Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David spector (talk | contribs) at 11:47, 21 July 2010 (→Non balanced POV about the question whether TM is rooted in Hinduism.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 20 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Transcendental Meditation movement Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation 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.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement Top This article has been rated as Top-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: 20 days

Other subpages:

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/religion
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/promotion of studies
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/341 studies

References

Outdated information on SCI

I'm just noticing that there's some outdated information on SCI. MUM no longer offers a PhD in SCI. Undergraduate students no longer take SCI at MUM. There is no Maharishi European Research University in Switzerland. Subjects are no longer taught with reference to SCI. The term "creative intelligence" is rarely used. Maharishi Vedic Science has replaced the Science of Creative Intelligence. I see that the sources for this information are dated. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources?   Will Beback  talk  11:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I only know what I read. There was a MERU in Switzerland as recently as March 2006, judging by this website. Meanwhile, there's a September 2006 source that reports a MERU in Vlodrop. Did it move or have there been two MERUs? 12:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I confess to being baffled by claims like this, just as in the case of the discussion of rounding above. It is not useful to claim that information in the article or that sources are outdated without explicitly stating (i) how, and in what respect the information is claimed to be incorrect or outdated, and (ii) providing sources. Current, official TM websites actively promote SCI. To claim that "Maharishi Vedic Science" has replaced SCI is an extraordinary claim in light of the fact that SCI is currently being used and was the core of the educational program and required for all students at MUM throughout its existence. MUM's current website states the raison d'etre of MUM: "Maharishi announced his intention to create a university whose entire curriculum would incorporate the Science of Creative Intelligence. Its name would be Maharishi International University."

Are we to accept on faith that this has now all been assigned to the dustbin? What do you mean by "replaced"? Is is a new name for the same thing or something completely different? Cryptic and unspported claims, like "It's different, but I can't tell you how or why because it's a secret" are useless to us as editors and counter-productive to collaboration. Verifiable, reliable sources, not individual editor opinions, judgments and claims of personal knowledge are what we need here. Fladrif (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The current MUM web site lists all the undergrad, MA and Ph.D. programs on the web page . I do not see ant degrees in SCI currently on offer. --BwB (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of the Ph.D.s, we can finesse the issue by changing "are awarded" to "have been awarded". That's still consistent with sources, etc. As for the rest, we need explicit sources not personal research.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Note that there is also no longer an undergraduate course in SCI and it's no longer a required course for every student. There is no undergraduate course in the Science of Creative Intelligence.. I'll adjust that too. TimidGuy (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that edit is you deleted the fact that MUM used to require the class, yet you left the source which said so. Could you please restore the fact that, at least in the past, MUM students have been required to view the 33-tape SCI lecture series? There are more than one source for this, if we need to further establish it as a fact.   Will Beback  talk  11:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand why we've added a reference to "Science and Technology of Consciousness" to the SCI section. What it is the relationship, if any? Regarding SCI at MUM, I have a student handbook from 2003 which says that it was a requirement for all students, so the change is apparently since then. The text should reflect that it was a previous requirement. An undated (circa 1999) paper by Samuel Boothby says: "For the past 26 years, all students who have attended M.U.M. take the 33 Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) lessons as their first course." There are other sources as well for it having been a general requirement in the past.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am equally baffled, particularly since no-one had deigned to answer the questions which I posed above. If we are to take as true that MUM has abandoned 30+ years of tradition that required all incoming freshmen to take the 33-lecture SCI course, and that taught all subjects as aspects of SCI, we need sources to verify this. On top of this, it would be helpful to those of us who are not TM and MUM insiders to have an explanation, even if not sourced, as to when and why MUM would make such a sea change in its approach. If, on the other hand, this is just a change of nomenclature, acknowledging and explaining that would make this all a lot more understandable. Fladrif (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:VERIFIABLE "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The definitive source for whether SCI is being taught now is the university handbook. If its not there, not up to us to say it is now being taught. I don't see any problem with a statement something like," SCI was taught until such and such a date for incoming students", or something like that as long as its sourced, but we do want to be accurate don't we.(olive (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

In this case the handbooks are primary sources, and it's a bit dicey to use one to contradict a reliable secondary source. We have multiple sources which says it was a requirement, including one that says it was in place for at least 26 years. We have a 2003 handbook which includes the requirement. We have no source that gives a date for the end of the requirement. I'm inclined to remove the STC mention, and to alter the text to read something like, "For most of its history, MUM required all students to ..., but by 2009 it was only required of graduate students. " Is that celar enough for everyone?   Will Beback  talk  03:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Text proposed by Will is OK for me if supported by reliable sources. --BwB (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The "...but by 2009, it was only required of graduate students" isn't reliably sourced, for the reasons stated by Will above. The rest of it is fine, leaving open whether or not, and when, the change was made. Again, I have seen no answer to my questions on this issue.Fladrif (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What we can say to avoid OR is something," like SCI was taught at MUM until....From (date) to (date) it (or SCI) is taught only to graduate students. The MUM handbook would be be an appropriate source for information on what is being taught at MUM.(olive (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

And to answer Flad's question. I'm not party to why a university changes its courses, but you could always call the admissions office and ask. The admissions office does answer such questions I believe, so if there was a public answer, I'm sure they'll be happy to tell you. At the same time, universities adjust curricula all of the time, and those are internal, academic situations and decisions that may be inappropriate to discuss with those outside the university.(olive (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

That doesn't answer my question. For 30+ years, all incoming freshmen were required, as their first course, to take the 33-lecture SCI course. For 30+ years all subjects were taught as aspects of SCI, and to do so was the founding purpose of MIU. That is what all our sources say, and is confirmed by official MUM publications. According to TG, neither is the case any longer. That strikes me, if true, as an astounding, fundamental change in educational philosophy and approach. It is not like some small college decided to drop Ancient Greek and start offering Mandarin Chinese - though even that is likely to make the local paper and be hotly debated in the Alumni Association newsletter, with the Administration issuing an official explanation and statement. It made the news, and official statements and explanations were issued, and controversies aired, every time a private college or university dropped mandatory chapel.When colleges and univesities make fundamental changes in their curriculum - like going to or abandoning a "Great Books" curriculum - they always explain publicly what they're doing and why: certaily to their important constituencies: students, faculty, alumni, donors - and the changes more often than not become matters of more general news reportage and controversy. I can think of dozens, and can readily find hundreds and thousands of examples. No-one would seriously contend that such a change, large or small, even at a school as small as MUM, is confidential and not to be discussed outside the university. That none of the editors who are actually in a position to say from personal knowledge why or even when this supposedly happened, is truly curious. That silence and intimations of confidentiality lead me to question the claim even more than the inability to produce verifiable reliable sources. Fladrif (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, Fladrif, call the university if you want an answer... I have no idea what the situation is, and have no clue if any other editor does....Don't make a mountain out of a molehill...sheesh... And it didn't say the situation was confidential, I said it might be ....I don't see the local press panting at the university gates looking for a story on the SCI. To assume an editor is in position to know this is....an assumption. Good Grief ... Much ado about nothing.(olive (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Further. Per the sources which is what this is about...If the handbook says no SCI for undergraduate students, we have to go with that, and if we have sources that say there was SCI we can use that too...Its simple.(olive (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

While Olive may not know about this changeover, apparently TimidGuy does know so when he returns maybe he can answer Fladrif's questions. As for which sources are best, the usual standard is that secondary sources are preferable. However the handbook would seem sufficient for the simple issue of whether SCI is a current requirement for undergraduates.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Will's proposal sounds like the simplest and most practical one to me. A quick look on MUM's General Degree Requirements web pages for Master's degrees , Ph.D. degrees and Bachelor degrees shows that while the first two require students to take the 33 Lesson SCI course, the third one does not. Finding a secondary source with the same information just does not seem practical.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We have secondary sources that discuss SCI being an undergraduate requirement. There's no reasons why we shouldn't be able to find a secondary source for this this, yet none seems to exist. It's a bit odd that this change was made without any kind of announcement or explanation. However we've cited the MUM Handbook before, so I don't think there's a sufficient reasons to avoid using it in this case. I don't here anyone defending the addition of "Science and Technology of Consciousness" to this section, so I assume that removing it won't be controversial.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Another one:

• . Without proper intellectual understanding, experience of pure consciousness can be misunderstood, as it has been numerous times throughout history. At Maharishi University of Management, this requirement is satisfied by all students taking a course in the Science of Creative Intelligence®—the science of consciousness—as their first course at the University.
  • "Consciousness-Based(SM) Education: A Future of Higher Education in the New Millennium" by James D. Grant, in The University in Transformation: Global Perspectives on the Futures of the University published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000.

So there are a number of secondary sources that have said it is a requirement, and only one primary source which says it is no longer one.   Will Beback  talk  04:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

More recently, Complete Book of Colleges, 2007 Edition By Princeton Review includes the undergraduate requirement. All new students take a foundation course, "The Science of Creative Intelligence". I believe it was published in 2006.   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We should go by the University catalog. It was changed about two or three years ago. There is no more definitive source than the catalog. TimidGuy (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Regarding Fladrif's question, SCI principles are still used, but the more general term Maharishi Vedic Science has replaced SCI for the most part. TimidGuy (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

TG, to repeat what I think was one of Fladrif's questions: Was this significant change made without any announcement? Was the omission from the handbook the first that anyone knew of this change? Since MIU was founded to teach and investigate SCI, and since this was the core curricula for over 30 years, it seems remarkable if there were no comments or discussions when that curriculum was dropped. Did it coincide with the Maharishi's death?   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether we define the catalogue as a primary source is not really the issue so much as we need to be as accurate as we can. Primary sources are to be used with care because they do not necessarily have the oversight conditions to be accurate. All the university articles I looked at use some sources that they themselves generate, and we have to assume the university wil be accurate about itself. There's really no other way to get updated information on certain aspects of the institution. As long as schools and universities are included in Misplaced Pages the articles will have to have to a combination of sources. Notability will have to be established by secondary sources but some information significant to an understanding of the institution will probably have to be based on content generated by the instituion. This essay fro WP:UINGUIDE says it well:

Special care is required for citing self-published sources, such as information about a college/university published by the college/university itself: the cited information must be authentic, not be self-serving (see Neutral point of view), and not involve claims about third parties. Self-published sources cannot comprise the majority of an article's citations. Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, however, these sources cannot be used to establish encyclopedic notability. Coverage by mainstream news organizations should always be preferred over press releases by a college or university's news office and stories in the student newspaper.

However, colleges and universities do publish a wide variety of important and authoritative information that should be included in any article. The Common Data Set, a fact book/almanac, President's reports, course catalogs, and/or faculty handbooks are excellent and authoritative sources of information on the college or university and can commonly be found on the websites for the provost, registrar, or institutional research office. A university's library or archives office may have a list of published articles or books about the university's history that can be used as reliable sources as well. (olive (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

"Course catalogues... are excellent and authoritative sources of information on the college or university and can commonly be found on the websites for the provost, registrar, or institutional research office." This is exactly the case here, we have a course catalogue on line. That should be it. I don't understand the need for a secondary source in this case or all these questions about announcements. Do University commonly send out announcements when they change their course catalogues or course requirements? I'll shut up now as I feel I am beating this already dead horse well into the ground. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources are usually preferable to primary sources like a college handbook, but we can still use those sparingly. I've gone ahead made the change proposed above.   Will Beback  talk  06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Content that needs source verification

Completed: Sources for content were either found or verified as requested

Tantric source for TM mantras - request quote

I have requested quotes from the sources that say that the TM mantras are from Tantra. I think this text was supplied by Kala Bethere some time ago. --BwB (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A request was made in February for verification of the content in the article on mantra. I've removed one source since it doesn't as far as I can see make any references to TM. Until we can access the other sources, since a long period of time has passed since the first request, and since sourced content in the article seems contrary to this non verified sourced material, I'm parking the content here pending verification.(olive (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

• "According to pundits of the mantra tradition and Rig Veda tradition, the sounds used in the Transcendental Meditation technique are taken from the ancient Tantric tradition."—Preceding undated comment added (date and author unknown).

Although I don't have any sources to offer, my understanding from my own studies is that some say that the Bija Mantras evolved from astrological moon signs to represent personality traits, while others simply state that they were originally cognized by rishis as personalized aspects of consciousness and have since been passed down from guru to disciple as part of the Shankara tradition. I know of other (non-popularized) types of mantra meditation descended from the Shankara tradition whose mantras come from two recent Shankaracharyas. It is extremely unlikely that the TM mantras or technique ever had anything to do with the various Tantric teachings, which are not in the main line of Advaita or Vedanta techniques. David Spector (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif, could you please give a page number for this referenced text "The bija or seed mantras used in TM come from the Tantric, rather than Vedic tradition. In the Tantric tradition these mantras are associated with specific dieties and used as a form of worship. ? Many thanks. --BwB (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

David, as we have discussed before on these pages, the understanding or research of individual editors is WP:OR and cannot be used here. You need sources to back up your assertions. Reliable sources written by experts in the field directly contradict your understanding. Read Williamson's book and Sanderson as well, who she cites. BWB, do you know how to use the search function in Google Books? PAGE 89 specifically, but there is additional material on other pages which illuminate the statement. Fladrif (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Flad for the page number and Google link. --BwB (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we have a source that describes the mantras as coming from the Tantric tradition, and we also have sources that say the mantras come from the Vedic tradition, I would think can have both citing the authors. I can't add this tonight, but possibly tomorrow unless someone gets to it before I do. (olive (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

I've added text and source on the mantras and Tantric tradition.(olive (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

Books can get things wrong. If you study Tantrism, you will discover that it is mostly about the spiritual use of the sexual impulse. This was not a topic of interest of Adi Shankara, nor of any of his long line of disciples.

I see that Fladrif is still around, acting as he usually does, like the know-it-all policeman of WP. I would have thought he would go away after the strong condemnation, out of all of the TMM article editors, of his behavior by the ArbCom. As discussed below, I resent the nastiness I perceive. I, myself, try my best to be helpful and supportive in my editing and commenting here at WP.

Anyone actually familiar with Tantrism knows that it is not connected with the Shankarcharya meditation mantras, no matter what any books say. WP is in error to define accuracy and truth as that which is printed in published books, newspapers, or websites anyway. David Spector (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2010(UTC)

I have removed text here at the request of Fladrif. I will submit it to ArbCom as suggested. David Spector (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This deletion was inappropriate. Fladrif did not request that you delete the text but that you refactor it, which is not the same thing, especially since the text had already been commented on. It is not respectful of your fellow editors to remove text from a discussion as if it had never been there, leaving the following comments dangling with no context. You might review the guidelines on editing your own comments on a talk page for appropriate ways to edit your comments; leaving the text in place and striking through the portion that you have decided to refactor would be the usual way to deal with a situation like this. Woonpton (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Since David has had more than a week to restore the improperly deleted text and has chosen not to, I am restoring it. If David would like to strike the text, that would be an appropriate thing to do with a personal attack that has already been responded to by other editors; as I said before, removing it is not acceptable, as it renders following comments incomprehensible for later readers, who need to be able to see what folks were responding to. Woonpton (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that one of Misplaced Pages's core policies, and one that was specifically covered in the ArbCom case, is "assume good faith". That's not what you're doing here. The issues with Fladrif that were raised in Arbitration were almost exclusively about his incivility, not his content work, which is what you're addressing here. Your negative personal comments about Fladrif are borderline uncivil and do not belong on this talk page. As for the rest of your remarks, you seem to be saying "damn the sources, I know the truth". That's the exact opposite of how Misplaced Pages works. Our own personal conclusions matter little, and the verifiable sources are the only factors we should be considering. If the sources are all wrong then the way to correct that is to write and publish a different POV, which we can then add to the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I readded the content on the Tantric tradition and the alternate and reliable source provided by Fladrif. As an encyclopedia rather than writing a research paper, our interest is in what is in the sources on a topic and in compiling content based on those sources. Our responsibility is in accuracy per the sources rather than truth. (olive (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Not meaning to pile up on David here, just a further comment.(olive (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Local references

1. Pandit Usharbudh Arya (aka Swami Veda Bharati) (1981). Mantra and Meditation. Himalayan Institute of Yoga Science and Philosophy of the U.S.A. ISBN 9780893890742.
2. Dictionaries of the Tantra Shāstra or Tantrābhidānām, Containing Prakārāntara, Mantrābhidhāna, Ekākṣarakosha, Bījanighantu, Mātrkānighantu, Prakārāntara Mātrkānighantu I and II, Prakārāntara Varṇanighantu, Bījābhidhāna, Mantrārthābhidhāna of Varada Tantra, Mudrānighaṇṭu and Varṇabījakosha, Edited by Ram Kumar Rai, Prachya Prakashan, Varanasi, 1984; pp. 3-97
3. What is Tantra Yoga?
4. Cite error: The named reference Williamson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. A brief introduction to Tantra Yoga.
6. About Adi Shankara.
7. The recent Shankarcharya tradition.

Patel

I don't see this information in the source. Since its not critical information. I'm moving the content here until we can verify source and clarify content.(olive (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC))

• "Patel also says that it is derived from Patanjali's Yoga."

Q. Commas after introductory prepositional phrases?

• A. Not if they're short Ludwig Beethoven (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wikibooks says "no", so it must be so. Ludwig Beethoven (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see: "Use commas... to set off a year from the rest of the sentence." (olive (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

See Irony — Wikibooks is not a trustworthy source. Try this more detailed treatment of the matter. Ludwig Beethoven (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's standard to use a comma after the year given, to separate it from the rest of the sentence, and to set up the context of the sentence. I won't argue this further. If the grammar in the article is incorrect, either other editors will deal with it, or outside editors will, if asked.(olive (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

It's standard to write the standard contraction for "it is" with an apostrophe to stand for the missing letter "i". Ludwig Beethoven (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was taught in school that one always inserts a comma after a date. But many rules I was taught have since been overturned. I don't believe this is done in Received English. See http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommasAndDates/wxjj/post.htm for a discussion, and see English style books for the real answer, if any. David Spector (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My old copy of Hodges & Whitten states: "Short introductory prepositional phrases, except when they are distinctly parenthetical expressions (such as in fact or for example), are seldom followed by commas." Hodges Harbrace College Handbook, 6thEd p 116. Most other introductory phrases are usually set off by commas. Fladrif (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• All the English teachers and all the journal editors I've ever had insisted on commas to set off adverbial clauses that precede or interrupt the main clause but no comma after introductory prepositional phrases (unless needed for clarity, for instance, when long).

• Commas in dates (or locations) are a separate issue, the rule being to use a comma after the year (or State, province, country, etc.) if one is needed before. For example:

1. On July 4, 1776, such and such happened.
2. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, such and such happened.

— Ludwig Beethoven (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can come to some resolution on this. Ludwig originally removed the commas after the year given, but seems now to be saying they are acceptable. I'm not sure this discussion deserves much more time... I'll be happy to go with whatever is decided one way or the other.(olive (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

Not to butt in, and not sure how important it is, but I read him as saying that an intro like 'In 1776' would still not take a comma. Crystal Horshofsky (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a simple prep phrase takes no comma, so even one like "In July 1776 such and such happened" has no comma. Ludwig Beethoven (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sure, what's, a, comma, between friends,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, --BwB (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I like photos in Wiki articles but I'm wondering if the photo of the abandoned ashram, now owned by the Indian Govt, has real relevance to this article or if it would be better suited on the MMY article. I'm not sure what these huts have to do with the practice or origin of TM. Usually photos illustrate a topic discussed in the article but the relevance of this photo escapes me. Any thoughts on this?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it out if you like - I do not mind if it goes. -- (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty irrelevant. I would take it out as per WP:ROC : Individual articles... should stay focused on a small number of topics for ease of reading and navigation. An article that is dense with information only tenuously connected to its subject does little to inform readers about that subject.. Pictures are nice, however, does anyone have any more relevant photos? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The caves (really stone huts) were built for the express purpose of practicing TM. If folks want, I'll find a source or two and expand the caption to describe their purpose.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Then should we also include other photos of TM centers, schools and academies where TM has been practiced and taught? If so I can find many such photos to include in the article if that is the only criteria.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If they've received as much fame as the ashram at Rishikesh, then they'd certainly belong. We have free photos of the Seelisberg facility, and it's also pretty prominent in TM history. At the other extreme, TM is also taught in people's homes, but I don't think we'd want to add photos of TM instructor's homes even if they are also places of business.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good than let's put these photos, including the abandoned ashram, that are "prominent in the TM history" into the article History of Transcendental Meditation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We can copy the ashram photo there, sure. If there's a better photo to illustrate the "origins" section in this article then we could use it instead. Maybe a pic of Brahmananda Saraswati?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the purpose of photos in an article is to illustrate a section of the article. With this in mind I don't see how the current picture of abandoned stone huts illustrates anything about the copy below (or any other section) and feel we should remove the photo from this article. Do you object to its removal?

• According to religious scholar Kenneth Boa in his book, Cults, World Religions and the Occult, Transcendental Meditation is rooted in the Vedantic School of Hinduism, "repeatedly confirmed" in the Maharishi's books such as the Science of Being and the Art of Living and his Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. Boa writes that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi "makes it clear" that Transcendental Meditation was delivered to man about 5,000 years ago by the Hindu god Krishna. The technique was then lost, but restored for a time by Buddha. It was lost again, but rediscovered in the 9th century AD by the Hindu philosopher Shankara. Finally, it was revived by Brahmananda Saraswati (Guru Dev) and passed on to the Maharishi.
• George Chryssides similarly states that the Maharishi and Guru Dev were from the Shankara tradition of advaita Vedanta. Peter Russell in The TM Technique says that the Maharishi believed that from the time of the Vedas, this knowledge cycled from lost to found multiple times, as is described in the introduction of the Maharishi's commentaries on the Bhagavad-Gita. Revival of the knowledge recurred principally in the Bhagavad-Gita, and in the teachings of Buddha and Shankara. Chryssides notes that, in addition to the revivals of the Transcendental Meditaton technique by Krishna, the Buddha and Shankara, the Maharishi also drew from the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Vimal Patel also writes that the Maharishi drew from Patanjali when developing the TM technique.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested above, a photo of Brahmananda Saraswati might be more apt. Now that you've quoted the text of the entire section, we see that he was responsible for reviving TM after a thousand-year absence. If there's no objection I'll swap in his photo in place of the Rishikesh photo.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, switching would be fine. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"add balancing point per NPOV"

The material in bold was just added, without any discussion, with the edit summary, "add balancing point per NPOV".

• Leading individuals and organizations associated with TM cite the existence of many studies, "more than 600 published research studies, conducted at over 200 independent research institutions in 33 countries", to support TM-related concepts. The quantity of studies have been cited to support the political programs of the Natural Law Party, the tax status of a TM institution, the use of TM to rehabilitate prisoners, the teaching of TM in schools, the issuance of bonds to finance the movement, as proof that TM is a science rather than a religion, and as a reason to practice TM itself. An article in the Jerusalem Post and a review by Canter and Ernst said that many studies appear to have been conducted by researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi, including Maharishi University of Management in Iowa and Maharishi European Research University in Switzerland, which is disputed by Orme-Johnson and by other TM researchers, who have said that studies on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health have been conducted at over 200 different research institutions and universities in over 30 countries worldwide. According to newspaper reports and the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, some of the research has been "criticized for bias and a lack of scientific evidence", for "methodological flaws, vague definitions, and loose statistical controls", and for "failing to conduct double-blind experiments" and for "influencing test results with the prejudice of the tester". Research reviews in science journals say that double blinding may not be possible in meditation research. Various research reviews have identified some studies as being well-designed, rigorous, or high quality. According to a 2003 review of studies on cognitive function in Wien Klin Wochenschr and a student journal, many of the hundreds of studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals, though a bibliography posted by Orme-Johnson lists over 300 peer-reviewed studies on TM.

1. Cite error: The named reference Patel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "'Maharishi Invincible Towers to be set up in 192 countries'". The Hindustan Times. New Delhi. February 10, 2008.
3. Deardorff, Julie (December 12, 2001). "Town sees meditation as way to peace". The Charleston Gazette. Charleston, W.V. p. 2.D.
4. Hutchinson, Brian (February 22, 2003). "Wasting away in Maharishi-ville". National Post. Don Mills, Ont. p. B.1.
5. Plagenz, George (September 4, 1996). "Is government ready for a dose of TM?". The Nevada Daily Mail. p. 3.
6. Rowland, Darrel (July 21, 1996). "PARTY HOPES TM PUTS MEMBERS IN POSITION TO LEAD". Columbus Dispatch. Columbus, Ohio. p. 01.C.
7. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C4-96-1425 World Plan Executive Council-United States, et al., v. County of Ramsey, Filed March 20, 1997
8. Walpole Study of the Transcendental Meditation Program in Maximum Security Prisoners: Cross-Sectional Differences in Development and Psychopathology. Charles N. Alexander; Kenneth G. Walton; Rachel S. Goodman in Transcendental Meditation in Criminal Rehabilitation and Crime Prevention. Charles Nathaniel Alexander, Kenneth G Walton, David Orme-Johnson Routledge, 2003 ISBN 9780789020376 p. 159
9. Victory, Joy (May 18, 2004). "Meditation Controversy". The Journal News.
10. "Propectus for the issue and offering of three million RAAM" (PDF). Stichting Maharishi Global Financing Research. November 14, 2006. Retrieved June 2, 2010.
11. KAPICA, JACK (November 27, 1993). "VEDA LAND The New Incarnation of the Maharishi REJECTION BY THE VOTERS ONLY SERVES TO MAKE THE NATURAL LAW PARTY'S APPEALS MORE URGENT, ITS PLANS MORE GRANDIOSE, ITS CLAIMS MORE STRIDENT". The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont. p. D.3.
12. "Q&A with John Hagelin, 8 Great Reasons to Meditate" (PDF). Center for Leadership Performance. 2009. Retrieved June 2, 2010.
13. Hecht, Esther (January 23, 1998). "Peace of Mind". Jerusalem Post. p. 12.
14. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wien Klin Wochenschr. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
15. Orme-Johnson, David (June 18, 1991). "Letters to the Editor: Turn Prisons Into Think Tanks". Wall Street Journal. p. 15.
16. Schneider RH, Walton KG, Salerno JW, Nidich SI (2006). "Cardiovascular disease prevention and health promotion with the transcendental meditation program and Maharishi consciousness-based health care". Ethnicity & Disease. 16 (3 Suppl 4): S4–15–26. PMC 2267926. PMID 16938913. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
17. Bezalel, Mel (May 1, 2009). "Trance 101". Jerusalem Post. p. 14.
18. Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology (5th ed.). 2001. p. 1583.
19. Baxter, Bronte (2008). "Where Have All the Flower Children Gone? Part One". The Canadian.
20. Ospina, Maria, et al, “Clinical Trials of Meditation Practices in Health Care: Characteristics and Quality,” The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Volume 14, Number 10, 2008, p. 1210
21. Orme-Johnson, David, “Commentary on the AHRQ Report on Research on Meditation Practices in Health,” The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Volume 14, Number 10, 2008, p. 1210
22. Rainforth, Maxwell, et al, “Stress Reduction in Patients with Elevate Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Analysis, Current Hypertension Reports 2007, 9, p. 522
23. Anderson, James, et al, “Blood Pressure Response to Transcendental Meditation: A Meta-analysis,” American Journal of Hypertension, March 2008, Volume 21 Number 3, p. 311
24. Linden W, Moseley, ?The efficacy of behavioral treatments for hypertension, Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback 2006, 31, pp. 51–63.
25. Cite error: The named reference The Humanistic Psychologist 2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
26. Cite error: The named reference Anderson08 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
27. Makin, Stephen (November 2003). "Yogis and yagyas: Stephen Makin went to Maharishi School and rebelled by deciding to study medicine. Here, he explains the impact that transcendental meditation has had on his life". Student BMJ (11): 426. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
28. Cite error: The named reference truthabouttm.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Some points:

1. Where does WP:NPOV mandate the inclusion of "balancing" material?
2. The assertion that there are hundreds of studies conducted at hundreds of institutions is in the first sentence. Why are we repeating it a second time? The added material does not relate directly back to the rest of the sentence which concerns whether the bulk of the research is conducted by TM-related researchers. So it seems like a non-sequitor.
3. Does this section need more POV from movement members? They are already cited extensively.

A significant amount of new material has been added to the research section in the past weeks without any discussion, and without any "balancing points". I suggest that the material be brought here for discussion and that other significant changes in this mature article be discussed. I see that a very minor change was reverted for lack of discussion, so more significant changes should certainly be discussed.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable. Both points of view need to be represented. If the article says that most TM research is done by people affiliated with MUM, then the other point of view, that research has been conducted at many different institutions, should be represented. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What you added is already in the first sentence of the section. Please read it before responding again.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Would have to agree with Will here. The first sentence of the paragraph already states this point. Does it need to be repeated? I don't think so. --BwB (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In the not to distance past all content added to the TM related articles was discussed on the talk pages before adding. I personnally, did not support or like it when that convention was ignored by some editors. If we want to go back to that system, I heartily support that but... this article is not controlled by any one editor and I would suggest we do treat each other with that in mind. Second, a move to add content that is discussed first before adding it to the articles be accepted by all editors on all but basic copy edit content. This move must be agreed upon by all of us to work. This cannot be a procedure that is adopted by some, ignored by others and must include all content additions.(olive (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

I agree that the article should not be controlled by TimidGuy or any other editor or group of editors. The principal of prior discussion seems to be enforced in an uneven way. To be fair, the appropriate thing at this point may be to move the undiscussed material here for the proposing editor to explain why the material is helpful to the article, and to allow other editors to give their input. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The section in bold seems like a relatively small and innocuous addition to me. Is it properly sourced? If so why is there such an objection? That being said, I do not have a problem with discussing new additions to the article in the talk pages beforehand. However, Olive raises a valid point. If we decide to do this, it needs to be something followed by every editor, otherwise it will be total chaos. if everyone is comfortable with this, then we can do it, yes?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've stated my objections to the material. Did you read them? As for deciding this, Olive has already "decided" it by repeatedly reverting changes or deleting material from the article. All I'm asking is that TimidGuy's edits are given the same treatment as other editors'. I ask that all editors seek consensus before making significant changes, including deletions or additions, to this article. Some of the recent additions and deletions have not been consistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and with the Arbcom's recent decision.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The "balancing" point, apart from being redundant and repetitive, is not "balancing" at all. The sources state that much of the research cited in support of TM was conducted by researchers or at institutions tied to the TM movement. That is not disputed at all by Orme-Johnson or by the other source cited, and it is a mispresentation of the sources to say so. They do not deny this. They can't, because it is demonstrably and irrefutably true. They merely assert that some of the research was conducted by individuals or at instututions without such ties. That is not a refutation, and it provides no balance. The statement about the provenance of much of the research is factually unassailable, and the addition of repetitive misdirection does not serve the clarity of the article nor the purposes and policies of Misplaced Pages. Both the new text and the prior text citing DO-J should be deleted. Fladrif (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both points are true -- that researchers associated with TM institutions have conducted much of the research and also that much research has been done by unaffiliated individuals. Both are sourced. Both go in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There are three numbered points above, plus a fourth point that's come up about your other additions on the past month. Any responses to those?   Will Beback  talk  11:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Gosh Will... I haven't made any decisions so lets not put words into anyone's mouth ... most unsanitary ...and lets not get carried away with gross exaggeration....Perhaps you'd like to explain per the arbitration your concerns with TG additions...I have no problem with how TG added content... He's adding material slowly which gives editors time to respond, and he's simply giving the full picture per the sources, and such a picture is what NPOV is. Did you delete reliably sourced content?

Seems to me we have some contentious issues to work out here before we go on with editing the articles. I would like to deal with those completely and have editor input form those who are involved in editing these articles. We need to do this in a systematic way, and have clearly defined outcomes per these articles. (olive (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Happy to participate in all discussion on these pages. --BwB (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are relevant points from NPOV: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. " And "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." There are multiple points of view about the research. The section on promotion has made multiple assertions about the research. These assertions are from popular media, in violation of MEDRS. I have added content giving a different point of view, and have cited sources that are compliant with MEDRS. Regarding duplication of material, the point about number of studies and number of research institutions, etc., was already in the article in the Quality of Research section. It's not clear why it was also added to the promotion section and why there are two different sections of the article talking about research quality. TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Regarding the stated reason for the edit in question ("add balancing points per NPOV"), it turns out that WP:NPOV does not discuss the concept of "balancing points". All significant points of view must be included, but they don't need to be continually balanced by opposing POVs. And once we've represented a POV, we don't need to keep repeating it. The second clause that's quoted above from NPOV deals with how to balance competing POVs from reliable sources. In that case the greater weight goes to the more prominent POV/source. If they're equally prominent then they should be presented equally. Again, nothing about "balancing points". If a POV needs to be represented then we should add it for that reason, not to provide "balancing points".

As for this material in particular, the Schneider et al article does not address the assertion that the research is mostly done by TM devotees, whereas the already cited Orme-Johnson reference does (at least ostensibly). Schneider is just providing another example of using the quantity of research as a thing of value, which fits with the numerous similar assertions made in a range of endeavors.Talk:Transcendental Meditation/promotion of studies. The Schneider material does not bring an unrepresented POV, but rather is part of the already thoroughly represented POV. I've gone ahead and integrated it into the other examples.

WP:MEDRS is a useful guideline, and we should follow it as much as possible, but it does not trump WP:NPOV. We can't exclude significant points of view just because they're printed in the popular press rather than in peer-reviewed journals. This is not an exclusively medical or scientific topic.   Will Beback  talk  12:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Two general points:

"This is not an exclusively medical or scientific topic." I'll hold you to that.

And we must always consider excluding points of view if the source for those views is not reliable per the content we are adding. (olive (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Does "I'll hold you to that" mean you agree or disagree?

The 600 studies are used to promote TM and a multitude of related enterprises. They are discussed in the popular press and even in advertising brochures by leading members of the TM movement. If they are touted in the popular press then they may be criticized in the popular press.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To Will: This article is pretty obviously not just scientific or health related in scope. Hope that answers the question above.(olive (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes, thanks. It's always good to find points of agreement.   Will Beback  talk  11:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You've used this rationale in the past. But it's not relevant. We go by the policies and guidelines. In matters of science, the popular press isn't relevant. It's what appears in science journals. If we're going to criticize quality, the points of view that are represented should be from science journals. And multiple points of view should be represented, per NPOV. If you want to make the point that those who are promoting TM shouldn't cite the research to support their claims, then you should find a source that says that, rather than violate WP:SYNTH. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I've quoted WP:NPOV and other policies in the past because they're important.

Is TM purely a matter of science? Just a concern for a bunch of eggheads in an ivory tower? I don't think so. TM has connections to religion/spirituality, to commerce, and to politics. These studies are used to advance the TMM movement in all of those directions. There are sources that note the studies are used for promotion. This should hardly be a surprise to anyone familiar with the movement.

I've just completed a survey of the 341 studies that I suppose are considered the best of the bunch. Of those, more than 240 have lead or co-authors who appear to have been involved with MUM or other TM entities. So while OJ may say that the studies were conducted at 200 institutions (which is hard to verify), the assertions that most were conducted (in whole or in part) by TM devotees seems to be correct by a large margin. I'd be happy to post that survey so you can check my work.   Will Beback  talk  12:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I did the work I might as well post it. Talk:Transcendental Meditation/341 studies. It might also be interesting to sort them by date or language.   Will Beback  talk  12:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gosh... Lets call these people researchers, with legitimate and in many case outstanding credentials in their fields. Devotees implies a particular kind of allegiance and is a personal judgement which we should not and cannot make. We have policies and guidelines that dictate what and how we use sources, so I'm not sure what point/points you are making. Could you clarify, please. (olive (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

The problem with that argument is that the policies and guidelines specify that the sources we rely on be not only secondary but independent, or, as in the excerpt TimidGuy quoted above from WP:NPOV, "disinterested," so the degree to which researchers or commentators are connected to TM is very much a policy-related question. "Devotees" is perhaps too strong a label, but the label is immaterial; it's the connection with TM, however characterized, that is at issue here and that must be pointed out if our readers are to get an accurate picture of this research. Will, by counting up the sources himself, is simply confirming the assertion by sources that most of the touted research is done by TM-connected researchers. Woonpton (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Woopton. Perhaps Will could also add a comment. What we have to go on in terms of sources are the policies and guidelines. Peer reviewed research published in reputable publications is what we have to go on. Such publications are vetted by scholarly peers. That's what we go on. If we need to go to, secondary sources, that is another consideration. "Disinterested" is a judgment call we don't make. Most researchers are "interested" in what they do. Peer review as a process takes care of any concerns we as Misplaced Pages editors might have as to "interest". I guess I'm not clear as to why this list has become apart of this discussion, that is, as to what point is being made. (olive (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

I used the term "devotees" because that's the term used by the Wall Street Journal:

• Maharishi's followers cite more than 500 scientific studies as proof of the rehabilitative benefits of TM, but they were mostly conducted by TM devotees whose objectivity is questioned.

To which Orme Johnson responded:

• Your April 17 page-one article "For $1,500 a Head Maharishi Promises Mellower Inmates," on the use of Transcendental Meditation in prisons stated that the 500 studies of TM were "mostly conducted by TM devotees." In fact, these studies were conducted in more than 160 independent universities and research institutions in 23 countries.

It doesn't take a logician to see the disconnect here. The WSJ referred to who conducted the studies, and OJ responded with a comment about where the studies were conducted. While denying the general assertion, he does not deny the specific claim that most of the studies were conducted by devotees of TM.

As for the list I posted, I notice that many of the studies where I was unable to find a connection are from the 1970s, or from foreign countries where it's harder to trace the affiliations of the researchers. That leads me to believe that there are probably relevant affiliations which I missed. Also, it points to a surge of interest in TM in the 1970s among the unaffiliated scientific community, which may have tapered off in subsequent decades. I don't think the list should have any direct effect on our editing, but there has been an undercurrent in the editing and the discussions here that the assertions of affiliations or conflicts of interest are not grounded in reality, or are discredited by the fact that they studies have supposedly been conducted in 200 institutions. That's simply incorrect. If anyone sees any mistakes or omissions in the list feel free to correct them.

Note also that this list just includes the 341 studies that are published in "independent peer-reviewed journals or other edited scientific publications". I presume that means there are at least 260 studies which were either unpublished or were published in unreviewed or unedited journals. I'd guess that the proportion of those studies conducted by devotees is even higher.

Getting back to the article, does anyone know what is meant by "edited scientific publications". In the context, it appears they are not peer reviewed. Could that refer to publications like Scientific American?   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I did some more research and the number of papers written entirely by unaffiliated persons appears to be 80 out of the 341, or about 23%.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

After stepping away from this article for some time, though I continued to observe the updates, I'm very return to editing. Less glad, however, to see that TG and Olive continue to use WP policy as a bludgeon to preserve their decidedly non-objective, friendly view of TM. For the record, and with a good faith that presumes they are both capable of change, I'll state that I find their continued involvement in this page troubling -- from what I recall, aren't both devotees themselves, or otherwise affiliated? I've called their objectivity and disinterestedness into question before, and I'll do so again now.

As for the edits under discussion in this section. I'd like to second Will's point that there has been an undercurrent of opposition in the editorial discussion here anytime we have examined the affiliation of authors conducting research into TM. I am gratified that Will has made a careful study of the available sources, and determined that 80 or 341 studies published were authored by persons unaffiliated with TM. Since, as Olive confirmed above, TM is not a wholly scientific enterprise, it would seem relevant to state that a great number of researchers in this area are affiliated, either as practitioners or institutionally, with TM. Would anyone like to propose language for the inclusion of this statistic? Civilizeme (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• To all parties, just a reminder to please limit your comments to the content and avoid making comments about the behavior of other editors. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that there has been recent ArbCom activity on the question of neutrality on this page ; I'll take my time in processing all that! Thanks for the heads-up, Keith. Civilizeme (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the statistic that Will generated as a point of information, that 80 of the 341 published studies were conducted by unaffiliated researchers, that statistic could not be included, so there's no use in proposing language for its inclusion. We need to use, or paraphrase closely, language from reliable sources. Will quoted a source above that used the word "devotees," and BTW I apologize for objecting to the word when I wasn't aware that the word came directly from the source. I should have known that Will wouldn't use a word he didn't have a reliable source for, but olive objected to it so strenuously I was momentarily confused. If the source says devotees, that's what we should say. Woonpton (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Will's information be a neutral compression of a large body of information which itself is sourced reliably? I presume he identified the affiliation of researchers using reliable sources. I have no objection to using the term "devotees," if quoted as in the source.Civilizeme (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though we have multiple secondary sources that refer to the connections of the study authors to TM, I don't think that WP policies would allow us to use original research to provide a specific number. The most direct way that we could use that list might be as the basis for an annotated bibliography of TM research in which we identify the various affiliations of the authors. That'd be a lot of work. Meantime, it's just a background source for us to keep in mind as we discuss and edit the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will here that we need to be careful to not present OR in the area of scientific studies. If we can find reliable secondary sources that say that 80 of the 341 published studies were conducted by unaffiliated researchers, then we can use those to compose some text. --BwB (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We have at least three sources that say the majority of the studies have been conducted by "devotees" or people with connections to the movement. That part isn't original research. Now, if anyone can find a list of the 200 institutions and 33 countries where these 600 studies are supposed to have been conducted, I'd be quite curious. My suspicion is that those numbers refers to the affiliations of co-authors rather than the actual sites of the research, but that's just a guess. While the number of studies is often used to promote TM-related enterprises, the details are left out.   Will Beback  talk  10:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say again, a source is just that, and its not necessarily truth or accurate. Call these researchers here anything you want as long as its civil, but lets not confuse what the press says with reality, and lets not confuse what we use to create an article with reality. One of the reasons NPOV is a cornerstone is because only with a cross section of sources does the reader get a neutral sense of what has been gathered into sources. That cross section is not truth, its verified and verifiable. While one person may be called an idiot in a source, another source may call the same person a genius. Neither is necessarily true, but both can be verified. (olive (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC))

Not all sources are the same. For example, we might find a source that says MUM is in Fairfield, Connecticut. Do we add that "verifiable" information to an article? The assertions of some sources can be verified, which enhances their value. Other sources make claims that can't be independently verified, so we rely entirely on the author and publisher. Getting back to the origin of this thread, we have some sources who say that the majority of papers have been written with the participation of TM insiders. As a "balancing point" to that, an editor sought to add the non-sequitor claim that the research has been conducted in over 200 institutions and 30 countries. We can easily see that the other sources are correct, but we can't make the same verification of the so-called rebuttal, which isn't really a rebuttal at all. "Jones says most vehicles are green, but Smith says that hundreds are sedans." The claim that TM research has been conducted at over 200 institutions in over 30 countries has been repeated dozens of times, with minor changes. What are the institutions? Does anyone have any idea?   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like writing a long comment, looking over it, editing it, inputting it, and then forgetting to save. Which is what I must have done yesterday because my latest pearls of wisdom are nowhere to be seen. But the jist of it was that we are vehemently arguing a relatively minor point. TG simply said that there is a source arguing that many studies have been conducted at independent institutions. The statement is properly sourced. The opposite POV is well represented. I do not see that we need to verify the exactness, or lack thereof of either POV, they are sourced. The statement, harmless in of itself, does not warrant removal, in my view.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this discussion going anywhere and I'm not sure its productive. It may require outside input via a noticeboard or meditation to be resolved.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree Kbob that mediation may be needed. I would also note that in the past I have asked for editors to consider accuracy in looking at sources as a important factor, but was either ignored or criticized for that position. I'll keep Will's comment in mind as we go forward.(olive (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

You are probably right, but there is something that bothers me, this is a relatively minor point and yet it seems we cannot agree, even on this. If we have to get outside input, so be it, but it's a bit disappointing. Also true, sources are important, in fact it's one of the few standards we do have and we can go by. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec - are you guys actually suggesting that we restore the material TG added, which nearly duplicates text already quoted in the section, and which, in the source, is not used to rebut the assertion being made about the affiliations of the researchers?   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, In case editors here aren't aware, Schneider's view is now included in the first sentence:

• Leading individuals and organizations associated with TM cite the existence of many studies, "more than 600 published research studies, conducted at over 200 independent research institutions in 33 countries", to support TM-related concepts. The quantity of studies have been cited to support the political programs of the Natural Law Party, the tax status of a TM institution, the use of TM to rehabilitate prisoners, the teaching of TM in schools, the issuance of bonds to finance the movement, as proof that TM is a science rather than a religion,, to show the efficacy of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, and as a reason to practice TM itself.

So his view hasn't been discarded.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To Olive and Luke -- My duplication of the point already made in the first sentence regarding 200 institutions was inadvertent. Once I realized my mistake, I disagreed with Will regarding its location. But then Will sent me the WSJ letter in which David OJ makes the same point, so I added a few words to OJ's rebuttal. So it seems like the point is now sufficiently made in this section, though I continue to disagree with the use of newspapers as sources, and with having two separate sections in the article on research quality. Will, regarding your representation of Schneider in the first paragraph, I feel like that's another instance of original research -- of you adding your own observation to this article. I don't think it's appropriate to say that Schneider is making that statement to "show the efficacy of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health." The source is a research review. The whole review is characterizing research on Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Schneider is giving the info about the number of institutions as background info on this research. I feel like all of these are your own observations, including the very first word "Leading." TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony Nader, John Hagelin, Girish Varma, David Leffler, the Maharishi Foundation, Bob Roth, Stichting Maharishi , Ashley Deans, MUM, Natural Law Party, Orme Johnson - is there anyone here who wants to argue that these are not among the leading individuals and organizations in the movement? As for the summary of Schneider's assertion, here's what he says:

• Over the last 30 years, hundreds of scientific studies on Maharishi Consciousness-Based Health Care treatment and prevention modalities have come from researchers in >200 research institutions and universities in three dozen countries around the world.21-25

Which we summarize as:

• The quantity of studies have been cited ... to show the efficacy of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health,...'

I think that is correct. He is saying that hundreds of studies, apparently the same set as being discussed by others, have been conducted on MVAH, which we know includes TM etc.   Will Beback  talk  11:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Non balanced POV about the question whether TM is rooted in Hinduism.

The totality of the following paragraph, including the way it refers to Maharishi's book is a point of view. The point of view presented, the one of Kenneth Boa perhaps, is that TM is rooted in Hinduism.

According to religious scholar Kenneth Boa in his book, Cults, World Religions and the Occult, Transcendental Meditation is rooted in the Vedantic School of Hinduism, "repeatedly confirmed" in the Maharishi's books such as the Science of Being and the Art of Living and his Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. Boa writes that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi "makes it clear" that Transcendental Meditation was delivered to man about 5,000 years ago by the Hindu god Krishna. The technique was then lost, but restored for a time by Buddha. It was lost again, but rediscovered in the 9th century AD by the Hindu philosopher Shankara. Finally, it was revived by Brahmananda Saraswati (Guru Dev) and passed on to the Maharishi.

For NPOV, we need a corresponding paragraph that presents the other point of view. There are plemty of references that explains why TM is not rooted in any religion. Maharishi has never referred to Krishna as an Hindu God because Maharishi sees Hinduism as a modern religion that did not exist at the time of Krisna. Maharishi has been explaining TM to Hindus as much as to Christians. If it is rooted in Hinduism, why it needs to be explained to Hindus?

Better, we should totally change the paragraph so that it uses references that presents a balanced POV from the start, a paragraph that would not need to be contradicted after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.29 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph is part of the description of the origins of the technique. The main discussion of the religious/non-religious issues is covered in the "Religion" section. It cites the Maharishi and others on the topic.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the opinion of a religious scholar that himself uses the opinion of Maharishi to build its thesis without even mentioning the original POV of Maharishi is not at all NPOV. I bet the religious scholar does not even believe that TM was thought at the time of Krisna. He might not even believe that Krisna existed. So, in which ways this is informative about the true origin of TM? Obviously, the whole argument here is not about the true factual origin of TM, but about whether TM comes from modern Hinduism. Therefore, it should be presented in the religion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.155.38 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to delete this thread two times because, after looking more carefully at the article, I believe it is a deadend in the following sense that the other editors have the definitive intention to present TM as a pseudoscience and an offspring of the Hinduism religion. Since they insist, I will complete my contribution to this thread. TM is not pseudoscience. It is very easy to see it. For example, they cite a 2007 cochrane review to support the claim that research on TM is not reliable ( reference 18: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf ). However, here is the summary of the results in this review for the "Evidence on the Physiological and Neuropsychological Effects of Meditation" specifically for TM:

Direct meta-analysis showed that compared to NT, TM® did not produce significantly greater benefits on blood pressure (SBP and DBP). However, there was significant improvement in LDL-C levels and verbal creativity with TM®. When compared to WL, TM® produced significantly greater reduction in SBP and DBP. Before-and-after studies on TM® for patients with essential hypertension indicated a statistically significant reduction in SBP and DBP after practicing TM®. The heterogeneity present for the comparisons evaluating blood pressure changes and cortisol levels suggests that there were important clinical differences among the studies; however, the small number of studies precluded subgroup analyse.

NT stands for No Therapy. Basically, on many respects, TM had significant positive physiological benefits. If this is not enough, there was a subsequent meta analysis done in 2008 by independent researchers on the effect of TM on blood pressure and cardiovascular desease (also the studied benefits of the previous review) and the significant benefits of TM were confirmed (see http://www.nature.com/ajh/journal/v21/n3/abs/ajh200765a.html ). The authors of this review expressed the fact (in news clips) that the studies on TM were of high quality. In this context, who care what the astronomer Carl Sagan says. He is not a doctor. He does not know much about clinical studies.

I emphasis that this is only an example. I could do the same about so many other parts of the current article. It is totally biased. It is so clear that the current editors (the majority of them anyway) have the fixed agenda to present TM as a pseudo science and an offspring of the Hinduism religion, which it is not. Anyone is going to lose its time trying to reason with them. 67.230.154.70 (talk)

It's not for us to decide whether TM is a panacea, a pseudoscience or anything else. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  03:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is useless to argue with people that have a fixed agenda. 67.230.154.70 (talk)

One of the rules we have here is "assume good faith".   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is useless to argue with people that have a fixed agenda. 67.230.154.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC).

I feel like you've raised some excellent points. And have clearly articulated them. Putting aside the Hinduism issue, I think you make a good point about pseudoscience. You assumed, like most readers would, that the points in that paragraph are intended to support Sagan's view that TM is pseudoscience. The problem is that Sagan never says why he thinks it's pseudoscience. He makes an unsupported assertion, which has no only been placed in the article but also in the lead. And the way that it's juxtaposed in the lead with one-sided points about the research suggests, as it did to you, that Sagan is referring to the research. Of course there are thousands of sources that make the opposite point — scientific studies, research reviews, mainstream media — that the research isn't pseudoscience. The unsupported claim that it's pseudoscience is a minor point of view that should be excluded, per the Misplaced Pages core policy of WP:NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We could argue from logic over whether there are pseudoscientific or Hindu elements of TM, but that'd be pointless and it isn't how Misplaced Pages works. Points of view should be presented in a neutral fashion, with weight proportionate to their prominence. The Sagan book, although written over a decade ago, is ranked by Amazon at #2,349 in popularity. By comparison, Science of Being and Art of Living #23,808, an order of magnitude less popular, and Catching the Big Fish has an even lower rank. That's just one metric. Perhaps Google News would reveal that Peter Russell and Bob Roth are more prominent than Carl Sagan. We can't delete important points of view just because someone here thinks they're "wrong".   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sagan is hardly a lone voice in the wilderness in characterizing TM as a pseudoscience. Just put "transcendental meditation" and pseudoscience in a Google Books search. You will see dozens of reliable, secondary sources saying the same thing. We should add these sources. Fladrif (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And not one would meet MEDRS. Science has its own standard in Misplaced Pages for RS -- peer reviewed research, meta-analyses, research reviews. Not popular debunking books. Why would the AMA publish pseudoscience? There is such a major double standard here. Editors have required that no individual studies be used as a source, even though MEDRS allows it. And at the same time, editors add popular media as sources, which MEDRS explicitly disallows. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The purely medical aspects of TM are perhaps best handled in the MVAH article. The TM movement promotes the technique as offering many benefits beyond the field of medicine. There's no indication that Sagan was addressing the issue of blood pressure, for example.   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The scientific research medical and otherwise done to the TM technique is a prominent aspect of the information surrounding the technique and such information properly belongs in the TM technique article.

Sagan makes a general comment about TM which is fundamentally flawed since a meditation technique cannot be science, pseudo or other wise. Can the underlying theories of the technique be described a science is another question. However Sagan doesn't address anything so specific. We are using some very weak content here. Does it help the article ? Give the reader good information?(olive (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

I would argue the opposite. The contention that TM is a technique, nothing more, nothing less, and that it thus cannot be categorized as religion or pseudoreligion, science or pseudoscience, fish or fowl is logically unsupportable. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Sagan, or with any other source being cited for any other proposition in the article, a technique, a tool, does not exist in a vacuum. A technique or tool for what? To what end? Which is promoted to accomplish what? By what means? Pursuant to what theory is is supposed to work? A hammer is a tool. Look at the article for hammer. It is a simple tool. But the article discusses for what, and the physics by which it does the job. Look at the article for patent medicine, discussing it as a mixture of pharmacology, sympathetic magic and fraud. One would not seriously contend that "it's just a bottle of elixer; you can't call it either pharmacology or sympathetic magic or fraud". One cannot divorce the technique from the purposes to which it is put, the basis on which it is sold to the public, and the underlying theory or theories as to why it is supposed to work. If we were to buy into this argument, the article would be a single paragraph in length. Fladrif (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If editors here want to restrict the article to just the "Transcendental Meditation technique", as I've heard here repeatedly, then we should move the article to that title.

Chiropractic therapy is a technique, Kirlian photography is a technique, dowsing is a technique. Those techniques may not be pseudo-science, but the claims made about them can be. It's not for us to judge. Sagan is a prominent point of view. NPOV requires that we include such views.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@67.230.154.70 One minor correction to "It is so clear that the current editors (the majority of them anyway) have the fixed agenda to present TM as a pseudo science..." I believe only two of the current editors have this POV (judging from this Talk page; the others left months ago). Their relatively uninformed POV, relying as it does on sources (like the otherwise wonderful Carl Sagan) who express authoritative-sounding opinions that are not based on a deep understanding of the subject matter, irritates me as well.

But I strongly believe you're missing an important fact: it is obviously not good to have only the TMM POV represented in TMM articles. There actually are several other POVs that are represented by people who are very familiar with TM/Maharish/the TMM, not to mention the general public (who seem to object to course fees far more often than to perceived religious or pseudoscientific content, judging from inquiry email received by Natural Stress Relief, a competing organization).

It may be true that we do not have a good balance in knowledge about TM. But Will and Fladrif do a conscientious, dedicated. and admirable job (and donate a lot of their time) as editors to ensure that the articles will not represent only one POV. IMO, we owe them thanks for their work and for not leaving when the others did. David Spector (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to make assertions about the POVs of editors here please provide proof. I, for one, don't recall ever expressing an opinion on the matter. That said, thanks for acknowledging the effort it takes to keep these articles from having only one POV.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@David Spector: My judgment was based on the content of the article. If there are editors that sincerely try to present all published viewpoints for what they really are, it simply does not show up. Instead, it seems that the editors are using published statements there and there to support their own personal interests or beliefs. The statement of Carl Sagan is only one example. There is nothing wrong in presenting the viewpoint of Carl Sagan, but it must be done at the right time in the proper section or paragraoh. All the skepticism should be all put together in a section about skepticism (on TM) because this it is what it is about. For example, it makes no sense to use a primary source (the direct research of Carl Sagan) to oppose a secondary source, a meta analysis, which has already compiled and analysed so many primary sources. It would make no sense, even if the primary source was a scientific paper because it is not our job to redo the work of the secondary source. It certainly makes no sense at all when the primary source (the direct research of Carl Sagan) is not even acceptable as a scientific paper. It is terrible that we have to lose time arguing about this. Why? Because meanwhile even worst issues about lack of NPOV are going on and we are losing track of them. For example, consider again the paragraph that I was referring to:

TM has been reported to be one of the most widely practiced meditation techniques, and among the most widely researched, while over 200 scientific studies examining the effects of TM having been published in peer-reviewed journals. At the same time, a 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive health effects of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for treatment of anxiety. TM has been called a pseudoscience by astronomer Carl Sagan.

I believe the 2007 review mentioned in the second statement has been criticized by TM researchers because it was not fair toward TM. Nevertheless, if you read the paragraph that I have extracted from this review, it actually points out that TM had many significant physiological benefits. Therefore, it makes no sense to use this review to oppose the first statement. Moreover, if the editors had done a good job, they would have seen that we have a 2008 meta analysis specifically about TM, which confirms the good physiological benefits of TM, which were already seen in this 2007 review.

BTW, the review was not a review on Transcendental Meditation, but a review on meditation in general. Therefore, the "Transcendental" in the second statement is incorrect and this shows how much the editors are biased. However, I insist that taking out the "Transcendental" would not address the issue because it is the whole sentence that is misplaced. The use of a conclusion about all meditations to oppose a statement specifically about TM makes no sense. It is is just another example of what I mean when I say that the editors use published statement to support personal interests or beliefs.

Again, I am not against that we present a published POV, especially not the POV that research on meditation (in general) needs to be improved, not at all. Everybody, especially TM researchers, agree with that conclusion. In fact, there was a subsequent review of research on meditation (in genereal), which draw the same conclusion and one or two of the authors were TM researchers. This statement is not about TM. Still, there may be a way to include it in the article, but not to oppose statements directly about TM, especially not when they are supported by secondary sources. Now, after this misplaced statement, add the statement of Carl Sagan and you obtain a completely biased paragraph. The whole article is like that, but especially the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.154.96 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear anon - could you please register an account if you're going to be discussing this article or making significant edits? Since you have a dynamic IP it's hard to know if we're responding to the same person each time. Registration is free and provides several benefits, including greater privacy.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with request that you use or obtain an account. David Spector (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please get an account. I'm less than impressed with accusations of bias from an anonymous editor posting from a TM-Org affiliated IP Address, touting the research "we" have confirming the beneficial effects of TM. Who is "we"? No bias there, eh? Your mischaracterization and misnterpretattion of the AHRQ meta-analysis is a rehash of arguments that have been made here since it was issued by TM-Org employees in an ultimately unsuccessful effort ot either exclude it from the article, or to twist its conclusions to say exactly the opposite of what it actually concludes. Please read the archives - try AHRQ or Ospina-Bond. Fladrif (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with your analysis. In fact, it's almost self-evident. Writing like this is why I know these editors to be essentially anti-TM in attitude, in spite of their consistent denials.

Furthermore, they use WP policy selectively as a weapon to bully the pro-TM editors. That isn't right. They force the pro-TM editors to engage in the same unproductive wikilawyering and arguing.

Meanwhile, neutral editors (like me) don't stand a chance in the crossfire. I don't try to do more than typos and grammar.

In spite of all this unfortunate environment, I feel that it is much better to have a dialog (no matter how drawn-out and traumatic) rather than none at all (with skepticism about TM barely mentioned), which I believe would happen if the gadflies left. Before they arrived, the pro-TM editors put subtle pressure on me to withdraw my paragraph about disaffected TM teachers who offer alternative instruction in transcending without the high prices and/or mysticism. I could have expanded that paragraph with facts such as the routine intimidation of renegade teachers by MUM lawyers, putting many out of business merely for putting in practice, courageously, what Maharishi asked them to do: bring TM to the world. David Spector (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources on these assertions, then provide them. Whether or not you regard it as bullying or wikilawyering, and whether or not you agree with the policies, those are the core policies of Misplaced Pages. Personal knowledge and unpublished primary sources are interesting, but aren't useable in Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether or not they are true and accurate. Fladrif (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect to accusations of bias, (to say nothing of repeated accusatons of ignorance ) I will repeat what I said on your talk page. If you have a problem with anything I or any other editor has posted, or think it violates in any repect the letter or spirit of the ArbCom decision or any policy of Misplaced Pages, you are free to pursue it in whatever forum you deem appropriabut article talk pages is most assuredly NOT the appropropriate forum. Fladrif (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Fladrif is a fine one for championing WP policy. David Spector (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, the anonymous editor makes excellent points. Please don't just ignore them. Perhaps lets focus on the paragraph in the lead that supposedly summarizes the scientific research. As I've pointed out before, and as this anonymous editor is pointing out, it violates WP:LEAD. In the past I've proposed different wording. Maybe the anonymous editor could propose some text to replace that paragraph -- text that summarizes the whole research section rather than highlighting two particular reviews. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan sexual orientation

Sexual orientation hardly seems relavent to comments about TM. Although Sullivan openly discusses sprituality and gay orientation does he discuss TM and being gay. This section reads oddly to me as if we are trying to make some kind of point. A person's sexuality isn't our business nor should it be implied that it is. At any rate this is just a comment we might want to consider. I don't see it as critical, just odd.(olive (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

I suppose that, to the extent Sullivan's comments are intended to convey his opinion, as a layman, that the practice of TM is not incompatible with his practice of Roman Catholicism, the editor who added this thought it was fair game to raise the question of whether, as an openly gay man, he is actually practicing Roman Catholicism. I take it that to be the point of whomever added the description of Sullivan. Perhaps I misunderstand. That being said, I find it an odd distraction, and would not have made that addition myself. The question raises for me a more fundamental point. Andrew Sullivan is certainly a notable person, and he frequently writes about issues of religion, but he is at base a political commentator, not an expert on religion and certainly not a spokesman for the Catholic Church. His personal views, expressed in a blog, about the compatibility or lack of compatability between TM and his faith as he understands and practices it, are precisely that - his personal views about his personal views - and nothing more. He says as much, criticizing the Catholic Church for not being quite so catholic as he. Other than that he has a soapbox, are his views about his own religous beliefs, which he admits to being at odds with official doctrine on a number of points, any more relevant than yours or mine I question whether this is relevant or notable within the context of this article. Perhaps the better course is simply to delete the passage entirely. Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan is being used as a source for what is acceptable within the Roman Catholic faith. His homosexuality is not a minor part of his persona. It is major part of his commentary on his blog, much more than his religious affiliation. As Fladrif says, the fact that he also (apparently) considers homosexuality to be compatible with Catholicism is relevant because he does not hold conventionally orthodox views. We could add a sentence on the issue if that's too cryptic, but that might be giving Sullivan too much weight.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Will, you deleted all references to James Randi being a magician. That, too, is an important part of his persona. How are the two situations different? TimidGuy (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The two situations are quite different. Randi's former career was as a magician. So was Doug Henning's. One of them was a believer while the other is a skeptic, which indicates the job does not necessarily affect one's view of TM. Granted, Harry Houdini was also a skeptic when it came to spiritual issues, but we clearly identify Randi as a skeptic so it isn't a hidden POV. Obviously, a sexual orientation is different than a job. Sullivan is being presented as someone with a significant view on the relationship between TM and Catholicism. But his view that his sexuality is compatible with Catholicism is a minority view that is not shared by the vast majority of officials of the church. It is literally "unorthodox". Likewise, we identify the job title of Jaime Sin because that job (unlike Randi's former career) is relevant to the significance of his view. There are other ways in which we could indicate Sullivan's lack of orthodoxy, but all of them would require more verbiage. If you'd like to propose some language to that effect I'd be interested.   Will Beback  talk  11:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Evidence that Fladrif is uncivil.
2. Unseemly behavior of Fladrif.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• Start-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Start-Class Transcendental Meditation movement articles
• Top-importance Transcendental Meditation movement articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics