Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:29, 7 December 2006

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.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (Pre Feb 2005):
• Archive 2 (Nov 28-30 2005) Disclosing Mantra:
• Archive 3 (Nov 30 2005 -Feb 10 2006)
• Archive 4 (Feb-10th May 28, 2006)
• Archive 5 (May-28th June 25, 2006)
• Archive 6 (25th June-19th July 2006)
• Archive 7 (19th July-31 Oct 2006)
• Archive 8 (Nov 1-25 2006)

Newbie question re: keeping track of new comments

Well, I'm back after a week and there is a reasonable amount of new discussion. Question: If I reply or make a comment in a previous "thread", how will anyone know I did so? Is it necessary to track History to tell that someone has made a comment? Thanks! Tanaats 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tanaats. Welcome back. Hope you had a good vacation. To answer your question, as far as I know History is the only way to tell what comments have been added in previous threads. I do regularly check the History so will be alert to any comments you make. TimidGuy 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Other allegations regarding TM safety

I propose adding this citation after the DeNaro quote starting with "It was obvious to me that organization was so deeply immersed...".

I also propose adding this section after the "Suit alleges mental health required for safe practice". Otherwise, the TM article can leave people with the false impression that only people with a prior mental health problem are alleged to have developed problems from TM practice...

Other allegations regarding TM safety

Not all allegations about TM's safety posit prior mental health problems. In the same affadavit Attorney DeNaro (see above) also alleges:

"In fact, meditation was used as an excuse (probably valid) by my students for not completing a project much in the way a "virus" or "the flu" debilitates the average college student. The consequences of intensive, or even regular, meditation was so damaging and disruptive to the nervous system, that students could not enroll in, or continue with, regular academic programs,"

"...In early December 1975, while the Maharishi was on campus, I spent a great deal of time trying to persuade him to adopt a more honest, less commercial, approach to meditation, the Sidhi courses, the curricula, the disguised religious element masquerading as a science, inter alia He was aware, apparently for some time, of the problem, suicide attempts, assaults, homicidal ideation, serious psychotic episodes, depressions, inter alia, but his general attitude was to leave it alone or conceal it because the community would lose faith in the TM movement." Tanaats 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Of course, from my perspective, having been on campus most of the time 1974-present, these statements are bizarre in the extreme. But, in Misplaced Pages, my opinion doesn't count. : (

I think we need to determine if an affidavit is considered a reputable source according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. After all, anyone can write an affidaviit and file it in a court house. Also, in this instance, the affidavit was filed in a suit that was settled out of court. If ultimately we can't agree regarding whether an affidavit is acceptable, we can take it through the various channels of dispute resolution.TimidGuy 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the statement is objectively true as written, as DeNaro did in fact allege these things. It's analogous to "Maharishi teaches that the Transcendental Meditation technique comes from the ancient Vedic tradition of India" which is true as written, but could be struck out under the an analogous premise that "anyone can express an opinion about anything" and therefore such opinions are inadmissible. And for another example, Max Planck's statement is just a personal opinion. Or so I see things.

BTW, I respect your own observations, but opinions differ of course. For example, DeNaro's experience is quite congruent with what I experienced and saw all around me on Mallorca/Fiuggi TTC. This is the TTC that Billy Clayton, a "skin boy" at the time, called the "General Hospital" course because so many people were crippled by "heavy unstressing". MMY had to set up "clinics" for the heavy unstressors, where attempts were made to help them with such things as chiropractic and foot massage. One CP went home in such bad shape that his psychiatrist father had him hospitalized. When MMY heard this, he complained in an open meeting about why "such weak people" were allowed on the course in the first place, a response which I now consider to be quite callous in a "blame the victim" mode. I myself went home in such a dissociated state after six months of TTC that I could barely function, which is of course due to something being wrong with *me* according to defacto TMO docrine (since doctrinally there can not possibly be anything "wrong" with TM). And a friend of mine who lived in Fairfield for years is writing a book about her experiences, including the psychological casualties she encountered along the way. Well, enough of the BTW stuff.

Be that as it may, certainly we can check whether affadavits are acceptable. But it seems to me that "anyone can write anything" cuts quite a wide swath. I'm looking forward to exploring this with you.  :) Tanaats 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the affidavit verifiable? -THB 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of in a hurry so don't have much time. But here's a quick take. I think opinion is ok if it's been published by a reputable source, such as a mainstream publisher. An affadavit, as I understand it, doesn't have any special standing or authority. I believei that the article in Misplaced Pages on affidavit says that it's considered hearsay. I believe it's not admissible as evidence in court unless both parties agree to it. And generally, it's only used if the affiant isn't available for testimony. In the case of Denaro, I think that the affadavit was superseded by his testimony in court. I'm trying to get transcripts of the testimony and cross examination (since this affidavit keeps cropping up).

In any case, I so appreciate your cordial manner and friendliness. I feel like we can work together, with mutual respect of each other's views, and figure out these things.TimidGuy 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a pretty open and shut case for me. The affidavit is on the same level as any interview, except the person is swearing before a judge that they are telling the truth.

Hi, Sethie. As I understand it, an interview isn't allowed in Misplaced Pages, if by that you mean gathering original quotes. And as far as I know, an affadavit isn't sworn before a judge. (Check out affidavit.] I'd be willing to wager that the affidavit isn't even part of the court documents, since it's not considered admissible evidence, and since in any case the affidavit was superseded by the testimony and cross examination.

If that is what I meant by an interview, yes, I agree with you.... I meant interview more like something that we read in the newspaper or Time magazine kind of interview. Wow- words suck at communicating, don't they?

As for the sworn before a judge, you know what... I assumed that was the case, and boy have my assumptions been oftentimes wrong!

So next we move to wp:V. I don't know if trancenet meets it or not... but, the Skeptics Dictionary certianly does ] and the affidavit is reported there. So unless someone can convince me that a published book, that has it's own wiki article is does not meet WP:V, the information is in. Sethie 19:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with Carroll's book: it's filled with errors. For example, he says that Bob Rabinoff did a study on the Maharishi Effect related to crime, accidents, and crop production. No such study exists. There is no record of it in any index of scientific literature. He simply has that wrong. And he misrepresents what Randi says in his book.TimidGuy 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy, do I hear that Timidguy... i oftentimes don't like what sources say, disagree with them and sometimes find factual errors in them as well.

I am not willing to comment overall on Carroll's book, that is too big a subject for me to tackle.... What I feel moved to say is IF some of Carroll's book is cited AND you find another source that contradicts the specific item from Caroll's book, PLEASE include it as well. That's what wikipedia is for me.... not truth, nowhere NEAR truth, but a collection of cited claims. Sethie 02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Sethie -- and nicely articulated -- and shows clear understanding of Misplaced Pages.

Regarding the proposed addition: it seems weak to me. It just doesn't seem like the sort of reliable evidence that can make Misplaced Pages strong. The affadavit is a 20-year-old document of no special authority written by a disgruntled former employee who last set foot on campus over 30 years ago; published in part by a heavily biased book that has many careless errors of fact; and filed in a suit whose allegations of infliction of psychological injuries and emotional distress were dismissed by the judge for lack of credible evidence.

Timidguy, you and Sethie know more about Misplaced Pages so I'm mostly bowing out (just for now though!) However, I'd like to commment on the above...(1) The affidavit being 20 years old doesn't make it inaccurate, (2) the fact that it occurred some 30 years ago doesn't make it inaccurate, (3) DeNaro was corporate counsel to a TMO organization headquartered at MIU as well as an MIU instructor, which IMO gives his statements quite a bit of "authority", (4) Being "disgruntled" doesn't make him any less objective and accurate than someone who is "gruntled" (and although I know you don't mean it this way yourself it is a common form of attack used by cults to call whistleblowers "disgruntled" as if that affected the accuracy of the whistleblowing), (5) Carroll is *certainly* no more "biased" than the TMO webpages that are often cited in the TM article, (6) Whether or not there are errors in Carroll's book doesn't of itself entirely invalidate the book as a reference, (7) The outcome of the suit doesn't mean that DeNaro's statements were inaccurate, (8) The *personal opinions* (and that's what they amount to) of a judge do not make DeNaro's claims inaccurate -- judges make mistakes all the time and as far as we know this may be one of them -- in fact it is extraordinarly difficult to obtain a favorable judgement against organizations where participation results in psychological harm because, for example, of the "they're just disgruntled" and "they must have had prior psychological problems" gambits -- a judge is just not professionally qualified to judge whether or not the problems instead might have been caused by, for example, excessive induced dissociation via TM practice many times a day for perhaps years at a time.

In short, IMO none of this affects whether or not Carroll's quotes of DeNaro are citable. Tanaats 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad to always be opposing you guys. It's not my nature. And I do think there are some valid points that can be made. But it just doesn't seem like this is one of them.TimidGuy 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear that .... and, my answer is: no.

"I hear that" means I get your pain, dislike and concern about the source. "I hear that" means I oftentimes feel the same way about sources!

"No" means I won't go there with you on this disucssion page. "No" means that for me, your or my commentary about a source is origonal research. love, Sethie 18:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dittos. I have pain, dislike, and concern about TMO sources. They are extremely biased and mostly contain only the personal opinions (that's what his "teachings" amount to) of MMY. But I accept that the TMO side of the story must be told, biased and *completely* unverifiable (except by quoting biased TMO sources) as much of it is. Similarly, I believe that the other side of the story must be given a "level playing field". Tanaats 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. : ) TimidGuy 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Carroll's credibility has gone up, IMO. I wrote to him asking for a citation for his statement regarding Dr. Rabinoff's research. He wrote back: "Go to pages 99ff in James Randi's "Flim-Flam!" and the account of Rainoff's claims is found there. He made these claims in a talk at the University of Oregon attended by Ray Hyman."

Which explains why it couldn't be found in a pub search. Tanaats 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Errrrr! Frustration!!! I am pretty sure about a year about I cited it! I could be wrong here....

Regardless, That's cool you wrote to him! Sethie 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple quick points. As I understand it, Denaro apparently never worked as legal counsel for the university. I've spoken with Steve Druker, who hired him. And I don't think that teaching a couple courses at MIU makes him an authority. (If I thought that an affidavit was a valid source in Misplaced Pages, I'd write my own, based on my 16 years of experience in the classroom here, and I'd rebut him.)

Yes, I have Randi's book. It doesn't say that Rabinoff did a study. Carroll has that wrong. It's a good example of a half truth. Rabinoff may have made claims at the University of Oregon that Randi wasn't able to substantiate (as is mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article on the TM-Sidhi program). But Carroll then twists that to say that Rabinoff did a study. Then Carroll writes that Randi concludes that Rabinoff made up the data. Randi doesn't conclude that. The way that Carroll presents it, the reader comes away with the impression that Rabinoff published a study and made up the data. He misrepresents in small ways what Randi says, and to my mind it conveys something untrue to the reader.

I'm not accusing Carroll of deliberately doing this; he may simply have misread Randi. Or not read it carefully. But it's one of a number of instances where he's inaccurate in the TM article. And I believe that that affects the reliability of his book as a source.

Also, I believe that "the TM side of the story" is verifiable, because there are 160 peer-reviewed studies. (I don't, however, deny your experience with TM.)

In any case, I'm pleased that you read closely what I wrote, especially that you attended to the point about the judgment of the appellate court. I've noticed that often in these discussions we often just scan what the other person says and respond quickly. I've been guilty of this.TimidGuy 12:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing, Timidguy, to cease posting your thoughts and comments about a source, here, and instead post actual citations that refute the claims of that source?

If you are not willing or able to do that, would you be willing to explain to, how your pesonal thoughts/feelings/views/response to a source, are not origonal research?Sethie 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I don't quite understand why you're asking me to cease posting relevant information about a source. I thought that was the purpose of the Talk page. And I don't understand the sense in which what I've posted constitutes my personal views. I thought I did a good job of presenting facts about affidavits, etc.

And I don't undertand why I can't research some of these points in order to determine the merit of a source. I thought the purpose of the Talk page is to bring to bear relevant facts to determine whether or not a source is reliable. And doesn't the guideline on original research just apply to the article itself? TimidGuy 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a buncha' responses, but I'll wait and listen to you guys discuss this first. Tanaats 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, given that you're more experienced with Misplaced Pages than I am, it would be great if you could explain the merger process to me sometime. Do we simply wait for a length of time and then if no one has come to discuss, go ahead and do it? Thanks much. TimidGuy 21:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. And my answer is still no. If you believe that your own research about a source is relevant and worthwhile component to wikipedia, I have no wish to engage in dialogue with you around this topic.

And so, let me make my request more clear, would you be willing to cease your origonal research HERE and find a REPUTABLE source (sorry I don't consider you or me to be one) that shares your disdain for the skeptics dictionary?Sethie 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. According the guideline on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, it's up to the editor who proposes to add material to prove its reliability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Also, I was just noticing that the specific paragraphs that Tanaats proposed to add don't appear in the Skepic's Dictionary.

I think this has been a useful discussion, and I appreciate the contributions of both of you. I'm learning a lot. It feels like we've reached a bit of an impasse. It might be interersting and educational to try the dispute procedures. We could do a formal Request for Comment, following the guidelines given.TimidGuy 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you for moving the disucssion away from your thoughts and towards wiikipedia policy and the actual article... hence I find more willingness to dialogue with you.

I would also like to say you are correct I was in error- the same material is not covered in both sources (trancenet and skeptics dictionary). For me this discussion is about using material from the Skeptics Dictionary.

I'm cool with that!  :) Tanaats 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is a peace of cake for me in this case. If you are able to, please let me know how "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" is an issue here? It's not like I'm saying, "Denarro said MMY is an alien from Mars." I would say, Denarro said xyz, cut and paste from the skeptics dictonary, and add citation.

My challenge to you is to respond to the above paragraph without going into OR (i.e your thoughts about Denarro, the situation, affidavits, and the Skeptics Dictionary).

You are welcome to do a Rfc. This page has had roughly 4 in the last year. I don't believe a single one drew in any outside comments. Sethie 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I'm glad you feel the discussion is moving forward. And it's good to have your longer-term insight regarding the effectiveness of RfC.

The reason I mentioned WP:V is that you asked me to find a reputable source that says that The Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source. I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Misplaced Pages guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.TimidGuy 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are willing, please refer me to the wikipedia guideline that says the that "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source."

If you are willing, please show me a wikipedia policy which say "The burden of evidence lies with that person."Sethie 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. According the guideline on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Your response does not answer my 2 question. Are you not willing to answer it? Or are you not able to?

Your allegation 2 paragraphs above say that this "burden of evidence" in WP:V means "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source." I asked you to refference this claim. You did not. You just cut and pasted a quote. Please try again, or say, "I cannot answer your questions, because not such policy exists." or "I cannot answer that question, because I cannot find such a policy." Sethie 16:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See your question #1. You asked me to cite a Misplaced Pages policy for the statement "The burden of evidence lies with that person." I can't find anyplace where I said that. I assumed you meant the instance in which I quoted this from Misplaced Pages: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So I provided the citation for that.

Incorrect, Timidguy, if you go in sequential order, my first question was ":::If you are willing, please refer me to the wikipedia guideline that says the that "it is up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's a reliable source."

Yes, I was responding to your second question.TimidGuy 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot find where you said "that" I reffer you to, well, you, where you said both statements that I questioned. In fact I just cut and pasted your exact words: "::The reason I mentioned WP:V is that you asked me to find a reputable source that says that The Skeptic's Dictionary is not a reliable source. I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Misplaced Pages guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.TimidGuy 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)"

I think you're right that my paraphrase of that guideline may not have been apt in this situation. I need to look at the guideline and consider it futher. (Can't do it now -- am heading off to play tennis.) I was just looking at the Misplaced Pages guideline on Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources. Let's give that some attention.

As for apt paraphrase or not, my only comment is that I cannott (and thus far, neither can you) find any wiki policy which says: "it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person."

Assume you understand that that was a paraphrase and that I wasn't quoting guidelines in that instance. (Which is why it didn't have quotation marks around it.)

I never said you were quoting guidelines. I am said you said: I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Misplaced Pages guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable.Sethie 19:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as moving on to reliable_sources, I am willing to do that, if you are sure you are done with WP:V as an objection for the Skeptics Dictionary. Otherwise I would like to finish here before moving on. Please indicate clearly whether you are done with you contention that that including the Skeptics Dictionary violates WP:V.

It's good we're discussing this. Thanks for sticking with it. Maybe once we have a good understanding of what constitutes reliable sources, we can scrutinize all of the sources cited in the article. TimidGuy 16:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask me later, I may or may not be up for that.Sethie 17:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WP:V, I think this quote applies: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In my opinion, Skeptic's Dictionary falls down on this matter. Carroll gets a number of facts wrong. I've given one example, in which he says,"One TM study by a MUM physics professor, Dr. Robert Rabinoff, claimed that the Maharishi effect was responsible for reducing crime and accidents while simultaneously increasing crop production in the vicinity of Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa." Rabinoff didn't do such a study. I can cite other errors.TimidGuy 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know that you want to focus on wp:V right now.

Please show me a wikipedia WP:V policy which says, If a source gets one fact wrong (according to a wikipedia editor) , that source violates WP:V, and cannot be used. Sethie 19:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

HEY: This discussion is ridiculous to the point of being embarrassing.

Misplaced Pages is not even asserting that DeNaro is correct, only that he made the statements, that the statements are relevant to the topic, and that he is a credible source.

The guy wasn't some homeless guy off the street who swore a crazy affidavit, nor was he just some "employee" like the janitor. He was the outfit's corporate lawyer--one of the insiders, one of the bigwigs--and he he blew the whistle on this racket. Like, DUHHH: that would be an authoritative source to the New York Times, the Washington Post, or anybody else writing about this.

On TOP of that, he didn't just give a press conference; he swore under penalty of perjury that he's telling the truth! AND: up until the day he quit in disgust, he was the LEGAL SPOKESMAN for this outfit.

Had you read the discussion, you would have seen that it's a matter of dispute whether he worked as legal counsel for the university.TimidGuy 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But he's not a credible source? That's exactly like calling Nixon's ex-lawyer John Dean not a credible source.

---> It's not possible for a source to BE more credible

What would it take for this guy to be credible enough for wikipedia? A lie-detector test? Winning the Nobel Prize in "veracity"? He ALREADY swore on a bible!

Or shall we only allow statements by his Holiness The Great Oz-Maharishi on matters like walking through walls, flying through the air, and making yourself invisible?

God DAMN, this is the stupidest conversation I've ever heard between people who weren't retarded.Sys Hax 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Sys Hax.

First off, please remain civil, this page has been through enough shi-crap.

The discussion currently is not about Denarro as a credible source. It is about whether the Skeptic's Dictionary, where his affidavit is quoted violates WP:V, so, are you willing, for now, to focus your attention there? And are you willing to reframe from deragotory and sarcastic comments like the last three? Sethie 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie and Tanaats. The comments of SysHax highlight what I like about you guys. You have both been honorable and decent and fair and civil.TimidGuy 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And now, to continue our discussion. Carroll has many facts wrong. Just looking at the sentence I quoted, there are two additional errors. Rabinoff hasn't been on faculty since the early 1980s. So the sentence should have stipulated that he was former faculty. And that he taught at MIU, not MUM. There are many additional errors.

The Misplaced Pages policy says that sources should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Carroll has three errors in one sentence that just a small amount of fact checking could have corrected. It would only have taken one quick phone call. And I believe that one purpose of the Talk page is to discuss the reliability of souruces.

Thank you for refferencing actual wikipedia policy.

Now, please show me where the wikipedia policy says that the opinion of a wiki editor is how we make that determination. You keep sharing your opinion of the source!

So.... reliable or not.... On the one hand, the guy has a Ph.D., he is on the faculty for a community college, his book has been published by a company publishing books for over 200 years, appears to be a reputable publisher (they did publish Poe and Melville....) ] and the book itself has it's own wiki with no criticism listed!

On the other hand, we have a WP:SPA, who has misquoted wiki policy during this discussion, (direct quotes from you: I pointed out that it's up to the person who wants to cite the source to show that it's reliable. The burden of evidence lies with that person. As I underestand Misplaced Pages guidelines, I'm not obligated to prove that it's not reliable; it's up to the editor who proposes to add material to prove its reliability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."), looked to side issues from the start (is an affidavit a credible source? instead of is the place it is listed credible?; since it was filed out of court, blah blah blah; was his affidavit "superseded" by court decisions?)

And, other then you, there is no evidence that it is a source of dubious reliability.

I believe I have been paitent, and I have had enough of this dialogue. I'm going to put it in as a source. If you don't like it, find some other wikipediaians who believe in your cause, who are not WP:SPA's who have a little more experience then you and I'll dialogue this with them.Sethie 16:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I believe my critical examination of the reliability of a source is exactly what the Talk page is for. If you disagree, maybe you could show me a guideline that says it's disallowed. And I've noted errors that anyone could easily verify with a phone call. This just isn't the sort of source that should be represented in Misplaced Pages, at least as regards what it says on Transcendental Meditation.

And frankly, I do feel that editors should take great care in presenting sources that are reliable. That's the spirit of Misplaced Pages. And they should be grateful if someone points out that a source they'd like to cite has serious problems with facts. I think that it could be argued that that guideline does apply: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It's saying that any information that's added should be sourced. And later it says that that source should have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. How can you sincerely believe that The Skeptic's Dictionary is accurate and has had the facts checked after I've pointed out three errors in one sentence? And earlier pointed out a fourth error in the same paragraph. That's four errors in just one paragraph.

So what do you say -- let's do an RfC. We'll focus it on the reliability of the Skeptic's Dictionary. I'll invite two neutral Admins who've been here before to comment. We can each state our case. TimidGuy 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The fascinating thing is that you keep thinking it is your job to evaluate the CONTENT of the source, and not the source itself. The moment you leave out content and focus your attention where it belongs, on the source, on the author, on the publisher I'll discuss with you.

And by all means, invite LOTS of people here. Sethie 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, one might argue that one evaluates a source by evaluating the quality of its content. And, yes I believe that's our job as edtiors.

I'll work on documenting my case for the RfC over the next few days. It will be great to get some outside feedback. I feel like we've raised a lot of good points and have learned in the process -- all in the service of making Wikipedai better.

I do wish you had waited until going through the dispute procedures rather than starting an edit war.TimidGuy 12:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true you believe that is your job here.

And if you want to look to the start of an "edit war" my reccomendation would be to look to the person who did the first revert.... and that would be you.

Concensus does not mean "everyone agrees." Tanaats, me and I'll give a half vote to sys hax outweight you're one vote.Sethie 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added rebuttals to this new section while I look into doing an RfC.TimidGuy 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noted you think you need to "document my case for the RfC." Feel free to do the RfC the Timidguy way- and if you want to do it the wikipedia way, I suggest you read and follow the four simple steps ] Sethie 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. Not sure I understand. I had looked at the steps, and I understood we create a section here on the Talk page in which we each make a statement regarding our point of view. Since I'm going to be arguing that Carroll has errors of fact, uses problematic sources, and has unsupported statements, I was just saying that it'll take a few days to write that up. I've asked an Admin whether RfC is an appropriate venue for this sort of documentation. It could be several hundred words.TimidGuy 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

An RfC need not be hundreds of words long. Something like "Is the Skeptics Dictionary a reliable source?" would be sufficient. Then, on this page, everybody can (briefly) make their cases.

My own opinion is that Carroll is a notable critic. If we were dicussing something that he himself had said then I'd say we should include it with attribution. ("Carroll says that..."). The threshold for using him for 3rd-party information is somewhat higher. One editor here says that there are mistakes in Carrroll's work, which is probably true. Mistakes matter, but everyone makes them. I haven't seen any evidence that the Rabinoff assertion is actually a mistake, or that it has been brought to Carroll's attention for correction. Without more definitive information on those mistakes we shouldn't give the issue too much weight. Finally, the Misplaced Pages community has expressed a certain amount of confidence in the Skeptics Dictionary - the website is linked to from over a hundred articles and a couple of hundred talk pages. So my overall impression is that this particular use of the Skeptics Dictionary is appropriate, pending further information.

Separately, some of the editors of this page appear to be either involved in the movement or involved in active opposition to it. Such involved parties have a heightened responsibility to follow WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. We're not here to prove that TM is right or wrong, we're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest is a relevant guideline. -Will Beback · † · 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Will. It's great to have your feedback. And thanks especially for the guideline on Conflict of Interest.TimidGuy 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of feedback I was hoping to get by doing an RfC. So I don't think I'll take the time to document the problems with Carroll's article on TM. Sounds like it would be a hard sell.TimidGuy 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dhyana?

While we're discussing the above, I'd like to start a new thread. I have a problem with the sentence "TM is considered a form of "dhyana", using the terminology of Patanjali." This is certainly disputable, e.g. the paragraph goes on to say that the TM meaning of "dhyana" is different from the generally accepted definition. Furthermore, it is too general. *Who* exactly considers it to be a form of dhyana? Tanaats 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tanaats. I'd actually like to delete this because I don't think it is a form of dhyana. I don't think Maharishi ever presented it as such.TimidGuy 12:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi TimidGuy. Shall I go ahead and do it? It will also take out a reference to "effortlessness", but I think that point is made right at the beginning of the page. Tanaats 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Thanks.TimidGuy 12:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, I didn't see you edit summary comment that I should reference the Talk page in time. Tanaats 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Transcendental Meditation a religion?

I propose adding the following to "Is Transcendental Meditation a Religion?" ...

The TM movement offers "yagyas". Also called a Yajna, a yagya "is performed to please the Devas, or sometimes to the Supreme Spirit Brahman."

Official TM teachings include teachings about "God", e.g.: "All the Maharishi Yagya programs are with reference to Natural Law -- the Will of God. It is very necessary for anyone who is entertaining the Maharishi Yagya programs to align their life to the rules of purity of life, as they understand purity of life.". "The sixth state is referred to as God consciousness, because the individual is capable of perceiving and appreciating the full range and mechanics of creation and experiences waves of love and devotion for the creation and its creator.". "God is found in two phases of reality: as a supreme being of absolute, eternal nature and as a personal God at the highest level of phenomenal creation!" (Science of Being and Art of Living, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Rev. Ed. 1967, p. 271). "The solution, Maharishi said, is groups of Yogic Flyers. The impact of the groups will be immediate and clear. 'A new destiny of mankind will dawn when Total Natural Law -- the Constitution of the Universe, the Divine Will of God -- which is present in every grain of creation -- rules the world of human beings as it rules the ever-expanding universe.'". Tanaats 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You have great sources there- the TM organization itself. I propose not creating a new section, just adding it under the current religion section. This material was there, including more of the Hindu/Vedic components of TM, well sourced, until someone removed them. Sethie 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I wasn't clear. I was indeed thinking to put it at the bottom of the current Religion section. Tanaats 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this is not a reliable source!!! Just joking. : ) I think this proposed section is fair and could be added. (Though I or someone may eventually add a point or two to try to qualify the statements.)

The question is where to add it. Note that I've divided the Criticism section into two parts, those more directly related to TM and those related to other programs Maharishi has introduced. Maybe it could be divided between the two sections.TimidGuy 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it belongs in the "Religion?" section. Putting it anywhere else would make it quite a bit "out of context". Also it relates most directly to the "Religion?" issue. As for posting qualifications, of course the section should be NPOV (see, I'm learning the lingo!). Tanaats 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)\

We could create a new section in the "Other related controversies section" for the point about Yagyas. The heading could be "Are Yagyas religious ceremonies?" It would really be great if we could avoid confusing people by letting them know which controversies are directly relatled to TM and which are related to other programs. Yes, of course, any qualifying ponts would cite sources. TimidGuy 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Ok, as I understand where we are: "yagyas" go in the new section under "Controversies" and the rest of the proposed text goes at the bottom of "Religion?". If that's agreed shall I go ahead and make the edits? Tanaats 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are Yagyas religious ceremonies is a great subject for the Yagya page, Timidguy, if you want to pursue that topic please take it up there. The bottom line is the TM yagya website uses "religious" language. So keep it with the religions section. Sethie 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've thought about this further and I'm going to flip-flop on this. In my very strong opinion "TM" does not just refer to "TM-the-technique". When people are taught TM-the-technique they are also taught the religous concept of "Cosmic Consciousness" during the 3rd group meeting after initiation. This is their introduction to "TM-the-religion". So TM-the-technique is never packaged apart from TM-the-religion, and I therefore consider the term "TM" to apply to both. Furthermore, I consider everything taught as part of TM-the-religion, including yagyas, to therefore be part of "TM". So I would like to see the "yagya" reference under the "Is TM a religion?" section. Tanaats 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was already there and a (neutral) user by the name of Jefffire deleted it saying it was irrelevant. I think this is representing your personal point of view and distorts the logic of the article. A yagya is not Transcendental Meditation. Why confuse readers? It would be one thing if I were saying it shouldn't be in the article. But I've acquiesced. And I even suggested a subhead that used the word religion. This properly belongs in the Other programs section. I've worked hard to clarify the logic of the article by roeroganizing it. Please don't impose your logic and your POV. You're already well represented in the article, being quoted twice. There's a link to your web site. You shouldn't generalize your experience and opinion, and cast everything in terms of it.TimidGuy 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why on Earth would we give a sub-heading for something that will take up 2 sentences?Sethie 06:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of truth and logic?TimidGuy 12:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice dodge of the question, with an implied insult. Try again.Sethie 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Sethie, I didn't mean to imply an insult. I feel like I've given a rationale regarding the logical structure of the article and that we should address that point. In fact, if this gets added, I'd like to lengthen it a bit by given a brief context regarding what a yagya is. So it would be more than a couple sentences.TimidGuy 16:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a clarification that judge Meanor was the lower court judge and that the appellate court judge determined that the puja was a secular ceremony.TimidGuy 12:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He did not DETERMINE it was a secular ceremony, he said it was. Big difference. Sethie 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I should be more careful with my wording.

Need reference to "SCI"

How about changing "...teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)..." to ..."teaching of the theory and philosophy of the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI)..."? Otherwise the reference to SCI will be a mystery to many readers Tanaats 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Please do.TimidGuy 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done! Tanaats 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Added further info

I have added a quot from a Canadian Newspaper by former TM teacher (and current wiki editor) Joe Kellet/Tanats. Nice interview Tanaats- I had not seen it before.

I also included a further refference from the cult abuse and policy research newsletter which clarified exactly what the judge didn't like about the puja. Sethie 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored MOST of the well cited ideas that were removed.Sethie 06:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychological training

The sentence "However, no TM teacher has the qualifications to accurately screen for psychological problems" is not 100% accurate since some of the zillions of TM teachers who were trained might have been psychologists or psychiatrists. So I've changed it to "However, TM "teacher training" does not include training on how to accurately screen for psychological or psychiatric problems". Tanaats 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're a good editor. Earlier I noticed that maybe there should be a citation for this. I just added the tag. The first sentence should also have a source.TimidGuy 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Move of indepedndent cognitive section

The critic in question says the movement is a cult, not the TM technique, hence the rebutal doesn't fit. Also we have been seperating claim and rebutal into different sections- so unless a different modus operandi comes about.. Sethie 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I don't understand the last part of what you're saying here. But I do think the rebuttal fits. Hassan says explicitly "They want you to dress and think and speak in a certain way." I rebutted that by presenting research done at Harvard showing that it fosters independent thinking. That study is unrelated to the point being made by Canter and Ernst. I don't think your move is a good one.

I do think I could have put in a better transition to make the connection between what the study is saying and what Hassan is saying.TimidGuy 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true you can dress it up.... and I am noitcing you did not answer my first objection

And I will explain the second objection.

Please notice that the article as it stands now, minus the German court study we do not have point-counter point right next to each other, they are divided into sections (for example the TM movement's claim about positive effects and critics. Now, would you be willing to answer my specific objections to the way the article was? Sethie 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it valid to cite allegations made in a suit that was dismissed?

At least twice this article quotes allegations made in a suit in 1986 alleging harmful effects of TM. A lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and made an award. The suit was appealed and the appellate court dismissed that particular suit. I wonder whether it's legitimate to quote these allegations when a court has ruled that they were unfounded.TimidGuy 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Did the court rule that the allegations were unfounded? Or were the allegations made, and the OVERALL case was dismissed? Sethie 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are a number of reasons for dismissing a suit other than "the allegations are unfounded". Tanaats 02:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I have been under the distinct impression that appellate courts do not rule on issues of "fact", but only on issues of "law". I could be wrong. Tanaats 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The guideline on consensus

I think it would be good to review the guideline on consensus. I really think some changes are being made that don't best serve the interests of accuracy and logic and clarity. It would be good to discuss first rather than just plowing ahead.TimidGuy 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your claim is too abstract for me. I am not willing to dialogue about something as vague as "I really think some changes are being made that don't best serve the interests of accuracy and logic and clarity." Pick a specific point and I will dialogue with you about it.

If you think it would be good to review the consensus guidelines, do it. If you think it would be good for ME to do so, please just come out and ask me to do it.Sethie 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you wouldn't mind I think it would be a good idea to review the consensus guideline.

Thank you- I recviewed it, and will let it sit. Sethie 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Other issues

One example is moving the study by Alexander without first discussing. There's a guideline that I'm trying to find that deals specifically with article structure and whether criticisms should be integrated or in a separate section. Another example is the question regarding whether it's appropriate to cite allegations made in a suit that was found to be without merit and dismissed by an appellate court. Also, whether it's relevant to cite an award of a lower court if that decision was overturned by the appellate court.TimidGuy 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

After your quest, pick ONE thing and I will address it. Sethie 17:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the Talk page

I would like to note, revelvant to an earlier discussion that touched on examining the reliability of sources on the Talk page, including discussing the accuracy of the content, that this is explicitly allowed in the guideline for Misplaced Pages Talk pages: "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."TimidGuy 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please show me a place where I said it was not allowed.

Please show me ONCE where you "compared contradictory facts from different sources!"

TIMIDGUY, YOU ARE NOT A SOURCE. Time and time again I asked you to back up your claims with something other then your own thoughts or your offer to "make a phone call" and you would not/could not.

I didn't offer to make a phone call. I said that Carroll could easily have corrected his errors if he'd made a hone call. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Now you are once again misquoting wikipedia policy which asks you to do what I asked you to do!!!!!!!!!!!!! which is compare contradictory facts FROM A SOURCES other then your OWN THOUGHTS and your OWN RESEARCH. You made all these claims about the innacuracy of the Skeptics Dictionary and NOT ONCE did you produce a source!

I love it when you quote wiki policy, please keep it up. Sethie 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was examining the reliability of references. I was, for example, comparing contradictory facts from Carroll and Randi. I was comparing the absence of any mention of a study by Rabinoff in scientific indexes to the fact that Carroll says such a study exists.

And here's one of the instances in which you were critical if my camparing contradictory facts from different sources: " If you believe that your own research about a source is relevant and worthwhile component to wikipedia, I have no wish to engage in dialogue with you around this topic."

I'm not trying to go after you. All I really want is to go back to the process that we had established earlier, of discussing things, achieving a consensus, and then making a better article. And if we can't agree, then I'd like to use the dispute procedures rather than plunging ahead and making changes that may or may not be improving the article.TimidGuy 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected- in our dialogue, you did compare 2 facts, once. HOWEVER THAT IS NOT "examining the reliability of references!" As far as I am concerned, as soon as you step outside your thinking and provide a source, you are not engage in OR and I will disucss that with you.

I have made some swooping changes.... though not really- they are mostly old things that had been taken out. They're done. If you don't like them, pick one and let's start discussing them.Sethie 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that if you certainly are not teaching by example. Without disucssing it first, you just removed some unique facts which were not covered in the repeat paragraph. Sethie 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But you put it in without first discussing. And maybe some of those old things were taken out for a good reason. You have indeed made "swooping changes."TimidGuy 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I made the changes without first disucssing them. Why do you bring that up?

Maybe they were taken out for good reason. Maybe they were taken out by brainwashed Mantra Zealots! Maybe Elvis and aliens came and took them out. Who the hell knows? Instead of posting a "maybe" find out! Feel free to browse through the history and see if you can find a "good reason."Sethie 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A friendly reminder to please try to keep this discussion civil, and to carefully read the contents of the "controversial tag" at the very top of this talk page. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is totally true that for me, "Brainwashed Mantra Zealots" was a way out of line thing to say.... I went for a personal attack to make my point, in in this case weakened what I was trying to say. Sethie 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sethie. I just saw your most excellent apology to TimidGuy! Good work to both of you, and I hope you two can collaborate to make a great article on TM. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. And thanks Dreadlocke for posting the tag and for appearing here to help settle things down.TimidGuy 02:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the repeat

Thank you for pointing out that the study was already there. Instead of deleting the new insertion of mine, which took out a quote and a nice summary, I have combined the two and moved it to the new section. Thank you- I had missed that. Sethie 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross on Canter and Ernst

Hi, Sethie. Rick Ross seriously misrepresents the Canter and Ernst article. You shouldn't post what he says until we've had a chance to discuss. Thanks.TimidGuy 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that Rick Ross seriously misrepresents the Canter and Ernst article or did you do some serious misrepresenting?

Rick Ross hasn't made any comments on the study, hence it is actually you who are misrepresenting Rick Ross. You think he has something to say about the Canter and Ernst article. Interesting thought. No basis in reality- and REALLY interesting.

The only thing to disucss is: A) Is the source reputable? B) Did I accurately cite the source? C)Are their sources (which exclude Timidguy) which contradict what the source I drew form says?

The rest is your OR and belongs on a blog. Sethie 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can present evidence that he's misrepresenting the study. But I don't see the point in doing so until we can agree on the purpose of the Talk page. Plus, I can't keep up with you here. I've got to turn my attention to other things that I've been neglecting. Will be back.TimidGuy 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

YOU CANNOT present evidence that he's misrepressenting the study, because Rick Ross has never made a comment on the study!

If you have sources, cite them and put them in the article!

The talk page is for talking. Sethie 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, I don't know where you got this quote because you don't provide a citation: "of 700 studies on TM spanning 40 years, only 10 were conducted in the clinical tradition of using strict control groups, randomization and placebos." It's not from the abstract available online, because that says something different. And it's not from the article, because I have that. I believe it's from Rick Ross because that's exactly how he inaccurately characterizes the study on his web site.

Thanks for telling the truth. I looked at the paragraph and it is a bit confusing- since two citations are used, so I added it in again.

It cannot be from Rick Ross, since he has never written an article on it.

He's repeated this verbatim a number of times. See, for example, this article. This is one of his favorite ways of dismissing the research. And it's not true.

I can demonstrate that this is an error by quoting from the abstract online. But I'm afraid that you'll again accuse me of doing Original Research. 1) Please tell me where this quote is from, and 2) and it would be great if you could tell my what you mean by Original Research not being allowed on the Talk page and cite a guideline for this. Thanks much. TimidGuy 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am HIGHLY skeptical that you can demonstrate that it is an error. You can quote from a source though and let the readers decide.

Would the abstract of the study be an acceptable source?

Ahhh- thank you for actually asking! It is from The Journal News/May 18, 2004 By Joy Victory. Time and time and time and time again, and again, right now, I have said that if you quote sources that IS NOT or.

For the 2nd time (you were unwilling or unable to answer it the first time, maybe this will be different) Please show me where I said OR is not allowed on the talk page?Sethie 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from Sethie in an earlier thread: "My challenge to you is to respond to the above paragraph without going into OR". (But if you agree that presenting the absract is acceptable to the process on the Talk page, then we can drop this point.)TimidGuy 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just reread what you said. I think I'm beginning to understand your point (though I'm not sure I agree). But for now, I think we can drop it if you agree that the abstract is acceptable evidence.TimidGuy 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You said "it would be great if you could tell my what you mean by Original Research not being allowed on the Talk page and cite a guideline for this." I asked you to show me where I said it was not allowed. You replied by quoting me: "My challenge to you is to respond to the above paragraph without going into OR."

When I read those words, I don't see me saying OR isn't allowed.

So for the third time, please show me where I said OR isn't allowed on the talk page. If you cannot find me saying that, would you be willing to clearly indicate this?

I said RR had not commented on the study. I was in error, you provided me a source showing me a source in which he does.

The source I quoted however does not say they got that information from Rick Ross, hence, the source for the quote I used was Joy Victory, a reporter for the Journal News.

Every step of this dialogue I have encouraged you to cite soureces. And now you want to know if it is okay with me if you cite sources?

Would you be willing to re-read everything I have posted in the last week and count how many times I have asked you to cite sources? Sethie 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please, present the abstracts! Sethie 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My recent reverts

I reverted the last 2 edits by Timidguy because: a)he still not clear who the source of the article is, hence I do not belive he is in a position to evaluate it; b)it is a near direct quote from a source; c)I posted why I restructured something, and he did not respond to it. Instead he went ahead and has reverted it twice now (as have I). d) He has not followed the guidelines posted on this talk page, to disucss changes after they are made them for either of those reverts. Sethie 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I explain my edits above.TimidGuy 13:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When I look above I do see you saying why you don't like the cog section where it is- so I stand corrected, you commented on one of your 2 reverts. Sethie 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Added citations for the Pagels quotes

The citations for the Pagels quotes were text (like "") rather than links. So I added live links as citations. Sorry, I forgot to log in before making the edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Tanaats. I'd noticed that too and had it on my list of things to do.TimidGuy 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Offer their own techniques?

In the "Some TM teachers breaking away" section it says "Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer their own techniques at much lower prices." I'm feeling a bit leary of the "offer their own techniques" part. I propose "Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer instruction in TM, or instruction in their own techniques that are offshoots of TM, at much lower prices." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Because "Transcendental Meditation" is trademarked, it's illegal for them to call it TM. And legally we shouldn't refer to it as TM here.TimidGuy 20:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How about "Some of these teachers have broken with Maharishi to offer instruction on their own". Saying their "own techniques" falsely gives the impression that none of them are offering instruction that is faithful to their TM teacher training. Tanaats 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a creative workaround. But legally, we shouldn't even imply that it's TM.TimidGuy 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement as proposed does not violate the "TM" trademark, and there is therefore no legal problem with it. Tanaats 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Canteer edit

The deletion of "In a large-scale literature review published by the Middle European Journal of Medicine in 2003 reported that "of 700 studies on TM spanning 40 years, only 10 were conducted in the clinical tradition of using strict control groups, randomization and placebos." Peter Canteer, a researcher from Peninsula Medical School concluded in TM research, "there is a strong placebo effect going on which probably works through the expectations being set up." " deletes a lot that isn't replicated by "Peter Canteer, a researcher from Peninsula Medical School concluded in TM research, "there is a strong placebo effect going on which probably works through the expectations being set up." isn't represented fully by the Canteer quote that remians.

I propose replacing the Canteer quote that remains with the entire deleted section. Tanaats 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a "sworn" affadavit?

In "Alleged Harmful Effects of Trancendental Meditation", why was "a sworn affadavit" changed to "an affadavit"? Tanaats 21:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there another kind of affidavit other than one that's "sworn"? Seemed like it was redundant.TimidGuy 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics