing to be of help where I can in the development of this site. Bigweeboy 5/12/2009

Thanks Bigeeboy and welcome. This has been a very contentious article so we've arrived at a system for editing in which anything but minor edits are discussed and agreed on here first before we enter them into the article itself. I see that you are discussing your concerns and that seems to me to be an excellent way to start.(olive (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the welcome Olive. I am very new to Wiki and I find the discussion here very interesting, and am learning alot about the protocols of editing and comments, especially "neutrality", etc. Hope to help, where possible. Bigweeboy

I'm not seeing any useful discussion on the issues I have mentioned here, and must admit I'm disappointed. Olive has stated that this article is contentious, so I was expecting much more of a response and consequent improvement of the article. I like the idea of deciding on changes on this Talk page, but not much seems to be happening. Let's work together to get this article improved, so it actually helps the reader really understand Transcendental Meditation. Its current focus on lawsuits and controversy is largely irrelevant to the nature of TM (we might consider moving all the controversy details to a subpage). David spector (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

David. I would suggest you begin this discussion by selecting one change at a time that you feel would improve the article. We are bound by policy and guidelines of course so they will certainly help dictate the outcomes. Unless very specific points are brought up its hard to bring focus to any discussion.

As a start: I haven't seen any Misplaced Pages articles where controversy is moved onto subpages. Articles are meant to show the range of information on a topic as per the mainstream view (in most cases) and as per WP:WEIGHT. I agree that the lawsuits for example - 4 in 50 years- are given undue weight, however, we do have to deal with consensus among editors. I would think the best way of proceeding is to, as I mentioned above, introduce one concern at a time.... possibly the actual change you would be interested in making and then allow time for discussion. Be sure to actively include yourself in the discussion. :o) Thanks David for your input.(olive (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC))(olive (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Think is this a great suggestion Olive. One thing I would suggest would be to put more things in the "History" section to give an overall sense of the major things that happened to TM over the 50+ years. This would then put the "UK Elections" item in perspective. Bigweeboy 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding a copy of this comment to History section revisited. Lets move the discussion there. Thanks.(olive (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

II have just recently started working on Misplaced Pages, and found this article and started following your discussion of the "History" section with great interest. I hope you don't mind my adding my two cents, but I have a feeling from what I just read that quite a bit was removed from this section and it now seems a bit empty to me. I am wondering if anyone is planning to add more information, for instance, do we know how many people have learned TM worldwide? How many centers exist up to date? And what about TM in countries other that the UK, Anything relevant? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

History section revisted

Copied comments by Bigweeboy from above thread on "2005 British Elections":

I am new to the whole debate here. Also, I am not familiar with the history of the TM organization. However, it seems strange to me that there is so much discussion of this one point under the "History" section of this article. From reading the article I learn that the Maharishi started to teach TM in the late 1950's. Elsewhere, we learn that TM is part of a global organization. So, given the fact that TM has been around for 50 years, and is an international thing, why are there so few items in the "History" section? Surely some more newsworthy things happened to TM in these 50 years? Why then give so much importance to the British election item? Perhaps more items could be added to the History section. Bigweeboy 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you bring up some relevant points about the history section:

I agree that in relation to the entire history of the TM movement, the British election is relatively insignificant. The space and emphasis it is given here violates WP:Weight in my opinion. However, there was agreement from most editors to include it as it is.

Because it was becoming unwieldy in terms of its length and complexity of subject matter, this article became with the agreement of the editors editing at the time, just about the TM technique itself, and not the other programs and aspects of the so-called TM organization. Some of those aspects were split off and had more than enough material to develop into articles of their own. The larger and trickier issue is, what information is about the history of the organization and its many programs, and what information is about the history of the technique itself. In actual fact, creating a delineation as we have here is probably somewhat artificial since these two areas probably intersect often. The alternative is a long complex history section, and probably a lot of long drawn out discussion.

Recently the topics that come up for consideration as parts of the history section have been discussed individually and then added as per agreements from as majority of the editors here.

We have also been trying to maintain a, "discuss first then add later" procedure because the article has been so contentious.

I personally can't see opening up the history section to include all of the history of the entire organization and its many programs.I suspect this would cause a lot of confusion. Right now things are pretty straight forward . If its about the technique itself it goes here. If its about another aspect of the organization, there is probably another article for it. My take on the situation anyway.(olive (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Copy from "Brit. Elections 2005" (Bigweeboy)

Think is this a great suggestion Olive. One thing I would suggest would be to put more things in the "History" section to give an overall sense of the major things that happened to TM over the 50+ years. This would then put the "UK Elections" item in perspective. Bigweeboy 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the next step is to find information you want to add.... I think we have to make sure that what we add pertains to the technique itself rather than more general history of the TM organization. Thanks Bigweeboy. I think this is an excellent step in the development of the article(olive (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

I also feel the History section is unduly weighted. Wiki policy WP:WEIGHT states that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". At the present time I do not feel that standard is being upheld in the History section. That said, we should proceed in terms of specifics instead of having a general philosophical discussion. To me what is obviously missing from the History section is the immense growth of popularity of TM in the 1970's. Particularly the participation of the youth culture, the many famous individuals who publicly participated in TM and the Maharishi's appearances on national television, and cover of TIME magazine. These events received mainstream press and media attention and is clearly one of the most notable aspect of TM's history in the USA. --Kbob (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with this approach. Maybe you could do something like a timeline, e.g. 1959 The Maharishi starts teaching TM in USA... 1961 TM first taught in Australia..... 1968 Beatles go to study TM with the Maharishi in India, etc., etc. This way you could cover all the major noteworthy events in the history of TM in a very factual way, with reference to the events from the mainstream media, without taking up a lot of space. Bigweeboy (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Split with Beatles? TM leader accused of sexual molesting Mia Farrow (claimed only, but reason for the Beatles "falling out"? John Lennon writes " Sexy Sadie in protest to TM's leaders claimed behavior? Price of TM training increases from a few pound to 2500? Former TM trainers leave group due to pricing other practices? Former TM trainers say mantra given based on age of trainee (found in academic text books) etc, etc? This could get interesting. The7thdr (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it could get interesting. However, I feel we need to discuss what may be "significant" event in the development and history of TM. You seem be mentioning some of the "sensational" things that happened over the years (I don't know anything about these), but agian, they may not be important given the 50+ year history of TM. We can debate. Bigweeboy (talk), 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, this article is about the technique so history should focus on the technique rather than on TM Organization history. There is a delineation there we have to keep track of.(olive (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)) from below:

I think your right. This was an important time in the history of TM. Should someone write something up and then we could look at it here. I could do it, or perhaps Kbob would like to.(moved comment).(olive (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree, we need to keep this discussion and the proposed changes in context. First context is that this article is about TM not other related products, services or programs or the so called "TM organization" which in itself is Original Research WP:OR. Second we are discussion the History of the article topic. Thirdly we are discussing that additions or deletions of the current History section should be considered in the context of the Wiki policies that concern weight, notability and availability of reliable sources. In that context I have suggested that we include some points on the popularity of TM during the 70's which received widespread media attention and are under represented in the current history section. Having said that I will write something and post it here for all to consider. Won't that be fun! :-) --Kbob (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The notion of a TM Movement or organization is not original research but used in many textbooks and papers. I care neither way, but felt worth mentioning. The7thdr (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've come across numerous mentions of a "TM movement" in sources. It'd be logical to create an article on that topic, which would allow this article to focus solely on the technique.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that when I've seen the term "TM Movement" used it refers to the larger organization of which TM is an experiential aspect rather than an intellectual aspect. The term is actually not correct and is usually a catch phrase often used by the press for describing this larger organization. If I remember we went through some discussion on this before trying to work out what to call this organization for the purposes of a Misplaced Pages article. Possibly its the Global Country of World Peace or, Maharshi Vedic Education Development Corporation. As well, there are multiple subsets of that organization that would make an article very long. Many of the programs wouldn't have much in the way of Misplaced Pages compliant sources either. I think the name changed at different times as well creating more confusion. I agree that there should be a kind of Mother article for all of the "TM" programs.... just not sure how to deal with. Any suggestions.(olive (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

I think I understand what Kbob was getting at when he called this idea for TM Organization/Movement as OR. As I said above there is no information on what that term means and or includes... and its generally used as a catch phrase to define the parts of a larger organization. What and who is that organization actually has never been clearly defined at least in the press, and I'm not sure even by the organization itself. So we by collecting material and saying this is the "TM Movement" would be creating something new... OR. Its a dilemma.(olive (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

Trademark

I made a change on who holds the TM trademark, but I may be wrong on that .... so I'm checking on it in the next few days, and will correct it if its wrong. Thanks(olive (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

The official TM web site (click link at bottom of the page) says: "® Transcendental Meditation, TM, TM-Sidhi, Maharishi Ayur-Veda, Maharishi Ayurveda, Science of Creative Intelligence, Maharishi, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, Maharishi Global Construction, Maharishi Yoga, Maharishi Yagya, Maharishi Vedic Astrology, Maharishi Jyotish, Maharishi Gandharva Veda, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology, Maharishi Instant Relief, Instant Relief, Maharishi Rejuvenation, Maharishi Rasayana Program, Maharishi Vedic Management, Maharishi Corporate Development Program, Consciousness-Based, Maharishi Vedic University, Maharishi Vedic School, Maharishi Academy of Total Knowledge—High School for Leadership, Maharishi Vedic Center, Maharishi Ayur-Veda School, Maharishi Ayur-Veda University, Maharishi Ayur-Veda College, Maharishi Ayur-Veda Foundation, Maharishi Ayur-Veda Medical Center, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment, Maharishi Medical Center, Maharishi Vedic Medical Center, Maharishi Medical College, Maharishi Vedic, Maharishi Vedic Medicine, Maharishi Vedic Psychology, Maharishi Self-Pulse, Maharishi Heaven on Earth, Maharishi Center for Excellence in Management, Maharishi Vedic Management, Maharishi Master Management, Natural Law Based Management, Maharishi Corporate Revitalization Program, Maharishi Global Administration through Natural Law, Maharishi Vedic Development Fund, Thousand-Headed Purusha, Maharishi Thousand-Headed Purusha, Maharishi Purusha, Purusha, Thousand-Headed Mother Divine, Mother Divine, Ideal Girls' School, 24 Hour Bliss, Spiritual University of America, Breath of Serenity, Maharishi Amrit Kalash, Maharishi College of Vedic Medicine, Vedic Science, Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi Vedic Observatory, Vastu Vidya, Maharishi Vastu, Time Zone Capital, Council of Supreme Intelligence, Prevention Wing of the Military, are registered or common law trademarks licensed to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation and used under sublicense." --Kbob (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kbob, Yes, I have that but there is apparently another factor to consider that I am looking into.(olive (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC))--Kbob (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your right. This was an important time in the history of TM. Should someone write something up and then we could look at it here. I could do it, or perhaps Kbob would like to.(olive (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

One would need to be careful I would suspect. Including other TM "products" leads the article away from being about the meditative process and back to what it originality was about; the TM "movement"/company products The7thdr (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7th, good point. Was not implying that any of the above 'products' should be included I just took the entire copy direct from the Official web page without any OR editing. --Kbob (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Olive, I notice the trademark ref has been changed back to Maharishi Foundation. The current reference for this statement goes to an MUM page which states that the holder of the trademarks is MVED. Can you clarify this? --Kbob (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Kbob. I checked around and found Maharishi Foundation but didn't find a compliant reliable reference stating it owned the trademark. I did however find a ref stating MVEDC does own the trademark. For our purposes, I think we have to go with the sourced information. In actual fact I'm not sure why this information is needed anyway. The average reader probably doesn't care. I would suggest that we simply add the trademark symbol to the "TM" within the article, remove the "trademarked to...", and source I just added, and add a link to that source in the external link section. Does anyone object to that?(olive (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Proposed Addition to the History Section

Beginning in 1968 a number of celebrities reported using the technique. These individuals included members of music groups such as The Beatles and The Beach Boys as well as other pop culture icons such as Shirley Maclaine, Mia Farrow, Joe Namath, Donovan, Clint Eastwood and Deepak Chopra. In 1975, the Maharishi, appeared with Merv Griffin on his highly rated talk show and Transcendental Meditation became a “full blown craze” according to Time Magazine, eventually becoming a global phenomenon with centers in some 130 countries. ........Suggestions? Comments? --Kbob (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the section in of itself, as long as it is verifiable information. However, are you planning to list celebrities that learned TM in the 60's and 70's only, or do you plan to continue further? I hear Howard Stern is endorsing TM quite a bit these days, and there may be others; how close to the present time can the "History" section go? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with stating that Howard Stern and Robin Quivers practice TM? Misplaced Pages should reflect truth, not a POV. Furthermore, there are lots of other articles that include current information, lots. David spector (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points Luke, however the purpose of the proposed sentences is to illustrate the significant surge in popularity that occurred in the late 60's and 70's and not to list every celeb who ever learned TM. Certainly there many recent ones like Stern, Seinfeld etc. We are trying to illustrate an historical event not create a current list of celebs. At least that is my opinion. Other editors can weigh in here too. --Kbob (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think Luke's point brings up the basic difficulty. We have to make sure that what we are doing is chronicling the history of the technique rather than the history of the organization and the tricky thing will be to decide where that line begins and ends.

I think your addition is fine, Kbob and because you distinctly tie it to those using the technique, its appropriate. Why don't we start there. Luke's idea might be OK too eventually. We also have to not weight the article in a way that makes it sound like an advert for TM.(olive (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

OK, I will wait another day or two to see if other editors have comments before adding. Also I am adding a misc. ref to the bottom of the page that is unrelated to this topic. --Kbob (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hi David, didn't see your comment. The proposed sentences are to document an historical event ie significant rise in popularity that occurred in the late 60's and 70's. If you or Luke or others can locate reliable sources like news and magazine articles, from that period, than we can add any names mentioned therein. Wiki requires objectivity and proper sources so I limited myself to the names in the articles I cited. Also, please note that I am citing notable, mainstream sources such as USA Today and the LA Times. That said, there is certainly no blanket reason why we can't include Stern, Seinfeld, Laura Dern or whoever. We just have to make sure we are staying within the context of History of the technique of TM and also not making the article an advertisement. So with that in mind please proceed with research and let us know what you find. I hope that makes sense.  :-) --Kbob (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry David I missed your comment too.

I'll play the devil's advocate here and warn that we can't just start adding a lot of information without taking into account WP:Weight in terms of the article itself, but also in terms of mainstream sources on TM. For example, celebrities are not necessarily notable in themselves because they start TM. There was s surge in the 70's for TM and part of that surge was that some celebrities along with many other people began meditation. Noteworthy is the surge but not necessarily the individuals. The celebrity individuals may be mentioned as examples of a certain group of people who started TM, but we don't need to add all of the names of all of the celebrities we find... not that anyone is suggesting that....To do so in my mind pads the article with celebrity names and sounds an awful lot like endorsements.

If we look at Google news archives, we can get a sense of how notable a subject is in the press. We find 7 hits for Jerry Seinfeld and TM, 429 for David Lynch and TM, and 58 for Robert Schneider and TM. Schneider is an MD who has done significant amounts of research on TM. Who of these is notable. We probably wouldn't add Schneider as notable in himself, and so we have to question why we would add Seinfeld.(olive (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

For what its worth Clint Eastwood, Mary Tyler Moore and Howard Stern are mentioned in this article--Kbob (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Olive. I think we should stick with those most notable and representative of the 'upsurge' of interest. My guess would be that Beatles, Donovan and Deepak would be the top three. Then we could pick 2-3 more from the remaining list and include Howard Stern and others on the list to be considered if there are suitable sources to back them up. --Kbob (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got much time for this at the moment but this is really going down the wrong track for this article and assure you it will lead to inclusion of the Beatles incident, sexy sadie incident, et al. I not that many of the "controversial" religions on listed in wiki have to spend most of their time fending of criticism (see Scientology, fundamentalist Christianity, et al) you have a enough to worry about already rather than adding to it. The celebrity endorsement thing leads down this path imo. You all have your rights to your own philosophical views after all

Plus, because a celebrity practices a meditative technique or follows a religious philosophical world view does this make it notable for inclusion in a wiki article? Does the Christan article list a load of celebrities who are christian? Do the Muslim articles? Or on a closer comparison does the Zen Buddhism article list any? I think not. The closest might be the Tantric Buddhism article which lists "celebrity" practitioners and that I simply see no need for neither. Looks a little "tacky" to be honest, like articles that include "trivia" lists and adds nothing at all. The7thdr (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Christianity and Islam are far larger. It's not uncommon to list notable members of any group that has an article on Misplaced Pages. It'd be better to explicitly list them as practitioners, with proper sourcing, rather than just including them in "See also" sections without any explanation.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't say I didn't warn you :-) The7thdr (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 7th. There's no strong reason to add any more than we have now. These people are examples. However, if someone wants to add some names I guess it fine. My concern is as I've said is with making the article sound like an advert. Since TM articles have been criticized for this in the past, my thought would be to go carefully on this subject and add less rather than more.(olive (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I also agree that there may be more interesting things to include in the History section than what celebs learned TM. Again, I am not familiar with the history of TM, but some folks might know about things like when TM was first taught in Russia (perhaps a communist country at the time), or in Africa. I assume you can learn TM in another language then english?? Was some of the scientific research on TM very ground-breaking when it was first published? I believe there are studies on how TM effects crime. This must have been "historic" sort of research?? Anyway, my point is to look for other things that happened over the years that were significant. Bigweeboy 20 May 2009

OK just to bring everyone back to the specific issue of what's on the table. Here are the sentences and references that I am proposing (see below). I have amended it to only include the celebrities most known for their involvement with TM. My preliminary research (google) that Clint is more well known for TM than Howard Stern. But if someone can show otherwise I am happy to take out Clint and put Howard in. So is it OK now? (see below) Please be specific. If you oppose the entire entry, than say so. If you think its OK now with some celebrities removed than please give your approval. Otherwise this discussion can go on forever and we all have other things to do, yes?  :-) --Kbob (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

--Kbob (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kbob. I adjusted this a little so that it is specifically references meditation and not the Maharishi. What do you think.(olive (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes, good change. --Kbob (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this too. Bigweeboy 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good I have made the entry. Edit for grammar etc as you like. --Kbob (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kbob. This seems like a legitimate entry in terms of notability of the technique and also in terms of history specific to the technique.(olive (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

References (please keep at bottom)

1. "All you need is love and peace - but not in destructive Britain, so the Maharishi pulls out" The Guardian (August 15, 2005
2. "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" The Telegraph (February 7, 2008)
3. "The mystic who inspired The Beatles: The town that lost its guru" The Independent (February 7, 2008)
4. "The town that lost its guru" The Independent (August 17, 2005)
5. "All you need is love and peace - but not in destructive Britain, so the Maharishi pulls out" The Guardian (August 15, 2005
6. "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" The Telegraph (February 7, 2008)
7. "The mystic who inspired The Beatles: The town that lost its guru" The Independent (February 7, 2008)
8. http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-maharishi6feb06,1,4208394.story
9. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-01-29-3491947547_x.htm
10. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-05-1161887336_x.htm
11. http://pubs.ama-assn.org/media/2006a/0612.dtl#meditation
12. http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/life/life/article_628247.php
13. http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-maharishi6feb06,1,4208394.story
14. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-01-29-3491947547_x.htm
15. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-05-1161887336_x.htm
16. http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-maharishi6feb06,1,4208394.story
17. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-01-29-3491947547_x.htm
18. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-05-1161887336_x.htm

• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics