Talk:TM-Sidhi program/Archive 5

Sandbox for draft proposal
I hadn't intended the Draft proposal to be archived, so have now moved it to a sandbox

The draft includes Kbob's suggestions to move "Facilties and practioners" to the "Maharishi Effect" section.

Text has not been changed except to change the subheadings.

Comments and edits are of course welcome.

If and once everyone is happy with the version we can move it back here.


 * If there are no objections, I 'd like to move the rearranged version of the article now in the sandbox onto the main article, maybe by Monday.(olive (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Who claims
I'm making a adjustment to Fladrif's edits.I see what he objects to, I think. However Programs can't make claims, but the press are definitely reporting the claims made rather than making the claims themselves.... so I am adding proponents of the program rather than the program itself making claims ,and re adding newspapers and magazine which are what are cited. We probably need a citation for the proponents making the claims .... That may not be right .... Do we have a source that actually says the TM organization claims these Sidhis are actually working or are the claims that they are practiced - quite a different point. (olive (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC))


 * My other concern about this is that the claims that TM-Sidhi made, as reported in these sources was not merely "yogic flying", it was literally "levitation". The TM org avoids the term like the plague now, but that is the precise term that was used when the TM-Sidhi program was introduced, notwithstanding later denials. In addition to the newspaper reports, there are the newspaper ads that the TM org took out at the time, some of which are reproduced here (click forward for 8 pages of original adverts).Fladrif (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know how many people have learned the TM-Sidhi program in the USA? I know from doing some research on the web that there is a very large group of people in Fairfield, Iowa who do this thing every day. I think there are about 1,700 people there.  Bigweeboy; (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are apparently 100,000 world wide.(olive (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I read the ad that Fladrif references above. The poster says that TM-Sidhi "develops" the ability to levitate.  It does not say how long it would take, or what the development stages might be.  So perhaps the "levitating" ability is still in an early stage of development now.  If one were to go into a nursery and purchase an acorn, the sales clerk might tell you that this acorn (when planted correctly and tended too carefully, etc.) will "develop" into a oak tree.  Are they misrepresenting the powers of the acorn.  It may take many years for the oak tree to mature, but it is "developing" into an oak tree at every stage of its growth. Bigweeboy; (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Word "Involuntary"
In the new version of the article presented in the sandbox, we have the sentence - One component of the TM-Sidhi program is referred to as "Yogic Flying" or "involuntary hopping" Are we sure we want to use the word "involuntary" to describe Yogic Flying".  In the Oxford English Dictionary I found the meaning for "Involuntary" to be: 'adjective 1. done without conscious control. 2. (especially of muscles or nerves) concerned in bodily processes that are not under the control of the will. 3. done against someone’s will.' Yet the further description in the article states "According to the Maharishi, Yogic Flying is a phenomenon created by a specific thought projected from the simplest state of human consciousness that he calls Transcendental Consciousness."

So if one is projecting a "specific thought", how can we say that hopping is then "not under the control of the will", or "done against someone’s will "per the definition of "involuntary" above.

I am open to discussion on this point. Am I being too picky? Bigweeboy (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. I did change that today in the article here because it wasn't referenced ... The sandbox version was not changed in the text at all, and I would suggest not changing the text there... It was meant as a way of rearranging the article in a kind of overarching way. If there are no objections to the sandbox version I can implement the changes here and then include changes in text we've made here on top of that. Hope that makes sense.(olive (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Bigweeboy that "involuntary hopping" in the first sentence of the sandbx version should be changed. "Involuntary" doesn't seem consistent with the explanation of hopping given in the second sentence. Also the research that is referred to uses the term "voluntary hopping," so as it stands the there is inconsistency within the article itself.

I also suggest revising the first sentence. I think it should be more complex, or perhaps more than one sentence, for example: "According to various newspaper and magazine reports, proponents of the TM-Sidhi program claim that the practice of these techniques has profound physiological and emotional, as well as far-reaching societal effects. These include the cultivation of empathy and compassion within individuals, as well as the creation of world peace on earth. In addition, they assert that these practices can lead to the development of extra-ordinary abilities, such as the power to become invisible, walk through walls, read minds, and perform Yogic Flying, as well cultivating colossal strength, extra sensory perception, omniscience, perfect health, and immortality. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence you mention has been removed because it wasn't sourced.... the sand box version if and when implemented can pick up the changes already in the actual article.
 * Oops. Sorry. I just found that ref to "involuntary" ... missed it somehow. I would leave that subsection anyway.. it reads pretty clearly and is easy to understand this way.(olive (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I think you make a good point in connection to the lede. I would like to suggest though, that we deal with some of the issue on the table at this point before we tackle the lede of the article. Dealing with a lede can require a fair amount of discussion, and we are already knee deep in other discussion points. Could you hold that point for few days until, we resolve some of these other issues, then bring it up again? (olive (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Sound like a plan Olive. Let's get the overall structure sorted out first and then we can dive into the details.  Bigweeboy (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mechanics of TM-Sidhi
Perhaps the experts could add a section on the mechanics of how TM-Sidhi works. In the Lede it says "Described as a natural extension of Transcendental Meditation.." Since there is a section in the Transcendental Meditation article on the mechanics of the practice, might not a similar section be relevant here? I am sure the readers (me included) would love to know the details of how TM-Sidhi works. Bigweeboy (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your question underlies a fundamental problem with this article. An experinced editor recently commented that the article was pretty weak and I would agree. I would like to see, once we have dealt with the organizational situation I tried to deal with in the sand box an expanded version of the article created by adding some new sections and by expanding some of the sections now in place. Something like:


 * an over view of the the TM Sidhi program that includes a definition, mechanics, general history and tradition of the Sidhis... (all of the Sidhis including Yogic Flying operate on the same principles).
 * an expanded subsection on Yogic flying, the most notable of the Sidhis we are dealing with, that includes more specific information on definition, mechanics, history and tradition specific to Yogic flying, research, and a section into which we put all of the criticism.


 * We really can't add anything into the article about mechanics except what is in the sources/references. There is apparently a very good Nat Geographic program on Yogic Flying which I haven't seen, but I did find this part. The best way to use this information would be with transcript but I haven't found one at this point.(olive (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks for your suggestion olive. I think the structure you propose above could work very nicely.  I also think the proposal in the sand box is very good, and that we need to get this sorted out first and then attempt to refine the content under each of the sub-headings.  Hopefully I can be of help with this work.  Bigweeboy (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing about the lack of information in the article about the technique of the TM-Sidhi program. The TM article gets into the technique of the mediation process in a way that this article doesn't.  The National Geographic segment is more about the theory of why yogic flying is supposed to work than about the technique.  I don't have any problem with adding a reliably-sourced explanation fo the theory, but think that there should also be something about the technique itself. The general outlines of the technique are are widely published: After 20-30 minutes of meditation, mental repetition of the sutras for 5-30 minutes, followed by a rest period and then reading from Hindu scriptures. I'm sure that reliable sources are available in addition to the stuff on the interwebs. Here's one. I'm sure there are more.Fladrif (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * * As a practitioner of the TM-Sidhi program, I can assure you all that the above description by Fladrif, is about as acceptable as describing physics as "the study of nature". It's just plain inadequate, no matter what the referenced anti-TM book claims. There is no way that this "explanation" of the technique can be considered sufficient to explain the waves of bliss, dramatically enhanced stress release, and joy in life that occurs as a result of this program. In fact, any short description has got to be inadequate to capture a program that takes a month or more to learn. Since the program itself is proprietary and/or a trade secret, I do not recommend that anyone attempt to give a complete explanation in WP. I know from experience that the TM lawyers protect the knowledge aggressively. David spector (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So long as we only report what is already published in reliable sources, we won't be guilty of revealing any trade secrets. While short descriptions may not fully capture all details of the "mechanics", we should do the best we can with the available resources. If there are sufficient sources to make a long description that's more complete then there is no lack of space on Wikipedia. We describe all sorts of academic degrees that take years to achieve, so mere complexity is not a barrier.   Will Beback    talk    23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is as Will says reliable sources rather than personal epiphanies such as one might find on non reliable sites such as  blogs.(olive (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I see that there is a book titled "The Complete Book of Yogic Flying", 2008 by Craig Pearson. "A 684-page, full-color hardcover volume with hundreds of photographs, the book presents a full picture of Maharishi’s technologies of consciousness, the Transcendental Meditation® and TM-Sidhi® programs, including Yogic Flying®. The book describes in detail how these techniques create greater integration in brain functioning and benefit all areas of life... The book also has chapters explaining consciousness and the unified field, the physics of flying, the Maharishi Effect, higher states of consciousness, the discovery of Veda and Vedic Literature in human physiology, and more." If we regard Pearson and the MUM Press to be reliable sources, then this would appear useful. Unfortunately, it held by only four libraries so it's fairly inaccessible.   Will Beback    talk    20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a book I'm pretty sure I can get hold of and I agree that it would seem to be a good source for information that helps to self define Yogic Flying. (Craig Pearson is affiliated with MUM).(olive (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the book is held by the Library of Congress it should be relatively accessible through interlibray loan in many if not most libraries.(,olive (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

I have been familiarizing myself with this discussion for the past couple of weeks. I am very happy to see the suggestions being made in this section of the discussion, as I was thinking along the same lines. I agree that adding this type of content to the article (ie. the mechanics underlying these techniques and the putative physiological benefits and any research on these practices) will strenghthen the article greatly. Let me know if I can be of assistance.--Little Flower Eagle (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yogic Flying is a legal Trademark
According to these web pages    "®Transcendental Meditation, TM-Sidhi, Yogic Flying, and Maharishi University of Management are registered or common law trademarks licensed to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation and used under sublicense or with permission." This makes an important distinction between the trademark Yogic Flying, which is the name of a TM-Sidhi mental technique and the words 'yogic flying' or 'flying' which are words used to describe something.--Kbob (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand why this is an important distinction. Other than the Yogic Flying that TM-Sidhi aims to achieve, is there other yogic flying? How does a trademark affect our coverage of the topic? Further, I never got an answer for why we're reporting that TM-Sidhi is a trademarked name.   Will Beback    talk    19:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there are many other forms of meditation out there some of which are mistakenly called TM perhaps its best we are clear about which TM we are talking about. Perhaps who ever added the trademark information has other explanations.(olive (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC))


 * The TM Sidhi's Yogic Flying,Yogic Flying (Patanjali), yogic flying and hopping are used interchangeably in the article in part because the press uses the terms interchangeably. We have to clearly delineate these terms. As I understand it:


 * The TM Sidhi's Yogic Flying is based on or is the same as the Yoga Sutras and Yogic Flying of Patanjali . Also according to this reference hopping is the first of three stages of Yogic Flying according to Patanjali and so also the TM Sidhis Program and its Yogic Flying, and is clearly not interchangeable with Yogic Flying. The term "yogic flying", and "flying" have become generalized, and possibly cliche ridden terms referring to any or all of: TM Sidhi's Yogic Flying, that is, the sutra itself, the technique itself, and/or  the actual physical act of  performing the sutra, the physical appearance of the practice of the sutra. Obviously even trying to delineate these terms here is difficult so we definitely have a responsibility to our readers to make sure we are clearly delineating the terms in the article.(olive (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC))


 * We are of course writing about the trademarked TM Sidhi version of Yogic Flying.(olive (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Hi Will, the trademark sentence has been in the TM article for some time. It was revisited a few weeks ago after discussion on the talk page. Recently Fladriff carried it forward to this article. The trademark is important because TM and the words "transcendental meditation" are often used in pop culture media to describe meditation in general. Just like Kleenex and Scotch Tape are wrongly used to refer to facial tissue and clear office tape. Notably both the Wiki articles on Kleenex and Scotch Tape indicate their respecitive trademarks and who has ownership right at the beginning of their articles.--Kbob (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The point about Yogic Flying as a trademark is that it is a thing, a technique and it is not appropriate for us as editors to replace it with other words like: hopping or yogic flying (lower case) or flying as these are descriptive words. This point goes back to your edit from some days ago when you replaced the trademarked phrase of Yogic Flying with the word 'hopping' in the Demonstration section. At the time I was in the middle of editing and had not yet strengthened and clarified the point about three stages and hopping etc in the Demonstration section. Now that I have done that and it is clear that no one is levitating and that Yogic Flying is a trademarked minor subject of the article, might we consider reversing your edit? --Kbob (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kbob.Does the sandbox version of the article satisfy this concern?(olive (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Trademarks have nothing to do with whether the term has a special meaning. "Transubstantiation" has a special mening in the Catholic Church, but it doesn't have to be trademarked for that to be the case. Who else uses the term "yogic flying" or "TM-Sidhi"? As for the question of whether to use terms like "hopping", we should use the terms used by our sources.   Will Beback    talk    05:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * the draft version is moving in the opposite direction and it is not acceptable as written.   Will Beback    talk    05:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. Transubstantiation is not a thing, Yogic Flying is a thing. The words Yogic Flying, when capitalized, refer to a mental technique, and the trademark emphasizes and clarifies this fact. As a thing (versus an adjective or descriptive term) and a significant sub topic of the article title, it cannot be substituted for other words of our choosing.--Kbob (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any reason to accentuate the trademark, especially for TM-Sidhi. Regarding "Yogic Flying"/"yogic flying", if we have reliable sources that use variations of that term then we should follow those sources. The fact that some entity has a trademark on a phrase should not impact our enyclopedia writing in any way. The only reason the trademark status would be relevant is if there's some controversy related to it. How many articles on spiritual or otherwise comparable topics note the trademark status of their terms?     Will Beback    talk    20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence on the trademark hasn't been in a long time. I just put in in 10 days ago, following a discussion on the TM page about how the way the trademark was characterized there was inaccurate. It wasn't discussed here at all, and certainly not in the context of whether or not it was important to include it. As I reflect on it, I don't think it belongs in the article, and should come out. The "TM" trademark is arguably important to that article, because there are a number of organizations which teach similar, and even identical, meditation programs, and the TM org is quite agressive in protecting its trademark.  I have not read of any other organization which purports to teach the TM-Sidhi program or Yogic Flying, or of any disputes or need to try to protect the trademark. It's not important here.  As for what the article should call whatever it is that yogic flyers are going, or hope to do, I'm inclined to stick with historical accuracy: When the program was introduced in the mid-70's, it was called "levitation".  When no-one actually levitated in the sense that everyone understands the term, it was quickly explained that levitation would come in three stages (actually, the very early versions said four stages, the first being twitching, but I'm guessing that it was pretty hard to get somebody to pony up a few grand to learn how to twitch), the first of which was hopping, the second hovering or levitation and the last of which was mastery of the air. And soon afterward, the TM Org came up the term "Yogic Flying" as a portmanteau for all the stages. I'm inclined, though it gets unwieldy, to keep calling hopping hopping, as that's what the TM org calls it. Now, the voluntary/involuntary dispute is more than just semantics as well.  Involuntary is inappropriate for two reasons: (i) presumably the practitioners intend to it to happen, so it's not like getting struck by lightning, and (ii) from all the reports I've read, the pracitioners admit that they aren't hopping as a result of practicing the flying sutra alone - they're giving it a mechanical assist with their muscles.Fladrif (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Transubstantiation is a transformational process associated with a thing, the Communion part of the Mass. Its outward manifestation is in the bread and wine. The TM Sidhis are, like the Mass a group of things, Yogic Flying is one part of a whole as the Communion is one part of a whole. The outward manifestation of what happens during Yogic Flying is the hopping comparable to how the bread and wine is viewed during the communion part fo the Mass . So, calling hopping Yogic Flying is like calling the Communion transubstantiation. for this reason, I would consider using Hopping in the subsection title an error, an inaccuracy, and a weakness in the article because it is a misinformation but seems we 've spent a lot of time on that issue, so I really can't see discussing it further.(olive (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * When we write about communion, we say that the worshippers eat the bread and drink the wine, not that they eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, even if that is what the religion says is happening on a spiritual level. We should say what the TM-Sidhi says about Yogic Flying, and what others say about it too. On a more mundane level, we don't even report the trademark status of most commercial products, Acura or Comet (cleanser) for example. If this appeared in a secondary source, that is if someone has written about the trademark issue, then I'd be all for it. But this is just original research: Wikipedia editors looking at a primary source and deciding that something in it is significant. If we go down that road then there's no telling where it will go. Further, we don't even have an article on the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation, or any explanation of its connection will all of this. Maybe if we could write a paragraph explaining that it would make sense to say that it holds the trademark. Is there any source for this?   Will Beback    talk    04:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So there are two discussions that are intermixed. One, should it be noted in the article that the brand name TM-Sidhi is a trademark owned by MVED? I am neutral on that point. The second point we are discussing is that Yogic Flying is a brand name. It also happens to be trademarked but that is not important to me. I only brought it up to signify that it is a legitimate brand name. What is important to me is that we do not take this brand name (Yogic Flying) and substitute it with a descriptive phrase(s) that we like better because we feel the brand name is misleading to the public. In the Wiki article on Comet we don't substitute the words 'green powder' in the article because we feel the brand name Comet overstates its capabilities ie the green powder does not soar through space in a fiery orb as the brand name suggests. Likewise, we may consider the brand name of Yogic Flying to be an overstatement of what actually occurs when the mental technique is practiced (and I think we all agree its grossly overstated) but at the same time we can't rightly use descriptive words like hopping as a substitute for it. We can of course site reputable sources who describe it as hopping, involuntary hopping, twitching or whatever.--Kbob (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So putting aside the matter of how we use the terms, you don't see a need to have a sentence identifying the owner of the trademarks?   Will Beback    talk    18:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, I don't have a problem with the current trademark sentence staying in the article but at the same time if there is a consensus and good reasoning for removing it, I would not object.--Kbob (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Kbob's viewpoint here, and he gives a very good example in the Comet story. No matter what level of proficiency has been achieved thru the TM-Sidhi techniques, or what great abilities have been promised in the literature, or what it looks like to the neutral observer, Yogic Flying is part of the TM-Sidhi practice, and thus this term is to be used when describing the techniques.  Bigweeboy (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless we have a source that refers to it differently, in which case we should use the term that they use. What's your opinion about the necessity of identifying the trademark holder?   Will Beback    talk    20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kbob's point, a trademark is something we use to identify a specific product, which in this case happens to be a part of the TM-Sidhi practice. The simplest, most logical, and most correct way is to continue calling it by this name, by which it is identified. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But we could be referencing a source that is making a mistake about the terminology or the name. We may get a news article that talks about "hopping" when presenting Yogic Flying, and may be misrepresenting Yogic Flying in the article.  Just need to be careful.  Bigweeboy (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the trademakr sentence, since there doesn't seem to be any justification for it or significance and it's only taken from a primary source. Let's address the terminology issue separately.   Will Beback    talk    22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Trademark issue in context of the article as a whole
I suspect we are missing the point of the trademark issue. I wonder if some context would put it to rest.... My impressions of course.
 * Should the trademark information be included in this article? A s Fladrif notes it doesn't have the same level of necessity as it does in the TM article still why not ...
 * I think its important in the article to place this topic in context of how the organization defines it. Self definition is Wikipedia appropriate WP:SELFPUB. In this instance we would be using the trademarked version of Yogic Flying and would be defining hopping as the first of three stages, sourcing to an official TM .org website. This lays down background. From that point on, however we use Yogic Flying, yogic flying, or hopping should always be sourced so the reader realizes that the words are being used differently in different sources. If we don't proceed this way we may be confusing the reader. One series of thoughts on the matter.(olive (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Olive, I am fine with this, unless multiple sourcing becomes confusing, and even then I can't really think of a better idea. Why don't we go ahead so we can see what it will look like? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving ahead... consensus
We have many suggestions and a lot of discussion. In order to move ahead I'd like to simplify.


 * I'm going to add another version of the article here on the discussion page. It flows well, I think, and is simple and easy to understand. I think its more interesting to read than what we have now, and because its simple in many ways may be better for the reader.


 * I'll update the sandbox version of the article tomorrow so that it agrees with the article here in the namespace.


 * We then have two versions of the article. The sandbox version is more of an overarching version and based on what is in place now. I attempted to make the sections and subsections more logical. There was no change to the actual text.


 * I would like to invite the editors to edit these versions over the next few days. I'll start by adding the revisions now in place in the namespace version.


 * Then we can ask for a consensus on either of the versions

Perhaps we can leave the namespace article alone for a few days while we work on the draft versions so as not to complicate things.(olive (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I don't thinnk that preparing lots of draft will get us to a consensus, and it tends to confuse the matter. The best place to start, on any topic, is with the sources. I think it's be better if we spendt he time instead compiling excerpts from all of the reliable sources we can find on this topic, and then draft our text from them.   Will Beback    talk    04:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Drafty in here...nice". Well I would disagree actually...two isn't exactly lots... I was planning to stop with two. :o)


 * The first draft is very close to what we have in place now. The second is a very different way of dealing with the article. Both could serve as a basis for any expansion of the article, ie finding more sources, although I think the new version is clear, simple, seems to flow well, and might be complete in itself. Unless we can come to some agreement on what we have so far I can't see how collecting and trying to add more information and sources will solve anything.


 * I'm suggesting we establish a baseline article that everyone can agree on, then add to that. Right now we can't even agree on how to use the term, Yogic Flying the major subtopic of the article.


 * What do other editors thinking about this? Do we need a consensus so we can get to a consensus? (olive (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Another less complex approach
Striking my comments from the thread above to make discussion less confusing
 * I've added the 1st draft version to the namespace article in an effort to simplify the discussion. These changes include a few very simple changes to the namespace article in terms of subheadings. The history section was also moved to the beginning of the section on yogic flying as a more logical position for background information on the technique  including a compromise on hopping. I did the addition in one move so if anyone strenuously objects one simple revert will return the article to its former state. I've re added hopping in an effort to compromise and make the changes acceptable to all editors(olive (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC))


 * We now have a one draft which I will move to the sand box. The draft will be placed into the text of the namespace article (copied to the sandbox page) in its present form.I may edit the draft as I move it. Please feel free to edit the draft as well(olive (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC))


 * New Draft #1 sandbox here. Please feel free to edit.(olive (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks Olive for this new version in the sand box. I just read thru it and think you have done a great job in restructuring the content.  The new format is very logical, clear and clean.  Well done. Bigweeboy (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just read the draft version in the sandbox/namespace. I made few minor corrections for spelling and overall I really like it.

The current version is quite disjointed whereas this new sandbox version has a nice logical flow to it. I'd like to know what Will BeBack's objections are. I don't see any copy or text changes, just a more intelligent rearrangement of the information as it is laid out in the current article.--Kbob (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the sources for the history section?   Will Beback    talk    20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm attempting to locate that source.(olive (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * And who is "permanentpeace.org"? Why would we use an unsigned article from that website as a source?    Will Beback    talk    20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This an TM website as I understand it... I can't check right now...rushing... but it may be we can also find another source.(olive (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Olive I read through your version of the article in the sandbox, really nice work, the article now has a flow which it lacked earlier, it is much easier to read. I made one or two minor changes, but it's really good work, thanks for taking it on. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What we have on the table is a proposal to change the format of the article which revises the section titles and order of information so that it is more organized and reader friendly. The text is the same. Judging form the comments above there seems to be a consensus on the proposed format.  I think we should move ahead and make the change and then continue to discuss text changes as usual.--Kbob (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could some describe what the proposed changes are?   Will Beback    talk    16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is, are they the same as at the top of this thread - just stuf moved around with no text changes, additions or subtractions?   Will Beback    talk    16:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I integrated the old draft yesterday to simplify the process. Please see first paragraph in this thread above. The draft under discussion now is here as noted above: New Draft #1 sandbox here.


 * This version is the current, accepted, namespace version with the same content information, but with adjustment for readability, ie simpler, some reorganization so flow of information is maintained.


 * The history section must be sourced which I will deal with.(olive (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it looks like there is agreement. I would suggest though, waiting a bit to make sure everyone has had a chance to read the draft.(olive (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

I also feel that the sandbox version is a big improvement over the current article. It is easier to follow and more cohesive. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't follow what you're saying about the old draft being integrated, while the new draft is just the existing article rearranged. Did the old draft have content changes to the article, and are those changes also in the new draft? If so, what do they involve?   Will Beback    talk    22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand the meaning of "old draft having content changes", as any wikipedia article may, at some point since its inception, have had changes to its content. What I can say is that I have read both current versions of this article and I see that the content is the same, but the sandbox version presents the information in a legible and cohesive manner which is much easier to follow and is therefore, in my opinion, a great improvement over the old version. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Only the Yogic Flying section in the sandbox is different from what is in place in the namespace article right now. Other sections in the sand box are the very same as what is in the current namespace article. YF is the section that is being discussed in terms of changes. And again, there are no content changes in the YF section as compared to the current YF section in name space article. Any changes made to YF were for general readability, better flow and not content. Bottom line: All we have to do is deal with the Yogic Flying section in the sandbox with the understanding that content has not been changed. Changes are in rearrangement to improve readability. (olive (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC))
 * If there's no content change then I don't object. I believe this article probably needs extensive work, so this is just a start. Again, I suggest that we should really review the literature and make sure we are properly summarizing the reliable sources for this topic.   Will Beback    talk    04:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We have agreement, so I'll move the YF section from the sandbox to the namespace article later today. Thanks everybody for the helpful way this discussion was carried out.(olive (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

The Yogic Flying section has been moved into the namespace article as agreed on here. I've tagged the History section so will start looking for refs for that content.(olive (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks Olive for taking the lead on this and creating a good platform for further refinements. I look forward to participating in further discussions to improve this article.  Bigweeboy (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised to see several 3rd-party reliable sources removed, apparently because they were being used as second sources. It appears that they contain assertions which aren't currently in the article. They should be included and their contents summarized where relevant. I'll work them back into the article as I have time.   Will Beback    talk    06:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you be more explicit. I'm not aware of any sources that were moved deliberately in this move.(olive (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry if I was too vague. The edits that deleted sources are here: They came after the draft move. This article needs more sources, not fewer.    Will Beback    talk    08:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

History section
The history material was added February 28, 2005 by a one-time, anonymous editor. It's been unsourced since then. Unless sources are found shortly I think the material should be removed. If we are focusing on the version of "Yogic Flying" taught by TM-Sidhi then we should focus on its history, not on "yogic flying", which editors here have said is a different topic. We should add, if we can find sources, something about the history of TM-Sidhi.  Will Beback   talk    21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is also OR unless we can find a source that makes a direct connection between the TM Sidhis Yogic Flying and what we have now in the history section. The TM organization does make a direct connection between their Yogic Flying and Patanjali .....so we may be able to add content on Patanjali and his Yogic flying ... This may be synthesis or OR as well. Any discussion on this? This is a relatively subtle reading of OR so discussion is necessary, I think. I'd like to wait a day or so before we do remove the history content though ... I still have a few places I can check for info. Thanks (olive (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I have in hand now, Craig Pearson's book on Yogic Flying, a very complete reference it turns out, and can write a paragraph or two on history that will then be properly sourced. For those reasons I'll remove what is in place now as it is OR, and within a few days will replace it with sourced, non OR content.(olive (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
 * That's great. However since the book is very expensive and unavailable to most editors could you please transcribe or scan the passages that you're summarizing, or in some other way help us to verify the material?   Will Beback    talk    01:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good, I have long been disturbed by the OR material in the History section. Glad we are getting it sorted out.--Kbob (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I look forward to working on this new revised section.  Bigweeboy (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was talking to a Philosophy professor yesterday who is fairly familiar with Patanjali and Yogic Flying. He tells me there are descriptions of the stages of Yogic Flying in Vyasa's commentaries on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.  I do not have a way to get a copy of this quickly, but others may know where to get Vyasa's book.  Perhaps we could use that as a reference?  Bigweeboy (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This edition: seems to be on the shelves of many libraries.   Will Beback    talk    20:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been studying the yoga sutras of Patanjali for nearly 40 years, and I don't recall ever reading anything about "yogic flying" or about "hopping" so I finally got curious enough to pull out the two translations that I have. The sutra in question is given in eight Sanskrit words, literally translated word by word as, 1."one of the five pranas or vital airs" 2. "by mastery" 3. "water" 4. "mire" 5. "thorns" 6. "non-contact" 7. "levitation," 8. "and."  The two translators give the sutra a fairly similar translation; one gives it as "By subjugation of the upward life (the udana) there is liberation from water, the thorny path, and mire, and the power of ascension is gained."  The other gives it a more literal and less interpretive reading as "By mastery over Udana, levitation and noncontact with water, mire, thorns etc."


 * My point here is that Patanjali's sutra says nothing at all about "stages," "flying," "hopping" "yogic flying" or anything of the like. If these interpretations come from a commentary, then the commentary may be cited, but it should be made clear that it's the commentary and not the original Patanjali text that is being referenced. Woonpton (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I, too, have studied four different translations/commentaries on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras (although not for 40 years). I agree with Woonpton as far as he or she goes. The plain fact is that, prior to MMY's research and development, the Sutras were only studied intellectually. As far as I know, they weren't actually used as a practice. Like all sutras (threads) in the Vedas or Vedangas (the Shruti and Smriti), they are condensed summaries of ideas meant to be complemented and expanded by additional personal teaching. "Yogic Flying" is part of the complete TM-Sidhi program. The TM-Sidhi program is a "working" version of the Sutras, just as TM is a "working" version of the many relatively obscure descriptions of dhyana given in various parts of the ancient Vedic literature. I hope this helps. David spector (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Invincible Defense Technology
I'm not sure that an email to the Improbable Research website is a reliable source. But if there is other evidence of this then we should include coverage of this topic as well.  Will Beback   talk    00:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  The advanced TM-Sidhi program is now also known as Invincible Defense Technology in military circles. I am the Executive Director at the Center for Advanced Military Science (CAMS). We advocate the use of Invincible Defense Technology by the military to prevent terrorism and war. We have an impressive group of military-related experts at CAMS including retired generals and a former military aide to President Ronald W. Reagan and President George H. Bush. Their pictures and bios are available at our website at: http://www.StrongMilitary.org
 * Dr. David Leffler


 * This isn't a much better source than the email, as it's one of the many Maharishi-connected websites, but if you want to read more about this, here's a link for the International Center of Invincible Defense. I offer without comment this paragraph taken from the section on Fundamentals of Invincibility:


 * The scale of superunification (the level of the Unified Field) is the ultimate time and distance scale. It is the scale of quantum gravity,* the Planck scale (10-33 cm)—the dynamical origin of space and time. Because this scale is millions upon millions of times smaller than the atomic nucleus, the uncertainty principle guarantees that it is correspondingly millions upon millions of times more powerful. The Unified Field can therefore easily overpower and overwhelm any previous level of scientific technology—chemical, electronic, biological, or nuclear. Woonpton (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This Invincible Defense concept is based on the Maharishi Effect. So if we decide to include a few sentences on this topic it would be best served in the Maharishi Effect section of the article.--Kbob (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The phenomenon has been reported in at least one reliable source, though since it's written by Leffler too it shouldn't be viewed as neutral. Is there a better article to discuss the Invincible Defense concept?   Will Beback    talk    06:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, on a slightly related topic... You had asked earlier about the PeaceGovernment web site. It is a TM related, first party source and I added it as an inline citation for the three stages of Yogic Flying point only to fortify the existing 3rd party citation. However, if you feel its not appropriate, I can remove it. Meanwhile I'll look for another 3rd party source.--Kbob (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How can we tell that it's TM related? What's the connection between the "United States Peace Government" and TM-Sidhi?   Will Beback    talk    18:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Kbob. Invincible Defense is relatively removed from TM-Sidhis since it is only one subset of the Maharishi Effect, and if noted at all should only be given a line or two in the Maharishi Effect Section.(olive (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
 * According to Leffler the Invincible Defense is TM-Sidhi. Is he unqualified to speak to that issue? Why only a line or two? It sounds important. Let's see what sources we can find and let those help guide the appropriate length.   Will Beback    talk    15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, I've been studying the related sites (US Peace Government and its predecessaor the Natural Law Party; International Center for Invincible Defense Tehcnology; the Institute for Science, Technology, and Public Policy; Permanent Peace etc etc etc) they're all connected with the TM organization and rest on the same logic. You ask how we can tell that they're TM related?  Well, John Hagelin's picture at the top of each of the pages (if I'm remembering right, he's both the founder and the director of each of these august bodies, as well as being the Natural Law Party's candidate for U.S. President in 2000)  is one clue; the same underlying logic jumping from quantum physics to a "proven" Unified Field Theory to TM-Sidhi to the Maharishi Effect is another clue. By the way, I think Kbob is confused about the source for the three stages of yogic flying.  He says above that he got it from the peacegovernment site, but in another place I think the material was sourced to the permanentpeace site.  I think the latter is more likely correct but maybe immaterial, as these sites are all TM sites and so not useful as secondary sources that support and verify the claims, only as primary sources of the claims.  I agree that these claims are important, but wish there were more secondary sources. Anyway, I'll try to pull together  some quotes from these pages that connect TM-Sidhi to these plans for world peace, peace government, and invincibility against nuclear weapons,  if that would be helpful. Woonpton (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, yes I meant permanentpeace.org as the web site I had used for a reference. Sorry I got mixed up. Thanks for clarifying Woonpton. --Kbob (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion of length and placement are two different discussions. Invincible Defense is based on the TM Sidhi program specifically Yogic Flying, and post dates the research on the Maharishi Effect also based on Yogic Flying. TM Sidhi has as a subset Yogic Flying, which has as a subset Maharishi Effect, which has a further subset Invincible Defense. So for maximum readability, and logical sequence and understanding it would seem to make sense to place ID defense as a subset or subsection of Maharishi Effect.

Whether any of us thinks its important may not be an issue, but a POV of ours. Google news archives gives only 6 hits for Maharishi Effect and Invincible Defense, and no hits for any other combination....such as Yogic Flying and Invincible Defense, TM Sidhi and Invincible Defense so notability relative prominence is questionable, suggesting a line or two at the most would be appropriate. Since the only hits are specifically under Maharishi Effect maybe that gives us a sense of where we could place any content we add.

I'm striking notability in this last post. I've used the word in terms of common everyday usage. Wikipedia however, uses notability very specifically to define how deserving a topic is of having its own article. Conflating these two terms could cause some confusion in the discussion.(olive (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

We have to keep in mind that Yogic flying is a technique whose apparent influence, something called the Maharishi Effect was studied. Because of that influence something called ID apparently was established. (olive (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Olive, when you say IV are you referring to Invincible Defense?--Kbob (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Laflerr seems to hold some kind of upper level postion so I would assume he's qualified to speak on the issue.(olive (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I disagree with the suggestion that whether this is important depends on anyone's POV; it depends on reliable sources, not POV. I don't see any reason why Google news should determine important of the topic; this isn't wikinews, it's an encyclopedia, and how often something has been noticed by the press isn't terribly relevant to the writing of an encyclopedia.  More to the point, a google search of TM-Sidhi and Invincible Defense, which is the relevant combination for a page on TM-Sidhi, yields something like 895 hits, including an iniative to make the Pakistan Air Force invincible (also written by David Leffler) an indepth course offered by Maharishi University in Supreme Military Science, which is taken from a book called Maharishi's Absolute Theory of Defence, published 1996 by Maharishi University, which might be a useful primary source for this connection, an article in the Sri Lanka Guardian proposing an Invincible Defense program for Sri Lanka (co-written by David Leffler, who received his bachelors and master's degrees from  Maharishi University, by the way, so he can't be considered a third-party independent source) an announcement (on David Leffler's Defense Technology News website) that Peru has become invincible by reaching the requisite number of people practicing TM-Sidhi, and that's just from the first page. It does look like this whole effect and campaign isn't much recognized outside the Maharishi universe, so probably not encyclopedic, but this is also true of the Maharishi Effect itself. Woonpton (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My point above was that if any one of us thinks this is important then that is a POV. So yes, I agree that reliable sources help determine importance. Using a google news archive search is actually a accepted way of helping to determine whether a topic is mainstream or important enough to include in Wikipedia. A Google search alone indicates information on the topic, but not in terms of mainstream importance since it can include all kinds of non reliable, non verifiable sources such as blogs. My points above concern placement in the article, and how much weight mention of Invincible Defense deserves in the article. It seems we agree that IV deserves very little mention at best.(olive (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Olive, when you say IV (above) are you referring to Invincible Defense?--Kbob (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * sheesh... yes, sorry, typos...(olive (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I can't agree that a google news search is a good way of determining notability. I can think of dozens of topics off the top of my head that are very appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia (mathematical proofs; species of birds,trees, etc;  little known diseases; one-celled organisms, etc etc) but that would fail this test miserably.  The idea that media attention should determine notability for inclusion drives the encyclopedia in the direction of celebrity and popular culture rather than in the direction of an encyclopedia.  So, sorry, we'll have to disagree on that. Also, I'm sure you didn't mean to put words in my mouth, but I did not say, or mean, that "IV deserves very little mention at best."  My point was simply that both invincible defense and the maharishi effect are effects of TM-Sidhi that no one outside of the maharishi universe seems to be able to document; there are apparently few independent third party sources referring to either.  But I still think it might be worth covering both topics, if only to document the wide variety of situations in which claims have been made for the power of TM-Sidhi. Woonpton (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

John Stossel sentence, remove it?
I would like to remove this sentence from the article. In the transcript of the show John Stossel speaks a total of six sentences on the topic of Yogic Flying. Although his tone is skeptical, he draws no conclusions about the practice. The piece also includes a 5 sentence testimonial from a practitioner who feels Yogic Flying is wonderful. For these reasons I find his coverage of the topic to be insignificant and not worth mentioning in the article. What do others think?


 * Since there doesn't appear to be much other coverage of the topic in 3rd-party reliable sources, I think we shouldn't delete it. Though short, it was probably viewed by a larger audience than any other source in the last ten years. The article isn't overly long so there's no harm in keeping it.   Will Beback    talk    05:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the Stossel piece and feel it is NOT worth mentioning. Bigweeboy (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Misc. editions to the Reference section below. --Kbob (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Move EEG paragraph to Research section
I would like to suggest that we move the paragraph below, from its current place in the Yogic Flying section, to the Research section. As it stands now it is a bit out of place and may contain redundant information. Thoughts anyone? --Kbob (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "EEG studies comparing Yogic Flyers with a control group voluntarily hopping found that the neurological characteristics were     different. Immediately before hopping the yogic flyers showed significant shifts in EEG coherence and power, whereas the controls did not. The differences in EEG spatial distribution and mean amplitude between the two groups suggested that different biological mechanisms underly the EEG activity in the two groups."


 * Yes, I would agree that it makes sense to move the EEG pragraph to the Research section.(olive (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC))


 * OK, I have made the move, putting them at the bottom of the Research section. They seem to fit well together since one paragraph discusses research on TM-Sidhi vs. Transcendental Meditation and the other paragraph is research on Yogic Flying vs. voluntary hopping.--Kbob (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it makes sense to have the EEG research in the Research section. Bigweeboy (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite "History" subsection
Below is a rewrite of the "History" subsection based on the following source:

"Pearson, Craig. The Complete Book of Yogic Flying. Maharishi University of Management Press. Fairfield, Iowa, 2008."

I am adding here, for the sake of verification, direct quotes from the source so they can be checked easliy if needed. I used this format in particular here for ease in checking the quotes, but to clarify, is not a format I would or could use in the article.(olive (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Comments rewrite History subsection

 * I'm not sure where a comment should go; feel free to suggest a different placement if this is the wrong place. I don't see that any of this material would improve the article.  Since it's already been established that no one has seen a TM-Sidhi participant actually levitating or flying through the air, to what purpose would we, as Wikipedia, argue that there is a long tradition of people flying through the air?  We've already established the claim of levitation and flying as one of the special powers that accrue to TM-Sidhi students, and we've already established that the claim isn't supported by evidence; I think going on about it by insisting that people have always been flying through the air, even if no one has witnessed TM-Sidhi practitioners doing so, doesn't follow logically, even if properly attributed to Craig Pearson of MUM.Woonpton (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As with any history we are providing context for the subject matter. Since Yogic Flying/flying/ floating/ levitation, whatever we call it comes out of a specific tradition, and since accounts of these abilities also exist in other traditions its valuable to give the reader this deeper and wider understanding of the topic. The article clearly "says" that there have been no public demonstrations of flying/floating, but only hopping, so I don't see this as an argument one way or the other, especially since our purpose on Wikipedia is not to argue any position or POV but to present content based on sources as per the Wikipedia policies. Thanks for your comments(olive (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I wanted to mention, Woonpton, that the information I selected and put into this rewrite was based on what was in the article before. We did have a history section but it was unsourced so I removed it. This was meant to replace that unsourced content.(olive (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Any other comments?(olive (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Since previous History section was completely unsourced and appeared to be Original Research this new section is a great improvement because it is concise and sourced. I think we can find 3rd party sources to further substantiate the new copy as well. The many reports of Christian saints, in particular should be easy to cite and the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and extra-ordinary abilities. So I support this new version and will reinforce it with some 3rd party citations once its put back into the article.--Kbob (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * More sources are great, but we do have to keep in mind that the source itself must make a direct connection between Yogic Flying and any other content we add like Christian Saints who levitated, for example, before we can use it. Otherwise, we are in OR territory again.(olive (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Very nicely done Olive. Let's hope we can turn up some more sources.  Bigweeboy (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this a history of levitation or just of Yogic Flying? The last paragraph appears to concern levitation in general. Also, it doesn't mention anything about the history of Yogi Flying as taught by TM-Sidhi. When did it start being taught? Who were the first practioners among the TM community? That sort of thing.   Will Beback    talk    20:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this subsection could be more rightly called "Tradition", rather than history. Its subject matter parallels what we removed from the article, and I didn't expand on that. I would suggest we deal with this content first then expand the subsection to include a more specific history of the TM Yogic Flying. Then To clarify:
 * TM Sidhis are techniques (there are many)of which Yogic Flying is one...probably the most notable
 * Yogic Flying has three stages: Hopping, Floating, Flying...
 * Pearson uses the term levitation as general term for the body lifting off the ground but it is not one of the three stages .... it is descriptive of the last two stages floating and flying.
 * So this subsection is about Yogic flying and its three stages in particular the last two...floating, and flying-the ability to move and operate freely while in the air. If the term levitation is confusing, floating and flying can be substituted as in the source(olive (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC))


 * OK, good point about addt'l refs possibly creating OR. I also like the idea of changing the section title. Tradition is one possibiliity or how about "Origin" instead? --Kbob (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If this section is about Yogic Flying then I'm not sure what it has to do with Christian saints. I think we should keep this article about TM-Sidhi.   Will Beback    talk    05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The source relates Yogic Flying to histories of flying an floating, the second and third stages of Yogic Flying. Descriptions are included from countries and cultures around the world . To exclude Christian/European accounts is to cherry pick aspects of the source, creates a POV and edges on OR. We have to follow the source.(olive (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes good point Olive about cherry picking. Pearson has obviously done is own Original Research and we can't dissect it. At the same time, if we feel that his OR is not appropriate for the article we could leave the whole section out altogether. That is one option. Another option is to only include Pearson's explanation of Yogic Flying originating from Patanjali etc. and leave out all reports of levitation since they are not individuals who practiced the TM-Sidhi program as devised by the Maharishi. Third option is to go with what we have below. --Kbob (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the content we are discussing is critical to the article but it does add context and interest. There's no reason to expect that its inappropriate. Pearson is an expert in the field he's writing in so the book can be considered a reliable source. The bottom line is the source makes a direct connection between Yogic flying and the other traditions, and the source is reliable so there is no reason not to use the content, and as I said above separating out one of those traditions would be cherry picking content.(olive (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Since most of us don't have access to this source, we don't know whether it is being summarized fully. No offense intended, but Littleolive oil could be cherry-pikcing from the source and we wouldn't know it. Since the cites range from page 31 to page 547 and 549, it would appear that this text draws from different parts of the book.
 * Our goal isn't to summarize everything in the source - it's to write a section on the history of Yogic Flying. If the source goes off onto a tangent about how birds fly we wouldn't need to include that either. Alternatively, if the source explains that Christian saints practiced TM-Sidhi, or otherwise showed a direct connection between their levitation and Yogic Flying, then that might be appropriate to include. But otherwise the stuff that isn't about Yogic Flying would be better added to Levitation (paranormal) or Saints and levitation, to which we can link for readers interested in non-Yogic Flying floating. Folks here have already argued that this article isn't about yogic flying in general - it's about the specigfic kind of Yogic Flying trademarked by the movement.    Will Beback    talk    19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To address points above:


 * I wanted to clarify OR as Kbob uses it. I assume you mean the author's own research when you mention "OR" in reference to Pearson. WP:OR does not apply to a source.


 * To reiterate. If the source makes the connection we can use that information. Pearson makes a clear connection between Yogic Flying and its second and third stages, floating and flying. He says " historical demonstrations of the second and third stages of the hopping-floating-flying sequence through which Yogic Flying develops."(p547). There is no reason this information cannot be used. We are citing a source and the source makes a clear connection to the historical tradition of flying and floating and Yogic Flying.


 * There is no Wikipedia policy that says a source must be easily accessible. Please point it out to me if there is such a policy or guideline. Since the source is held by the Library of Congress, many academic and public libraries will access it for you in an inter- library loan. You could of course assume good faith, especially since I went to the trouble of giving you the direct quotes from the source page numbers. If you are really concerned you could always get and check the source. That source is by the way much less difficult to get hold of than the source I am presently using on an artist BLP I've worked on.... also a good source.


 * The page numbers reflect two sections of the book and two topics. The first references Patanjali. The second, "Flying and Floating". Seems a pretty big jump to suggest that two sections, one a single page and the second a series of pages on the same topic summarizes the whole book.
 * I just don't see any valid arguments as per any of the Wikipedia Policies or guidelines as to why this subsection cannot be included.
 * If we decide we don't need such a section that's one thing, but the subsection itself as per Wikipedia is validly sourced and written.(olive (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I realize you are using Yogic Flying in its trademarked sense. We have to be consistent. If its used that way and so also places restrictions and boundaries on the content then the trademark has to go back into the article.(olive (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Let's keep this article focused on TM-Sidhi. In addition to the issues of scope, I'm concerned about running an entire section based solely on one book published by the MUM Press that is only in a few libraries. While it meets some of the standards of verifiability, it doesn't necessarily meet the standards of NPOV because it gives excess weight to one view. I think we should wait on adding this material until we can find other sources that can offer a balanced picture of the history of Yogic Flying in the the TM-Sidhi movement.   Will Beback    talk    00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well....Six or seven lines on the historical context of the topic does not remove focus of the article off of the TM-Sidhi program, and as I've taken pains to show several times Yogic Flying is a TM -Sidhi. Pearson's book is on Yogic Flying, a TM-Sidhi. The book is a accessible as any source needs to be and more than some.


 * Your definition of NPOV doesn't ring any bells. There is no NPOV requirement that I know of that requires that I have to find an opposing view to create some kind of balance in order to add this content. That's not how NPOV is established or determined-how it works.


 * I can't see what the issue is. Its relatively straightforward information, of only six full lines. I don't see that as being an enormous amount of content to source to one ref. On the contrary its quite minimal.


 * This material doesn't need to be a subsection. We could compromise and just add it back in as a few lines to the section on Yogic Flying.(olive (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC))


 * The first paragraph seems on topic, and I don't object to it. It's the other two that are too far afield or POV.   Will Beback    talk    02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nahhh... The other two are not too far afield, and they most certainly are not POV. That's not how POV is defined. They are relative, contextual, are sourced to a reliable source, and are directly connected to Yogic Flying... no POV there.


 * Does anyone else have objections to adding this material-relative, contextual, and sourced per WP:Reliability.(olive (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC))


 * (ec) I could live with Will's suggestion. As I said before, I don't see any reason for the article to assert that people have been flying through the air for hundreds and thousands of years, when it's already been established in the article that the claim that TM-Sidhi trains people how to fly has not been substantiated.  There's no valid reason that just because a source says something, it has to be in the article.  It should be in the article only if it helps provide a neutral presentation of the topic; emphasizing a worldwide history of "flying" and "floating" when these powers haven't been demonstrated in this program gives undue weight to the unsupported claim of flying; in other words, as Will said, it doesn't meet the standard of NPOV.


 * I think this question has been asked before but I don't remember seeing an answer: is yogic flying a phrase used anywhere but in the TM organization?Woonpton (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object as this a legitimate third party source. I can see what Will is saying about the two paragraphs, however, though they may be slightly on the periphery of the topic they are not irrelevant; this is the history section and that was historical information. I would not add much more, thought, so that the information may remain within the boundaries of WP:Weight. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know what Luke means by "third party source". The Complete Book of Yogic Flying, was written by Maharishi University of Management Executive Vice-President Craig Pearson and printed by Maharishi Intl Univ Press. So far as I know, the MUM is a part of the TM movement. If that's not the case then we should clear that up right away. Just because it isn't a 3rd-party source doesn't mean it can't be used, but it should be used with care and shouldn't be used for extraordinary assertions, such as that Christian saints practiced Yogic Flying.    Will Beback    talk    06:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify. There are no assertions of the extraordinary, or extraordinary assertions being made in this history content. We are not saying saints flew. We are saying the source makes a direct connection to Yogic Flying, particularly the second and third stages to Christian saints who flew. I'm sure we all know there are many accounts of Christian saints who flew, but again, that's not we're saying .... we are just citing the source. So there is no OR or POV, and we are after all citing a Wikipedia complaint source. The discussion has looped back where we began yesterday.(olive (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC))
 * A compromise proposal is on the table - to use the first paragraph of what you wrote. Are you willing to compromise?   Will Beback    talk    19:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In actual fact there are several proposals on the table. One, the complete rewrite, a mere 6-7 lines. Two, I suggested earlier that I would compromise and just add these 6-7 lines into the Yogic Flying section without a header of any kind. Three, you suggest cutting out everything but a reference to Patanjali. Now you and I have worked together before and you know I have always compromised if I felt there was some gray zone in terms of policy that we might be transgressing.
 * However, I have not seen a single good reason in terms of Wikipedia policy or guideline to  not include the entire rewrite. This section complies with policy, adds context to an article, and is the sourced version of a subsection that was in place for years. Did I say complies with policy?
 * I did in fact offer a compromise that no one responded too.
 * So, I stand by the Wikipedia compliant version of this content, see no reason to shorten it, and suggest that since there are no arguments in terms of policy that indicate we are in a gray zone in any way, that you might consider compromising your position.(olive (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC))
 * This article isn't about floating, levitating, or flying. It's (partly) about a very specific, trademarked paractice taught by the TM-Sidhi curriculum, called "Yogic Flying". I'm fine with the parts of this draft that directly relate to that topic. The other parts are mosre suitable to other articles.   Will Beback    talk    05:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is of course about floating/ flying...


 * Yogic Flying ... trademarked name of the technique
 * yogic flying .... the technique itself
 * hopping/floating/flying... the three stages of the technique known as yogic flying ...
 * If we use hopping we have to use the other two stages as well. Excluding one and not the others is cherry picking, OR and creates POV content...
 * terms yogic flying and its satges are described and defined here in the Washington Post :

"Levitation" is the usual term for what the meditators would try to do-but the word is misleading."Yogicflying," as it is more properly called, comes in three distinct stages-and today's contestants were only attempting Stage One. They aren't hovering or floating yet. That will be Stage Two. They aren't flying through the air yet. That will be Stage Three. For now, the Transcendental Meditators are concentrating on the Hopping Stage (olive (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Maybe things would be simpler if we re-split Yogic Flying back into it's own article. One problem with this article is that it never actually explains what TM-Sidhi is, or who teaches it.   Will Beback    talk    21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we may be getting a little off topic on this. Other editors have said they find the copy to be acceptable (including me). The copy is a great improvement over the previous version which was completely off topic and had no inline citations. This new copy that Olive has created is short, simple and straightforward and is from a reliable source (Pearson: Yogic Flying) that was previously recommended by the editor (June 14th) who is now opposing the content from that source. Admittedly the new source is first party but its OK since it is self defining the origin of the YF technique and its context in light of other historical reports of a related phenomenon. I think we should just go forward at this time and not delay further.--Kbob (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We should complete this discussion and find an outcome before we move on to anything else, otherwise serious water muddying will ensue.(olive (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I think changing the name and focus of the article to "TM-Sidhi and floating" would very much muddy the waters. Let's keep the focus on "TM-Sidhi" alone. I endorse including the first paragraph of Olive's draft, the one that concerns TM-Sidhi. I urge editors to find sources that cover more of the history of TM-Sidhi. Material on floating or levitation in general would be welcome in more relevant articles, already listed above.   Will Beback    talk    21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. Changing the title would be muddy.... but of course that's not an issue since the source makes the connections complying with WP:RS,WP: Verifiability, and WP:NOR. (olive (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I see you've posted another draft. What's different? Aside form my previously expressed concerns about the text, I also believe we need to identify Pearson. The name of the book appears in the footnotes, so that isn't as important. Knowing that he is an official of the MUM, which published the book, is highly relevant.   Will Beback    talk    01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Will. This content can be added because it is cited by a reliable, verifiable source that makes the connection between Yogic Flying,flying, floating, levitation. You are arguing directly in the face of Wikipedia policy, and you have yet to show why by Wikipedia policy it cannot be added. The new draft makes the connection between the source and the content even more direct, clearer, stronger. If you want to add something about Pearson, go ahead. Why is it highly relevant in your estimation?(olive (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

History
Version 1

Craig Pearson, author of The Complete Book of Yogic Flying, says that both the TM-Sidhi program and the component or Sidhi, called Yogic Flying, are derived from and originate in The Yoga Sutras of Maharishi Patanjali, a specific branch of Vedic Literature, part of the centuries-old, Vedic, system of knowledge. [1]

India, Pearson says, leads in literary references and stories of flying and floating, but “historical demonstrations of the second and third stages of the hopping–floating–flying sequence through which Yogic Flying develops” (Appendix 2, p547) have existed for thousands of years and up to the present time in multiple countries and cultures around the world. [2][3]

Pearson relates accounts from China, Tibet and the Middle East that describe individuals who experienced floating and flying. From Europe, he says, there have been more than 400 reports of Christian saints who experienced levitation, the most common of miracles recorded. In both Australia and in North America, accounts exist, Pearson says, of medicine men and wizards who could run through the air. [4]

Version 2

Craig Pearson, author of The Complete Book of Yogic Flying, says that both the TM-Sidhi program and one off its components or Sidhi, called Yogic Flying, are derived from and originate in The Yoga Sutras of Maharishi Patanjali, a specific branch of Vedic Literature, part of the centuries-old, Vedic, system of knowledge from India. [1] India, Pearson says, leads in literary references and stories of flying and floating, but “historical demonstrations of the second and third stages of the hopping–floating–flying sequence through which Yogic Flying develops” (Appendix 2, p547) have existed for thousands of years and up to the present time in multiple countries and cultures around the world. [2][3]  Pearson also relates the reported experience of Yogic Flying to accounts from China, Tibet and the Middle East that describe individuals who experienced floating and flying, from Europe where there have been more than 400 reports of Christian saints who experienced levitation, the most common of miracles recorded, and to accounts describing medicine men and wizards in both Australia and in North America who could apparently run through the air. [4]

"Direct Quotes" [1] They are using a simple natural technique that has its origins in the oldest continuous tradition of knowledge on earth, the ancient Vedic literature of India–specifically the branch of the ancient Vedic literature known as ''The Yoga Sutras of

Maharishi Patanjali,'' a sage and teacher in the Vedic Tradition.(p31)

"[2] India is the headwaters of the long tradition of floating and flying in the human race. Its literature is full of references to the ability of human beings to fly along with stories and eye witness accounts dating from thousands of years ago to the present...Levitation is also the most common miracle among the enlightened saints of Europe. With this ability credited to some 400 saints. Similar inspiring stories come from around the world and from all traditions of the human race.(Appendix 2, p547)"

"[3] Through out time and through out the world we find accounts of people floating and flying. This section presents…historical demonstrations of the second and third stages of the hopping-floating–flying sequence through which Yogic Flying develops.(Appendix 2, p547)"

And too long to quote here, but page numbers where corresponding information is found.

"[4] Appendix 2, p547, p548 (India, Tibet), p549 (Eastern Asia-China, Australia), p550 (Europe), p551 (Middle East, America)"

Official Web Site
There appears to be only one page on http://www.permanentpeace.org that metnions TM-Sidhi. What is the connection between TM-Sidhi and the website, and why is that one page labelled as the official website of TM-Sidhi? The site appears to be no more about TM-Sidhi than about TM.  Will Beback   talk    05:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean we should remove it, just give it a better name.   Will Beback    talk    07:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine Will, good job.--Kbob (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Technique
This material was just removed: Why? It's the only explanation we have for what the subject of the article, and it's one of the few 3rd-party sources. We should have more material like this, not less.  Will Beback   talk    03:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The TM-Sidhi technique has been described as consisting of a 2-hour long sequence performed twice daily, consisting of Transcedental Meditation, breathing, mental repetition of sutras in 15-second intervals, Yogic Flying and reading from Hindu scriptures. 


 * The section I removed is synthesis and violates WP:Synthesis. I did add a paraphrased version of the section that comes closest to the material I removed, but it was deleted. (olive (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry about the delay in posting after the deletion... called away from the computer and then an edit conflict.(olive (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
 * In a brief glance at the Langone book, it appears to contain additional information about the technique, and the circumstances of its teaching. And even a little on the history of the technique, which would help to balance the one-source history that is currently under discussion. I'll read it more carefully and add some material from it.   Will Beback    talk    04:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The assertion that this is "synthesis" is absolutely wrong. I will assume good faith, and simply assume that you don't understand the concept of sythesis. ReadWP:SYN Synthesis is the combination of two separate sources to reach a conclusion that neither source reaches. This simple and straightforward description of the TM Sidhi technique is relabily sourced to a single sources and is precisely how the author describes the technique. I've put it back in. And I've also taken out the weasel-worded phrase "has been described by".  I am quite disheartened to see this pattern of editing returning.Fladrif (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for assuming good faith Fladrif. I am traveling and got caught making the deletion without enough time to readd and explain the paraphrase of the text I had added earlier in the day.


 * Synthesis can can occur anywhere, and is content that comes from separate sources or from within a single source when content is combined or connected that the source itself does not combine or connect.


 * "Structure and content of the course" = specific context


 * 1.)"TM-Sidhis flying technique...He whispered then phrase and told us to repeat it in 15 second intervals"


 * Then later the source says:


 * 2.)"We were required to assemble twice a day to practice this two hour program of mediating, breathing flying ...."


 * The source never applies the 15 second interval to all of the techniques or sutras he references ... nor is it ever said that this is the technique that is used once the teaching situation is over... the source says this is what is used during the course.


 * "The TM-Sidhi technique consists of a 2-hour long sequence performed twice daily, consisting of Transcendental Meditation, breathing, mental repetition of sutras in 15-second intervals, Yogic Flying and reading from Hindu scriptures."


 * The above quote is synthesized content, and because we are assuming the connections the ensuing content must violate WP:V because of course it can't be sourced. The way in which I suggested getting around this problem was to either directly quote from the source or slightly paraphrase the section that had the most information.


 * Using "is described as" is not weasel wording since what it does is attributes the information directly to the source referenced. This is especially important since the information we are adding is not correct, so its quite critical for the reader to know that the content is as per a source, but may not be the official or accurate information on the technique.


 * I would suggest a non synthesized version of the information, something like:
 * The TM technique has been described as, "this two hour program of mediation, breathing, flying, and reading Hindu scriptures"


 * If any readings are done they are Vedic not Hindu so a simple "Vedic Literature" or "scripture" would be most accurate if we were to use a paraphrased version ... but that's a subtle point I am not overly concerned about.(olive (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC))


 * No, this is not synthesis; I reject your alternative wording. The author was quite clear and explicit and everything I stated was verified by a single reliable source without any synthesis whatsoever. And, your proposed change of "Hindu Scripture" to "Vedic Literature" or "scripture" that you propose is clearly original research, and directly contradicts the source, which specifically says it involves reading from "Hindu scripture" - not Vedic literature, not scripture, "Hindu scripture".  The "described as" statement is absolutely weasel-worded, just as the "newspapers report" is. No other articles in all of Wikipedia do what you are proposing. If a reliable source says "X is a fact" the article should read "X is a fact" with an inline cite. It should not preface every single sentence with the qualification "Y sources says/reports/describes X is a fact" Not only does it clutter up the article, it inserts what you admit is a non-neutral POV to the editing that "maybe we shouldn't trust Y source". If you have another, so-called "official" source describing the party line on the technique, then add a sentence on it and cite the source. I'm guessing there aren't going to be any published "official" documents on the technique, because otherwise how would the TM Org charge thousands of dollars for it?  Absent that, in the immortal words of Michael O'Donoghue, "Don't **** with my copy." Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not propose a change, I mentioned the information on Hindu was inaccurate, and that in a paraphrased version it could be left as scripture or Vedic Literature. I said it wasn't a concern, but where I interested in including it would find and include a source. My comment was not meant to be attempt to include the material, but an aside. Sorry that was misunderstood.
 * You are synthesizing information from two parts of one source. The conculusion drawn by that synthsising cannot be verified and so violates WP:V. I am quoting directly from the source. Why is that not acceptable?
 * No. "described as" points to the source. Why is that a concern? This information is from a specific source why deny that? "Not trust the source"or my POV doesn't enter into it. Believe me, you don't know my POV. We have one source describing not the teaching as it is practiced, but as one individual describes several aspects of the learning of tat technique while on a course.
 * You probably misunderstand Wikipedia if you think this belongs to you in any way.
 * Fladrif. I can't accept your version because it violates Wikipedia policy. How can we compromise on this?(olive (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC))
 * My version does not violate any Wikipedia policy. In terms of compromise, I doubt that we can agree, but I'll be willing to abide by what WillBeback thinks about this question.  (I was just kidding about the Donoghue quote, but there's a certain irony in a MUM faculty editor complaining about someone asserting ownership over one of these articles.) Have a nice 4th of July.Fladrif (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy Fourth of July to you too.(olive (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes, a compromise would be a good idea. Does anyone have a suggested compromised version to submit for consideration? For now, I would like to remove the newly added sentences until we can develop an accurate and compromised version. Please see my further comments below. I look forward to working together to accomplish this. Peace! :-) --Kbob (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have issues with all of the versions that have been proposed so far and hope the new proposed version will: “We students were given academic credit for this. We were required to assemble twice a day to practice this two-hour program of meditation, breathing, flying and reading of Hindu scriptures.”
 * Stay on Topic--This article is about the TM-Sidhi program. The owners of the TM-Sidhi trademark and/or providers of the program describe their program as a series of mental techniques which include Yogic Flying. This is corroborated in many second and third party sources.  It is also clear that Transcendental Meditation is practiced before the TM-Sidhi program and is something distinct and different than the TM-Sidhi program itself.   Like wise breathing exercises or yoga postures or scripture reading etc. are also not the TM-Sidhi program and should not be included in a description of the TM-Sidhi program. For example on page 134 the author says:
 * Here the author clearly distinguishes the various types of activities he practiced during this two-hour period and at no time does he mention the TM-Sidhi program so it is inaccurate to claim that the TM-Sidhi is two-hours long. He also states on page 130 that he practiced yoga postures and breathing exercises as part of a Transcendental Meditation weekend course that he took a few years before he learned the TM-Sidhi program. This serves to further distinguish these activities as separate and distinct from the TM-Sidhis.


 * Summarize Accurately--When I look at the page133 of the source document (the book: Recovery From Cults) I see that the author of the cited chapter says when he learned the portion of the TM-Sidhi program associated with Yogic Flying he was given a phrase and told to “repeat it in 15 second intervals”. The author does not specify what happened when he learned the remainder of the TM-Sidhi program so we cannot generalize based on this isolated report that the entire TM-Sidhi program consists of repeating phrases every 15 seconds.
 * Use Reliable Sources--Although the source book: ‘Recovery From Cults’, is a second party source, it should be noted that the book is a compilation of first party testimonials. The references being considered above are therefore  personal opinion.  This is emphasized by the chapter title “Personal Account: Eastern Meditation Group” which contains all of the pages cited above. Furthermore, the author of this personal account, Mr. Patrick Ryan, declares in his testimonial that he was a plaintiff in litigation against the TM-Sidhi program. The author states: “My lawsuit…..  I chose to confront the TM movement’s deception, negligence and fraud in a court of law.”  So the author’s testimonial which has been cited as a source for this article is highly personal and highly biased.  I think there are better sources for us to use.--Kbob (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you propose getting rid of all first-party sources written by people with direct experience with TM-Sidhi, or connections to the movement? Being an employee of the movement seems like a similar comnflcit of interest to being an litigant against the movement.
 * Also, the author indicates that his lawsuit was against MIU, now called Maharishi University of Management, presumably because they teach the practice (at least in the U.S.). Is that correct? We don't ever say in the article who teaches it.    Will Beback    talk    01:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's stick with the topic at hand. We have a former MIU student giving a first person opinion about his experience at MUM. This is an inappropriate source regardless of whether the point of view of the student is positive or negative. That is why we currently do not have such sources in this article or the MUM article.--Kbob (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not an inappropriate source. There is an intervening editor of the book, as well as a independent publisher, which makes this a reliable secondary source, . Moreover, even if it was regarded as a primary source, it is not being used for interpretation, but as a description of the technique. The argument that these TM-related articles do not rely on primary sources is laughable, given the mountain of self-published promotional material from the TM org is being used here.  I cannot continue to maintain the fiction in my head that the MUM faculty edits here are being made in good faith. The argument being made for deletion of this information is strained at best, and that is the most charitable assessment I can muster. Fladrif (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Further examination WP:Synthesis technique section
Note:Kbob and I posting at the same time

Content presently in place:

"The TM-Sidhi technique consists of a 2-hour long sequence performed twice daily, consisting of Transcendental Meditation, breathing, mental repetition of sutras in 15-second intervals, Yogic Flying and reading from Hindu scriptures.[5]"

What the source says

"TM-Sidhis flying technique...He whispered the phrase and told us to repeat it in 15 second intervals"

Then later the source says:

"We were required to assemble twice a day to practice this two hour program of mediating, breathing flying, and readings...."

The context is clearly stated in the source... this is a three month course for students at MIU...This is an account of what happened during this specific course.


 * No where does this source say this is the technique used in general after the technique is taught. The words in our text,"The TM-Sidhi technique consists of..." imply this is the standard technique being used. Making the jump in logic from this is what is taught on this course, to, this is what the technique is, especially after all of these years is synthesizing information and becoames original research.


 * No where in the text does it say the 15 second intervals used in the flying technique as the source says here, "He whispered the phrase and told us to repeat it in 15 second intervals," are used anywhere else in the program. Again, our text, "mental repetition of sutras in 15 second intervals" is another jump and is again synthesis and OR.


 * Finally, this is a specific and personal account of one MIU student. We cannot take this account and apply it as an over arching statement about the technique. We must attribute the account to the source in the text or again its OR.(olive (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC))


 * I don't see any problem with writing somehting like, "One former student wrote that his training for TM-Sidhi included..." That covers the attribution and the quesiton of whether the training is the same as the technique.   Will Beback    talk    23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with Will's suggestion here. Why not say: "One former Maharishi International University (now Maharishi University of Managament) student wrote that his training in the TM-Sidhi technique included..."Fladrif (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Olive's argument is absolute nonsense, and is just throwing around words from Wiki editing standards without any rational basis or apparent understanding of what those editing standards are. Synthesis involves synthesizing two separate sources to reach a conclusion that neither reaches. Original research involves inserting unsourced material. This is neither. We have a single source, and we are not talkinga about conclusions, we are talking about what is really a basic piece of reportage, not opinion at all.  And, it is not original research, it is reliably sourced.  The only orignial research going on here is the the claims by the MUM faculty that the description isn't accurate. And, the argument that one student's account of what the technique entails and how it was taught at MUM can't be used to describe what the technique entails flies in the face of TM's central claim to the "science" of its various techniques - that the organization claims to assure absolute conformity and consistency in the manner in which its techniques are taught. Fladrif (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Being more specific on the source does not validate it as a source. If it did we would have the personal accounts of many MUM students who speak positively of the TM-Sidhi program. It's just not an appropriate source.--Kbob (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It is a perfectly reliable source. And, consider what the book is being used for here: a plain vanilla description of what the TM-Sidhi technique consists of. If you've got another indpendently edited and published account of what the TM-Sidhi technique consists of, at a comparable level of detail, let's see it. Fladrif (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Technique section-deletion
Fladrif. Kbob makes a critical point, that I somehow missed. The sequence of meditating breathing flying is in fact not about the technique itself but is auxiliary to the actual technique. The source never says the sequence is the actual technique but says, "to practice this program of meditation breathing ....." Extrapolating from this information that this is the TM Sidhi technique itself is another case of OR. Because of this, my version is actually not acceptable either, since it also incorrectly describes this sequence under the heading, "technique". What is needed is a source that specifically describes the technique, and then possibly using the source we have in place now as a specific experience /opinion of someone who was on a course learning the technique. I prefer not to revert you, but the lines should come out until a better option is found. I am traveling so my time on a computer isn't consistent, but I'll see if I can find some sources.(olive (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Aside from the fact that the post in question is inaccurate and is a synthesis of different statements, contexts and ideas found on different pages of the source document. The source itself does not meet Wiki guidelines:

From WP:RELIABILITY From WP:V
 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors."
 * "An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention."
 * "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." --Kbob (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Which source are you referring to? Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse, by Michael Langone? If so that seems like a reasonably reliable and mainstream book.   Will Beback    talk    01:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question Will. I am referring to the chapter within the book Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse, by Michael Langone entitled “Personal Account: Eastern Meditation Group” and which is the only chapter in the entire book that mentions the TM-Sidhi program and which was written by Patrick Ryan. --Kbob (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This source seems to be a topic in more than one thread. See above. Let's pick a thread and discuss it there.    Will Beback    talk    03:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing questionable about this source. Yes, the author is critical of the TM organization. If having a point of view disqualifies a source, then we'd better start by deleting every bit of self-published information from the dizzying array of pro-TM sites used as sources in these articles, as well as all of the TM-sponsored "research". But, setting aside the "bias" question, this source is being used for a pretty plain vanilla description of what the TM-Sidhi technique consists of, it is not being used for any of the author's opinions about it.  It is completely inappropriate, and the grossest violation of the "No original research" rule, for the pro-TM editors here to be carping that they disagree with the description of the technique that the author supplies, to advance entirely spurious "synthesis" arguments, and to engage in this passive-aggressive "delete it until we reach consensus" pattern that has plagued the TM articles for years.  If you think that the description of the techinique is inaccurate, that's frankly too bad.  Verifiability, not truth, is the standard here. It is a reliable source and the information is verifiable under Wiki policy. Frankly, there are plenty of other websites which, though they may not qualify as reliable sources for a Wikipedia article, confirm the description as accurate.  As I said above, if you don't like the author's description, then find a different, reliable, secondary source that supports your point of view, and then add that information as well. But, as I also said above, I seriously doubt that you'll find one (i) because the description is in fact accurate and (ii) because the TM org isn't going to publish this information lest it jeopardize selling the course for thousands of dollars.  I have tried to assume good faith in these edits, but frankly the comments on the talk page on this subject convince me that that assumption is giving credit where none is due.  Fladrif (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Fladrif, thanks for adding our comments to the discussion. When a source is valid and accurately represented in an article I support it. Your recent addition to the TM article regarding the distinct change in TM enrollment is one example. There has been no dispute over that addition because it meets Wiki guidelines. However, when an editor synthesizes information from an unreliable and biased source then I object and that is the case here. Olive and I have clearly outlined exactly how the addition to the TM-Sidhi article being discussed here violates Wiki policy and is therefore not acceptable. Since you prefer to make accusations about the editors rather than discuss the details of the Wiki policies that apply to this content I have no choice but to revert a second time, so that the article is in compliance with Wiki policies as specified in the discussions above. If and when reliable sources are foundwe can add appropriate content on this point. --Kbob (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you're ignoring my substantive response to the arguments advanced by you and olive that (i) the book constitutes a reliable source under WP:RS; (ii) claims of bias are irrelevant; (iii) your claims that the source is inaccurate are not backed up by anything other than your personal opinions, which is the epitome of original research, and are belied by (a) other sources which confirm the source's description of TM-Sidhi technique and (b) your inability or unwillingness to cite another source which differs in any way from the source description (iv) there is no synthesis whatsoever, as that term is defined in WP:Synthesis, in the summary of the source material which I have provided and (v) there is no valid claim of WP:OR with respect to this material. Finally, you do indeed have a choice - you can refrain from engaging in a childish edit war and actually abide by the Wikipedia policies that you claim to be following and stop deleting reliably-sourced material about the TM Organization that you simply don't want disclosed.Fladrif (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif, I appreciate your response and thanks for pointing out your posts in the threads above. I apologize, I did not see them. I think for clarity of discussion its best if we continue here. My point is that the copy I reverted was an improper synthesis of information from different pages of the source document, taken out of context and combined to form a synthesized and inaccurate conclusion in violation of WP:Synthesis and WP:OR. Although OR usually refers to combining two different sources, we have to also use our common sense and realize that it is also not appropriate to create a POV by combining information from different pages of a single source. Here is what I mean: “We students were given academic credit for this. We were required to assemble twice a day to practice this two-hour program of meditation, breathing, flying and reading of Hindu scriptures.”
 * On page133 the author, Patrick Ryan, says when he learned the portion of the TM-Sidhi program associated with Yogic Flying he was given a phrase and told to “repeat it in 15 second intervals”. Ryan does not specify what happened when he learned the remainder of the TM-Sidhi program so we cannot generalize based on this isolated report that the entire TM-Sidhi program consists of repeating phrases every 15 seconds.
 * Transcendental Meditation is a separate mental technique from the TM-Sidhi program and is something distinct and different and is a separate Wiki article. Like wise breathing exercises or yoga postures or scripture reading etc. are also not the TM-Sidhi program. For example on page 134 Ryan says:
 * At no time does Ryan mention the TM-Sidhi program in the above sentence. Furthermore, the author clearly distinguishes the various types of activities he practiced during this two-hour period, which appears to be part of college course for which he received academic credit. Ryan also states on page 130 that he practiced yoga postures and breathing exercises as part of a Transcendental Meditation weekend course that he took a few years before he learned the TM-Sidhi program. Both of these points clearly distinguish meditation, breathing and reading of Hindu scriptures as different from the TM-Sidhis program.

WP:RELIABILITY "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors." "An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention." From WP:V "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." These policies are violated because the source, Ryan, is a fringe, first party opinion by an unreliable author. This is obvious because:
 * In addition the source violates these Wiki policies:
 * The chapter of the book that was written by Ryan, is entitled title “Personal Account: Eastern Meditation Group” which contains all of the pages cited above.
 * Ryan, declares in his opinion piece that he was a plaintiff in litigation against MIU after the University refused to give him a refund for his tuition in the TM-Sidhi course which took while he was a student at the university (now called MUM). Ryan states: “My lawsuit….. I chose to confront the TM movement’s deception, negligence and fraud in a court of law.” This strong bias makes Ryan an unreliable author. In addition Ryan’s testimonial is a fringe source that is not prominent enough to mention and is unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims.--Kbob (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These are not valid arguments. This is not sythesis whatsoever.  Wikipedia is quite explicit that synthesis involves taking two, separate sources, and using them to develop a conclusion that neither source makes.  This does not involve two separate sources, it is a single source.  It is not even two separate places in a single source, as it summarizes a single discussion that the chapter makes over the course of a couple of pages.  Nor does in involve developing a conclusion that the author does not make.  It is a simple description of the TM-Sidhi technique as taught to the author at MIU, and the summary does not involve an opinion or conclusion about the technique whatsoever - is is merely descriptive. The argument that various things described by the author aren't part of the TM-Sidhi program is interesting, but irrelevant. That's what the author says was taught to him as the program and how he was told to practice the technique. No one has cited a single source, reliable or otherwise that contradicts him in any way.  Indeed, I could cite numerous other sources, that because they are self-published, cant be used in the article, but which corroborate 100% his description, including some of the things you specifically object to as inaccurate - two-hour long sessions twice daily, starting with TM, postures, repeating sutras in 15-second intervals, use of breathing techniques, "Yogic flying" and concluding every session with readings from Hindu scriptures.  It just doesn't wash for you and olive to claim it isn't accurate when you cite nothing but your own opinion and presumably personal experiance. Verifiabilty from reliable sources. That's the key.  You don't have it. The source is absolutely reliable.  It is absolutely irrelevant that the author of the chapter is a TM skeptic or that he sued MUM. Having a POV does not render a source unreliable. While it is a first person account, this is not a primary source, because (i) there is an intervening, uninvolved editor, and (ii) there is an independent, well-regarded publisher.  That makes it a secondary source. Even if it was a primary source, the information in the chapter is purely descriptive, which is proper use of a primary source. And, I'm sorry if this sounds like a personal attack or an affront to your beliefs, but being skeptical TM-Sidhi, is not a "fringe" position - it is absolutely the mainstream assessment of the program, its practices and its "science"; the real fringe is its advocates.  As I have said at least half a dozen times now. This is reliably sourced, verifiable information that involves neither sythesis nor original research.  If you are unhappy with what the source says, your recourse is to find another source to support what you are happy with, and propose an addition to the article as a counterpoint to the information I have included, with proper citation.  You do not get to simply delete the material I've added. Fladrif (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that regardless of how everyone feels about the source, reliable or not, it needs to be quoted accurately. If I understand, Kbob's and Olive's objection is that this writing is being used to describe the TM-Sidhi technique in a way that does not accurately reflect the text itself. Since Ryan uses the 15-second interval instruction for yogic flying, that’s what the source should be used for. For the remainder, new sources should be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Warmwater101 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Source evaluation: Recovery from Cults
This discussion is impossible to follow because it's split among several thread and different issues are being discused without resolving any of them. So to proceed in a more logical fashion I suggest that we put aside the issue of how to summarize the source and address first the question of whether the source is reliable for this article. As I understand it, the book is edited by an academic who is the Executive Director of International Cultic Studies Association, and it is published by a mainstream publisher, Norton. The chapter in question is described as a first person account and covers details TM-Sidhi training. It was written by Patrick Ryan, who is described as a "thought reform consultant" and ex-TM member, and is also asscoiated with ICSA. My initial impression is that since both ICSA and the book itself are reasonably prominent commentators on the topic, Ryan and Langone would appear to have a significant viewpoint on the topic and so NPOV would require that, at a minimum, we include that view. As partisans with a clear bias, they might be used for neutral assertions with care, and when they are clearly giving an opinion it should be fully attributed. That is the same way we should treat sources who are associated with the MUM, the entity that conducts TM-Sidhi training. Is that a reasonable way to proceed?  Will Beback   talk    23:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Woonpton (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is no rational or legitimate basis to claim that this is not a reliable source. Your analysis is spot on. As for the use of the source, the information I have proposed we use in the article is not opinion, it is a narrative description of what is involved in learning and practicing the TM-Sidhi technique. So, let's get this spurious claim that this isn't a reliable source behind us and move on. Fladrif (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * An editor always has every right to question a source, and Kbob in fact has every reason to question this source. It is a personal account and opinion, and is insignificant in relation to mainstream sources on the topic. I actually haven't been able to find much. Since there are 100,000 people practicing the technique this single account seems somewhat less than noteworthy. However, the source is reliable in terms of publication, comments on Ryan and his  lawsuit were published in a mainstream newspaper, the Washington Post, so I think the source has some significance for those reasons.


 * I would agree to using the source under the following conditions:


 * That WP:NOR be scrupulously maintained. The policy clearly states the source must directly "support the information as it is presented", and "even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research."
 * verifiability supersedes truth, but Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing inaccuracies. NPOV provides the safeguards for that concern. We maintain neutrality by clearly attributing content that is personal account or opinion to the source, and by presenting alternate views.
 * for clarification:
 * MUM is not the entity that teaches the TM-Sidhi technique although Ryan's lawsuit was against MIU, possibly because he was registered as a student. The technique is taught by a very few, highly trained teachers. MUM's facilities as a university are used to teach the course. There are a few other facilities in North American and around the world where courses are taught.
 * We need to keep in mind that the TM-Sidhi technique needs to be defined, if there is to be accuracy, and can be defined, by the entity that holds the trademark and understanding of what the technique is, as per WP:SELFPUB.(olive (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
 * This is an important point that we never explain in the article: who teaches TM-Sidhi? If I were to pay the tuition, to whom would I write the check?   Will Beback    talk    20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started a separate thread below, .   Will Beback    talk    03:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Good posts from Will, Luke, Fladrif and Olive. I would also allow the source as long as: 1. (Excerpt from Will's post) As partisans with a clear bias, they might be used for neutral assertions with care, and when they are clearly giving an opinion it should be fully attributed. 2. (Excerpt from Olive's post) That WP:NOR be scrupulously maintained. The policy clearly states the source must directly "support the information as it is presented", and "even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research."--Kbob (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. It looks like the editors here agree that it is a usable source. All sources that have biases (including those by MUM personnel) need to be treated carefully and their views attributed. NOR shold be avoided, regaredless of which source is involved. So long as we follow these general Wikipedia principles we should be safe.   Will Beback    talk    20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It has taken me a while to catch up with the protracted conversation on whether or not to include the deswcription of the TM-Sidhi from the "recovery from Cults" book. I feel that you have all come to a fair conclusion that the source can be used with care.  Even though the book may prove to be a relaible source, I agree with the analysis that what Ryan describes as the TM-Sidhi technique may not be conclusive.  By taking several sentences and putting them togethere to make a definitie pronouncement seems to be stretching the boundaries of WP:Synthesis -- Bigweeboy (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree also. But I am also convinced by Olive's argument that the "TM-Sidhi technique needs to be defined, if there is to be accuracy, and can be defined, by the entity that holds the trademark and understanding of what the technique is, as per WP:SELFPUB". Therefore, if we decide to include some of Ryan's words as recounted in the source we discussed, I recommend we make sure we include the definition determined by whomever holds the trademark.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are basic issues about this topic that still aren't covered. So far, this is the only source that I've seen which covers some of those basics (I'll admit to not being particularly knowledgeable and have't fone any research beyond reading some of the listed sources). If more sources can be found, we may give those viewpoints as well. "According to X,..., while according to Y,..."   Will Beback    talk    03:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Maharishi Vedic Education Development
There've been various discussions about who "owns" TM-Sidhi and who conducts the training. The "Maharishi Vedic Education Development" is listed as being a copyright holder. Do they have a website? Do they conduct the training? Have they published books?  Will Beback   talk    03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that MVED owns the trademark rights (not copyright) to the phrase "TM-Sidhi". Also I believe MVED is the official organization responsible for administering TM and related courses and services including the TM-Sidhi program and it appears that they sponsor the web sites that correspond to these programs. Copy from the TM.org web site says: "The Transcendental Meditation technique is taught through a nonprofit, tax-exempt educational organization" MVED of course also owns the copyrights to the content on its web sites. See these links for details: [](see bottom of web page) [] Books on TM etc. seem to be written by independent authors not by MVED. Interestingly when I do a search for MVED on Google I come up with Mothers and Parents Via Egg Donation (MVED):-) So there is no "Maharishi Vedic Education Development" website that I can find.--Kbob (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, current holder of the servicemark (it is a servicemark, not a trademark) for Transcendantal Meditation and for TM-Sidhi is The Maharishi Foundation Ltd, a UK organization with offices in the Jersey Islands,, having been assigned the trademark by the original holder, the World Plan Executive Council, a California corporation.  As an aside, and in contrast to the insertion in the article on the meaning of "Sidhi" the trademark application claimed:


 * "THE WORD "SIDHI" IN APPLICANT'S MARK IS AN INDIAN WORD WHICH HAS NO PRECISE TRANSLATION BUT GENERALLY IDENTIFIES CERTAIN SUPERNATURAL HUMAN POWERS, SUCH AS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST AND FUTURE, FULLY DEVELOPED INTUITION, CONTROL OVER HUNGER AND THIRST, AND MASTERY OVER THE FORCES OF NATURE."


 * The holder of the trademarks is not necessarily going to be the answer to the question, however. The TM Organization has a dizzying array of corporate entities, and it licenses the servicemarks to other entities in the TM Org for various purposes. Apparently, according to the legal notices at the bottom of the various TM-related websites, Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation (a California corporation) is a licensee or sublicensee of these servicemarks. So, what entity or entities actually are responsible for the teaching of TM or TM-Sidhi is going to be something very difficult to pin down, and the answer is likely to change over time. Fladrif (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone can answer this question, or if it'd appear in any website or reliable source, but if I were to take TM-Sidhi instruction to whom would I apply? To whom would I pay the tuition? Trademarks aside, who actually runs TM-Sidhi in the real world?  Will Beback   talk    17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein, we have this paragraph: But it's unsourced. How do we know that there are these facilities?  Will Beback   talk    18:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Major facilities for the group practice of the TM-Sidhi program, including Yogic Flying, are located at the Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa, at Maharish Vedic School in Antrim, New Hampshire, and at Maharishi European Sidhaland in Skelmersdale, U.K.


 * I have no problem with removing this.(olive (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC))


 * I have no idea who one pays a check to, and is off topic I would say. We do need to finish with a couple of other more critical issues/topics one being the technique section.(olive (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC))
 * No offense, but you're the one who asserted in the discussion above:
 * "MUM is not the entity that teaches the TM-Sidhi technique although Ryan's lawsuit was against MIU, possibly because he was registered as a student. The technique is taught by a very few, highly trained teachers. MUM's facilities as a university are used to teach the course. There are a few other facilities in North American and around the world where courses are taught."
 * I am certain that the only reason Will is raising the question here is because of your claim.Fladrif (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to get back to what we need or don't need in the article. We've allowed some important topics to take a back seat.(olive (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Sometimes its good to remind ourselves I find, if we drift off, as often happens naturally (olive (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC))


 * This isn't purposeless drifting. The thread was started because of a comment by Luke, quoting you. He wrote:
 * But I am also convinced by Olive's argument that the "TM-Sidhi technique needs to be defined, if there is to be accuracy, and can be defined, by the entity that holds the trademark and understanding of what the technique is, as per WP:SELFPUB". 
 * So if we're going to add self-published material we need to figure out who the "self" is. I asked above if the MVED has any website or publications. Apparently there are none in that name. Did you have something in mind when you wrote that?   Will Beback    talk    20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to arguments by Olive and KBob that the description of the TM-Sidhi technique is somehow inaccurate, I've asked five (5) times now that, if there is some other source, official or otherwise, that has a different, detailed description of what the TM-Sidhi technique consists of, let's see it. So far, crickets. I've looked, and looked hard, for other sources on this. The only sources I can find are self-published or unattributed descriptions on blogs or web sites that are entirely consistent with the description of the technique that is in the article now.  The TM Org has not published, and is not going to publish, an accurate and detailed description of what the TM-Sidhi technique consists of, because it charges $5,000 to learn the technique and swears everyone who learns it and everyone who teaches it to secrecy. Fladrif (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Olive is working on something. At least that's what she said earlier. Let's give her a chance to respond before we fall asleep listening to the crickets. :-) --Kbob (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? Olive's busy getting something cobbled togetherto be posted on a TM-Org or MUM website that we're supposed to then accept as a source for this article? Fladrif (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL...nice one Fladrif....What a fertile imagination you have. As I said earlier, I was going to try and find and put together some information on technique, to see if I could find other sources as was discussed.I am traveling and my internet connection after that will be a hit and miss affair so it could take a bit of time.(olive (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC))
 * No hurry.   Will Beback    talk    04:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If MUM is the institution that teaches TM-Sidhi then it's perfectly logical to use their webpages as self-published sources. But if they aren't then I'm not sure why we would. FWIW, I've taken a look at the sources used in the article and I count 17 that are either TM or MUM websites or are written by MUM staff. That's another reason to clarify the relationship.    Will Beback    talk    21:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I found this webpage which describes the specifics of the course: Apparently one learns TM-Sidhi through a " Center Invincibility Course".    Will Beback    talk    23:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Each source should be considered individually, and as it comes up in the article. No where on Wikipedia do we make blanket statements about sources.(olive (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes. What is that in reference to?   Will Beback    talk    04:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

tra

Tags
The tags added in the last few days have been added without foundation. This article is not untended and is under close scrutiny and any sources that are seen by the editors here as being weak can be adjusted and changed. In other words please specify the source that is a concern rather than add tags to the article.

As well, Fladrif, since you have repeatedly not assumed good faith with me and accused me of some rather interesting COI, please feel free to take me to the COI Notice Board rather than clutter up the article with needless tags. (olive (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC))


 * If things go well then tags can be processed quickly. There are still questions from days ago about sources regarding MVED, so there is a list. Tags themselves, if kept within reason, aren't harmful. Fighting over them is.   Will Beback    talk    19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Within reason.(24.202.187.115 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry olive above... didn't log in.. and can't log in at the moment.(24.202.187.115 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a list of the topics under discussion, and the questions that need answers. Then we could deal with things systematically.(olive (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Since I'm still fairly new to Wiki, can someone briefly explain "Tags" and why there is a concern here? Thanks,  Bigweeboy (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:AFTAGS and the banner at the top of this article.--Kbob (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that page uses a new definition of "tags", which are now automatic edit summaries added when certain edit filters are triggered. The term has traditionally been used interchangeably with "cleanup templates", as in "POV tag" for . I guess we'll have to update our vocabulary.    Will Beback    talk    21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Tags" are templates that mark articles, sections, or sentences that need some kind of attention. Here's a page of them: Template messages/Cleanup. A commonly used one is, which marks a sentence as needing a source. The use of tags can be controversial when one editor thinks there's a problem and another editor doesn't.   Will Beback    talk    19:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Will. That helps Bigweeboy (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confused about the last two tags. On what grounds is it being stated that someone has a COI? Also, I was under the understanding that editors were reaching consensus on the sources used. Applying a tag about this seems surprising under these circumstances. Can someone please clarify? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to Remove sentence
Is this sentence really relevant to this article on the TM Sidhi program? I suggest it be removed
 * As a result of this study, John Hagelin received the 1994 Ig Nobel Prize in peace, a parody of the Nobel Prize. -- — Kbob •  Talk  • 20:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just mover this section above the references so it does not get missed. --BwB (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the study is relevant, then significant opinions about the study are probably relevant too. If the study had received the Nobel Prize, would there be any question of its relevance? Due to the Ig Nobel award, the study probably received more attention than it otherwise would have, indicating that it is a significant point of view.   Will Beback    talk    19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no prize is relevant to the research. Research is not dependent on any prize. However, if someone wants to argue that the prize is relevant to the person who did the research different story and different argument.(olive (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Prizes are a form of commentary on the subjects for which they are awarded. If a reporter conducts an investigation and receives a Pulitzer, then that validates the reporting even though the reporting was not related to the prize or dependent on it.   Will Beback    talk    21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. We are saying the same thing in different words and possibly with different extrapolations.(olive (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Just as winning a Razzie is relevant to the quality of one's acting, writing or directing in a particular film. Fladrif (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus here for removing this sentence and believe it should be reinstated. The IgNobel prize, like the Nobel prize, is awarded for a specific contribution in science. It is awarded to the person doing the research, since a body of research can't accept an award, and because one wants to honor the person who did the research, but the award is for the research, not for the person.  The Nobel prize is awarded for a specific piece of outstanding, exemplary, research that moves science forward; the IgNobel prize is awarded for research that's exemplary in that it is an outstanding example of really bad research.  I can see why some here would not want to call attention to this study's receiving this prize, but it is important information for the reader, to know how this research is regarded by scientists. Woonpton (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Woon, I have reverted my edit pending further discussion.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 17:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Requirements for TM-Sidhi
In the lede section we have the sentence "...the TM-Sidhi program may be learned after a minimum of two months' practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique.." I understand that the requirements to learn the TM-Sidhi have changed recently. However, this is not reflected in the web site that is cited in the reference. Does anyone have a source for the new requirements? --BwB (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the requirements from the lede. The information is too detailed for the lede and has a bit of a promotional quality to it in my opinion and has no value for the casual reader.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 01:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. --BwB (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Something Missing?
It seems something is missing from this sentence: "In 1975, when the host of The Merv Griffin (TV) Show asked Maharishi Mahesh Yogi how many of the 40,000 TM-Sidhi students he taught to levitate, he answered: "Thousands." " If 40,000 TM-Sidhi students took training in the TM-Sidhis, then all of them would have received instruction in Yogic Flying. Am I missing something here? --BwB (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this was added to show that although Maharsighi had said he'd taught thousands to levitate no one was actually levitating... I believe there's an implied criticism here.(olive (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

So you want to leave it in? --BwB (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would we take it out?   Will Beback    talk    23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The missing part is that it's a non sequitur... and doesn't connect to anything before in the section except except by implication. That's not good writing, but at the same time unless we can find something else that shows that there was controversy surrounding the Yogic flying .... for now it should probably remain.(olive (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Agree that it is not good writing. Maybe we can rewrite the sentence to give context. --BwB (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem and I'd object to deleting it. The Merv Griffin Show appearance was a significant event.   Will Beback    talk    04:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Randi gives an incorrect date. The show apparently ran in 1979 rather than 1978. I'm removing the date altogether for now. I'd like to see if I can find a copy of the complete show to check Randi's information. Verifiability is one thing, but total inaccuracy is another. Part of the 1979 program. (olive (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC))
 * It appears that Maharaishi may have made more than one appearance. According to whom was it in 1979?    Will Beback    talk    20:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was looking at this, but the actual show title on the video clip says 1977. He did make two appearances from what I can see, the first was on the TM technique, 1975 , the second on the TM Sidhi program,1977. As I understand, the TM Sidhi program had not been introduced until after 1975. At any rate Randi says the date is 1978, and that's incorrect. The best solution short of deleting the whole thing is for now, to leave out the date. I think the sentence deserves some further scrutiny since in looking at some of the video clips I'd say the comment Maharishi makes is taken out of context. (olive (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I believe that "show title" was added later, but there's no reason to believe it's wrong. We should either omit the year, or attribute it to Randi. The video itself is a primary source and we should be careful about its use. It's better, despite the minor error, to use secondary sources such as Randi.   Will Beback    talk    21:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After listening to the entire clip, I'm not sure it's even the same interview. I think we should attribute the material to Randi and otherwise leave it as it is.   Will Beback    talk   


 * I think we can, for now, attribute the content in the article to Randi and exclude the date. Including  inaccurate  information and  in this case an inaccurate date doesn't make sense in terms of writing and encyclopedia, and is quite  different than sourcing information that is based on the  opinion or research of a source and which can be countered, placed in context, and so on. We should strive for accuracy (not the same as truth). (olive (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

When you do a search on You Tube for this clip, it is not found when you put 1979 as dat, but is found for 1977. --BwB (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes the 1977 date is correct I would say. The issue is that Randi, the source, uses the wrong date so we should n't deliberately use his date since we then deliberately create inaccurate material. We can attribute the comment to Randi without including the mistake.(olive (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC))


 * How do we know the correct date? If we have a more reliable source than Randi, then we should add it. But a Youtube video with added title cards isn't it. I've reworded the text to more closely reflect what's in the source, and attributed it to Randi.   Will Beback    talk    23:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since its acceptable to use a site to supply information when the information is on the topic of an article, (self-define), I would think that the better source in this instance would be TM. org. This video for  example links back to TM.org and says the date was 1977. The summary on the video also says the date was 1977 and also cites  TM .org.  . The Maharishi Channel says clearly the date was 1977 . (olive (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC))
 * The discussion began with an assertion that the correct date 1979. Another editor changed it to 1976. There's also the assertion that it is 1977. I've changed it to "late 1970s".   Will Beback    talk   

23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't understand. We don't have any source saying late 1970's, but we do have an authoritative source saying it was 1977. There were different dates suggested during the discussion as we tried to arrive at the best sourced date . None of that should supercede a  source that tells us what the date actually was.(olive (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC))
 * "Late 1970s" allows for 1977 or 1978, and is perfectly accurate. The source we're using for the quotation is Randi. The video on Youtube is evidently edited, and doesn't include the quoted text, so I don't see what basis we have for saying that it was uttered in 1977. I came across a source that says the Maharishi appeared on the show a "few times", which could mean three. There may have been both a 1977 and a 1978 appearance. I don't see why this is such a big issue. Is there some significance to whether the interview was in 1977 or 1978?    Will Beback    talk    00:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm arguing for accuracy. We have a a date and are ignoring it in favour of something either more general, or something less accurate, which to me seems unfortunate in terms of an accurate encyclopedia. Not a big deal except in terms of accuracy. I guess we don't agree on what is accurate(olive (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Precision and accuracy often have an inverse relationship. It is very accurate to say that the interview occured during the 20th century, but also very imprecise. "Late 1970s" is more precise, and still accurate if the show aired beteen 1977 and 1979. If we can find an unedited video or transcript of the 1977 appearance that includes the quoted text then that would be different. But since the exchange isn't in the 1977 Youtube video it's not clear to me that they are the same interview.   Will Beback    talk    00:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Maharishi appeared on the Merv show sometime in 1975 and again on Dec 14, 1977. I will amend the article and provide these refs. As for a transcript or recording of the two shows, that's another matter.-- — Kbob •  Talk  • 01:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Park quote
I originally agreed with Will on this, that a quote of this length should be in block quotes. However WP:MOSQUOTE says this:"A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation,…" The quote is three lines long. As well, the issue Kbob is raising is legitimate. The quotation and comments by Park are overly long in relation to the rest of the section. The block quote and length create emphasis to content that is no more significant than any other part the section, and in doing so violate WP:Weight, and WP:POV. I have edited to compress the quote without losing the essence of Park’s position.(olive (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC))
 * The MOS is a bit indistinct since the number of lines a quote will take depends in part on the size of the screen and font. FWIW, it took up four lines on my computer. I don't care about the length of the material so long as the gist is included, which Olive's edit seems to do.    Will Beback    talk    03:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We should also consider why do we need such a long quote? Just having such a long quote on a minor aspect of the subject gives undue weight. To put it in blocks aggravates the situation further. The Wiki guideline WP:QUOTE on quotes encourages editors to summarize instead of quoting. At the same time the guideline recognizes the value of a quote when there is controversy over how the quote should be summarized. For that reason, a short quote is acceptable in this instance but several lines in block format is not.-- — Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Kbob. That section has been rewritten. See if its an improvement(olive (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes the current revision which combines quotes and summary is a good compromise.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also like the new edits. (For what it's worth!) --BwB (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed two minor sections pending discussion and/or citations
I have removed the section pasted below. They have been in the article for many months without citations. And also their relevance and importance to the subject and value to the reader is not clear to me. If other editors feel they are important then we can find citations and add them back into the article.

Major facilities for the group practice of the TM-Sidhi program, including Yogic Flying, are located at the Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa, at Maharish Vedic School in Antrim, New Hampshire, and at Maharishi European Sidhaland in Skelmersdale, U.K.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 23:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Facilities

The Maharishi's future plans included building 3,000 facilities in major cites for group practice of Yogic Flying. His wish was to have 8,000 Yogic Flyers together in one place, whom he believed could create permanent world peace. His plan also called for a group of 1,000 Vedic pandits, all practicing Yogic Flying, to take up residence at Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 23:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Future plans


 * Glad to see the back of them! --BwB (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers as sources for academic topics
I deleted the new sentence using the San Francisco newspaper as a source. From WP:RS: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context." This is an academic topic. It's a study published in a peer-reviewed journal. A passing comment in a newspaper shouldn't be used. TimidGuy (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't an academic topic. It is reporting that the conclusions made from this experiment are not shared outside the TM Movement. That is not something that requires a paper in a scholarly journal.  This is an improper deletion.Fladrif (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Fladrif. The section reports on an experiment conducted in Washington DC and was reported in academic and scientific publications. It is therefore, an academic topic. The insertion from the San Francisco Chronicle is, as Timid Guy pointed out, a passing comment, unhappily placed, as it breaks up the logic of the paragraph and inappropriate in an academic report. Thus, it should be removed. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This sentence from the SF paper is out of context in that section of the article. It has no place in an academic discussion of a published study. I feel it should be removed.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the quotation out of the academic discussion and moved it to the end. While it's not a scholarly source, the study is promoted in non-scholarly settings, so we shouldn't limit ourselves to only those comments about it that appear in journals.   Will Beback    talk    04:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a "good move", Will. I think this placement of the SF report make more sense here. --BwB (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In a nationwide series of news conferences Thursday, a study was presented purporting to show that 4,000 people practicing the Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation last year in Washington, D.C., reduced violent crime throughout the city by 18 percent. It was, according to the study's principal investigator, "the largest sociological experiment in history" and the 42nd consecutive scientific confirmation of the "Maharishi effect" on social harmony. The mass meditators were even given credit for raising President Clinton's popularity during June and July 1993.
 * Meditation touted as crime-fighter // Study presented builds the case for `Maharishi effect'; Conrad deFiebre, Staff Writer. Star Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Oct 7, 1994. pg. 03.B
 * So the proponents of the Maharishi Effect have engaged in an extensive effort to promote the studys in non-scientific venues. Therefore non-scientific views of it are relevant.   Will Beback    talk    04:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that there is a great hodgepodge throughout the article of scientific reports mixed in with opinion pieces from the media, and it is giving the article a jumbled look. It's something we need to work on in the near future. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all these points. Moving the sentence to the end of the section is a good compromise. At the same time we need to separate out the research from the casual news quotes about research as they are not scientific in their nature in contrast to the actual research and published comments by other researchers. In this specific instance I think we may need to add a news quote from another media source like the one Will gives above to balance the SF chronicle comment.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 15:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Numbers for Sources
When citing a book as a source we need to have a page number otherwise the citation is not valid. Could someone please locate page numbers for these refs? If page numbers are not provided then the ref may become invalid and be removed. thanks for your help.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 02:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ref #41- a b c d Park, Robert, Voodoo Science: The road from foolishness to fraud, Oxford University Press (2002)
 * That's a bit harsh. The book is on Google and it only takes a minute to find that Hagelin is discussed on pp 28-31.   Will Beback    talk    02:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Will, there is a certain editor that makes a habit of placing incomplete refs. But maybe I jumped the gun. In any case lets get it done.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 03:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of us are perfect when it comes to bibliographic citations. Let's show patience towards each other.   Will Beback    talk    04:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Will, good point, patience is a virtue.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then show some. I've noticed a pattern with your edits on sources and references in which you are quick to try to delete something - this for example, or the reference to the Omni article on the TM page - because there is a typo or honest mistake on a date, or in this case, a missing page reference. Oddly this scrupulousness only involves material critical of TM; gross sloppiness and inaccuracy in citations to material supportive of the TM Org position, is no problem for you either when supplying sources or reviewing other edits by the TM cabal.  It shows bad faith on your part.Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And, while we're on sources, why is this article and numerous others linking to the Blobal Finanacial Capital website? The citations have nothing to do with the text in most instances, and the whole point of supplying these footnotes appears to be to direct people to the TM Org's prospectus for selling RAAM bonds. It's improper citation at best, and less charitably, an apparent attempt to spam wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, enough on the name calling and venting on fellow editors, the discussion is about four citations that need page numbers. Its a simple and reasonable request. If you have issues with citations on Raam or other articles please bring them up on the appropriate talk page and I would be happy to engage in conversation with you. I stand by my citations and would be happy explain to you their relevance on a case by case basis. Thanks for your help with this. I'm sorry you are having a bad day. Peace!--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 21:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Luke for researching the page numbers. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources needed for this paragraph
The paragraph below narrates the events at a press conference in 1994, yet none of the citations have anything to do with a press conference. Do we have citations for this event and alleged discussion of Hagelin and reporters?


 * At a 1994 press conference to announce the analysis of that study, Hagelin said that during the period of the experiment Washington, D.C. experienced a significant reduction in psychiatric emergency calls, fewer complaints against the police, and an increase in public approval of President Clinton — all of which was consistent with the hypothesis that a coherence-creating group of practitioners of the TM-Sidhi program can relieve social stress and reverse negative social trends.[citation needed] Overall, according to preliminary data released by the police department, there was an 18% reduction in violent crime, he told the press. [44]When a reporter asked, "An 18% reduction compared to what?", Hagelin answered, "Compared to the level of violent crime had the study not taken place."[citation needed] Hagelin said that criminologists have shown that violent crime fluctuates significantly relative to the temperature. Crime goes down when it's cold and up when it's hot.[citation needed] The standard methodology for assessing whether the crime rate changed or not is to compare it with what is expected for that particular season.[citation needed]Hagelin said that by using the standard methodology (time series analysis), they were able to show that the level of violent crime in Washington had dropped well below the expected level based on previous data.[45]--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 23:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, Kbobb.  I can see you sitting at your computer with a large magnifying glass!  --BwB (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That info is from the study itself. TimidGuy (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a copy of the study. I do not see any reference to a press conference or exchange between Hagelin and reporters.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP unsourced material on any living person should be removed immediately. I'll let you do it Kbob since you're most familiar with the content.(olive (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
 * The exchange from the press conference is all in Park's book and article, except for the claim that comparing crime rates to the weather is ""standard methodology". That's from the "rebuttal" to Park, IIRC. Fladrif (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found sources for a few quotes in the paragraph, as everyone can probably see. I am still looking for the rest. However, I find the paragraph a bit too long and the purported argument between Hagelin and a journalist is unreliable and irrelevant in terms of the article itself, therefore I would like to propose that the paragraph be edited. Here is what I think it should say:

''At a 1994 press conference to announce the analysis of that study, Hagelin said that, during the period of the experiment Washington, D.C. experienced a significant reduction in psychiatric emergency calls, fewer complaints against the police, and an increase in public approval of President Clinton. Overall, according to preliminary data released by the police department, there was an 18% reduction in violent crime, he told the press.[40] Hagelin also said that criminologists have shown that violent crime fluctuates significantly relative to the temperature. Crime goes down when it's cold and up when it's hot.[citation needed] The standard methodology for assessing whether the crime rate changed or not is to compare it with what is expected for that particular season.[citation needed] Hagelin said that by using the standard methodology (time series analysis), they were able to show that the level of violent crime in Washington had dropped well below the expected level based on previous data.''[38] --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you claim that the report of the exchange between Hagelin and the reporter to be unreliable? Park, who was there, relates it in a reliable and verifiable source. Rainforth's "Rebuttal" confirms the exchange . As an aside, it was a question and answer, not an argument. And it's certainly not irrelevant, it goes to the very core of the claims the study makes. Hagelin claimed that the experiment reduced crime, but the study does not show any reduction in absolute levels of the crimes selected for measurement. The study admits that robberies did not decline. Murders actually went up, although Rainforth claims that was due to an "outlier"; but even he admits that, after removing the alleged outlier, there was no effect on the murder rate from the experiment, even adjusted for temperature and the number of meditators. The claimed reduction is relative to the levels Hagelin claims would have been experienced but for the experiment. Which is the whole point of the exchange, something obscured in your proposed rewrite. Fladrif (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence I am referring to does not offer any particular insights nor offer new evidence of any kind. It is a purported spat between Hagelin and a single journalist. As such it is marginal and mars the objectivity of the paragraph. For this reason I think it should be removed.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Luke. Park's criticsms are clearly noted in the paragraph below the one under discussion. I see no reason to devote another entire paragraph to Park's blow by blow account of an exchange between Hagelin and a reporter at a press conference. It is not an encyclopedic treatment of the topic and I don't believe it adds to the article or serves the reader.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 02:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any other opinions? I would like to resolve this. It is a fairly small change, the majority of the paragraph is left as is. There is quite a bit devoted to Park, compared to the entire article so this might balance it a bit more avoiding undue weight, as explained in WP:UNDUE, so please feel free to voice opinions.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Luke I agree that the Park section is way too long and should be very much condensed. Please go ahead and do this and i will help with comments and edits later. --BwB (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like we have consensus, therefore I am removing the sentence. Thanks, everyone, for your opinions. Also, I am still looking for reliable citations for that paragraph, if anyone can help--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

POV Tag on Maharishi Effect section
I have placed a tag on the Maharishi Effect section. There are several reasons for this: So there is some serious Weight and POV problems in this section and I think the entire section needs to be re-written. This would mean adding text on the other studies and summarizing the Wash DC section to reduce its weight. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Maharishi Effect is only on aspect of the article's subject yet this section has a volume of text that is as big as the entire rest of the article.
 * There have been several published studies documenting the Maharishi Effect. They measure variables related to the Maharishi Effect which occurred in several cities in several countries all of which are generally absent from this section. Instead, one study, conducted in Wash DC is given space equal to 35% of the entire article.
 * About 50% of the subsection entitled Wash DC Study is text representing the POV of one source (Park).


 * So this is another WEIGHT complaint? Are the other studies as widely reported as the DC study? All studies aren't equally notable.   Will Beback    talk    21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why one would consider this a "complaint" in terms of Wikipedia editing rather than a comment that will have to take place in all probability on any Wikipedia article multiple times as the articles shift and change with editing. Beside who is the complaint to. I see this as collaborative rather than there is a police force or complaint department in charge. I think its good every now and then to step back and look at the articles as a whole to get a sense of where adjustments need to be made. We can all develop tunnel vision at times working on specific sections.(olive (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I would think the research "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field" published in the Journal of Conflict resolution should at least be mentioned...along with the critique, rebuttal and editorial.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Dec 1988; vol. 32: pp. 776 - 812

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Dec 1990; vol. 34: pp. 745 - 755

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Dec 1990; vol. 34: pp. 756 - 768

--Uncreated (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the Project conducted in Mozambique should be mentioned as well...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/22/jamesastill

--Uncreated (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Uncreated, at this web page 20 published studies are listed and only two of them relate to the Wash DC project. .--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the DC course is given too much emphasis here. We should add some mention of the other 40-ish studies done on the Maharishi Effect.  --BwB (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is absolutely right, we need to balance the section by adding more material than simply results and commentary on the DC study, thank you uncreated for finding other sources.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to whoever added the text on the Middle East Study, perhaps we should include info on the other prominent studies as well.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 22:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone, it appears that the section is getting some attention from multiple editors and soon it should become more balanced and then we can remove the POV tag.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Grant
KBob added the quote from Grant's chapter from the "University in Transition" book, conveniently omitting his ties to MUM, and also citing the wrong page. If I followed his example, I guess I should have simply deleted it because of the page cite error. But, I didn't. Please fix it. I don't feel like fixing it myself. A couple of questions. What are Grant's qualifications to have an opinion on whether or not the Maharishi effect is "one of the most rigorously confirmed findings in the field fo sociology"? Is this a reprint of his article in JMSVS #7? Why should claims by a MUM professor about the rigor his own research or that of his colleagues be given any weight whatsoever, especially when the claim here is the relative rigor of that research to - apparently - the universe of research on sociology?Fladrif (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK Fladrif, take a deep breathe, we can get through this. Firstly, Grant wrote an entire chapter in the book 'Universities in Transition'. Does that not qualify him as an author? Second, I am happy to check the page number and correct it if needed. Thanks for the heads up. Thirdly, quote from Grant is from a published book, that was edited by other authors so it is not a primary source. I was unaware that Grant had an association with MUM but if he does, it doesn't exclude us from citing his writings in Wiki. Thirdly, I don't know what Grants scientific qualifications are but I'm also not sure it matters since it's reliably sourced. And lastly I have no idea what JMSVS #7 is. I hope I covered all of your points. I look forward to more discussion and collaboration with you. :-) --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Grant is an educator and academic rather than a sociologist or scientist. I am also a little skeptical about including him in this article although I think we should include him in the MUM article. The source is reliable,  and Grant is credentialed, but this may be one of those situations where editorial judgement should come into play. I'm open to discussion as well, and I may be on the wrong track on this.(olive (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC))


 * OK, I have corrected the Ref, it indicated page #211 but now I have corrected it to page #210. Sorry for the error. I am also open to discussing Grants relevance to the section but whatever we decide should be applied uniformly, for example in the case of James Randi the magician, who is also cited for his opinions on scientific research.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I vote for excluding both Grant and the Randi/Rabinoff material. The latter is based on hearsay. Randi says that Hyman says that Rabinoff said.... A serious scholar or journalist would have done the obvious thing: call up Rabinoff and confirm that he said it. And if Rabinoff said that there was research showing the effects on crime, accidents, and crop production, then he would have asked to see the study. But Randi is a showman: it makes colorful theater to go after this straw man. In fact, no such study ever existed, and in fact no one knows exactly what Rabinoff said. A friend of mine contacted Hyman and asked him for a copy of the "report" that Randi refers to. Hyman says the report was a letter he sent Randi. Hyman spent hours looking for a copy of the letter but couldn't find it, couldn't remember that part of Rabinoff's talk, and couldn't find his notes from the talk. (Though given that 30 years had passed, that's to be expected.) TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In place of Randi it would be good to include material the Journal of Conflict Resolution exchange, including the Social Forces article by Fales/Markovsky, and the response by OJ/Oates. This is by far the most substantive back-and-forth discussion on the Maharishi Effect. TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a point, seems to me when in researching a topic, discrimination comes into play. Reliability is underpinned by verifiability, and verifiability is underpinned by an implied reliance on the neutral, intelligent editor who adds content because it enriches a complete body of knowledge on a topic or subject. In such a case verifiability means the source may meet the threshold for inclusion, but this doesn't mean the content has to be used. If we work from this understanding, I would think the articles would be stronger. I'm not meaning to lecture here or anything, but I realized we had come to some crossroads on this ... in my mind anyway. So yes, I would take out Grant since although the source is reliable, it may not on another level be verifiable since Grant is not an expert in this area. But as TG said, we need to be consistent across the articles both to improve quality, but also to create consistency and simplicity in our group understanding of how we are going to deal with these articles. So, take out Grant, take out Randi, and put in Journal of Conflict Resolution as TG  suggests as probably a better and more verifiable source than a magician at least on this kind of information.(olive (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC))
 * There is a significant difference between Randi and Grant. James aka "Jamie" Grant claims, in ads shilling for TM as a treatment for ADHD, to be a Harvard-educated educator, and the "Western Director for Consciousness-Based Education"  at the "Maharishi Enlightment Center" in Palo Alto.  Apparently, he used to be on the staff at MUM.  Am I right in guessing that means that the Lynch Foundation pays better than MUM?  He has no apparent qualifications to make the claim that he does - that the Maharishi effect is the most rigorously confirmed finding in the whole field of sociology.  He may believe it. I suspect he does believe it. So, the question we ask ourselves is, is a chapter in a book about education something that we ought to be citing as commentary on the strength or weakness of the whole field of "research" on the Maharishi effect?
 * Randi, on the other hand, makes a specific and limited claim: That Rabinoff made certain claims during a speech at the University of Oregon about alleged scientific proof of the Maharishi effect in Fairfield, and that Randi checked the facts and found that none of the effects claimed by Rabinoff actually occurred. Randi, a professional skeptic debunker of multiple flavors of woo, is perfectly well qualified to do that. TG goes through an awful lot of gyrations here, and went through variations on those in earliers attempts to banish Randi's statements from these articles.  But, when you cut through all the distractions and sleight of hand, Rabinoff never once denied that he made those claims.  You would think that if Hyman and Randi made this up to embarass Rabinoff and TM that Rabinoff would have protested: "I never said those things!" And, if TG was actually serious about these objections, he would have done what he complains that Randi never did, ask Rabinoff whether or not he said them. But no. Rabinoff never once denied it.  Rabinoff's colleagues don't deny it. TimidGuy doesn't deny it - he just blows smoke trying to obscure the fact that Rabinoff did make those claims, and they were utterly baseless.  This is not a good-faith argument.  Fladrif (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Take out Grant, put in the Journal of Conflict Resolution debate, and leave Randi for now - my 2 cents. --BwB (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Randi is a magician. So a magician can decide to write in areas he has no training in, nor education in, and that's verifiable and reliable. Grant claims to be a Harvard trained educator. Please show me proof that he's not. And smoke rings? More ad hominem attacks. Apply the same apparent rigour to Randi as you do to Grant at which point this might be a discussion. (olive (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC))
 * In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Do you understand the difference between telling someone that they are making a bad argument and telling someone that their argument is bad because of who is making it? If you do not understand the difference between what Randi wrote and what Grant wrote, and what qualifications are necessary to make those respective statements, there is no point in discussing this matter with you. Fladrif (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets assume for a second that I also am well educated and reasonably intelligent and then you won't have to waste your time giving me red-herring lectures on my use of words then .... lets go back to the discussion at hand... so that you can apply the same rigour to Randi as you did to Grant, and we can come to a reasonable and logical conclusion that will aid in the quality of the articles we are dealing with.(olive (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I have applied to Randi precisely the same rigorous examination as I applied to Grant. The two references in question are fundamentally different. One involves fact-checking a specific claim and showing the claim to have been baseless.  Randi is well-qualified to do that.  Any reporter could do it.  D'Antonio does the same thing in his book, demonstrating that the widely-held belief at MUM and in Fairfield that group meditation has, among other things, lowered the crime rate is demonstrably false, as crime has risen steadily in Fairfield since 1980.  Grant, on the other hand, is making claims about the rigor with which the body of research on the ME was conducted, the validity of its findings, and the comparative quality of that research and its findings with the universe of social research.  But, you choose not to respond to the distinction in a rational or factual way. Fladrif (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At present Grant's writings are qualified in the article as an educator and former MUM faculty etc. just like Randi's writings are qualified by saying that he is a magician and critic of paranormal claims. Grants writings are published in a book with an independent editor making it a secondary source. So we either take out both Randi and Grant or leave in both Randi and Grant. That's the way I see it.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 19:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, no. Nothing qualifies Randi for "that", and further he's not a reporter. You base your argument on your opinion that Randi is qualified but Grant is not. Randi is a magician who has decided to make a living out of debunking. Is he trained in this field or in a field parallel to this area. I don't see that. What makes him an expert. A book in which he entertains the reader with his slight of mind. Randi debunks TM research. What an interesting position to take given the studies on TM. Has he updated the chapter to include the multiple universities which have conducted research. No.  Why  is that I wonder? Grant is an extremely,  well-educated, academic and educator who  makes a point about something outside his field with in the context of  a chapter on his field. Now of these two which would I trust. Probably, the well educated academic speaking in context of a field he is highly knowledgeable in,  given his training,  and above the magician turned debunker. Do I think either should be in any of these articles discussing these particular topics. No. Would I support moving Grant and not Randi. No. (olive (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Fladrif, no one I've asked knew about Randi's claims. I only became aware of it via Wikipedia when I first started here in 2006. My friend who looked into this did then ask Rabinoff about it, and he didn't have any recollection regarding what he said. Again, we don't know what Rabinoff actually said. All we have is a third-hand account via two skeptics. I've seen how skeptics can twist things, so it doesn't give one confidence. There was no such research at the time. (A 1990 dissertation did find that crime rate had decreased; there was never a study on crop production or accidents.) Randi's account is theater, not serious journalism or scholarship. He should have done the right thing and tried to verify the claim. That's just basic. TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. We do know what Rabinoff said, because Ray Hyman was there and reported what was said, and Hyman's account was published in a reliable source. Given your claim that there was no such research at the time Rabinoff spoke, we are left with two possibilities: Rabinoff was lying about there being "scientific proof" of the Maharishi effect, or Hyman was lying when he said that Rabinoff made the claim.  How do rational people choose between those alternatives? In 30 years, Rabinoff has never once denied that he made the claim.  That decides it for anyone willing to use their powers of critical thinking.  That you choose instead to say:  "Ignore them, they're skeptics" shows just how utterly divorced from reality this debate is. Skepticism is the essential and indespensible element of reason and science. The be called a skeptic should be a badge of honor, not a reason to be dismissed.  The opinion of the faithful about the validity of their beliefs and the heresy and blasphemy of those who question them has no standing or weight in rational discourse, even if we do not add the additional element of being economically dependent on the acceptance of their beliefs and the sale of their products and services.Fladrif (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the entire discussion carefully and I cannot agree with Fladrif. If a University professor is not qualified to make statements about the verifiability of the Maharishi effect because in fact he is not a scientist, neither is a showman trained as a magician. If we do agree on a standard, we need to apply it to both sources.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply Fladrif: I would remind you that in strong rational discourse one does not attack the speaker one attacks the arguments. An attack on the speaker often indicates the arguments are not strong enough to stand on their own. Nor does "so it doesn't give one confidence translate as " ignore them...", but is a mischaracterization. And finally whether we give out badges of honour to so called skeptics is somewhat off the topic and an opinion. In summary

What we are dealing with is, checking three levels of reliability:
 * Is the publisher reliable
 * Is the author an expert in the field he is discussing and so we can assume some level of knowledge
 * Is the content of the publication verifiable

In the case of Randi and Grant we seem to have agreed
 * The publisher is reliable
 * Neither is an acknowledged expert in the field they are discussing, The Maharishi Effect, nor are either of them scientists
 * The are questions about the accuracy of the material they are discussing

The implied threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is the more generalized, "reliability of the source". If we take that to mean the publisher then both sources are acceptable. If we take that to include any other level of reliability then the reliability of both sources is in question.

The fundamental question then becomes, it would seem, do we as a group wish to include the sources based on the publisher or are we interested in deeper levels of reliability and verifiability.

There has been a general agreement to remove both Grant and Randi, and a move to include better sources. Fladrif has already started adding other sources. (olive (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Perhaps you missed my point, but I am perfectly willing to apply Hanlon's Razor rather than accuse you or anyone else of bad faith or having a COI on the matter. Fladrif (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

JCR study
It's so disappointing that such unbalanced material would be added to the article. Why would one add a critique of a study without first presenting the study, and without presenting the reply to the critique that was published in the very same issue as the critique. TimidGuy (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, both should be added otherwise the added content is illogical and especially for the reader, could be confusing (olive (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I agree. I understand there was also an editorial by Bruce Russett (Journal of Conflict Resolution 1988 32: 773-775) as well as a following article by Robert Duval (TM or Not TM?: A Comment on "International Peace Project in the Middle East") published along with the study. I think in the editorial Bruce Russet mentions that the study under went a much more thorough examination by referees than other studies that are normally published. It would be good to have their neutral viewpoints in the article.--Uncreated (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur as well, I am looking for the study and the editorial.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports is not a reputable scientific journal. It is a vanity press publication where authors pay to have their papers published. This is not a reliable source.Fladrif (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC),


 * My understanding is that it is a peer reviewed journal . Vanity press means that an article or book is self-published and paid for by the authors. This was not the case here'. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Contributors to this journal pay for the publication of their articles. It is indeed a vanity press, and there is no serious peer review process, as it will publish just about anything.   This is not a reliable source. Fladrif (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fladrif, "Psychological Reports" looks to be a questionable reliable source. If the study is significant you may find it somewhere else otherwise probably shouldn't be included.(olive (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Okay guys, thanks for the information and I agree, the study is out for the moment.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington DC Study is not a source for other research
The reference for the "five studies" is the Washington DC study published in Social Indicators Research. That paper is limited to the Washington DC Study. It cannot be used as a source for other projects.Fladrif (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually several different Maharishi Effect studies have been published in Social Indicators Research. TimidGuy (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference that was provided was to the Washington DC article, which has nothing to do with the other studies, wherever or whenever they may have been published, and thus the text is unreferenced. Fladrif (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that typically a reason to delete? Thanks for noticing the problematic reference. I need to get to work so can't be around to check into this. I'm guessing that Luke was citing information from the literature review in the 1999 study. In which case it would obviously be better to cite the original studies. TimidGuy (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC) See WP:V for advice in regard to how to deal with unsourced material. TimidGuy (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall double check my source and make appropriate corrections if needed. I think that deleting the entire thing is a bit radical, this can be fixed easily.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this is not a BLP in which instance non sourced material is deleted immediately, the generally accepted action on questionable sources is to add a fact tag, and to give the contributing editor time to locate a reliable source or for the editor questioning the source to find a reliable source. At the very least the content could be removed and added here until or if a source is located. Let's give Luke a chance to do this shall we? If in a couple of days if no reliable source is found the content can be removed. (olive (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Okay I have rechecked my sources and boy, had I made a mistake. But it should be ok now. I have restored the section with the proper citation. Sorry about the trouble everyone and thanks, Fladrif for pointing out this mistake, it may not have gotten fixed otherwise.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

UK crime savings

 * Abtract: Previous research suggested that a phase transition to increased orderliness, evidenced by reduced crime, should occur when group size approaches the square root of 1 percent of the population. In the current research, analysis of Merseyside monthly crime data and coherence group size from 1978 to 1991 showed that a phase transition occurred during March 1988, with a 13.4-percent drop in crime when group size first exceeded the Maharishi Effect threshold. Up to 1992, the Merseyside crime rate remained steady, in contrast to the national crime rate which increased by 45 percent. In 1987, Merseyside had the third highest crime rate of the 11 largest metropolitan areas in England and Wales. By 1992, it had the lowest crime rate, 40 percent below levels predicted by previous behavior of the series. Between 1988 and 1992, 255,000 less crimes in Merseyside occurred than would have been expected had Merseyside continued to follow the national crime trend. Demographic changes, economic variables, police practices, and other factors could not account for the reduced crime rate. 26 references, 4 tables, and 2 figures

In the UK study it states that "saved Merseyside over £1,250 million, or US $850 million" because of the TM group. Is this an accurate translation of GB Pounds to $? At current exchange rates 1250 million GBP = approx $2050 million. --BwB (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your math is incorrect. In 1996, the exchange rate was about 1.66 dollars to the pound. 1,250,000,000*1.66 = 2,075,000,000, or about $2.1 billion. Ajusted for U.S. inflation, that's $2.85 billion in 2008 dollars.    Will Beback    talk    22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I'm not sure how many digits should be in "£1,250 million". Britains and Americans have had different definitions of some numbers. See Long and short scales.   Will Beback    talk    23:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I double checked, 1,250,000,000 is the correct number.   Will Beback    talk    23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I had the same thought but purposefully left the figures as they were at the time of the study, rather than updating the values. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have access to the study? We should double check the figures. For one thing, it is important to include how much of the time the level of practitioners was high enough.   Will Beback    talk    03:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Will I am confused by your request for a verification of the Merceyside study cite which says the study was published in 1996 in Psychology, Crime and Law. What exactly are you asking to have verified?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm requesting a quotation of the text that discusses the computed savings.   Will Beback    talk    17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Going twice.   Will Beback    talk    10:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "A Home office Report (1988) estimates that the average cost of each crime is more than £5,000. If Merseyside had continued to follow the national trend of rising crime from 1988 to 1992, there would have been 255,000 more crimes than actually occurred, a saving of £1,250 million." p. 173. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So the study claims that four years of TM-Sidhi in Merseyside resulted in 255,000 fewer crimes? That's an extraordinary claim. Was it reported in any other sources?   Will Beback    talk    19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The population of Merseyside is 1.3 million people. 255,000 crimes means that, in a four year period, something like a quarter of all residents would have been the victims of crime. And that's just the claimed reduction - I don't know how many crimes still occurred. This just doesn't seem plausible.   Will Beback    talk    22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This article mentions the study.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article1043763.ece    --Uncreated (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't work.   Will Beback    talk    22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The BBC reported in 2001 that the nation had 716,500 crimes. Acording to this study, the number of crimes that didn't occur in Merseyside was, on average, 63,750 per year. If the crime rate was unchanged between 1991 and 2001 (unlikely, since the BBC reported that it had just gone up 8%), then the TM-Sidhi had reduced crime across the entire nation by 11% through the reduction at Merseyside alone. The 2001 census gives the population of England as 49,138,831, meaning that Merseyside accounts for less than 3% of the population. While Merseyside may have a disproportionately high crime rate, this doesn't make sense. If results this dramatic had occurred it would have been reported in other sources. I think this represents a WP:REDFLAG requiring additional sources.   Will Beback    talk    22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The link works for me. It quotes Huw Dixon, the Professor of Economics at York University: “I have been following research on the Maharishi Effect over the past 20 years. Its conclusions are so strong that it demands action from those responsible for government policy.” --Uncreated (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they block visitors from the U.S. What does it say about this study?   Will Beback    talk    22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you give the title and date of the article? Perhaps I can find it another way.   Will Beback    talk    22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found it another way: "Give peace a chance" by John Naish, March 13, 2004. But that's not independent reporting of the crime decrease - it's just a mention of the study. A crime reduction of this magnitude, 60%, would surely have been reported elsewhere, by people unaware of the TM-Sidhi program.   Will Beback    talk    23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's an NLP webs page that includes some graphs from the study: . If I'm not mistaken, the meditation/Sidhi practice was performed in Skelmersdale. I wonder what changes to the crime rate have occurred since the end of the study. Since the meditation continued I'd assume that the benefit would as well.   Will Beback    talk    23:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the paragraph quotes the study rather exhaustively, it seems to me the information is sufficiently verified, therefore, I would like to remove the tag. How do editors feel about this? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We can remove the "verify citation" tag, but I'm going to post this on the Fringe noticeboard as I think the assertion is too extraordinary to rely on just one source.   Will Beback    talk    02:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, if you send me an e-mail, I'll send you a return e=mail with the study attached, and you can look at it yourself. TimidGuy (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that'd help. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting.   Will Beback    talk    07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's give Will a chance to look at the study before removing the cite tag.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already removed it. The material correctly summarizes the study. However I think the study's conclusions are so extraordinary that they require additional confirmation. I'll post a thread on the Fringe noticeboard about this when I get a chance.   Will Beback    talk    23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it this particular study or the Maharishi Effect hypothesis in general? Would you like to remove the study? Do you feel it's given too much weight? TimidGuy (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I write above, the numbers seem implausible. I can't explain how it could have passed peer review, but no system is perfect. Because the claim is so extraordinary I think that it would require more than one source.   Will Beback    talk    04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with removing it. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) And I agree with you regarding WP:REDFLAG. I've sent your analysis to one of the researchers to see if there's a simple explanation regarding the implausible extrapolation at the end of the study. TimidGuy (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind leaving it in the article until we've agreed on a final disposition.   Will Beback    talk    19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard back from the lead author of the study. There does seem to be a simple explanation: "The UK breaks crime down into a large number of categories and also revises the categories from time to time. Therefore, to complete research accurately and perform time series analysis, you have to ensure that methods police use for reporting and recording are compatible from year to year. This was true for the period of my study. The question you have received covers the time period from 1991 to 2001. My study was completed in 1993 and published in 1996. In order to answer your question I would need to study reporting criteria for the period in question. From memory I believe a number of crime categories were eliminated from the national reporting schedule in the nineties. This may have been part of a public relations effort or for other reasons. In particular, certain categories like minor damage and low value theft became so prevalent nationally that they were excluded from the figures. Your correspondent is quoting from revised reporting procedures which accounts for the apparent lower figures. At the time of the commencement of my study Merseyside had the second highest crime rate in the UK (all categories included), which then fell to among the lowest as I reported. This trend was apparent across all categories of crime. The methods of analysis I followed and the categories of crime studied, were ones used as standard practice and reporting at the time. A few years ago I did look at crime figures subsequent to my study's publication and found that the trends reported were holding up in subsequent years when comparable categories were included year on year. An update on a raft of social and economic data for subsequent years in Merseyside was included in my PhD thesis completed in 2000. This showed dramatic improvements in quality of life." Does this make sense? TimidGuy (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, but I'm not sure what you asked him, or where he got the 1991-2001 interval. If the crimes that are no longer countered were "minor damage and low value theft" then that calls into question the £5,000 per crime average cost. ($8,300 with the 1991 exchange rate) I still have to do more analysis of the data to figure out how they got the 255,000 number. I'll see if I can find a source that discusses the change in crime reporting statistics.   Will Beback    talk    02:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at this article and it mentions a new standard for recording crime.   http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jul/10/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation    --Uncreated (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that. Unfortunately, it makes the situation even murkier. The Guardian article says that crime statistics reported by police were unreliable and inconsistent. However that's the data which the study uses. Further, the article says there were two different sets of statistics: those reported by police and those reported in a survey of adults. The study compares crimes reported by local police to national statistics provided by the Home Office. However the study doesn't say which method was used for the the Home Office numbers. Because of the different methodologies, and the inherent unreliability of the police reporting, it's quite possible that no meaning correlation between the two numbers can be made. The study makes two separate claims about the Merseyside crime rate: that it dropped, and that it did not share the same increase in crime that other districts experienced. The study doesn't discuss how the crime statistics were prepared.   Will Beback    talk    04:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Our job as editors is to report all significant points of view. In the past on this and other related articles one reliable source has been enough even when a source made, what some editors considered, unreasonable or implausible claims. So I'm not sure why this perceived unreasonable and implausible claim is an exception. Having said that I would also say that this one sentence, which puts a dollar figure on how much money was saved by Merseyside due to the Maharishi Effect that supposedly occurred while the study was taking place, is not crucial to the article or even to the paragraph summarizing the study and if Will has a strong objection I am OK with the sentence being taken out.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 12:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, regarding what I asked him: I simply copied and pasted your analysis from above. Regarding the interval: His study covered 1988-1991. You came up with info from 2001. I think he's saying that during the period 1991-2001 the categories changed. Also, we don't know that the Home Office used either set of statistics to calculate the cost of a crime. We'd have to find out how they calculated that figure. Not sure what you mean when you say the study doesn't discuss how the crime statistics were prepared. TimidGuy (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to the average cost of crimes the Home Office apparently supplied figures for the national crime rate. We don't know how either the national or the Merseyside crime statistics were gathered, or if they used the same method. The Guardian says that the revisions were made because the old methods were inconsistent and unreliable. GIGO.   Will Beback    talk    18:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This study exclusively used publicly available police data. They briefly address the issue of unreliable data, pointing out that the two most reliable categories of data show the same trend as the overall data. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I missing where they say that the national data comes exclusively from "publicly available police data"? The study also mentions the "British Crime Survey", which presumably follows the survey methodology.   Will Beback    talk    12:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bottom of page 170 mentions their source for national crime data being the 42 police districts of England and Wales. TimidGuy (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kbob that, if there is some doubt or confusion as to how the amount of money saved from lower crime rates was computed, that section can easily be removed, it is not fundamental to the study. As for the rest, it seems we are hearing from the horse (researcher)'s mouth that "to complete research accurately and perform time series analysis, you have to ensure that methods police use for reporting and recording are compatible from year to year. This was true for the period of my study." and that "At the time of the commencement of my study Merseyside had the second highest crime rate in the UK (all categories included), which then fell to among the lowest... This trend was apparent across all categories of crime". Since police reporting methods remained consistent during the study period, the results ought to be be reliable. The article, as Will says, passed peer review, the fact that the lowering of the crime rate may seem anomalous given that it rose everywhere else, can be explained by the field effect. We are simply reporting results documented by the study. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is fundamental to the study? The only one I've heard from is TimidGuy, who says he has been in touch with an unidentified person who is making unsourced assertions. We have no evidence that the police reporting methods stayed the same during the studyt period. A number of alternate explanations to the field theory are discounted with no apparent investigation. Peer review is not a magic wand. Let's keep looking into this. The background of the study includes the credentials of the lead author. Where did he get his Ph.D?   Will Beback    talk    07:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I received an e-mail from Guy Hatchard, the first author of the study, and quoted his response above. I don't think he had a PhD at the time of the study. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you didn't give his name. What are or were his qualifications?   Will Beback    talk    20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes, peer review is a kind of magic wand in terms of inclusion in Wikipedia. We aren't in the business of questioning a peer review board or a reputable publication .... If however, the results of the study are extraordinary, and use of the study makes an exceptional claim, and if the study has not been replicated then caution should be used when and if including the study. In addition to the other suggestions above we might just add to the article that this actual study has not been replicated...Although, there have been other studies showing the same kinds of results. The question then becomes can these other studies be considered "replications" supporting the conclusions of the study we are citing, or not.(olive (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Regarding "what is fundamental to the study", I would say that since the study is on the Maharishi effect, as demonstrated by lowering crime rates under certain conditions, crime rate figures are what matters most. The computation of money saved is a sort of nice "corollary" to the main point. As far as having more evidence, we have a peer reviewed published study, as Olive says, and a message from the study's author, why would we need further proof? I can't imagine that Wikipedia policies would require such extreme caution. Furthermore, short of recreating conditions and re-doing the experiment and the study, I do not see how anyone could obtain more evidence.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine that there have been other reports and studies on crime in Liverpool. If any of them, conducted independent of the MUM, have verified these results then that would be useful information. As for the evidence, let's keep reviewing the claims made in the study and see if they make sense. As I originally said, the numbers seem implausible.    Will Beback    talk    20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct, Will. The Home Office reports are available here. . The official crime statistics appear to me, at first glance, to be at very substantial variance with the extraordinary and improbable claims of this study, suggesting that a statistical sleight-of-hand is what is really involved here.Fladrif (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that.   Will Beback    talk    00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Was this study peer reviewed? Was it published in a reputable publication? We can assume then,  in the context of  Wikipedia guidelines,  that  the reviewers looked at the study, saw the "numbers" and felt the studies results were justified enough for publication.. Again, if the results of the study are extraordinary, then per RS,"  Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field..."  If it was replicated, however, then we can include this study, and I believe this study was a replication and/or was replicated. Perhaps the study needs to be removed, but if it is, it should be per some clearly defined non compliance with Wikipedia policy/guideline rather than the implied questioning of the legitimacy of the reviewers, the publication, and the researchers. The way to include such a controversial edit would be to include reliably sourced comments that question the study, along with the study itself. In the end I don't mind of the study is removed, but it should be because it doesn't comply, not for personal reasons any of us might have.(olive (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
 * It's my view that, on the face of it, this study is making an extraordinary claim that requires further confirmation. That's true even with a peer-reviewed source. While we're here - is this study notable? Has it been cited in other papers, or reported in the mainstream media?   Will Beback    talk    00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The study seems to be a replication, in which case  by Wikipedia standards could be included. My concern here is not that we exclude or include the study, but that, with respect to you Will, our opinions as to whether something seems plausible or not becomes a criteria for that inclusion or exclusion. I see your point but also feel tied by the guideline. Initially I would have said, just take the study out, but now I can't see why per Wikipedia we would do that. A repetition of the same results over time and in different circumstances-replication-would seem to be a form of confirmation, and the legitimate one in the sciences.

As I understand notability, it refers to a criteria for creation of an article. i'm not sure we can look to mainstream press as a standard for significance. In this case, as one of many replicated studies on the Maharishi Effect, this study might be considered significant.

The study itself, and its results are the replicated factors. Is it possible that the application of these results to monetary savings is that factor that is not replicated as often or at all in the other studies, and so could be excluded. Looking for solutions.(olive (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC))


 * I think I missed something. Was there an earlier study on crime in Liverpool 1988-1992?   Will Beback    talk    03:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it does not appear that this is a replication of earlier studies of crime in the Liverpool metropolitan area. What is appears to be is that the author looked at the crime stats and tried to do a statistical analysis vs the number of TM-Sidhi practioners in Skelmersdale, and draw a cause-and-effect conclusion about them.  What he attempted to "replicate" was finding the same cause-and-effect relationship claimed in the other Maharishi Effect papers.  There are lots of stats to choose from, from many periods, and without being able to actually see the data tables used in the study, it is impossible to know what is actully being analyzed.  It is also impossible to assess how things like a major police crackdown in the Liverpool metro area, credited in the mainstream press with halving the crime rate were dismissed by the article.  There is no explanation why, in most of the periods cited, other UK communities had comparable or even greater reductions in crime in individual years, with no apparent assistance from Yogic Flyers in those communities.  It does not appear that any non-TM-Movement researchers have ever cited this article. Other than reporting claims of TM-Movement representatives touting the study, it does not appear to have been reported at all in the mainstream press, although one Guardian article noted about these specific claims: "Natural Law is no different to any normal political party in its use of bogus statistics." Fladrif (talk)


 * While we're at it, I think that fairness and balance requires that we address some of the notable and indeed spectacular failures of the Maharishi Effect: the withdrawal of the Maharishi from Washington DC after the failure to affect crime rates there (predating the highly-touted DC study), the failure of the Skelmersdale flyers to affect the Britiish elections (or even to affect the Labour victories all around Merseyside and surrounding areas) leading to the withdrawal from the UK until Blair left office; the failure to affect the US elections on several occasions, and most recently, the "Invincible America" assembly taking credit for the Dow topping 14,000 and unemployment rates falling, promising nirvana in the US and around the world with peace, love and beads, sex, drugs and rock & roll, a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage, just before the market crash and record unemployment levels of the past couple years. I noted that the TM Org was keeping careful track of the Dow, the unemployment rate and other economic indicators on its website, and issuing press releases announcing how swimmingly this was all going, up until the bottom dropped out, at which point the press releases stopped, the ecomonic stats disappeared from the website, and a robots.txt was added to the websites so Google's cache and the Internet Archive wouldn't show the telltale fingerprints of an enterprise gone horribly wrong.Fladrif (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The data the researchers used regarding Merseyside crime levels is publicly available from the police departments. Why not just request it? See for yourself if crime went down. So far there's been no contravening evidence to suggest that the researchers are misrepresenting the data. TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. I can read the Home Office crime statistics.  I have read them. But, I have no idea what stats this study actually used.  It's clear on the face of the study that they did some picking and choosing about which stats they used. There is a mountain of data, and I'll bet that I can make these stats say anything I want them to, depending on what I want to prove. It is certainly not the case that crime dropped every year in Merseyside during the period of this study.   I can even say that the stats are meaningless, because they are comparing reported crimes rather than actual crimes, and ignore the various disclaimers and estimates in the official reports about what they think is happening with unreported crime.  There is also no way of knowing how differences in police practices, reporting statistics, and other factors were accounted for (or discounted) in this study.  And, as I wrote above, the study would seem to ignore that in virtually every time period, other communities experienced comparable or in some times greater crime reductions, without the apparent assistance of the good folks in the Skelmerdale golden domes.  Fladrif (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is, is that the study is peer reviewed and published in a reliable publication. This is Wikipedia an encyclopedia whose position is to report what has been published or sourced and is not our business as per many other discussions we've had, to deal with the accuracy of the sources, or to discredit the source itself. If we go this route we open the door to questioning many of the anti TM content because accurate, it is not. I find Fald's comments interesting, but extrapolating reasons for many of these "events" is guess work   As I've said before in or out doesn't matter to me, but the reason we remove it should be per Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC))


 * The researchers used monthly reported crime totals from the Merseyside police department. They converted that to a time series of crimes/1000 population. TimidGuy (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I'm sure the researchers would be happy to provide a spreadsheet of the data. TimidGuy (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Have you looked at the study? TimidGuy (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Olive on this one,  it seems to me that arguments are now being made for the sake of arguing. Saying that since there is data, the authors must have fudged with it to get the results they wanted, flies in the face of peer reviewing. It was a legitimate study, published in a reliable journal, we could go in circles forever, or try to change wiki standards (how many peer reviews would we need, how many publications, before something was deemed wiki worthy?), but it makes little sense. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Markovsky and Fales point out in their "Evaluating Heterodox Theories" article that the journal in which this was published is new and obscure. It has an extremely low Impact Factor, and it is supposed to be a journal on the legal and criminal psychology, so I have serious doubts of the rigor of the peer review of this study, or how "reliable" this journal is. Even a cursory examination of Home Office data shows that a different cut on the raw data - say, using Violent Crime instead of Notifiable Crime - would completely reverse the conclusions of the study.  Perhaps Yogic Flying is most effective when it comes to fighting forgery and credit card fraud, not so much when it comes to murder and mayhem.Fladrif (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We need to use Wiki policies to determine whether or not this study should be in the TM-Sidhi article. It matters not what the opinion of the Wiki editors are on the merits of the Maharishi Effect theory. If the study was published in a reputable peer-review journal, then the study can appear. As others have stated above, the editors beliefs about the study have no baring. --BwB (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an extraordinary claim. There is no known 2nd source that supports its assertions. See WP:FRINGE.   Will Beback    talk    04:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If its considered on of 50 studies or so on the Maharishi Effect, its not Fringe. if we compared the results from the other studies we might find that this study is an outlier. We aren't using the study to prove anything, or as a source for anything but itself . We're just saying, there was a study, and this is what happened. I guess i don't see what the concern is. Although, its a form of OR why not just add the study was never replicated. I, on thinking about it, would assume the other ME studies were not really replications. The way I see this, is,  if we had multiple studies in some area like HIV and the use of a particular drug on HIV,  and if we had high and low outliers, wouldn't we just include those outliers as part of the information on that area of study. Why would we here, make editorial decisions to exclude any of those studies. I can't see that we would. Sure the results of this study are hard to believe, but so what. We're not looking at these studies to fund more research for example, we 're just  reporting on what happened. The threshold for inclusion has been met, so I can't see what the issue is. (olive (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC))
 * There's nothing extraordinary about a study which says that meditating and similar relaxation techniques lower blood pressure. However asserting that a small group of people meditating 12 miles from Liverpool resulted in a 45% crime reduction equaling a savings of over $2 billion is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require more than one source. If this study was famous then we'd report it for its fame, but we shouldn't report every claim made by fringe groups, even if they are reported in reliable sources. We already devote plenty of space to the Maharishi effect using studies that have been reviewed by outsiders, and I'm not suggesting removing those. But this is an unreviewed, uncorroborated paper written by a grad student and published in a new or obscure journal.   Will Beback    talk    05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * .Why is this a fringe group .... c'mon Will .... this so called fringe group has over 350 peer reviewed studies, and 50 studies in this area. At the least let's get caught up with the times. I guess we are going around in circles. Is it up to one or two of us to argue and decide on this or should other editors be asked for agreement. I'm OK taking it out, but I can't speak for anyone else. What's next. (olive (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC))
 * That was a poor choice of words on my part. Statistically, most groups are probably fringe groups. I should have said "fringe views". Every religion has unique beliefs, and if these were framed as such then there wouldn't be an issue. But they are presented as scientific facts. That they were passed by some reviewers at a journal does not mean they they represent the consensus view of science. There are widely held views in science and there are fringe views. Not all of the issues regarding the scientific studies of Maharishi's teachings are the same. If we polled one hundred scientists at random, asking them whether personal meditation is likely to reduce stress, I believe most would regard that as plausible. If we asked the same group whether the meditations of a small group could affect the actions of a million distant people, then I think that only a few would find that plausible. If I'm correct, then it's a fringe view. In his time, Galileo also held a fringe view, as did Darwin (whose views are still not shared by the majority of the American public, though they are now almost universally accepted among scientists). Probably every dramatic scientific development was on the fringe at some point. "Fringe" sounds pejorative, but it's really a shorthand reference to a small statistical group. Wikipedia's NPOV requires that we present all significant views, no matter how few people believe them, with the neutral point of view. However it also requires that we avoid presenting a fringe view as the majority view. It's not an easy task for any of us. It's harder still for those who are firmly inside that statistical group. But we're all making progress and the articles are improving.   Will Beback    talk    09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Some nicely stated points. Thanks, Will. And it's interesting to hear you say that you think that most scientists would agree that personal meditation is likely to reduce stress. Thirty years ago that notion was every bit as contentious as the Maharishi Effect and was considered fringe. At this point it seems doubtful that the notion of a mind/environment connection will catch on the same way that the mind/body connection has, but things seem to be going in that direction, not just in this research but in other research, too. Anyway, to get back to the point (and if you don't mind, temporarily putting aside the more general issues), you refer to this study as being unreviewed. I believe this is a peer-reviewed journal, isn't it? And I don't know that this journal can be considered obscure. It's the Official Journal of European Association of Psychology and Law. It has a fairly good impact factor. I don't understand why we'd remove this study and not others. The hypotheses of all of the studies are equally implausible. TimidGuy (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, Fales and Markovsky pointed out that this Journal is, typically of those in which MUM researchers are able to get their papers published, both new and obscure. Fladrif (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily agree with you Will, but I think you honestly have very real concerns with this study, and I can respect that. Since you are an editor who has done a fair amount of the heavy lifting on some of these articles, and are not just a drive - by, agenda - driven editor , and since the bottom line for me on any article is accuracy along with the collaboration of editors, i will back down on my position and suggest we remove the study . As I've said, I can't speak for anyone else on this issue, but this will be my position


 * Markovsky and company are certainly welcome to their opinions, but seems like the publication may be more mainstream and less obscure in Europe than is being considered here . (olive (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC))
 * It is nice to follow the arguments on both sides from very experienced editors. Thanks for that.  The authors of these ME studues have run into these same kinds of issues themselves, I believe.  The research science and statistics are good and rigorous, but the theory is hard to others to accept.  I am not attached to the research study being in the article, but if it is referenced and appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, then perhaps from a Wiki perspective, the study can stay.  --BwB (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The research science and statistics are good and rigorous" - according to whom? Peer-reviewed journals put out thousands of articles a month, but we don't need to add a paragraph on each one to Wikipedia.   Will Beback    talk    22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take it easy Will. I may not have used the right words to classify the stats, but you know what I mean.  Lots of published research on the ME, but even if the science were impeccable there are those who cannot swallow the theory of the field effect of consciousness.  That's the point I was trying to make. --BwB (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So where are we with this study? Is it such an important study that it deserves an entire section? I think that these various studies could be summarized in a sentence - something like "Similar studies by MUM researchers found evidence of a Maharishi Effect in the U.K., India, Puerto Rico and the Philippines."   Will Beback    talk    22:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't agree. All these studies showed different effects from the ME and the reader should have the opportunity to see all the effects that have been researched and published. --BwB (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The readers can read the papers for themselves if they want to see all the effects discussed in them. This should be a summary. If these papers are obscure then it's undue weight to devote so much space to them. Have these papers been included in any reviews? Cited in papers by non-MUM researchers? What criteria are we suing for including discussions of individual studies?   Will Beback    talk    20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never heard that a paper published in a peer review journal would be considered obscure. It is just the sort of thing wikipedia does allow, see WP:SOURCES (The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals;) and also WP:RELIABLE (Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available.) In light of the above, it seems obvious that under wiki policies this is a perfectly valid posting.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All articles printed in in peer reviewed journal are not prominent. If fact, most are obscure. Has this paper been cited or mentioned anywhere else? While this journal may be a reliable source, there's no policy in Wikipedia that requires we devote an entire section to a single obscure paper written by a graduate student.   Will Beback    talk    03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you know he was a graduate student? This paragraph takes up about the same amount of space as the James Randi straw man paragraph rebutting research that doesn't exist and less space than a paragraph about an unpublished study. I think my argument would be that a peer-reviewed study published in an academic journal should have as much weight as either of these paragraphs. TimidGuy (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC) By the way, I guess I"m confused. Here you say that the section should be reduced, and below you criticize me for deleting two sentences. In my edit summary I gave reducing weight as part of my rationale. TimidGuy (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC
 * I deduced he was a graduate student from your answer to my question about where he'd obtained his Ph.D. "I don't think he had a PhD at the time of the study. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)" If he didn't have a Ph.D. do we know what degree he did have? If he wasn't a graduate student then was he working as a faculty member at MUM or elsewhere?
 * The idea that the Maharishi Effect extends over considerable distances and affects the behavior of people who are not engaged in it is a significant viewpoint. But this is just another voice supporting that view. We don't need to give a paragraph to everyone who shares that view. I've proposed merging this material with other similar findings into a single sentence or paragraph. If that's unacceptable then I'd like to know why it's acceptable to trim off parts of the studies conclusions. This clearly isn't an "all or nothing" matter.   Will Beback    talk    22:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, I disagree with your definition of the article as obscure. However, even if I did accept your argument, there would be no reason to remove the section. You write that most articles published in peer review journals are indeed obscure. Still, Wikipedia says that publications found in peer review journals are to be preferred. It does not say only those articles that are defined as "prominent" (by whom, incidentally?), or are repeatedly published, or written by Nobel prize winners, should be posted, there is no such codicil in the policy. I do not see any compelling reason to rewrite the policy.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting deleting all mention of the source, just trimming it down to its proper weight.   Will Beback    talk   

If I read it correctly, the MTI (Maharishi Effect Threshold Index), derived from the number of people trained in TM divided by the population, is added to the MET (Maharishi Effect Threshold), the percentage of the required 138 TM-Sidhi practitioners who attend daily sessions. The MTI provides a coherence factor on top of the ME. Can anyone find any information on how or why this extra factor is added to the calculation? Does it appear in the other studies too?  Will Beback   talk    07:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  Using time series analysis, the study showed that beginning in March, 1988, when the number practicing the TM-Sidhi program in a group reached the required threshold percentage, the crime rate fell significantly.
 * The ME has 2 elements: square root 1% doing TM-Sidhi program in a group (sometimes called the "extended Maharishi Effect") and 1% of population doing just TM on their own (original Maharishi Effect).  So to accurately calculate the effect of TM on the crime in a region you need to consider both the numer of people doing TM in the area, and the number doing TM-Sidhis in a group. I believe that is what this study tries to model. --BwB (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification. What's the best source that discusses the Maharishi Effect Threshold Index? If it's part of the ME we should mention it in the article.   Will Beback    talk    22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as to Hatchard's field. So is his Ph.D. in Sociology, Physics, Psychology, Economics, or Maharishi Vedic Science? There seem to be assertions to cover all of those. His highest degree at the time of the study seems to have been "MA in Science of Creative Intelligence in Education from Maharishi International University". Is that correct?  Will Beback   talk    02:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guy Hatchard has been director of Maharishi Foundation North of England Campus, Skelmersdale, for the last six years. His responsibilities include the day to day administration of this £20 million project which comprises a school, a community centre, a health clinic, a housing development, and liaison with over 40 local businesses. Mr Hatchard has received a BSc (Hons) in Logic and Theoretical Physics from the University of Sussex, a Postgraduate Diploma in Teaching from Christchurch College, and an MA in Science of Creative Intelligence in Education from Maharishi International University. Since 1975, he has been a pioneer of research work on the Maharishi Effect. In 1993, Mr Hatchard's research work received high recognition when he was honoured as a keynote invited speaker at the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society on Criminal and Legal Psychology.
 * Guy Hatchard, Natural Law Party spokesman for Law and Order ,
 *  [Guy is a former director of the Maharishi European Sidhaland, Skelmersdale – Ed.]
 * Dr Guy Hatchard, sociologist
 * PhD, Physics, Psychology, Economics , 1987 — 2000 My PhD thesis studied the relationship between national economic development and participation Transcendental Meditation.
 * Ph.D. Dissertations Written at the University: Maharishi Vedic Science: Hatchard, G. D., Maharishi Vedic Economy: Wholeness on the Move. An Analysis of Improved Quality of Life and Enhanced Economic Performance Through The Application of the Maharishi Effect in New Zealand, Norway, USA, Mozambique, and Metropolitan Merseyside, UK. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Dissertation Information Service, 2000. Order No. 9971789. Abstract


 * No idea! --BwB (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any idea where he got the "Maharishi Effect Threshold Index" from? Did he create it or is it discussed in other sources?   Will Beback    talk    02:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Merseyside crime statistics
Going back to the question of crime statistics in Merseyside, I've been having quite a time finding actual statistics. The Home Office crime statistics for those years breaks the national statistics into police areas, but the Merseyside statistics are blanked out on each of those reports. The Merseyside police department has a very nice statistics web page, but it only goes back to 2004. I found enough news reports to give me the flavor that crime stabilized in Merseyside during those years (1987-1992) while crime increased in other reporting areas. This is not the same as crime going down, and the idea that there were 225,000 crimes that didn't happen in Merseyside is just fanciful thinking.

However, in my searching I did come across a very interesting and well-done study done by a professor and associate at Manchester University and published by the Home Office Police Research Group. It provides convincing evidence to suggest that the stabilization of crime rates in Merseyside from 1987-1992 can be attributed to a large-scale methadone program that treated thousands of drug users, reduced drug use dramatically and as a consequence dramatically reduced the acquisitive crimes of burglary dwelling and theft from vehicles. Woonpton (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work finding the study. We should certainly add to the coverage here that the policy attribute the crime reduction to a drug treatment program.   Will Beback    talk    07:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this should be included, but my addition of the study was promptly deleted, apparently because the study doesn't refer explicitly to the topic of the article, "TM-Sidhi."  The information is important information for the reader to have in order to fairly evaluate the claim that the reduction in crime was caused by the TM activity.  I don't believe the TM claim should be included without also including this other study that offers another explanation for the reduction in crime. How can we address this problem? A different wording for the Home office study?  Or just eliminate the Merseyside study altogether?Woonpton (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just carefully scrutinized WP:OR, (which was cited in the edit summary for this deletion) and I see nothing in WP:OR that requires, or even supports, this deletion. Also, it would have been better, if there was an objection to adding this study, to discuss it here after Will suggested that it be included, rather than summarily deleting it once it was added, without discussion. I would like more discussion from other editors on this question.Woonpton (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict: I didn't see a post on this until now so that's why I just removed it. I am very sure this is OR... The study you include doesn't mention anything about the topic of this article, unless I missed it, and that's the key factor.


 * I'm not sure I understand what is being suggested. We can't add content on crime reduction unless it specifically references the topic of the article or that's OR.
 * If the study does mention the ME then no problem, but unless I missed something in my reading, it doesn't. I don't see the alternative, per any policy, as deleting sourced content.(olive (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC))


 * I agree with olive that, as stated, this addition is OR. However, its relevance is obvious. We have seen that much of the research on the putative Maharishi Effect is flawed. Pointing out that police research in the UK confirms the effectiveness of their own Methadone program in reducing crime is highly relevant, in spite of the fact that this report of the Great Britain Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, unaccountably omits mention of the TM-Sidhi Program. All we have to do is include this relevant fact, without comment. It is a relevant fact, not OR. Any relevant fact that has a citation that is a reliable source is permitted in WP. It is simply one more confirmation of the allowable (and quite reasonable) point of view that says that the research is flawed and that there is no Maharishi Effect. I have learned that it is not necessary to yield to the temptation to worship everything stated by Maharshi as truth. I believe that he was far too quick to seize on and amplify any information that could support TM and its advanced programs. For MMY, clearly, the ends justified the means. His one goal was to honor his guru by bringing enlightenment to the world; he did everything he could to achieve that goal. IMO, His behavior is understandable, but, ultimately, not justifiable. No true end justifies untrue means. David spector (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the source does not mention the topic of the article, it is OR and we cannot use it per the policy. Sorry, but we can't add  information so we can include the source. Use of this source is OR. No can do!(olive (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC))


 * While the police report doesn't mention the MUM study, the MUM study does specifically discount the role of the drug clinic in the reduction in crime, along with all other possible causes of the reduction. So it's not original research to give another view of an issue raised in the study.    Will Beback    talk    22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree per WP:OR: "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."(olive (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC))
 * The topic of this paragraph is the causes of the crime reduction in Merseyside. The study makes a direct claim that the drug clinic was not a factor. To say that a police study credited the drug clinic, etc, with the reduction instead of the ME is directly relevant to the topic.    Will Beback    talk    23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The paragraph is not about crime in Merseyside, it is about a study on the Maharishi Effect In Merseyside that purportedly reduced crime. The article itself, and that is our concern per OR,  is about the TM Sidhi program and as a subset, the research on that, or utilizing that program.(olive (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Have to agree with Olive on this one. The article is about the TM-Sidhi program and the research conducted on this program.  The source does not mention the TM-Sidhi program or the ME so to put it in the article is OR.  --BwB (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No. This is exactly the same argument that was rejected yesterday with regard to the Dow Jones index. There is no policy justification for disallowing the Dow Jones index as a source because it doesn't contain the words "Maharishi Effect"  and by the same token the Home Office Police Research Group doesn't have to mention the Maharishi Effect in order to be a reliable source for a alternative explanation for the crime reduction that was purported to be a demonstration of the Maharishi Effect.Woonpton (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is Woonpton. The source must relate directly to the content it is referencing.(olive (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

I now have the study and agree that what is in the article right now is appropriate. Home Office content is OR in my opinion.(olive (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I've asked above but I'll ask again here to make sure it gets answered: is this the only study in which Maharishi Effect Threshold Index is used? If not, where can we learn more about this component of the Maharishi Effect? this article is missing any mention of it.   Will Beback    talk    02:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See No original research/Noticeboard.   Will Beback    talk    01:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Will. I was on the way to the OR Noticeboard myself.(olive (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC))
 * The drug reports on Page 9 states "Merseyside Police are continuing to explore why their recorded crime rates between 1988 and 1994 stabilized compared with other police force areas" --BwB (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the point of posting that sentence?   Will Beback    talk    03:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to show that the cops still don't know why the crime rate stabilized. So the "mysterious" ME could be the answer? --BwB (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly could be the answer. But it's not for us to decide. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback    talk    12:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will that our purpose is to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view; cherrypicking one isolated statement that seems to support a particular POV, out of a 40+ page paper that provides solid evidence for a relationship between the drug programs and the reduction in crime, would contravene that purpose. The sentence in question is just boilerplate language, a mild caveat that most responsible researchers include in some form; if there is any hidden meaning, it's usually something along the lines of "Keep the funding coming; we want to keep doing research."  But the statement in no way discredits or diminishes the evidence in the body of the study, and it should not be used for that purpose. Just describe both studies briefly and neutrally, and let the reader decide.Woonpton (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And, as I pointed out in a post above, more conventional explanations for the drop in crime in Merseyside are found in many reputable sources, like a major police crackdown on street crime, to which a 50% drop in crime is attributed.    It seems to me that it is not original research to report reliable sources from the time that said, "the crime drop was the result of successful changes in police practices and policies", even if they make no mention of yogic flyers in Skemersdale.Fladrif (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If consciousness is the primordial stuff of the universe, and if there are technologies that can effect consciousness and create a positive influence in that field, then all things in the universe are effected positively - all police activity, all drug rehab programs, all criminals, deviants, etc. This is the underlying theory of the Maharishi Effect. However, there has to be an instrument for consciousness to work through.  If police could not contain crime in 1986, did nothing in 1987 to change their methods, and a TM-Sidhi group was formed in 1987 and crime went down, we could say that the policing methods finally started to work in 1987 and give credit to the cops.  However, maybe it was the primordial field of consciousness being enlivened by the TM-Sidhi group that was the ultimate cause of the crime drop, while the police were the physical means through which the result occurred.  Just a thought for a Sunday afternoon! --BwB (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)But actually there was a big change in police methods with regard to how the police and other agencies in Merseyside dealt with drug users, involving multi-agency cooperation between several large drug clinics, the health authority, social agencies and the police, by which over 5,000 drug users were identified and treated. It's unclear exactly when this inter-agency was fully implemented, but given the fact that acquisitive crime (the type of crime that drug usrs commit) in Mereyside peaked in 1986 and fell steadily from then on (til 1990 when it started going up again) it seems reasonable to suspect that the drug program was in place by 1987 and had a positive effect on crime, and that the TM-Sidhi group achieving threshold in March of 1988 had very little to do with it.


 * Re: if there are technologies that can effect consciousness and create a positive influence in that field, then all things in the universe are effected positively - all police activity, all drug rehab programs, all criminals, deviants, etc then why would this overall positive effect only work on burglary of dwellings, common theft and theft from vehicles, which are crimes drug users tend to engage in, and not touch the crimes of violence against persons (much more worrisome to most people) which continued to rise steadily and even to escalate in Merseyside during the period in question? I'm still looking at the claim that the crime reduction occurred only in Merseyside and not in other police jurisdictions, but so far this claim looks questionable.  For example, in 1988, the year Merseyside reported its largest drop in overall crime (14%) --and by the way there were only three years where the total crime in Merseyside decreased, 1987 (-1%), 1988 (-14%) and 1989 (-6%),  London reported an equal reduction, 14%, and West Midlands came close with 11%.  All but three of the jurisdictions reported decreases in total crime that year, and those three had very small increases (1-3%). I don't intend any of this for the article, but searched out these data just to satisfy my own curiosity, and share it here simply for perspective in considering how this topic should be covered. Woonpton (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to pester, but is there more information on the Maharishi Effect Threshold Index? Which other studies was it used in? I don't see it mentioned in Dillbeck 1987. Did Hagelin include it in the D.C. study? Where is is discussed from a conception point of view?   Will Beback    talk    21:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion at NOR/N I have reinstated this source. Woonpton (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly so, Woonpton. As I noted above, you can take these statistics and prove anything you want to with them.  Merseyside did not experience crime reductions every year.  Other communities experienced comparable or even greater crime reductions than did Merseyside in nearly every year, with no help from Yogic Flyers.  Violent crime did not go down at all in Merseyside (maybe the Maharishi Effect works best against forgery and credit card fraud, not so much against murder, assault and rape).  During the period of this project, Merseyside became the drug capitol of the UK. The methadone program, plus a separate police crackdown on street crime is credited by reliable sources not associated with the TM Movement with the crime reductions which did occur.  These "researchers" simply cherry picked those figures which "proved" that their project had worked, ignoring those which didn't support their thesis.Fladrif (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't wholeheartedly endorse all of Fladrif's comments, especially the last. Without access to their database to see what data actually went into the analysis, and without more specific information about the analysis, the assertion that they cherrypicked numbers to prove their theory is unwarranted and needlessly inflammatory, and I respectfully ask that it be struck. I simply provided some raw data for perspective without drawing any conclusions; let the data speak for themselves as background information. Woonpton (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't know for sure what statistics the study used, though it does appear that the percentage crime reductions claimed to have occurred match the Home Office statistics for "Notifiable Offences Recorded". Drilling down through the data, and taking different cuts, such as Violent Crime only, or looking at just the categories of crime claimed to have been affected in the Washington DC study, would completely invalidate the study's conclusions. So, you're right: we can't say for sure that there was cherry picking going on in this study; but cherry picking is a possibility that one must consider. To that extent, I amend my statement above. Fladrif (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I wouldn't call it cherrypicking, though; I'd just call it a puzzling omission of an essential step in data analysis. This isn't the only major problem I have with the study, but it's the one that smacks you right in the face as soon as you look at the data. Researchers who were interested in determining a cause for the reduction in crime would immediately look into the data and see if there's anything in the data themselves that could account for the reduction in crime.  When they looked, they would see that the reduction in total crime wasn't mirrored in all categories of crime, but was driven by sharp reductions in acquisitive crimes committed by drug users; other categories continued to climb.  The researchers then might do some checking and find that there was a massive drug treatment program going on that could easily account for a reduction in acquisitive crimes so large that it skewed the total crime statistics in its direction. And at that point, they would realize that it didn't make sense to hypothesize that the reduction in crime was due to some people meditating in Skelmersdale and causing a "phase transition" in the "collective consciousness," when there was a  much more reasonable and practical explanation available. (See Occam's Razor). I'm not opposed to the idea that meditation can improve the world, in fact I sort of believe in it myself; I like to think that when I meditate, I'm somehow improving the situation in Darfur, for example.  But choosing to believe something and saying that it's a proven scientific fact are two entirely different things, and such an extraordinary claim should be examined with impeccable research and produce unimpeachable, replicable, results. I'd be as delighted as anyone here if such results were to appear, but so far this body of research has not produced the evidence that this claim requires.  It was unreasonable of me to ask you to strike your opinion about the study, but I still think it was unhelpful as first worded, and thanks for amendment. Woonpton (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That notice board thread was begun last night. Give editors a chance to comment especially that this was a weekend. Further there is nothing definitive on this notice board. Lets not jump the gun here... at least give time for input and we can go from there.(olive (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I agree there's no rush, but I wonder why, if there's no rush, it was necessary to delete the text so quickly.   Will Beback    talk    00:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there's no rush, but I wonder why, if there's no rush, it was necessary to delete the text so quickly.   Will Beback    talk    00:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, Will. How about because I happened to be online. And how about because I consider it a violation of policy. And how about assume good faith. (olive (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I never stopped assuming good faith. But if there's no rush then let's not rush to delete it. Nobody argues that it is poorly-sourced or irrelevant. So far, no uninvolved editor has agreed that it's NOR. So the reasons for keeping it appear to outweigh the reasons for deleting it at this time. It's just a single sentence. If the views on NORN shift we can delete it again. Is that a problem?   Will Beback    talk    00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait. I was under the impression that olive had struck her claim and thanked the noticeboard, per her edit summary there, so I assumed that the issue had been resolved in favor of resinstating the source, and I reinstated it. Is it now deleted again? Is the OR argument still being pursued? I can't keep up. Woonpton (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The current text, a result of input from several editors, is: Any comments?  Will Beback   talk    12:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hatchard dismissed other possible causes for the crime reduction, including an expansion in a drug treatment program that he says began in July whereas the crime reduction began earlier in March, coinciding with the gathering of a group practicing the TM-sidhi program. [..] An analysis by Barry Webb, published by the Home Office Police Research Group in 1996, shows that a large methadone project implemented in the mid-to-late 1980s with dramatically reduced the acquisitive crimes of burglary and vehicle theft by drug users in the area.

I'm sorry to see that a generally accepted procedure for Notice boards was ignored here. I understand the misunderstanding Woonpton mentions, and I apologize if my post on the OR/N wasn't clear. Woonpton's action here is not a reason to ignore the fact that a post on the notice board was acted on within less than 24 hours and over a weekend period. I reverted because of that but the reversion was reinstated and edited. As I say below as the WP:NOR policy is worded now this content is a clear OR violation however technically driven, and I'm sorry to see it pushed into the article as it has been. You open the door for more of the same.

Consider these points:
 * We don't know if both the ME study and the gov't study examined the same circumstances. Should we want to find that out, we would be doing OR to do so. We as editors are attempting to connect the two studies. if we don't do the research we are connecting two possibly very unrelated studies, and implying inaccurate information. That's why sources must be directly related to the topic of the article. Then the connection of the information is self evident and requires no editor input and connections=OR.


 * This related example:

Bob says the temperature will not rise above zero on Dec 24, 2009. The weather report for Dec 24, 2009 states the temperature rose to 20 degrees. Juxtaposing those together IMPLYS that Bob was wrong, but the real problem is the Weather Report doesn’t mention Bob, nor are we sure they’re looking at the same things. Maybe Bob’s prediction was for his warehouse freezer unit. We need to know they’re talking about the very same things in relation to each other. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."


 * Make no mistake about it, we are dealing with an instance of OR. Is it technical. Very likely. Can this instance of OR be ignored. Perhaps, with editor agreement. But not for an instance should we assume this isn't a case of IAR, and if we ignore all rules in this instance we open the door for the same kind of scenario for viewpoints you don't agree with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 * My preference is to stick strictly to the policies and not open doors for any more contention that we already have.(olive (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
 * This is sounding a lot like sour grapes. Woonpton misunderstood your intentions; a quite natural conclusion given the striking of your comments.  But at this point, multiple uninvolved editors have weighed in, universally disagreeing with your position.  So, give it up already. Or, is this going to be another one of those intances where you decide that Noticeboard input and decisions are going to be heeded only where they support your position, and ignored otherwise?Fladrif (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Flad. You seem to mistake the environment here. I am allowed, in fact encouraged to discuss and investigate the policies, and if I in fact do not agree with two uninvolved editors (Multiple? ), then that's fine. I could as easily say you don't know what you are talking about. You may at any time stop using your well worn and false example of my Notice Board behaviour. As I am sure you remember, but I will remind you again. although I did not agree with the Notice Board comments on the use of the word "crackpot" on John Hagelin, i inserted the word anyway into my rewrite. Will Beback, not I, suggested removing it, and I did despite the objections of several editors. Your attacks are tiresome, but worse is your insistence on scenarios that are inaccurate and untrue. I do not, nor do you have to agree with anything here. This is a collaborative project though, and despite my disagreement I am willing and always have attempted to acted with the agreement of editors even when I disagreed. i will assume now that I have once again explained to you the crackpot situation you will not continue to bring this up. if you do i will consider it harassment.(olive (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Your noticeboard behavior is a recurring and persistent pattern of selective blindness that goes far beyond whether the term "crackpot" can be used in the Hagelin article, as you well know, and dates back to your insistence that nobody at COIN can tell you that you have a conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about your employer, and stretches through multiple noticeboards and many incidents. I didn't even have the "Crackpot" example in mind.  Your editing history and talk page behavior when it comes to these articles is disruptive, contrary to the policies and standards of Wikipedia, and your continual spewing of invective against anyone who would dare add reliably-sourced independent neutral material which doesn't adhere 101% to the TM-Movement official line, while simultaneously asserting victimhood is sad, tiresome and completely out-of-line.Fladrif (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "..a generally accepted procedure for Notice boards was ignored here." Which procedure was ignored?   Will Beback    talk    21:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally, editors are given time to respond. Less that 24 hours on a weekend is not the usual. Is there any rule against acting that quickly. No. Is it hasty. Yes.(olive (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I missed that policy - could you please link to it? If you look at the other entries in that noticeboard, you'll see that most haven't received any response at all. We got a couple of responses from uninvolved editors, and that's about as much as can be expected. We've received the input that we sought. Now let's take that guidance and move on. Remember that "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" is a form of disruptive editing.    Will Beback    talk    22:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you ask for a policy? Did I say this was a policy?  No I didn't. I question the way  in which this whole situation was handled, and that is my prerogative. My editing is not disruptive, nor is my behaviour.  I do, however, deal with disruption and incivility here often. In the future I suggest you do not mischaracterize what I say as you did above . And do not ever threaten me . Ever. (olive (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
 * So if it's not a violation of a policy then what guideline does it violate? Making groundless accusations is unhelpful, and is another form of disruptive editing.   Will Beback    talk    00:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This study is more notable than I'd originally realized. Among other sources where I've seen it, it is mentioned in Chryssides.   Will Beback    talk    22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)