Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 18

Suggestions for improving the article
Hi ive been reading through the wikipage on transcendental meditation and would like to help improve it.

I have a few questions.

I have heard from a retired Colonel in the US army that veterans that are prescribed by a Doctor to learn tm for any medical reason, have all the expenses of learning covered by the US Gov. I think this would be useful info to have on this page if true.

What happened to all the links at the bottom of the page...there seems to be a number of pages that used to be there? One was I think askthedoctors.com. I was recommending my friends who were interested in learning TM to come here and find out more about it. Now i find at the bottom there are virtually only sites linked that have bad things to say about TM?

What is the relevancy of the two paragraphs in the Lawsuit section to people interested in learning more about TM when they come to Wikipedia? Is it useful information? The first claim dealign with Robert Kropinski Lawsuit against the World Plan Executive Council was a null outcome. I'm not sure why it would be included since it doesn't really say anything other than a guy tried to take the TM organisation to court but lost...it doesn't seem to me to be very relavant.

The 2nd case dealing with the murder of the student at Maharishi university of Managament seems to have more to do with that University than the technique...I'm not sure why it would be on the page dealing with TM...wouldn't it make more sense to be on the university page? Also what is even the signifigance of this anyway in regards to either the University or TM?

I don't know what the protocol of adding links to the bottom of the page is but I belong to the SIMS Club at Auckland University in New Zealand and would I be able to put a link to our webpage at the bottom of this article?

Some things I would like to see added to the TM Page would be TM in Governments. I know in New Zealand that at one time 10% our governing MP's practiced TM along with the speaker of the house and the deputy Prime minister.

It just seems to me that in NZ where you have 45,000 people who have learnt the TM technique...with many of the most wealthy learning, many many doctors and at sometime so many members of Parliment practicing how in the interest of balance so much "controversial" material is present on the wiki TM page? I'm not disputing its reality...I'm just disputing what its real signifigance is...what it really contributes towards giving people an understanding of what TM is...

Sorry if i seem to be jumping all over the place. --Uncreated (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Uncreated. I was just made aware as well that many links had been removed so I'll be looking at those in the next few days to see what, at least from my side, I think should be restored. As for your other questions, I think they are legitimate. The concern with this article is that it has been the site of edit wars and heated discussion and so is highly contentious. Wikipedia has pretty specific policies and guidelines for articles and the article has been scrutinized multiple times to make sure these are being met. That said I would think the best idea for you would be to take your concerns one at a time and post them here for discussion. Then some agreement could be reached about inclusion or exclusion of the material. You might want to check out WP:Weight if you are a new editor, since many of the issues you bring up may have to do with the "weight" of material being presented in relation to the article as a whole. At any rate, these are good points well worth discussing.(olive (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Okay.

Let’s start with this one. Kropinski v. WPEC. As far as I can see this paragraph basically says a man had a disagreement with the WPEC and it was settled out of court. If I’m over simplifying the implication of it let me know...but if I’m not is this information very relevant to people who want to know more about TM. I can't see that it is...and from what I have read from going through the archives space seems to be a concern and perhaps we could add a bit more info as to what tm is as opposed to essentially meaningless info.--Uncreated (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you've raised some god points. I've had the same thoughts about the Kropinski suit. One advantage to having it here, though, is that there are a number or web sites that report that he sued and was awarded damages of $138,000. These web sites typically don't inform the reader that an appellate court overturned the award. So having it here is a chance to set the record straight. But the problem is that a suit that Kropinski lost money on and that had most of the claims dismissed is highlighted by having a major section on lawsuits. Most readers won't read the details -- they'll just see the heading and jump to a conclusion. I wish we could, at the least, revise this so that it's more in accord with the spirit of this essay: WP:CRITICISM, and figure out a way to integrate this better into the article rather than highlight a suit with a null outcome, thereby giving it undue weight.


 * By the way, not only did the appellate court dismiss most of the remaining claims, but they also threw out the testimony of Margaret Singer, without which there was no basis for the fraud claim. The sole remaining claim was a knee injury related to practice of the TM-Sidhi program (which is a separate technique from Transcendental Meditation, as you know). TimidGuy (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been bedridden with the flu for the last few days.

I've had a look at the WP:CRITICISM and undue weight links you gave me. Perhaps we could remove the Controversies section and replace it with a Reception section as suggested in the Criticism essay? I think this would provided a way to included both Postive and negative criticisms of the TM Technique. Perhaps in this proposed section mention of the fact that there are websites and groups that have a disfavourable opinion of the TM Technique and continually site facts that are wrong or misleading and give an example of the Kropinski suit?

In the proposed reception section maybe we could have different subheadings and look at how different aspects of society have recieved the TM technique...maybe Government, Education, Science, Religion, Medicine, Physcology, Military, etc --Uncreated (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also are the links provided at the bottom of the page expected to meet the same standards set out in the reliable sources wiki policy? I suspect if they are then a few of the links violate that policy and should be removed. --Uncreated (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It does seem like a good idea to adjust this so that some things aren't given undue weight by their very appearance in a section labeled controversies. The only source, for example, for saying that there is a controversy about the issue of cost is a commercial web site that claims to offer the same thing at a lower price. That's hardly evidence for a controversy, and certainly not a reliable source for the claim. Regarding your suggestion about mentioning unfavorable sites and giving an example of the Kropinski suit, that would likely be in violation of Wikipedia's policy of no original research. It would be our own observation. We can only report things that published, reliable sources have said. And speaking of sources, do you have third-party sources for information about how the technique has been received? Also, we have to try hard avoid having the article sound promotional. Some think that it already sounds promotional. Regarding the links at the bottom, the relevant guideline is WP:EL. Thanks much for your suggestions. TimidGuy (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

TG I understand about the no original research and yes you are right. In regards to third party sources talking about TM and its reception could we not use the many different articles that have appeared in the US news media about TM in Education, Business and the medical industry? I believe all the information is out there it’s just a matter of getting our hands on it...for example in Cambodia there is a university that practices Consciousness based education jointly run by the TM organisation and the Cambodian government...now I'm sure there are a number of official documents talking about its "reception" but they would all mostly be in Khmer...likewise the peace project that was conducted in Mozambique in the 90's I'm sure had alot of coverage in the media in Mozambique about it but I’m not sure how accessible it would be to us.

Perhaps we could continue to have a Controversies section but also have a reception section? In the reception section you could have how TM has been received by Religion, Education, Business, Medicine, and the Military. Also the cult issues could also be included in this section but instead under the umbrella of how TM has been received in the field of psychology? Under the controversies we could have the lawsuits and any other information that was controversial.

In regards to the price that section could be moved to nearer the top of the page where it discusses the teaching procedure? --Uncreated (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the discussion, and hope you've recovered from the flu. It's hard to generalize about how it's been received. We could be accused of cherry picking if we find a few articles and then present that info in this article, especially since the topic is so vast: many many countries, and many different facets of society. It seems like we'd need to find a source that gives some kind of overview and then report that. How about if we at least take a couple initial steps? 1) change the Controversies heading to Reception and 2) move cost out of that section. If we get consensus on that, then let's discuss further the context of the lawsuits. TimidGuy (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be fine to rename the controversies section. I don't mind moving cost either. However, would it be alright to hold off on that. A few months ago someone posted a point saying there was nothing about how the technique worked, and I also had an email from an editor who seemed to indicate the article was less than interesting without info on the technique itself so I am in the process of writing something. When that's done I could integrate the cost information in that general section. I'm fine with moving it now as well. And happy you seem to be over the flu, Uncreated.(olive (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks guys...I'm quite a bit better now...I don't remember the last time I was so violently ill though. Thats good olive...the article does seem to have a distinct lack of info on how it works. TG that sounds like a good plan. Do we have to wait for more editors to put in their 2 cents before we could change Controversies to Reception? --Uncreated (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of External Links
Here's the current list without the links for reference: --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * American Association of Professionals Practicing the Transcendental Meditation Program.
 * Promotional. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not attached to this, but this is a nonprofit organization, so I would probably consider it borderline promotional, and possibly OK as link(olive (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I mean promotional in the sense of WP:ELNO #4, 5, 13, 14. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes sorry ... no idea what ENLO is and wouldnt link .... could you point me in the right direction. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Behind the TM Facade - Criticizes claims made by the TM organization.
 * I'm unable to find the identity of the authors here, so it's probably inappropriate. Maybe [] could be used as a replacement if there isn't enough with a skeptical pov? --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Discover the benefits - Link to official TM site, includes some scientific study summaries.
 * So we agree this is the official site? If so, it should be first. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole - How TM Really Works, a Critical Opinion - Criticism of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM by a former TM teacher.
 * Doesnt appear to be written by a notable expert. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hararit" Village in Israel founded by TM meditators.
 * Looks promotional. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Maharishi Vedic City" City in Iowa, USA founded by TM meditators.
 * Looks promotional. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Meditation Information Network - Web site supporting critical examination of Transcendental Meditation and associated programs. Includes archived newsletters of TM-EX, the Transcendental Meditation Ex-Members Support Group (1990 - 1994).
 * I tend to removing links of aggregations of articles like this, but won't object to it's inclusion if no one else does. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Transcendental Meditation -- Links to Steven Hassan's "Freedom of Mind Center".
 * I've linked Hassan's name in the article to Steven Hassan. Is there any reason to keep this link to his center? --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have looked at the content closer. I assumed it was to his center.  Instead, it's his main TM entry, linking to his and others' articles.  I don't see a reason to remove it. --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Research on the Transcendental Meditation Technique.
 * Another aggregation. I think it should be treated the same as the Meditation Information Network link above. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Stress-Free Schools.
 * Looks promotional. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Transcendental Meditation technique and ADHD.
 * I've updated this to indicate it's from PBS. I think the date should be included, but couldn't find it. I didn't watch the video other than to quickly look for production info.  It looks like the information may have been removed, which means it may have to be removed for copyright reasons. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed this one as a link to what looks like copyrighted material used with the copyright information removed from it and no other indication that the site is licensed to use the material, per WP:ELNEVER. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Transcendental Meditation and Transcendental Consciousness".
 * Looks promotional. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Truth About TM - A leading researcher on Transcendental Meditation responds to issues.
 * I don't think David Orme-Johnson is expert enough to have his site included as a link. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He's published over 100 studies on Transcendental Meditation, most of them peer reviewed and in major academic journals. I hope we can include this one. I agree all your other suggestions (and thanks for focusing on this): replace Facade with Skeptic's Dictionary, put official site tm.org first, delete Rabbit Hole/Hararit/Maharishi Vedic City, delete the two aggregation sites minet and TM research, delete link to Hassan/Stress Free Schools/TM & Transcendental Consciousness. TimidGuy (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with TG assement.--Uncreated (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Want to thank Ronz as well for taking this on. I am keeping track of the points on agreement and disagreement just because the article has been contentious and this keep things very clear.(olive (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Could we add this link http://www.doctorsontm.com I think it has useful information about TM that people would be interested in. Where are we up to in regards to making the changes to the links? are we getting close to making the changes? Its been 3 or 4 days since we started discussing...is that enough time for other editors to come forward and offer or not offer concensus if they so desire?--Uncreated (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought this was the same the link in place (American association of Professionals ....) but is different and seems educational rather than promotional.(olive (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Uncreated -- I believe we have consensus on many of these. I think someone could go ahead and make some changes. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. I still think we could trim more off of it though.

Official site.

American Association of Professionals Practicing the Transcendental Meditation Program. (Should be removed)

Meditation Information Network - Web site supporting critical examination of Transcendental Meditation and associated programs. Includes archived newsletters of TM-EX, the Transcendental Meditation Ex-Members Support Group (1990 - 1994). (Should be removed) (it simply takes you to a page with more links...if there is useful information there we should link directly to it).

Transcendental Meditation -- Links to Steven Hassan's "Freedom of Mind Center". (Should be removed) (This site is promoting a business)

Research on the Transcendental Meditation Technique. (Should be removed)

Truth About TM - A leading researcher on Transcendental Meditation responds to issues.

http://skepdic.com/tm.html (add) ( To give balance)

http://www.doctorsontm.com (add) ( I think this is a very good site, this is who they are http://www.doctorsontm.com/about)

--Uncreated (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just cleaned up those I thought we had clear consensus on, with no need for further discussion. The rest could probably deserve additional discussion. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay...It seems to me that the information meditation newtwork simply takes you to a site that has alot of links taking you to other sites...if there is a site thereor some information there that is useful to educating people about TM why not link directly. Otherwise i don't see the use for this link.

Steven Hassan's website is promoting his business and as I understand not acceptable under Wiki policy. If we are looking for expert medical/psychological opinion (since as far as i can see Cult expert is another name for a psychologist with an expertise in human conditioning) on TM lets use www.doctorsontm.com this website is the website for the The American Association of Physicians Practicing the Transcendental Meditation Program.

I thought your reasoning to use www.skepdic.com was sound and we should have that in the links.

The research on TM page in my mind is alright and serves as a function to give people more Scientific info on TM but maybe something better could be found.

--Uncreated (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Condensing comments per link
I have gathered up the comments here so we can easily see where agreements have been reached. Comments can be added under the link section. In my attempts to summarize the discussion so far, if I have mischaracterized anyone's comments, I apologize in advance and please remove or add you name. Updated.(olive (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Intentional Communities
Agreement to delete from Uncreated, TG, Ronze, Olive that these are non-compliant either as promotional, or are not pertinent to this article
 * I've removed these. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Stress free Schools
Agreement to delete from Ronz, Olive,TG Promotional
 * Removed. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Down the TM Rabbit Hole, Behind the TM Facade
Agreement to delete as non compliant: self published, non reliable, verifiable claims per comments by Uncreated, TG, Olive, Ronz
 * Removed. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

TM and Transcendental Consciousness
Agreement to delete, Ronz, Uncreated, TG, Olive
 * Removed. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Aggregate sites
Agreement to delete from Ronz,TG, Uncreated, Olive
 * I kept these for now. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Hassan
Linked in article :agreement to delete from Olive, TG, Uncreated, and Ronz(?)


 * I see no reason to delete it, especially when I looked closer. Serves me right for multi-tasking ;^) --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't steve hassan's site promotional in nature? Just looking at his wikipage it says: "In 1999, Hassan founded the Freedom of Mind Resource Center. It is registered as a domestic profit corporation in the state of Massachusetts. He is president and treasurer." Isn't there some wiki policey for not promoting business's?--Uncreated (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hassan is a self promoting "cult" expert whose livelihood depends on the criticism of groups he considers to be "cult". His site is a commercial site promoting the sales of his services and as such is link spam I would think, and should be removed. He is linked in the article and that would seem to be borderline fine, but linking to his site given its promotional quality would be non compliant.(olive (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC))


 * ... and you've done a good job... much appreciated.(olive (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I kept this for now. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure why we should keep this given its so obviously a commercial site, and since there seems to be a consensus.

Official site
Place first. Agreement Ronz, Uncreated, TG, Olive
 * I think it should be changed to tm.org though if it's listed as the official site. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've placed it at the top and trimmed it to tm.org. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OJ site
Keep... agreement: TG, Olive, Uncreated
 * Kept for now. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic's Dictionary
Add... agreement Ronz, TG, Uncreated

do not agree to add-Olive... Not a  good source in my estimation. Too much opinion, and is not mean to be a reliable verifiable, source necessarily according to the author/editor.(olive (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Skepdic and Robert Todd Carroll are both notable, and Carroll's articles are often used as references within Wikipedia when a skeptic's viewpoint is warranted. His TM article isn't as detailed as I'd hoped, but I think the source itself wouldn't be controversial. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry everyone, I can't agree to support including Skepdic on principle for the following reasons:
 * Carroll is not an expert and is not notable on the topic of TM nor is he an expert on many other topics he includes in Skepdic.
 * On other Wikipedia articles use of Skepdic is also contentious.
 * Carroll includes a disclaimer on Skepdic so the material must always be considered less than reliable.
 * Technically a dictionary is a tertiary source.
 * However, there is a consensus on inclusion so of course inclusion is possible under that circumstance.(olive (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
 * If we think we need an external link to prevent a skeptical viewpoint, then this is a good one to consider. His articles are acceptable only in this context. Otherwise, your points are valid.
 * Once we're close to being done here, we need to look at the list of external links as a whole to make sure we're not giving undue weight to particular points of view. It's in this context that Carroll's article will fit or not. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.(olive (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Compression
What we have left to deal with and further comments:(olive (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC))


 * What about switching the Professionals Practicing TM link a more promotional site to Doctors on TM site, a knowledge based site.


 * the Hassan link


 * Aggregate site: WP:EL seems pretty clear on this topic


 * We need to watch "weight" here as well. Right now the links are weighted 1 negative to 3 positive, and one of those negative links is an aggregate site which heavily skews our "weight". I doubt that the negative to positive ration in sources and references on TM is weighted that way . It seems more to be in the 1 to 8 or 10 ratio at a rough guess. Definitley something we need to consider, I would think. However, removing Hassan and the aggregate site will also skew weight, so maybe I'll see if I can find better references to link,  with a neutral view of both sides of the issues


 * Other

I concur Olive Wikipedia is fairly clear on the no use of Hassan's Website and the Aggregate website. Replacing the Professional link with the doctor link is good. I agree with the undue weight towards links that are "negative" towards TM. But at this time I think we should still add the Skepdics link even though the skepdic article reads like a sensationalist peice from a womans magazine(not that i would know what one of those would read like :-)) Perhaps in the future something more appropriate will be found to replace the skepdics link that is more authoritative.--Uncreated (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * After looking at them all carefully, I think the best solution may be to have just the one link to the official site. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with that. Wikipedia notes external links should be kept to a minimum.(olive (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC))
 * In doing some cleanup of the Further reading section, I found two entries that should have been in the External links section. I removed the David Lynch Foundation link as off topic. I kept the theheart.org article, however I'm not sure it's worth keeping as the original study is already being used as a reference. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go along with that.--Uncreated (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ronz. Good idea. And yes, no need to have a Further Reading link to a study already included in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be concensus on this...perhaps the changes could be made. I'll just do it myself and if my assesment is wrong we can easily enough revert.--Uncreated (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversies to Reception
Hi Olive, how is the draft you are working on coming that you mentioned? As dicussed I would like to create a Reception section and move some of the material from the Controversies section to the reception section.--Uncreated (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to move the Relationship to religion and spirituality and the Cult issues section to a Reception section. Perhaps to bring balance to the cult issues...I have heard in her book Shirley Harrison "Cults " the Battle for God" gives a contrary perspective to Steve Hassan and Michael A. Persingers. IE among religous and Spiritual leaders TM has been recieved differently and also among "cult experts" TM has been recieved differently.

Also I have come across this link...would it come under the catagory of a reliable source?

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/11/16706.html?c=on --Uncreated (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the link it seems its a reproduction of an article that was printed in the Bermuda Sun...however the link at the bottom of the page does not seem to work.--Uncreated (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Uncreated, for initiating the discussion of External LInks, and for taking the initiative here. I'd go along with changing "Controversies" to "Reception" and putting the cult and religion sections under that heading. I've seen a number of articles successfully adopt the conventions suggested by the essay WP:CRITICISM and would like to try that here. Thanks for alerting me to the book by Harrison. I'll order it immediately. I have some doubts about the link as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with TG. I can go along with the new heading. I should have something ready by Friday on the technique. I'll post it here. The source looks like a sophisticated blog forum which we probably can't use for that reason. Thanks.(olive (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Exellent. Maybe I'll wait to make any changes until we have something quotable from Shirley Harrison's book TG if its coming soon and if thats alright with you? Will you get access to it very soon? I have been looking for information on the internent from a reliable source in regards to British Home Office policy of TM not being a religion or Cult...but at this time I have not been able to find anything...

Olive, will your new description make redundent the "issue of cost" section?--Uncreated (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we could go ahead without waiting on the book. We may want to be cautious about adding to the cult section. It's just not been that big an issue. If you do a search engine test on Google News archives, only a very small fraction (on the order of three percent) of the media coverage even mentions the word "cult." So we'll want to keep that section relatively short. The book will probably be here within a week. TimidGuy (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay will make the change. I agree the cult issue is a bit of a non issue I think...but what is there I think is unbalanced. Perhaps instead of extending the section we simply rewrite it to include some other perspectives? Either way lets wait until you have the book...I hope you didn't buy it but could simply get it through a library? --Uncreated (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable site to use? http://newer.globalgoodnews.info/world-peace-a.html?art=120085090111968907


 * I would say depending on what its used for, probably not, because its a TM organization publication. Thus the reports may be seen as being biased or non-neutral, and as well is not a "notable" publication with a large circulation to a general audience.(olive (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Yep, bought the book, and am open to rewriting that section. It'll be interesting to see what this book says. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't at what point does a self published site become a newpaper?--Uncreated (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess though if thats the case then under the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section we could say something like "Thousands of Buddist monks around the world have learnt the technique and the TM organisation claims they enjoy it" and site this article? I'm not really the person to be writing since I am not the best writer but I think it would be good if something like that could be added. I also have a friend who has instructed a few thousand people (most of them Muslim) in the TM Technique in Iran over the last 10 years but I'm not sure how we could site something like that since it has not appeared in any newspapers or verifable sources to my knowledge. Its relevent though because my understanding is that in Iran it is illegal to convert someone to another faith if they are muslim or interfere with their Muslim faith in anyway. The implication being the Iranian government which has its basis in Islam Law does not percieve TM to be Religious in anyway.--Uncreated (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a sell-published site can never be as reliable as a newspaper from Wikipedia's point of view. And even newspapers aren't always considered reliable sources, depending on the quality of the publication and reputation. Regarding the monks, I think this is an example of a claim that can't be used unless it's independently verified in a reliable source. Interesting about Iran. But you're right, we would have to have a source. Seems like the main idea in this section is just that we give a couple representative viewpoints -- some who say it conflicts with religion and others who say it doesn't. TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I am going to have to take a bit longer on the technique section I'm working on than I had hoped. Sick yesterday and somewhat better today but still a little under the weather.(olive (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

--Uncreated (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)== Research Study Conducted in Iran ==

This was a study looking at Mental Health in Iran...perhaps it could be used somehow in the article?

http://www.cpementalhealth.com/content/pdf/1745-0179-4-25.pdf --Uncreated (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We do need to do something to achieve NPOV in relationship to the Otis questionnaire. That non-peer-reviewed publication suggests that Transcendental Meditation can have negative psychological effects, so it would be good to also include some of the peer-reviewed research showing positive psychological effects. I'm not sure that we'd include this one done in Iran. Unlike some of the stronger studies, it doesn't use a control group. Also, it's not clear that the practice described in the study is Transcendental Meditation as taught by Maharishi. It describes each period of meditation as beginning and ending with one minute of concentration.


 * I received the Harrison book on cults. I don't see any material there that can be used one way or the other. She simply reports, quite accurately, facts about Transcendental Meditation and the organization that teaches it, but doesn't draw any conclusions. She mentions the scientific research, the nature and origin of the technique, etc.


 * I really appreciate the attention that you're giving to improving this article. I wish I had more time to focus on it. I think that a good psychological study to include would be the one by Gelderloos One problem with that study, though, is that the subjects in the treatment group practiced both Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi program, so it may not be relevant to this article. TimidGuy (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the Iran Study my understanding is that it is the TM program taught by Maharishi. I think probably the authors of the study did not fully understand the technique and hence probably described it wrongly.

Why not use the the iran study until something better is found or published? It can't be any worse than using the otis survey which to me looks very weak. Is the strength of the Otis survey strong enough to allow for its inclusion in the article on TM anyway?

Upon further thinking it seems to me that there is a dearth of decent and appropriate research conducted on TM in regards to mental health and maybe we should have no inclusion until something is published that would warrent inclusion.

If we are not to use the iran study due to its weakness we shouldn't be using the otis study either for the same reason.--Uncreated (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Otis probably isn't strong enough, but it's intended to be representative of several similarly problematic studies. There are dozens of studies showing positive effects on mental health, including randomized controlled trials. I just haven't had the time to look at the studies. Here are some examples:


 * Tjoa A. Increased intelligence and reduced neuroticism through the Transcendental Meditation program. Gedrag: Tijdschrift voor Psychologie (Behaviour: Journal of Psychology), 1975, 3: 167-182
 * Dillbeck M. The effect of the Transcendental Meditation technique on anxiety level. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1977, 33: 1076-1078
 * Seeman W, Nidich S, Banta T. Influence of Transcendental Meditation on a measure of self-actualization. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19: 184-187
 * Ferguson PC, Gowan JC. Psychological findings on Transcendental Meditation. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1976, 16(3): 51-60
 * Alexander CN, Gelderloos P, Rainforth MV. Transcendental Meditation, self-actualization, and psychological health: a conceptual overview and statistical meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1991, 6 (5): 189-247
 * Eppley K, Abrams A, Shear J. Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1989, 45: 957-74
 * Haratani T, Henmi T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation on mental health of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, 1990, 32: 656
 * Alexander CN, Swanson GC, Rainforth MV, Carlisle TW, Todd CC, Oates RM Jr. Effects of the Transcendental Meditation program on stress-reduction, health, and employee development in two occupational settings. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 1993, 6: 245-262
 * Brooks JS, Scarano T. Transcendental Meditation in the treatment of post-Vietnam adjustment. Journal of Counselling and Development, 1986, 64: 212-215
 * Taub E, Steiner SS, Weingarten E, Walton KG. Effectiveness of broad spectrum approaches to relapse prevention in severe alcoholism: a long-term, randomised, controlled trial of Transcendental Meditation, EMG biofeedback and electronic neurotherapy. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 1994, 11: 1-2, 187-220
 * Ljunngren G. The influence of Transcendental Meditation on neuroticism, use of drugs and insomnia. Lakartidningen, 1977, 74: 4212-4214


 * Fine with me if you want to put in the Iran study until someone has time to survey the research and identify the strongest studies. TimidGuy (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Exellent response TG...I have some familiarity with two of those studies which would be exellent additions to the article on TM in my opinion.


 * Eppley K, Abrams A, Shear J. Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1989, 45: 957-74
 * Haratani T, Henmi T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation on mental health of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, 1990, 32: 656

In the second Study the Japanese Ministry of Labour was a collaberator and the Meta Analysis conducted at Stanford is of high quality with about 150 studies compiled if my memory serves. They are comparativley quite recent being published in 1990 and 1989 respectivly. I will use these two to improve the article.

I am not familiar with the other studies listed...but if they are all of high quality at what point does Otis's surevey become irrelevent? I noticed in the past that there were studies in the medical section published in the 70's that suggested TM had no effect on high blood pressure and they have been removed now since i assume the weight of research on TM lowering blood pressure existed?

Either way I will try and get something up about the two studies to balance otis's survey.--Uncreated (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the early studies were removed because they are not current, and of course there is newer research that contradicts the older studies. But their age was a major factor. We may always have to include a counter balance to the weight of the positive TM research.The Otis study fills that place now. As the weight of positive peer reviewed  research increases in terms of the overall  collections of studies so can we decrease as per WP:Weight the more negative studies, but at least one study may always be necessary to show both sides of the information. This is probably something that will have to be discussed and an agreement reached so that all agree the weight of the information in the article is appropriately distributed.
 * Getting close on the new addition. The wording must be very accurate so fine tuning that aspect. Thanks for your continued attention on this article.(olive (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't think any earlier studies were removed. The Lancet studies are both still mentioned -- which I think are the only studies that might be removed under the guideline WP:MEDRS. TimidGuy (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sheesh . I knew we had discussed removing those studies and had assumed we had, but didn't check. Apologies. I do agree with TG in that those are the only studies we could remove and I guess sucha move would take more discussion. Apologies.(olive (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

I have typed up a rough draft of something that we might be able to use. TG and Olive could you please look over to make sure it is appropriate in content, tone and length.

A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[38]

A 1977 Study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology looked at the effect of Transcendental Meditation on Anxiety levels. Transcendental Meditation was shown to significantly reduce Anxiety in the practitioners as compared to controls who relaxed passively.

A 1989 Meta Analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology compared 146 independent studies on the effect of different meditation and relaxation techniques in reducing trait anxiety. Transcendental Meditation was found to produce a significantly larger effect than other forms of meditation and relaxation in the reduction of trait anxiety. Additionally it was concluded that the difference between Transcendental Meditation and the other meditation and relaxation techniques appeared too large to be accounted for by the expectation effect.

A 1990 study published in the Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, conducted at Sumitomo Heavy Industries by the Japanese Ministry of Labour and others looked at Transcendental meditation and its effect on mental health and industrial workers. In the study 447 employees learnt the Transcendental Meditation technique and 321 employees served as controls. After a 5-month period, the researchers found significant decreases in major physical complaints, impulsiveness, emotional instability, and anxiety amongst the mediators as compared to the controls. The mediators also showed significant decreases in digestive problems, depression, and tendency toward psychosomatic disease, insomnia and smoking.

A study in the American Journal of Managed Care indicates that there are no known side effects associated with the Transcendental Meditation technique.[39]

--Uncreated (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good job! I wonder if we could condense it a bit, so that it's not too long relative to the other sections. I wonder if we should delete the sentence about side effects. The article is a review of research on Transcendental Meditation, and just briefly mentions that there are no known side effects, but doesn't really look into that in any detail. TimidGuy (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, good job.... I also wouldn't mind seeing if it can be condensed, just to make sure in terms of weight as applies to space its not too long. I would also agree to remove the side effects part. Listing the different studies is a pretty strong statement and adding this last part may be a little overkill.(olive (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

Thanks TG for the copyediting.--Uncreated (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NSR
Natural Stress Relief is not Transcendental Meditation, for example it uses a single mantra, so there is no reason to link it from this article. If we were to start including forms of meditation that are not TM for whatever reason,this article could include multiple forms of meditation, and would be pages long(olive (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

Cult issues
I was just looking at this section and I noticed that Cult Awarness Network is misquoted. At the moment what it is:

In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying that the Transcendental Meditation technique “seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.” Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique display cult-like behaviors.

However when you actually read the article that the washington times published that this quote is sourced from it says:

The group charged in a press conference yesterday that the maharishi's Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement, of which yogic flying is an advanced stage, is not simply a method of relaxation through meditation, but a cult that ultimately seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.

I think this is an important distinction...that it is not the TM technique that “seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.” but the TM Movement. I think the cult issues section needs to be changed to reflect this but before I do so I would like to hear what the other editors think.--Uncreated (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing this. It would be nice if we could somehow avoid saying "TM Movement." That's sort of a bogeyman umbrella term used by ideological opponents. There is no corporate entity named the TM Movement, and it's a bit of an artificial construct. In general, I haven't seen that term used in the mainstream media or the scientific literature. Which is a long-winded way of saying maybe we could word it something like "the organization that teaches the Transcendental Meditation technique". TimidGuy (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

TG I understand what you are saying...to me the whole paragraph seems problematic. It seems to me to be a commentary on the TM organisation as opposed to the TM technique. The second sentence in the first paragraph regarding cult issues reads:

Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique display cult-like behaviors.

Now in the washington Post article as far as I can see that line was taken from the 2nd paragraph:

The group charged in a press conference yesterday that the maharishi's Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement, of which yogic flying is an advanced stage, is not simply a method of relaxation through meditation, but a cult that ultimately seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.

"They want you to dress and think and speak in a certain way and not to ask questions," said Steven Hassan, a former follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon who has studied cults for a decade. "They go into hypnotic trances and shut off who they are as a person."

I think in the 2nd Paragraph Steve Hassan is continuing to coment on the TM organisation. "They" can only mean the TM organisation.

Now up until this point in the wiki article of TM it has all been about the TM Technique and nothing about the organisation.

I think if we were to have something in the cult issue section we would actually have to find a Cult expert who had critisicms of the technique and not the organisation.

Later in the WP article this appears:

Hassan said at the press conference -- held at the Shoreham yesterday at the same time that the Maharishi Continental Assembly, a conference for followers of the maharishi, was getting underway in another part of the hotel -- that TM adherents suffer a "destruction of personality. It's an addiction, akin to alcohol and drugs."

He handed out a pamphlet saying that "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time."

Perhaps something from these two sentences could be used?

Also I think that if we were to continue as it is now it would be good to add a sentence quoting congressmen Leachs response to critisicms that MIU (who presumably organised the event):

Leach'sspokesman said the congressman, after being told of yesterday's criticisms of the TM movement, responded that MIU is "accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and also recognized by the Federal Interagency Commission on Education."

Either way the whole section needs to be looked at I think.

Thoughts TG, Olive anyone else out there?

--Uncreated (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sheesh... I can't believe I never saw that mistake in referencing the source. I think you're right, we need to change the reference. I'm not that excited about the quote you included as a possibler change ... It seems a little too emotional, but will keep thinking about it . Maybe there's something else?

I'm not sure the Leach comment would be a needed addition. Can we think about it. Rushing right now. Will come back to this.(olive (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Yeah this will probably require a little bit of thought. Obviously there are people out there who think TM is a Cult and to maintain NPOV for the article there thoughts and feelings should probably be there somewhere in the article.

However reading through the WP article that covered the CAN conference the issues raised by Steve Hassan seems to be refuted by much of the research conducted on TM i.e. "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time."

I know WP is absolutley a reliable source but all the research conducted on TM seems to refute his essentially unsupported claims. I don't know what to do about it...but what we have now does not seem to be accurate.--Uncreated (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess the Wikipedia way is to let the reader decide. Maybe use the part about physical and psychological harm. If we were to do that, it seems like ideally it would be juxtaposed with the research rather than sequestered, so that the reader would see the two points of view together (Hassan's claim vs. research results). On the other hand, I don't know that we can entirely leave out the claims against the organizations teaching TM. Ideological opponents will likely expect some element of that in this article. One reason I used the part about stripping individuals' ability to think and choose freely is that this point was most directly addressed by the research cited by David OJ in his cult rebuttal. (By the way, he's in the process of submitting a couple very detailed papers to academic journals addressing the various claims regarding cult issues, showing that the research tends to refute these claims. Will be nice when we can cite that.) TimidGuy (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this article is about the technique perhaps it would be appropriate to stick to claims against the technique....a thought.(olive (talk) 17:16, 13 November

2008 (UTC))

I agree with Olive...I'm not sure we should include claims against the organisation. As far as I know 99% of the people who learn the technique simply learn and after being instructed in the technique never have anything to do with the TM organisation again. Also as far as I know to practice the technique after learning no further contact with the organisation needs to take place...to suggest otherwise in the tm wiki article would be misleading.

Perhaps we could open with something like this:

In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time."

However I'm not sure how to juxtapose the research on TM with the cult claims with out bringing in OR from myside. Or would it be alright to say something about at this time the research conducted on TM suggests this not to be true and site appropriate research.--Uncreated (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually we could just site OJ in much the same we did before but instead use this page as a source.

http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm --Uncreated (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm stumped. We may not be able to use the OJ page immediately above, because I think it would need to directly address the cult issue, if we're going to use it to rebut a cult claim. Worried about WP:NOR. And any research we cite should also directly address this. OJ is going to be radically revising the cult section of his web site now that he's done research for the scholarly papers his submitting on the cult topic. Maybe the new version will be useful in this context. TimidGuy (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have put alot of thought into and I think that it makes the article weaker in appearence by not having a cult issue section. I think the simplest thing to would be is to have:

In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time. Psychologist Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique suffer a "destruction of personality. It's an addiction, akin to alcohol and drugs."

Remove everything else including ojs comments...and wait for some better information to come to light. thoughts? --Uncreated (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just remove the section entirely because in my opinion he's just some crazed nutter who's got up on his soap box and sprouted his opinions without any supporting evidence or reason as to why. --Uncreated (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The section you have suggested does not mention that TM displays cult like tendencies does it? Then placing in there, statements about TM and the harm it does and then adding OJ's statements on cult is actually OR and we can't use it . In fact now that I think about it TM itself can't be a cult since a cult is an organizational phenomena but not a a technique so we are really up the creek here without anything. Cult is organization but not a technique. TM is a technique. Connecting the two together is in reality OR. More thought necessary(olive (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Exactly and so all we are left with are his opinions on the technique which are contrary to what the research suggests to date. If a Psychologist was qouted in a paper as saying he thinks "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time" would we use it?

Perhaps we should just consider removing the section...since it does not really apply? Or we could have this by itelf:

In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time. Psychologist Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique suffer a "destruction of personality. It's an addiction, akin to alcohol and drugs."

--Uncreated (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeda transcendental meditation page hits
http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/transcendental_meditation

Interesting...this page for the last 6 months averages about 16000 hits a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncreated (talk • contribs) 04:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

New section on mechanics of the technique
As per suggestions and requests I'd like to suggest this version of "Mechanics of the TM technique". I am using Shear as a source and attempting to stay away from TM organization sources to hopefully have something that is as a neutral POV as possible. Comments are welcome, of course.(olive (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

According to Jonathan Shear in, The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, the Transcendental Meditation Technique is a mental procedure based on the premises; that the mind has an innate tendency to move towards happiness and satisfaction, and that although the objective source of thought in the mind is an electrochemical process, the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought. This experience, a fourth state of awareness is unlike the everyday experiences of the three states of awareness of waking, dreaming and sleeping.

In order to reach a silent state beyond thought, the path must be effortless and natural, and the thought vehicle (mantra) used to reach this state must have no meaning attributed to it. If the mantra has a meaning attributed to it than the mind will become attentive to the meaning of the mantra, and will become active rather than more silent. For this reason practitioners of the TM technique are given a mantra that is utilized for its sound aspect only. The mantra facilitates the transition of the mind from the active level to the silent state beyond thought.

This transition occurs through the reversal of the natural thinking process. Thought begins at deep levels of the mind and is more abstract, less clearly defined here, but with the mind’s attention becomes more clearly defined and concrete. The TM technique is structured to reverse and so utilize this natural process. Through the use of the mantra, the mind in a natural way moves from the perceivable, concrete levels of thought to abstract levels of thought until the thought itself is transcended or disappears, and the practitioner can experience the silent state beyond thought. The experience of this silent state creates rest in the mind, and by reason of the mind’s connection to the body, also the body. ''

Exellent Olive, that will be a very good addition to the article...this is what has been missing. I have not read the book but from my understanding of the technique his description of how tm works sounds accurate. --Uncreated (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I had help to make sure the language was completely accurate to the source of course, but also to the technique :o)...Lets leave it here for a few days to make sure all editors have a chance to comment.(olive (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC))


 * Sounds like pure gobbledygook to me Olive - at least the first and last paragraphs :) But just my thoughts of course. The7thdr (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm working from a very specific source but maybe if you could point out the areas you have problems with I could fix them. I went to a non TM organization publication,although the editor of this book was or did TM at one time. He also does or has done many other kinds of practices so realized this would be a more neutral source. Your comments would be invaluable since this has to make sense to all readers. If it doesn't it should be fixed. So would love your more specific feedback.(olive (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC))


 * Its simply gobbledygook with no meaning LO and sounds more like a religious tract than anything. For example: "that although the objective source of thought in the mind is an electrochemical process, the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought" This is religious speculation - yet I was under the impression MUM was trying to keep both religion and non-scientific reasoning out of this article. For example what research evidence is there for, "...the mind has an innate tendency to move towards happiness and satisfaction" or "...the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought" (actually, I think I read that once in a book claiming the secrets of "Atlantis".


 * This is pure religious speculation. I have no difficulty with this as long as it is clear this is what it is. It would also be better, to be honest, to quote the original sources rather than the secondary ones cited. Just a thought. I have no feelings either way to be honest - just popping by to see how things were going - but it simply seems so "wishy washy" in light of the rest of the article. The7thdr (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry LO, having re-read my comments I see they come across with my usual rudeness. I fully support what you are doing in this section but just feel it is not "right" at the moment and doesn't, as it stands, fit in with the tone of the rest of the article. Also, I think that going to the source would be better than a third party. Shear may not be the best person to describe TM. Having looked through his book, I was surprised by how much he actually misunderstands about Zen. The7thdr (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He is right on in terms of TM, though. I've also checked with experts in the TM area to make sure.


 * I'd like to make a delineation here between religion and spirtituality. I would define spirituality as would many as a search for or desire to deal with a higher self of some sort. Religion refers more specifically to an organized body in which some if not all of  traditions, boundaries, language and so on are supported /practiced.


 * You make an important point. This section is about the practice itself and it may very well be considered a spiritual practice as well as one that has health benefits. Whether we go to the source, the TM organization, or Shear we are going to come up against a couple of mysterious suppositions that exist in many spiritual practices and that is what happens at the point where thought disappears.
 * As well, the idea that happiness exists at the place beyond thought has been called the perennial philosophy and is relatively well known. I'm not sure how we can bring this section into line with the heavily scientific aspects of TM. One perspective is that TM the technique came first and variations of it have been around for centuries. Maharishi himself was a physicist in terms of his educational background and realized at some point that the claims made by practitioners of TM would in the West have to be documented so he asked that research be carried out, with the over 450 peer reviewed studies the result. So although this material is not like the article it may have a more important place in terms of understanding. We don't have to supply scientific research for this. We have to have a good source, which Shear is .... We are simply stating what views exist on TM are rather than proving that technique is what it says it is. Still your points are excellent and valid, and I'll do my best to rewrite.(olive (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC))


 * You are right of course LO - spirituality and religion often seem to "interfere" with each other and it can be difficult to make a distinction. Still it just doesn't read "right" at the moment - but then, conceptualising the "unconceptual" is always problematic. Again, only my thoughts. I do believe however, going to the "source" - considering how much was written by your founder - might be best. Why rely on secondary sources when the processes founder wrote so much? Again, just my thoughts The7thdr (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A very good and interesting point ... let me think about it and see if doing so would be compliant. (olive (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Olive how is the new section coming along? If you are feeling it isn't quite right yet why not just put what you have up and change it when the time comes?--Uncreated (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I should have something up tonight. I am not at home so computer access is spotty. I'm using the Science of Being so that will give it a different slant.(olive (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I am working on a couple of different computers, and I'm afraid I've just had what seems to be massive computer failure on one, and appear to have lost everything I was working on. I'll redo it of course on the other computer but can't get the section up tonight.  Because I will be travelling again soon, I may not be able to complete this until Friday.(olive (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

Just my idea: It may be easier to take literal quotes from Shear, and maybe some from official TM sources as well. Then it’s not your creation, but clearly linked to a reference. Geke (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Geke. Please see the two versions below . None of these are mine, but are taken in one case directly referencing Shear, and in the second directly from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's own book, Science of Being. Wikipedia doesn't really encourage quoting, so I've only used only one direct quote. The material is as direct to the reference as I can make it without plagiarism. (olive (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

Name of the technique
In the section on "Origin", it reads "which he called Transcendental Meditation." Shouldn’t that read something like this: "which he called "deep meditation". Later this became "transcendental meditation", and upon its registration as a trademark in about 1965, it became "Transcendental Meditation"." I am guessing the year, and anyway I have trouble finding references for this, but that's how I remember it. In the "Beacon Light" I only find the name "spiritual sadhana". Geke (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think we'd need a source for this. Its an interesting point and might be worth mentioning just for the sake of accuracy. I would definitley think a ref is necessary,though.(olive (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

(Edited) OK, here are my findings, in "short": A Almost from the beginning, Maharishi’s technique was called "deep meditation", but that was more a description than a proper name.(1) Somewhere between 1960 and 1963 it became "transcendental meditation".(2) Only in 1978 it became a registered trademark (although maybe with backward validity from 1965) and could then officially be called "Transcendental Meditation".(3)

1. The "Torch Divine, Organ of the Spiritual Regeneration Movement" in January 1959 writes: "a very simple and easy process of deep meditation" and: "easy system of deep meditation". Source: scans of printed pages, on Paul Mason’s site: http://paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm

2. The "Science of Being and Art of Living – Transcendental Meditation" was first published in 1963.

3. In the TESS trademark registry, there is an entry on Transcendental Meditation reading "FIRST USE: 19650000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19660000". Other fields read: "Filing Date: August 12, 1976" and "Registration Date: January 17, 1978" Source: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=r9hqjq.2.2 To me, this looks like the TM organization has supplied the info on "first use" and "first commercial use".

B Throughout, Maharishi used the name in two ways: sometimes it meant exactly the technique as it was taught by his teachers, with Puja and all, and sometimes it indicated any technique involving 1. a mantra and 2. a certain way of using that mantra during the meditation. For example, in the Science of Being, he says: "This belongs to the spirit of every religion; it has existed in the early stages of every faith, it is something which has been lost." ... "Let the intelligent minds of all religions and the custodians of the various faiths delve into the deeper essence of their scriptures, find Transcendental Meditation in the textbooks of their own faiths, learn the practice, and adopt it in the light of the teachings of their religions."

I’m not sure if and how that can be incorporated in the article, though. Geke (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Jerry Jarvis, who worked closely with Maharishi in the early days, once said that it was originally called Transcendental Deep Meditation. Then, since that was a long name, they got the idea of simply abbreviating it TDM. But they realized that when you say that, it sounds like "tedium." So they shortened it to Transcendental Meditation and TM. : ) Just tossing off this comment. Will give some thought to your points. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Do you have more like that? I was looking for someone who has witnessed the decision-making at that point, because I was curious how and why it was called TM. What you write sounds like coming straight from that kitchen! I guess the complete story is then: first, the name was generic, like "a system of deep meditation"; then the idea came up to give it a real name, something with "transcendental"; and then, as your quote suggests, it was decided to drop the "deep". Geke (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that we could change "which he called" to "which came to be called." That way we'd allow for the fact that it seems to have had different names. I wouldn't see any reason to give a history of the naming in this article, since it was never widely known by any other name, now would it be easy to source such a history without potentially breaching WP:NOR. TimidGuy (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A nice solution! Any other thing would become too much of a story, I agree. Geke (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture
I won't remove this section at this point, but becasue this is a highly contentious article, material especially a new section should be discussed...so opening up this for discussion.(olive (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I guess I generally don't like pop culture sections in articles and would vote for removal. It doesn't really tell one anything about the subject but rather seems a matter of trivia. And how would one decide what to include, since there are so many pop culture references to Transcendental Meditation? TimidGuy (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to immediately revert it per WP:TRIVIA, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That was my temptation as well, but thought an agreement should be reached since in some articles pop culture sectiuons are tolerated.... I would be happy to remove the section.(olive (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC))


 * Is there a way to ask the person who put this in for more specifics? How was is visible that it was TM that Bunny and Batman were practising, and not any other kind of meditation?Geke (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

USA-coloured?
While I’m at it: In Britain, the course fee for TM is £ 640. How to integrate that into the article?Geke (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess if you have a source, you could add that info. And regarding this section on issue of cost, I think we should consider moving it to a different location in the article. I don't think it's a major controversy and therefore doesn't belong in the Controversies section. My feeling is that to be labeled a controversy, there should be sources that focus on this controversy. But I've never seen any that do. An article might suggest, in passing, that TM is expensive, but that's not a controversy, in my mind. Seems like to be labeled a controversy, there should have been media coverage of it. TimidGuy (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; see if you like my changes. I'm not sure where else to put in prices; they're not really important in encyclopedias! I left it in the Controversies, because it sure is (or was) a major controversy within TM circles: some teachers started a split-off organization, which they wouldn't do easily. Geke (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern is that with adding any information about price the article starts to assume a slightly commercial air. On thinking about it I guess I would delete all info concerning price to get rid of that sense, both American and European.


 * In fact there are multiple reasons why people don't do TM or do any other form of meditation For us to include it here as a special instance may be creating a non neutral POV. Its tricky. Although there are those who consider this price too high, and who reacted that way, there are many more who feel its fine. I'm OK with it being here and with the addition of prices in Europe, but perhaps we could consider if there may be a better place for the information or if it should be there at all. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

The question is if you add in the price for these countries you have to add in the price for all countries presumably? In some countries TM is taught for as little as 1$US...

Also it seems that some of the information in this section come from unverifiable sources:

In response to what they feel is a high course fee to learn the Transcendental Meditation technique, some former teachers offer TM instruction independently.[66] while other former teachers have published what they claim to be the mantras used in the practice and how these mantras are assigned.

These two sentences come from either a commercial site which cannot be used and a site that is self published which also cannot be used. They should be removed unless someone comes up with a logical reason in accord with wiki policy as to why they should be kept.--Uncreated (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Olive, I also felt that it was starting to look like a pricelist! So I cut it down. About the other considerations, I don’t know. I thought just to mention those conflicts is OK.


 * Uncreated: I thought those sites were OK: TM Independent page shows clearly that there are such teachers; the price in Germany is referenced from a German TM site. The sentence about teachers publishing mantras doesn’t mention its source. But I’m not a seasoned Wikipedian, so PLMK know if those web sites can’t be used. Geke (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that self-published and commercial web sites generally can't be used to support a claim. The relevant policy is WP:V. The claim here is that the issue of cost, teaching TM independently, and publication of mantras are major controversies. (And I say "major" because having a separate heading for it implies that it's major.) Per policy, we'd need a source that meets WP:V and WP:RS to support these claims. It's possible that sources could be found, but I guess I doubt that any of these points could ever be characterized as a major controversy. My feeling, as I noted before, is that a first step would be to not identify this as a controversy. TimidGuy (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Geke TG is right in regards to wikipedia policy. TG that sounds good. I concur we should move the issue of cost section out of the controversey section and also remove sentences  which do not meet wiki policy. Where do you suggest it should be moved to? --Uncreated (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It would seem that if we include one price we have to include more, and then why not all as long as they're referenced. As soon as we include all, then we are in a sense selling TM because we are advising our readers what it costs. My suggestion would be to remove it altogether. I suspect it was included in the first place to point to the concern about price some people had and to some links that advertised other techniques. Those links and that information were removed as non compliant so why hold on to this information especially that it sounds too much like advertising for Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Maybe the section should be removed altogether? We could leave the last sentence(below) and put it in the section "Teaching procedure".

"According to the official web sites, the Transcendental Meditation technique can only be learned from an authorized teacher; the fee provides for the introductory course of seven lessons, and lifetime checking of the technique for correct practice." --Uncreated (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like that idea, and would agree to it. Makes more sense in terms of the logic of the article.(olive (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Agree to this change. TimidGuy (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Olive...though maybe something should be added to the section explaining that the three first steps in the TM course are free (introduction, Prep and personal interview) but that the additional 4 steps require a onetime fee which includes follow up and a lifetime checking of the technique for corret practice?--Uncreated (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Version one-Source: Shear-stable copy
According to Jonathan Shear in, The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, the Transcendental Meditation Technique is a mental procedure based on the premises; that the mind has an innate tendency to move towards happiness and satisfaction, and that although the objective source of thought in the mind is an electrochemical process, the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought. This experience, a fourth state of awareness is unlike the everyday experiences of the three states of awareness of waking, dreaming and sleeping.

In order to reach a silent state beyond thought, the path must be effortless and natural, and the thought vehicle (mantra) used to reach this state must have no meaning attributed to it. If the mantra has a meaning attributed to it than the mind will become attentive to the meaning of the mantra, and will become active rather than more silent. For this reason practitioners of the TM technique are given a mantra that is utilized for its sound aspect only. The mantra facilitates the transition of the mind from the active level to the silent state beyond thought.

This transition occurs through the reversal of the natural thinking process. Thought begins at deep levels of the mind and is more abstract, less clearly defined here, but with the mind’s attention becomes more clearly defined and concrete. The TM technique is structured to reverse and so utilize this natural process. Through the use of the mantra, the mind in a natural way moves from the perceivable, concrete levels of thought to abstract levels of thought until the thought itself is transcended or disappears, and the practitioner can experience the silent state beyond thought. The experience of this silent state creates rest in the mind, and by reason of the mind’s connection to the body, also the body.

Edit this copy
According to Jonathan Shear in, The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, the Transcendental Meditation Technique is a mental procedure based on the premises; that the mind has an innate tendency to move towards happiness and satisfaction, and that although the objective source of thought in the mind is an electrochemical process, the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought. This experience, a fourth state of awareness is unlike the everyday experiences of the three states of awareness of waking, dreaming and sleeping.

In order to reach a silent state beyond thought, the path must be effortless and natural, and the thought vehicle (mantra) used to reach this state must have no meaning attributed to it. If the mantra has a meaning attributed to it than the mind will become attentive to the meaning of the mantra, and will become active rather than more silent. For this reason practitioners of the TM technique are given a mantra that is utilized for its sound aspect only. The mantra facilitates the transition of the mind from the active level to the silent state beyond thought.

This transition occurs through the reversal of the natural thinking process. Thought begins at deep levels of the mind and is more abstract, less clearly defined here, but with the mind’s attention becomes more clearly defined and concrete. The TM technique is structured to reverse and so utilize this natural process. Through the use of the mantra, the mind in a natural way moves from the perceivable, concrete levels of thought to abstract levels of thought until the thought itself is transcended or disappears, and the practitioner can experience the silent state beyond thought. The experience of this silent state creates rest in the mind, and by reason of the mind’s connection to the body, also the body.

Version Two-Source: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi-stable copy
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in The Science of Being and Art of Living postulates that the source of thought, or source of the human being’s creative intelligence exists at the deepest level of the subconscious mind, beyond what the senses can experience, and beyond thought itself. He calls this field transcendental Being. He suggests that thought rises from this deep level through the multiple levels of the subconscious mind becoming less and less subtle until the conscious level of the mind is reached and the thought can actually be experienced as a thought.

Maharishi describes the subtlety of thought below the level of conscious mind as generally not consciously appreciated by the mind. He uses the analogy of the bubble that in deep levels of water cannot be seen as a bubble. Only as the bubble reaches the surface of the water is the bubble known to be a bubble.

Maharishi notes creation ranges from gross to more subtle levels. Human beings through their senses are capable of experiencing the gross levels of creation but generally not the more subtle levels, for example, the human ear cannot hear radio waves. He suggests that thought too has grosser and subtle levels, and that if thought can be experienced in its more infant and more subtle states as well as its grosser states, and that if the very subtlest form of thought can be transcended, then transcendental Being can be experienced.

The Transcendental Meditation technique is a technique that with the use of a thought, in this case a sound (mantra) to which no meaning is assigned, allows the mind to travel in a systematic, natural way from the grosser levels of thought at the conscious level, through the layers of subconscious thought, eventually transcending the thought itself to transcendental Being. Maharishi says the practice of allowing the mind to move through subtle levels of thought, over time brings those subtle levels to within the realm of awareness of the conscious mind.

“This is how the conscious mind is enlarged to its maximum capacity embracing within its fold”, Maharishi says, subtle levels of thought and even the source of thought or source of creative intelligence, increasing the mind’s power and abilities.

Edit this copy
In The Science of Being and Art of Living Maharishi Mahesh Yogi postulates that the source of thought, or source of the human being’s creative intelligence, exists at the deepest level of the subconscious mind, beyond what the senses can experience, and beyond thought itself. He calls this field transcendental Being. He suggests that thought rises from this deep level through the multiple levels of the subconscious mind becoming less and less subtle until the conscious level of the mind is reached and the thought can actually be clearly experienced.

Maharishi describes the subtlety of thought below the level of conscious mind as generally not consciously appreciated by the mind. He uses the analogy of the bubble that in deep levels of water cannot be seen as a bubble. Only as the bubble reaches the surface of the water is the bubble known to be a bubble.

Maharishi says creation ranges from gross to more subtle levels. Human beings through their senses are capable of experiencing the gross levels of creation but generally not the more subtle levels; for example, the human ear cannot hear radio waves. He suggests that thought too has gross and subtle levels, that thought can be experienced in its more infant and more subtle states as well as its grosser states, and that if the very subtlest form of thought can be transcended, then transcendental Being can be experienced.

The Transcendental Meditation technique is a technique that with the use of a specific thought, in this case a sound (mantra) to which no meaning is assigned, allows the mind to travel in a systematic, natural way from the grosser levels of thought at the conscious level through the layers of subconscious thought eventually transcending the thought itself to transcendental Being. Maharishi says this practice, of allowing the mind to move through subtle levels of thought, over time brings those subtle levels within the realm of the awareness of the conscious mind.

“This is how the conscious mind is enlarged to its maximum capacity”, Maharishi says, "embracing within its fold subtle levels of thought and even the source of thought—or: 'source of creative intelligence'— thereby increasing the mind’s power and abilities."

Comments
Great my preference would be to go with the 2nd one Olive...I think both are fine but maybe better to get it from the horses mouth per se. I would urge you to put in and if people don't like then it can be discussed on the talk page. --Uncreated (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the second one better too, which is as you say, from the source. I'll wait a day or two to give any other editors a chance to comment since that seems to work best in term of Wikipedia agreement /consensus. (olive (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

Exellent.--Uncreated (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It sure sounds better, but then, I’m used to hear it from Maharishi... I just made some small changes here and there. See if the quote marks in the last sentence are as they should be. Well done! Geke (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the quoted section is as it should be in the original stable copy since I am quoting directly from the reference ...(olive (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Oops! I thought the last sentence looked pretty strange, grammatically I mean, so I bent it a bit. I can’t believe they printed it like that--can you tell me which section you’re quoting from, so I can look it up? :-) Geke (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Check Appendix H under "The Main Principle" and then under subheading "Application of the Principle". Mine seems to be a 1995 edition.(olive (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
 * What would we call this section? Maybe "Nature of the technique"? TimidGuy (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also "Mechanics of the Technique"although Shear uses this, or "Principles of the Technique".(olive (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Nice job Olive, I added 3-4 words to help clarify the meaning of a few sentences but I am not attached to any of my changes. Feel free to reverse any of them that you disagree with as they are minor. I agree with others that it is much better to have the founder of the technique describe it in the TM article. Thanks to 7thdr for his brilliant suggestion. --Keithbob (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the new text and did end up using the title using the word principles since this word is used in The Science of Being and would seem to be most accurate to the source. I am not attached if someone likes something else better.(olive (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Appendix H?! So my copy is too old, but I managed to find a very similar text in the Amazon "look inside" of a 1994 copy. My main point was that "Maharishi said" was put in an awkard place, but now I see that it's in the right place, at least in the "Edit this copy" version. So I've just added quotes around the second part of that sentence, one comma in the first sentence of the quote, and I'm basically done... There's only two things I'm not completely happy with, but maybe they're in the book as well: "very subtlest" in the 3d para, and the formulation of "The Transcendental Meditation technique is a technique that with the use of a specific thought, in this case a sound (mantra) to which no meaning is assigned ...". I wouldn't use "technique" twice, I don't like "in this case" at all, and I would replace "assigned" with "connected". But then again, this may be the text in the book... Geke (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bull by the horns
I made an adjustment based on discussion just to see what it looks like and how it reads. We've been humming and hawing around this material for a long time and it seemed time to at least see what it might be like if it was Wikipedia complaint. Don't panic! :o) I'm happy to revert it if need be.

There are real problems with what I removed, and maybe we just have to be compliant. TM independent is a spam link. It points to one incident of some teachers going out on their own, and links to their commercial site. That's not really notable and violates undue weight as well as adds advertising to the article.

If we say prices vary from country to country we have to have a reference that actually says that. We can't say prices vary from country to country and then add the prices from some countries. That would actually be synthesis, and violates WP:Synthesis. Again not compliant. So take a look at the changes and see what you all think.(olive (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Thats awesome Olive. Though I believe there is still the issue of the cult section to be resolved as well.--Uncreated (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you did well. There is also an alternative TM offer in Holland, so it's not that localized, but still: Is it necessary for an encyclopedia to report all conflicts that have been there within or around TM circles? Also, the pricing problem might have largely disappeared since many national offices lowered the fees this year. If you decide to put it back, then the varying prices may still not be needed--they were just there to give the reader an idea of the course fee. The cult section [later correction: This should be: pop culture section] was doubtful to me all the time, so I think it's good to approach it from the other end: Let people put up some good suggestions for inclusion and it'll go in. Good job, Olive! Geke (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the cult section is quite another kettle of fish, or Pandora's box, or bag of snakes. To satisfy WP:Weight, on this topic we need to show the "other side" of responses to TM. What we have now does that and does so with probably the appropriate weight per the length of the article and its subject matter. I'm not sure what else can be done.(olive (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Yes, however it has not been properly referenced...as per our discussion above.--Uncreated (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote "cult section" but I meant the section on "pop culture". Sorry if I created confusion by my remark. Geke (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mechanics/Principals section-a simplified version
I have added a new simplified version of the mechanics section probably easier to understand than my version. If there are objections let me know. I still have the other version at hand.(olive (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
 * In my opinion this version is a bit oversimplified but I know that there are many cooks in the TM kitchen so you are probably just going with consensus, which of course is good. However, having said that, I believe the 2nd paragraph needs a few changes.  Here is my suggested version: "The Transcendental Meditation technique is described as a mental procedure for allowing the mind to quiet itself.    During the initial instruction session the practitioner is assigned a thought, in this case a specific sound, or mantra, to which no meaning is given." What do you think?--Keithbob (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. TimidGuy (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict: I'll add this anyway, and see What TG thinks.
 * ...and actually now that this version is in place and I can see it in context of the whole article, I also have been feeling its too simple. There was no consensus for this version. I put it in place pending any discussion. I'd like to incorporate KB's changes and add a bit of what was in place before, perhaps, if no one objects. Since the editing environment here is pretty congenial, I feel we can edit directly into the article without concerns. Hope that's also OK  with everyone. Oh and KB, please feel free to make changes yourself(olive (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I did Add KB's new bit but did take out "assigned a thought" which I realized might, without explanation, sound very odd to the lay reader. How can an thought be assigned?(olive (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

It looks good to me! I just added a link to "mantra" to have contributed at least something...! Would it be a good idea to include a link to "samadhi" as well, I mean on "transcendental Being"? Geke (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Geke ... your discussion and comments definitely contribute ..... The mantra article is not great. There seems top be a fair amount of mistaken info. in it and it needs reliable references. It also a tagged artilce. I wonder about maybe removing the word mantra completely rather than linking to the article. I'll remove it, and then if you want it back in either let me know or put it back in yourself. Maybe the mantra article could be cleaned up ad linked later on. I wouldn't link sahmadi unless its in the article, and I don't think Maharishi used the term much especially in later years. (olive (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the kind words, but maybe the friendly atmosphere in here is distracting a bit? ;-) I mean, there should certainly be some mention of "mantra" in the article, even if I don’t especially like the mantra article either. Maybe we could link to "japa" instead? (Something else completely: when I type "TM" in the search field, I get to a disambiguation page, where I can click on the link to the "Transcendental Meditation" article in two sections: "Pop Culture" and "Science". I think that’s pretty hilarious!) Geke (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As per Wikipedia as I understand it, we can only link to what we are using in the article otherwise we are creating a kind of synthesis or WP:OR. My concern is linking to an article that gives misleading information and that is not referenced, but if you want mantra in the article it can be put back in ..... Just go ahead and re add it. I am definitely taking matters into my own hands by making this kind of move, unusual for this article, but as long as we all respect the other editors we can edit right into the article with no issues, seems to me. Just let me know what you want, or if you want to do it yourself, of course, go ahead. I didn't mind personally not using mantra because the new section on Mechanics is so simple that mantra didn't really seem necessary. I'll be waiting to hear what you want or will do.

... and the friendly atmosphere is supposed to be what its like on Wikipedia so its nice here right now, but not necessarily the usual on the TM article.(olive (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC))


 * oh ... and not trying to distract, but definitely being WP:Bold :O)(olive (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Hi all, I agree with Olive on these two points about mantra and samadhi. Both of these terms are generic to the entire field of meditation and Indian philosophy.  In this section we are specifically describing a particular technique.  In order keep it distinct I would vote to keep the generic terms to a minimum. At the same time the removal of the mantra word made the paragraph very odd. IE. what do they do with the 'sound they are given'? So I added a phrase to indicate that sound is used as a thought in the meditation.  Hope its helpful.  --Keithbob (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that anyone reading the TM article, especially the "principles" section, would expect something being said about the mantra. So, being bold :-) I’ll just put it up as I think would be appropriate. See if you like it. Geke (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK great. I'll see if I can do a little work on the mantra article today, adding refs and so on.(olive (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

I think to have the word mantra in the sentence is fine i just think it shouldn't be linked. Maharishi's definition of what a Mantra is, is different from what is defined in the link given...I think the link should be removed unless the page linked to the word mantra reflects Maharishi's defintion of what a mantra is.--Uncreated (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on one hand but this aticle will not be in our hands forever and eventually someone will come along and link mantra .... so I guess I'll make a stab at the mantra article to make it sure it reflects multiple usages/meanings of the word - unless someone has a better idea.(olive (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

I have no problem with linking mantra...just we shouldn't link until the source linked is accurate.--Uncreated (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I didn’t make it clear enough with my putting in "mantra" but linking it to "japa". Let’s try something else and see if you like this one: inserting "(Compare the use of mantras in japa.)" Geke (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Geke.We can't by Wikipedia policy on WP:OR make the addition you did by linking to Japa. We don't use the term in the article, Maharishi didn't use the term that I know of, so I doubt we could find it in the TM literature. The only way we could use the term and then link it is if we found it somewhere in the TM literature. Then we can add and ref it. I did clean up the mantra article in part by adding a couple of references and removing inaccurate info in the lede. So I had linked back mantra to the WP

article on that topic. Because we use the word in the article and can reference it if need be its fine to link it. I hope that makes sense. I was going to leave in the link you added until you responded, but probably since its clearly OR, it should be removed immediately. I guess the problem is solved though, since the original issue was with the Mantra article and its inaccuracy.(olive (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I still don’t really understand that OR policy, so I’m sure you’re right. But have you seen the Japa article? I think it gives much better info about mantras and their use than the Mantra article; isn’t there a non-OR way to link to that article? Maybe in a See Also section? Geke (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
Whats the story with the Neutrality Tag? --Uncreated (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The research listed in the article is not neutrally weighted. There are over 350 peer review published studies on TM done over the last 40 years at over 100 different research institutions worldwide (likely too many studies to list in this article, though perhaps in a newly created separate entry on just the research done on TM).  Of those, approximately 16 report equivocal results (approximately 4% of all peer reviewed research).  Of the ~30 studies referenced in this article, four of them indicate equivocal results and one (a survey by Otis in 1971, which was never peer review published) reported negative feelings of anxiety, confusion and depression associated with TM practice.  These inaccurately weight the research to be approximately 16% equivocal or negative.  So to be weighted accurately (neutrally), we would either need to edit out four of the existing referenced equivocal studies (IMO, the Otis reference should definitely be edited out, being non-peer reviewed) or else add in ~90 more studies, or some combination of both adding new studies and editing out some of the existing ones to reach a neutrally weighted (~4% equivocal) representation. Duedilly (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tag
The article has come a long way since the tag was first placed on it, and it seems time to remove it. I note Duedilly's comment|here that the science sections are not weighted as correctly as they could be. His comment is on record and correcting the balance could and should be a job for the future.(olive (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

The article is far from neutral. Bias of researchers is never discussed. Studies are cherry picked. Judyjoejoe (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

TM in Corporations
I would like to create a new section in the Reception section to do with TM and its reception in the Business world. A possible source for this could be this article printed in the "Candian Banker" a canadian Magazine.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9244531_ITM

I think it would be good to bring this to light in the article as way to show how widspread the Practice of TM is in the world especialy in the business world. Over 100 Corportations in Japan have implemented the technique in their existing training programmes. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncreated (talk • contribs) 05:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We have to be cautious about making the article sound too promotional. And similar to our discussion above, it's hard to achieve balance when talking about reception, simply because it's a big world out there. My inclination is to keep this short, and just focus on the two issues that come up the most. As it is, the scientific research already says quite a lot about the reception -- publication in major medical journals, funding by NIH. Seems like what we want to do here is simply describe the technique and its effects. My guess is that most articles about behavioral interventions don't talk about how widely they're used. And I think that a reader would just assume that anything that's found to be effective would be widely used. Anyway, those are just some thoughts. For a long time there was a list in this article of famous people who practice TM but an editor pointed out how it gave the article a promotional tone, so we had consensus to delete. (Though we did, at the time, delete it with the idea of making it into a separate article.). TimidGuy (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with TG. With an organization the size of this one there is a lot we could add to this article. As a solution to what to add and what not, I think there has been a general agreement to keep it succinct, and to give the reader a clear sense of things, but not to overwhelm. If interested in TM the reader,as with any encyclopedic article can look and read further.There have been some formidable battles on this article as well over weight, and I'm reluctant to upset the balance too much in any direction as could happen with this suggested addition. Thanks for looking into this.(olive (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Hi Guys, thanks for your thoughts and I agree largely with what has been said. But on something’s I disagree...I will probably have to give more thought to how I want to articulate my thoughts though. But one thing I do feel is that I think the article is in a good state...but that balance has not quite yet been met. I absolutely do not want to turn this into a promotional article about TM but I think there is room for a sentence here or a sentence here to express how TM is received in the world.--Uncreated (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Uncreated, I think you could write a first paragraph for the "Reception" section, before the other existing text there. That would make the heading "Reception" more appropriate as well. Something like a time line from the first controversial beginnings, then hippie acceptance, then again resistance and more focus on Ayurveda, until now kind of mainstream as part of a wave of meditation in the west? Geke (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The trick is that everything must be referenced, otherwise we are dealing with OR.(olive (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC))

Hi Geke Olive is right everything needs to be referenced and to write the sentence your are suggesting would require an article printed in a Newspaper or something maikng that point. If we were to add something small to the reception section about TM in the world as far as i can see it would have to be point by point with a source for each point. I will see if i can write something up and present it with all of the appropriate references to see how people feel about it.--Uncreated (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if some of this would overlap into the history section?(olive (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps that would be better to have some more information in the history section. Something about how TM is now taught across the world in Academic institutions, Corporations and different Militaries around the world.--Uncreated (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tag redux
The weight of the article has been pretty carefully considered by all editors involved in the more recent discussions, and if anything the article is somewhat skewed towards the negative since it does not indicate the range of peer-reviewed research now over the 350 mark showing positive effects. I am removing the tag pending discussion here.(olive (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Note the comment by Duedilly above.


 * You think the article is skewed negative. I think it is clearly biased positive.  The neutrality is disputed.  That's what the tag says.  Rracecarr (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The several editors involved in the discussion up to the removing of the tag seemed to be fine with the tag's removal since no one commented. Your move to replace the tag despite this seems somewhat disruptive. If the other editors involved want to comment on your move, fine, but you are welcome to leave the tag in place as far as I am concerned.(olive (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Rracecarr a number of editors working on the article felt that it had reached a neutral state...if you think it is not neutral why don't you point out why you think it is?--Uncreated (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Uncreated. I wouldn't be too concerned about the tag. Duedilly has serious reservations concerning the neutrality of the article as he indicates here in that it under represents the over 350 and still counting peer reviewed studies. With Rracarr's comment the tag simply can be seen as making reference to the concerns on neutrality from different sides of the coin.(olive (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC))


 * I do not replace the POV tag to be disruptive. I replace it because I sincerely believe that this page is biased, particularly with regard to cited literature and external links.  Why all the research by MUM folks and no reference to published research which criticizes their methods (e.g. Markovsky)?  Why all the links to pro-TM propaganda pages like TruthAboutTM.org and none to critical pages like skepdic.com?  Rracecarr (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Markovsky's study was a criticism of the study on the Maharishi Effect published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution. The latter study wasn't on Transcendental Meditation per se but entailed the group practice of the TM-Sidhi program, a separate technique. In general, Wikipedia disallows personal websites. TruthAboutTM meets the exception in WP:V, in that David OJ has published in reputable third-party publications -- over 100 studies, most of them in peer-reviewed journals. It's my feeling that the balance in this article reflects the way TM is presented in the scientific literature and the mainstream media, though perhaps a bit weighted toward the negative. TimidGuy (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You cannot really believe that TruthAboutTM is an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article on TM. It is not an unbiased source of information--not even close.  It is a propaganda site. Rracecarr (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not ideal to cite a personal website. I think we only use it once, right? He's actually in the process of publishing his study on the cult issue, so soon we won't need to cite it in that section. For now, I think it's fine. It seems to be in accord with WP:V on selfpub, and he's merely citing studies relevant to cult accusations. TimidGuy (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Rracecarr Mate, thats cool...I get it that you don't mean to be disruptive. As TG pointed out Markovsky is critical of the Maharishi effect not Transcendental Meditation so it couldn't be used, also like TG said because OJ is an authority in his field and can be sited per wiki policy...are you disputing that he is an expert in his field? Also what information linked from skepdic.com would you like to see in the Article on TM?

In regards to the editing in the Research section, what is the use of having this sentence? "(Robert Wallace, the lead author of these publications, subsequently became a faculty member at the Maharishi International University, which was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.)" I don't think adding this gives a neutral tone to the article and I think it should be removed. --Uncreated (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi all, as much as I am loath to say so, I think that racecarr is correct in stating that the neutrality of the article being in doubt. This is due to the fact that at least two of the editors work for the companies university. The Robert Wallace, comment and his history after his publications is very important. The reason is this; unlike many religions, TM claims to have direct impacts on people health states (by claimed alterations in physiological processes (indeed, it is this fact alone that keeps me coming back here. IMO this article tends to draw the attention of many biased opinions - especially from the Christian Right and care must be taken for this reason) and supports this with peer reviewed "evidence". However, care must be taken as much of this research is conducted and funded by the organisations own university. In many cases, were the researchers did not work for MUM at the time of the research they later go onto get "lucrative" (or at least prestigious) posts with MUM (you will need to go through the history of this article to see this). It is important to say that Robert Wallace, went onto work for MUM after his "positive" research was published as much as it would be to say a consultant Radiologist went on to work for PHILIPS after publishing research which found that their newest Spiral CT scanner was the best for identifying PEs.


 * Personally, I think that most religious articles in WIKI should have a tag claiming doubting neutrality as they tend to be edited by members of said religion. However, TM is especially prone to this due to: 1, the fact that mush of the research is paid or conducted by MUM, many of those not connected then get positions at MUM afterwords, it claims "health benefits" 3 it is a commercial activity only indeed, claming not to actually be a religion. As to OJ, I have said it before and I will say it again, using him as a "neutral" counter to the "cult" arguments throws the neutrality of this article into clear doubt and is another reason that I keep returning. Not only is it clear that he worked directly for MUM for many, many years; that a large percentage of the positive research was conducted by him, but that even now - having left MUM - he is conducting research on TM paid for by MUM and other TM subsidiaries. Sorry. The7thdr (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi 7thdr, thanks for the response...though i don't really no where to begin. First of all where do you get this idea that TM is a Religion? For one thing TM is a technique that is practiced and it is not a set of beliefs, if you have a source for this assertion please post...Can you please direct me via links to show where you came by your understanding that most of the research on TM is conducted and funded by "the organisations own university". Once again can you please post a source for you assertion that researchers go on to get lucrative/prestigious positions with MUM...I think you will find in the Robert Wallace case that he didn;t so much as go on to work for MIU because of his research he went onto become the founding President of MIU because of his passion for the research he conducted.

You assert that TM is a Religion but i can't see how it can be myself since it is a technique, not a set of beliefs...you should learn Transcendental Meditation and then you would see that it is not a religion, simply a technique that is practiced by people of all cultures, creeds and religions alike. I can't help but think that a number of editors on the TM article seem to have a lot of misinformation about what TM is and the organisation that promotes it. I look forward to your response. --Uncreated (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Whew, 7th you make multiple blanket statements..


 * The so called organization's university is neither lucrative nor prestigious in the academic world in part because it is a relatively young university although it is slowly building a reputation..


 * There is a well accepted precedent to say the least for research to be done on university campuses. Peer review is the standard for controlling quality in any research. We denigrate multiple peer review boards of multiple prestigious journals if we say the TM peer reviewed research is not legitimate.


 * There are over 350 peer reviewed studies on TM and counting... They are not all done on this campus by a long shot. Even if they were university professors are traditionally paid to teach and to research on any given a campus... Again the quality control of those studies is peer review and the quality of the publication.


 * Studies indicate multiple health benefits...The NIH recognizes those benefits and has funded research on the campus to the tune of 25 million dollars.


 * OJ is a recognized professional in his field and cites studies, not his own, that indicate findings in behaviour opposite to those found in cults. Under Wikipedia Policy although not the best source he is a legitimate exception... If we want to get into a cult discussion we could take the section out completely since I believe Persingers' book is self published, Hassan is questionable and there is other information indicating TM is not a cult ... so if we want to get rid of the whole cult section fine. I've been supporting keeping it in for the time being.


 * You also call into question the neutrality the editors editing here. We judge the editor on the editor's edits as Wikipedia says and not on a perceived COI.


 * As well, what you see in place in this article is not the work of a couple of editors but of many editors over time.(olive (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC))


 * I would like to reiterate that 7th has made many factual errors in his statements, about funding, the generalizations about the research and about getting positions, about David OJ's employment, etc. Take the latter instance for example. How could you, The7thdr, possibly know that he's paid? Where on earth would you get that information, such that you would state it as fact? TimidGuy (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a neutral viewpoint. I have no dog in this fight. I have no interest in editing the article. But, if you wanted the perspective of an entirely neutral observer on whether or not to leave the "neutrality disputed" tag in, here's my 2 cents: This is not a neutral article, and the tag should stay in. Fladrif (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine with me that the tag stays...as Olive said previously the "tag simply can be seen as making reference to the concerns on neutrality from different sides of the coin." However we should be working to make the article Neutral so any suggestions as to how to do this would be welcome. Like I said previously I don't think this sentence is neutral and should be removed.

(Robert Wallace, the lead author of these publications, subsequently became a faculty member at the Maharishi International University, which was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.) If we want put this information in we should try and find away that does not require it to be in brackets. --Uncreated (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I placed it as a note within the reference. A more prominent presentation of the information if questionable without an independent source. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, thats much better. Maybe though it would be more accurate to say something like this in the footnotes: Robert Wallace, the lead author of these publications, subsequently went on to become the founding president of MIU in 1973.--Uncreated (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Robert Keith Wallace :o).(olive (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Rracecarr reverted and accused Ronz of trying to hide conflict of interest. My feeling is that his edit was very reasonable. I have to agree with Ronz, Olive, and Uncreated -- that the sentence reads like a non sequitur. TimidGuy (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Give me a break. Rracecarr (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:CONSENSUS. Four editors don't agree with you. "Give me a break" is hardly a cogent argument for your point of view. You always resort to edit warring in this article. You've been warned for that. Please respect Wikipedia's approach to collaborative editing. TimidGuy (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please respect WP:COI and stop editing this article. Rracecarr (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Take it to WP:COIN. We'll abide by conclusions there. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Racecarr. Ronz is a neutral editor who has been active on this article and in the discussions, and his edit was an obvious attempt to create a compromise. The issue isn't just the edit, but rather someone who comes into an article that is contentious and shows a lack of consideration for the other editors working there. If you want to make changes discuss it here. The sentence is a non sequitur and is an obvious attempt to create a POV. Lets call it like it is. If you have have concerns with the neutrality of the article discuss it, please, as we have all had to do.(olive (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Stop it. I am a neutral editor.  Timid guy, who you're parroting, and you, are not.  It is blatantly obvious that if a bunch of research by someone affiliated with a TM university is being prominently cited, their conflict of interest needs to be made clear. Rracecarr (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way TG, it was not Ronz I accused of whitewashing, it was Uncreated, who removed the information using the bogus argument that it was in parentheses. Rracecarr (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No Racecarr, a neutral editor does not walk onto an article, slap a tag onto it and begin to make edits in the face of  other editors and discussions on that article. You refuse to discuss the edits but instead attack an editor. You do not control this article but must collaborate with and like the rest of us. I think the change you are making is poor in terms of syntax and reasoning but I was willing to deal with it and discuss it. Robert Keith Wallace is a respected, credentialled researcher and his work cited here is peer reviewed. You call into question both the researcher and the board that accepted his work/paper. You by the way have reverted this material 3 times.(olive (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC))


 * I am a neutral editor in that I have no vested interest in TM one way or the other, as do most of the rest of you. It bothers me to see questionable citations presented as though they're reliable, in an effort to support an agenda.  That is not what WP is supposed to be.  You're not supposed to be advertising/promoting here.  This is supposed to be a place to get unbiased information.  If the article is going to state that a bunch of papers supposedly show beneficial effects of TM, it wrong to hide the affiliation concurrent or not of the author with an organization with such an obvious TM axe to grind as MIU.  I don't know or really care whether the conclusions of the articles are right or not (that's the difference between me and the editors controlling this page--they want the conclusions to be true, and they try to present them that way). What I do know is that I cannot win this argument.  I know TG is relentlessly persistent, and olive will echo whatever he says, and both are here to stay.  I know I won't change their minds.  I'm not willing to spend huge amounts of time in a futile argument.  It is not an efficient way for me to try to improve WP.  So I won't post much on this talk page. Rracecarr (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Provide an independent, reliable source demonstrating that we should be giving this information so much weight, and I think we'd all agree to adding it in such a prominent way. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Racecarr mate...you realise that MIU did not even exist when the original research was conducted? From what you said in the above sentence :"It is blatantly obvious that if a bunch of research by someone affiliated with a TM university is being prominently cited, their conflict of interest needs to be made clear." There is no conflict of interest because when he did the research the "TM University" did not exist. I think if we could find a source that said because of the research he conducted he went to become the founding President of MIU in 1973 that would be good to be mentioned in the footnotes.--Uncreated (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By calling into question Wallace you also call into question Benson, and note the studies where not done on the not yet existent MIU campus as Uncreatd notes.(olive (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC))


 * In lieu of an edit war...Rracecarr....could you consider addressing the comments\points here that have been raised?(olive (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Uncreated, LO/TG (Both faculty members of MUM) really, don't tempt me to answer your questions or get involved in this article - please. The7thdr (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Links
The links section as it appears now in the article is the product of discussion and agreement by several editors.Discussions here.  Re adding links to that section or adding new links should be discussed here first and agreement reached in line with what's already been done on this section. Thanks.(olive (talk))

Protect article?
For the record: I do not think the article is neutral. Actually, the article is in a bad state since a couple of years. I also followed the German version of the TM article for a long time and the situation started to improve significantly when the article was protected. Perhaps this is something one should also consider for the English version, too. -- mkrohn (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In what way do you think it is in a poor state?--Uncreated (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's grossly inferior in comparison with the German article. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The German Wikipedia TM article and the English Wikipedia version are very different in scope. The decision was made on English Wikipedia by multiple editors to restrict the TM article to just information on the TM technique. Other information related to the TM technique such as is found in the German article can be found in their own articles. For that reason the two articles can't be compared, and in fact there is no reason for the two articles to be alike.(olive (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Acknowledged. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ospina/Bond report
I'm pasting here a recently added paragraph so we can discuss: The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the NIH, commissioned a meta-analysis of the state of meditation research from the University of Alberta. The university reviewed 813 studies, a number of which were Transcendental Meditation studies. The conclusions of the analysis was: "Many uncertainties surround the practice of meditation. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results." http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf

I don't know that we want to give their broad generalization, since their findings varied from technique to technique. I've skimmed the section on the TM studies on hypertension, and from what I could tell, the researchers generally found that TM reduces hypertension. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, this study wasn't published in a journal, and is only now being published in segments in academic journals. The peer review process for this government report didn't follow the usual procedures, and I think it would be better to cite the published versions when they come out. TimidGuy (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is hardly a fair or accurate reading of the conclusions of the study. The study found no statistically significant reduction in hypertension from TM:


 * "All but one study221 were medium- or long-term trials (more than 3 months). The study with the shortest duration221 (3 months) was the only trial that reported statistically significant changes in SBP favoring TM®. The medium- or long-term trials did not find statistically significant differences between TM® and HE for changes in SBP. A subgroup analysis based on the duration of the studies (Figure 4) showed that greater homogeneity (p = 0.64, I2 = 0 percent) was observed for the studies that assessed the medium- and long-term effects of TM® and HE on SBP. After excluding the short-term study,221 the direction of the effect changed to a small, nonsignificant reduction of SBP in favor of HE (WMD = 0.70; 95% CI, -2.29 to 3.68)." (p115)

Fladrif (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Fladrif. Don't I know you from somewhere? : ) You may have misunderstood what it says. All of these are comparisons with health education (diet and exercise, etc.), which has itself been shown to reduce blood pressure. In other words, Transcendental Meditation is about as effective as health education. TimidGuy (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wandered over out of curiosity. I don't misunderstand. Table 28 (p129) shows the comparative results for the various treatment alternatives.  Health Education has no statistically significant improvement over No Treatment. Another part of the report (p 187)concludes that the referenced studies show that TM provides no greater benefit than NT (no treatment) in reducing blood pressure, though other studies show an improvement versus WL (waiting list). TM is listed, along with progressive muscle relaxation, health education, waiting list and no treatment, as having 0% probability of being the "best" intervention for hypertension.


 * "Direct meta-analysis showed that compared to NT, TM® did not produce significantly greater benefits on blood pressure (SBP and DBP). However, there was significant improvement in LDL-C levels and verbal creativity with TM®. When compared to WL, TM® produced significantly greater reduction in SBP and DBP. Before-and-after studies on TM® for patients with essential hypertension indicated a statistically significant reduction in SBP and DBP after practicing TM®. The heterogeneity present for the comparisons evaluating blood pressure changes and cortisol levels suggests that there were important clinical differences among the studies; however, the small number of studies precluded subgroup analyses." (p187) Fladrif (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to include this analysis. It is from a reputable university, commissioned by NCCAM, distributed by NCCAM and is important information in evaluating the TM research. This is especially true given that the University of Kentucky meta-analysis was included with no disclosure as to the fact that the funding was in part from a large contributor to the TMO. Judyjoejoe (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Additions of this size in a contentious article deserve discussion and agreement by multiple editors. With discussion it may very well be that this informatio0n is added, but should not be be added because of one editor's opinion, and especially since this discussion is already under way. I would suggest just joining in the discussion rather than edit warring.(olive (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Here's my vote. There are 9 paragraphs in the main article  -roughly a quarter of the entire article - about studies alleged to show various health benefits from TM, with no questioning whatsoever of the provenance, methodology or the characterization of the conclousions of those studies. The History pages for this article show that any criticism of the studies or their conclusions were systematically removed by editors with - no offense - serious conflicts of interest with respect to the subject matter.  Here is an independent government-funded report which analyses a variety of studies, including some of the same studies cited in this article, subjects them to statisical analysis, and puts the results into a broader and neutral  context.  I know that [User:TimidGuy] is a big advocate elsewhere of WP:NPOV. It would seem to me that this is exactly the sort of thing that should be included if this article is ever going to achieve anything even remotely approaching neutrality.Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fladrif. TG and olive appear to be trying to squash relevant published research. Rracecarr (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Olive. I think you need to give a reason for continually removing the new material other than "please discuss".  You can't just revert people for no reason.  It seems unreasonable to object to the edit because "Additions of this size in a contentious article deserve discussion."  It is just one small paragraph, and it seems quite reasonable.  If you object to it, you should present reasons for your objection on the talk page.  It is unfriendly to flatly revert others' best attempts at improving the article.  I won't participate further in this edit war, but ask that before reverting a third time, you provide some justification.  Rracecarr (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But as you can see from the discussion above, it's hard to know what to say. The report says various things. And I don't think it's fair to include a generalization that applies to all 800 studies, especially since the report indicates that TM reduces hypertension. Plus, the report didn't follow the normal peer review process. And two of the reviewers recommended it not be released. One of those reviewers happened to select a specimen of TM data to check on accuracy and found many errors. (He was concerned and got in touch with some of the study authors. His peer review is here.) The report is in the process of being revised and published in segments in academic journals following the normal peer review process. I have heard, though, from one of the authors that they're not going to submit the hypertension segment for publication. I've been asked not to give the reason. So it's complicated and not obvious. And it's egregiously wrong to include the quote that Judy inserted, since it doesn't reflect accurately what the report says. The abstract says that TM lowers hypertension. Rather than edit war, let's get some consensus regarding these issues.TimidGuy (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just want to add that I really hope you'll take a look at the Walach peer review that I linked to. It's pretty damning. TimidGuy (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The peer review you linked to appears to be biased and mostly silly. The fact that it's even available online suggests that it was written not to try to help the authors improve their study, but to attack the study's credibility. Reviews are not usually available to the general public.  They are a private part of the process of producing high-quality research. Rracecarr (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On what basis do you allege that the report "didn't follow the normal peer review process?" Even on a Talk page, one is required to comply with WP:RS. Fladrif (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, by normal peer review process I mean being sent out for peer review by an editor, and then the editor makes a decision on whether to publish in a journal. The report itself describes its peer review process, in which the authors themselves decided whether or not to follow the recommendations of the peer rieviewers. And even then, the authors didn't follow the procedure they themselves outlined, as is described in a critique published by David Orme-Johnson in the same journal that published the first segment. TimidGuy (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Review by an editor is not what is meant by "peer review process". Peer review, properly understood, was clearly followed in this case, and after peer review AHRQ published the report. You cannot seriously contend that two reviewers - with conflicts of interest no less - should have had veto power over publication of this report? Fladrif (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple edit conflicts


 * TG and Olive are asking for discussion and agreement (as they so clearly say, and as they have every right to do) before or if adding the material. AGF Rracecarr. This as you well know is a contentious article and discussion is necessary and preferred to edits based on opinion that do not yet have agreement.I have every right to revert edits based on opinion. The onus is on you if you are adding to clearly illustrate why, and again opinion isn't good enough. I note Judy's addition is not really accurate so discussion is definitely necessary. I have to rush away right now but would like to continue this later.


 * You might want to read the study... TG has provided a link...(olive (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC))


 * and as TG says there are real concerns with this study so just not sure how that could or should be dealt with in the article.(olive (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

(arbitrary unindent) I think it the study should be mentioned, and rather prominently per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MED/RS. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Olive, TG and I have all reverted twice each now (uncharacteristic of TG--not really living up to his name at the moment). It is funny that TG and Olive are paying lip service to the idea of getting "consensus" before making the change when 4 (count them 4) editors have expressed support for the edit (me, Judy, Ronz, and Fladrif), and only Olive and TG have dissented.  I think that constitutes consensus.  Therefore, I will revert one more time. Rracecarr (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rracecarr, what makes the peer review silly? Please explain. I think it's serious. It's online because he was very concerned. Yes, it would have been private if this report had followed the ordinary peer review process, but it didn't. At least 2 of the 10 peer reviewers said that it shouldn't be released. He finds very specific errors related to the TM studies -- coding errors that would affect their score on the Jadad scale. Ronz, I hope will address some of the points I've raised. TimidGuy (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Racecarr, please tell me on what basis that's your preferred wording. Per the discussion above, why mention the general conclusion and not the specific conclusion that TM reduces hypertension? You're really not addressing the points raised, but, as usual, are simply edit warring. You're right -- it's very unusual for me to revert a second time. But I did so because the wording is not apt. It's characterizing all 800 studies and ignoring the specific results. TimidGuy (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the wording, suggest something else. Or heck, just change it.  But don't just continue to completely remove it.  I think it's clear that this study is too relevant to simply suppress. Rracecarr (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now we are getting somewhere. However, I don't think the sentence you just added accurately reflects the one in the abstract. The abstract says:

"Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure."


 * You just added:

"Regarding the Transcendental Meditation technique, the report concluded that it 'significantly reduced blood pressure.'"


 * Seems to convey something a little different. Rracecarr (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. That was my point. The report says various things. Did you read the discussion above? You'll find that exact conclusion in the abstract. TimidGuy (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Timid Guy, I don't see the researchers concluding that TM did significantly reduce BP. They couldn't do that because of the poor quality of the studies. Judyjoejoe (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) I also object to including Orme-Johnson's criticism of the study. He disputes absolutely everything that is critical of TM research and is a strong promoter of TM on his so called truthabouttm website. Judyjoejoe (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This discussion has been mischarachterized and while I could ignore it ... I'm fed up with the kinds of comments made here. Whether this material stays in or not is one issue, but describing this discussion as above isn't fair. I reverted first in the middle of a discussion in which Racecarrr wasn't here and neither was Ronz. There was no consensus. Saying there was is untrue, and saying Ronz was here at any point when I reverted is another untruth. Asking for discussion is an accepted standard on Wikipedia as any fair editor knows, and reverting material under discussion is a nasty tactic as well. In terms of saying that asking for discussion is some kind of squashing tactic is an ad hominem attack as is consistently falling back on a so called COI. Consensus and agreement is not reached while simultaneously reverting. Recently on this article, under the direction of Ronz discussion and subsequent edits were made in a collegial environment that satisfied everyone involved. Characterizing TG and me as has been done here is not only unfair its just lacking in truthfulness. I will continue to ask for consensus /agreement reached through discussion because that's the way its done  on Wikipedia, when its done right.(olive (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Agreed, discussion is the proper way to do it. Not revert and then discuss.  Of course I'm guilty of the same thing, but if you want to lecture me on how "it's done right" you should do it right yourself--that is, when something that is not outright vandalism is added to the article, bring it up on the talk page and then revert it, if that's the consensus, not the other way around. Rracecarr (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish... I edited and then went to talk to comment and hit four edit conflicts before I could comment. I reverted a non consensus change to the stable version of the article. Changes had been made that were relatively large without any kind of agreement. Check WP:BOLD(olive (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC))


 * So it's your policy then to automatically revert any edit which hasn't been cleared ahead of time on talk? Rubbish yourself. Rracecarr (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I'm saying. I was acting according to WP:BOLD, and reverting to a consensus version... Anyway, sorry about the rubbish part... feeling frustrated.(olive (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I don't mind in the least. However, I don't understand the distinction between what I asked--if your policy was to automatically revert any undiscussed edit--and your explanation that you were just reverting to the "consensus version".  How can any edit ever be according to consensus if it isn't discussed first?  If every undiscussed edit gets reverted, isn't that contrary to the very policy you've been quoting, i.e. WP:BOLD?  The truth is, your reversion didn't have anything to do with consensus, or with WP:BOLD.  You simply didn't like it, so you reverted it.  Fine, I do that all the time.  But let's not pretend that our actions are motivated (or even supported) by policies which don't apply. Rracecarr (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was in a stable position and is that way because of different discussions/agreements/consensus of many editors over time with varying degrees of interest in the topic. The article is and has been highly contentious which means that certain standards for editing have been generally accepted to keep edit warring to a minimum. One of those is to discuss changes before they go in so all editors have input. This means that editors coming into the article need to discuss and reach agreement with all other editors before adding something ... If they don't then there is a possibility that another editor will come in and revert to the stable position - the consensus position determined over time. I was reverting to the stable position and asking that any additions to the article especially of that length undergo scrutiny from all of the editors. If you really knew the edit history of this article and both my and TG's editing history you would know that we are both truly neutral editors. There are things in that article I don't like, and some that are not Wikipedia compliant... but they are the best negative sources we have so we don't argue removing them because we are aware of Weight. We have both removed large amounts of positive material from this and other related articles and have had by email serious arguments with editors trying to add that positive stuff. So no, you're wrong. Like doesn't enter into it in terms of editing. What I like or don't like means zip. I reverted because the editors as a group needed time to deal with the information. Its a Meta study with problems surrounding it, and some seeming contradictions within the study. That's the true situation.(olive (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
 * It seems that the research section of this article is already biased http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Neutrality_tag such that adding this study would then require some further additions and deletions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Weight#Undue_weight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.236.240 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Judy, you can't delete David Orme-Johnson's critique just because he has a point of view. His critique was published in a peer-reviewed journal -- the very journal that published the first segment of Ospina/Bond. It was presented as a counterbalance to their meta-analysis and reflective of the wide criticism that it received. it meets WP:V]. Further, according to WP:NPOV, it's important to include all points of view in the article. Also, how many times do we need to say in a single paragraph that the report says that the research is low quality? I think once is enough. Why do you feel a need to say it twice? And on a different note, they moderated their tone somewhat in the published version of their article, based on the feedback that they received from many quarters, including the coauthors of the published version. Here's their conclusion: "Most clinical trials on meditation practices are generally characterized by poor methodological quality with significant threats to validity in every major quality domain assessed. Despite a statistically significant improvement in the methodological quality over time, it is imperative that future trials on meditation be rigorous in design, execution, analysis, and the reporting of results." Note that they say "most clinical trials" and that the research has improved in methodological quality over time. I believe we should use the published summary. They also say, "Only 40 clinical trials (10%) were considered of good quality based on a Jadad score �3 points." We need to find out if TM studies were among those rated good. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

TimidGuy and Olive - I realize that one is required by Wikipedia to assume good faith on the part of editors, and that it is considered bad form to accuse other editors of bad faith. But, the intellectual dishonesty being displayed here by the two of you is just staggering.

Go ahead and tattle to Dreadstar or whatever other admistrator you prefer if you want. Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The conclusions of this study is not even relevant or applicable to TM: "..Many uncertainties surround the practice of meditation. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality..." as clearly TM does have a common theoretical perspective. Also, by generalizing across many disparate studies, the conclusions lose any ability to be address any technique specifically.65.248.236.195 (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The authors themselves actually make a point similar to the point I added from David Orme-Johnson: "The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation." p. 1210 in the published version of Ospina/Bond. It's another example of how they tempered their approach in the published version. TimidGuy (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Asking that Wikipedia process be followed on a contentious article is not intellectual dishonesty,WP:BRD and your definition of intellectual dishonesty I would label as difference of opinion. Agreement is not mandatory, and unlikely on any article. That's why we have discussion pages. Although I think the new section junks up the article because it is long and not definitive in any way, as long as the wording is appropriate I can see leaving it especially with some rewriting. I will not, however, allow the article to be high jacked as happens when there is no true discussion and agreement, and constant mischaracterization. That's a intellectually honest as I can make it(olive (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC))


 * The IP's comment above is well taken. The article, to this point, had been pared down to only information dealing directly with TM...a group agreement/consensus. I'm unclear as to where this study fits if it fails WP:Reliability or WP:Verifiability as concerning TM itself. Is it possible the whole thing be moved to the more general Mantra, or should the study be cited in a "see also" section. If the study is left in the main article does the wording reflect the relatively indefinite quality of the study conclusions as concerns TM.


 * And we can't use the study two ways: Judy says: "I don't see the researchers concluding that TM did significantly reduce BP. They couldn't do that because of the poor quality of the studies." she also says."I think it is important to include this analysis.  It is from a reputable university, commissioned by NCCAM, distributed by NCCAM and is important information in evaluating the TM research." Is the study poor or not as refers to TM? It can't be great as a study when it is used to refute something and then terrible when used to support something else.


 * Fladrif's comment that the study is broad and therefore useful for our purposes may be completely incorrect. Its very "broadness" may too broad to reference TM directly enough for this article.


 * Some points for consideration.(olive (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
 * I do appreciate Fladrif's careful research of this topic. Hopefully we can sift through everything, and all come to some agreement.(olive (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
 * This "ospina" study was not done on TM. It at most used less than 40 or 50 (~5%) TM studies, and maybe far less.  Any conclusions drawn from it are not at ALL applicable to TM and have no business at all being included in this article on TM.  Also, the research section of the article needs to be more reflective of the published research done on TM.  This addition is irrelevant to TM and simply confounds and confuses the article.65.248.236.220 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The study is legitimate and so are it's findings. It comes from serious researchers at a serious university. It is fine the way it is. On an additional note I see OJ is being used to critique it yet again? Once more, his close ties to TM need to be mentioned The7thdr (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like very much to hear what the editor above has to say. Serious researchers at serious universities does not guarantee

that a meta study is appropriate in an article as specific as this one. Lets take a serious look point by point at the concerns with the study in terms of whether it is appropriate in this article as opposed to a more generalized topic/article.(olive (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC))


 * If OJ's study was published in a peer reviewed journal, then the study must be considered seriously. We can't dismiss the paper out of hand. If a Catholic writes an article on the Catholic Church and it is published in a reliable publication is that article dismissed. No its not. The standards are WP:Reliable, WP:Verifiable and in scientific studies that translates as peer review in respected journals.(olive (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC))


 * peer review is sufficient criteria for being a reliable source for wikipedia, but peer review by itself doesn't make a study relevant for inclusion in any given article - the results of this study are not at all applicable to TM specifically, and should not be included in this article - and a peer reviewed author's philosophical beliefs are also irrelevant65.248.236.212 (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a little late getting into this discussion but wanted to add my two cents. After having read the above discussion I think the central issue is whether or not this study is an appropriate study to reference in this TM article. In my opinion the pivotal point is that the study draws a meta-analysis conclusion based on a wide range of different kinds of techniques for self development, some of which are not even meditation techniques, no less the specific technique of TM. Yes, one can go deeply into the report and find sections that are specific to TM and where some commentary has been made out of the context of the whole, but even then the conclusions and methodologies seem to be debatable as illustrated in this comment section. The TM article seems highly contentious as evidenced by the vast length of this entire talk page, and also very topic specific. Therefore my point of view is that this study is more appropriate for inclusion in other articles that discuss more general aspects of self development techniques and doesn't belong in the TM article. If the study should be broken up into sections ie one on TM alone, and then peer reviewed, then we would have to reconsider the whole thing at that time. But for now, in its current form, it doesn't seem right to me. I will continue to follow the talk here and add additional comments and opinions as appropriate and try to be helpful.  I am sure we can all reach some kind of neutral consensus on this issue and proceed in a coordinated and harmonious fashion as this is, after all, what Wiki is really all about.  I commend all of you for your enthusiasm and commitment to this process and its outcome. --Kbob (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Ospina/Bond caveat
Pasting deleted text here: "The authors of the study acknowledged that the evaluation scale that they used may not have been appropriate for studies on meditation, which would have affected the rating of quality: 'The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation.'"

Rracecarr, I object to your deletion of the statement by Ospina/Bond in their published review. A major point of the report was that the research was weak as determined by the scores on the Jadad scale. If the researchers themselves say that the Jadad scale isn't the best measure for research quality of meditation studies, shouldn't that be mentioned? It's not some minor caveat -- it goes to the heart of the study. I can put Orme-Johnson back in if you prefer, but it would be much better to cite the researchers themselves. TimidGuy (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is standard practice in scientific writing to conscientiously enumerate all possible sources of error. That does not mean that that particular phrase, out of the entire paper, is notable in this context.  As I indicated in the edit summary, I'm sure we could mine all the earlier referenced papers for the same kind of thing.  Why do you focus on trying to cast doubt on this study, while suppressing much bigger problems, i.e. conflict of interest issues, in the other articles?  As for the fact tag you added, that information is in the complete report, pages 116-117. Rracecarr (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess what has to be determined here is whether the concerns enumerated in the study caveat significantly impacted the study outcomes. The authors indicate that they did. This is a definitive statement  "Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation."  Not sure why Rracearrr objects to the caveat. (olive (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Olive, your "definitive statement"-- "Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation." -- is simply a fact about the Jadad scale. It is not about deciding whether a treatment is effective.  It evaluates the quality of the methods used to study the treatment, which is the main thing the reference does.  That's why the blood pressure bit shouldn't be in there at all.  The chief result of the study is that the quality of meditation/health research to this point has been generally poor. The phrase you quote does not need to be in the article--it has nothing particular to do with the study in question.  If people want to know about the Jadad scale, they can click on it.  Rracecarr (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rracecarr, this issue is extensively discussed by the study's authors in the paper I cited. It's not simply part of a list of enumerated possible errors -- it's one of the focuses of the paper, i.e., how to properly assess meditation research. TimidGuy (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * TG, I can't fully address that without access to the paper. I am basing my comments on the full report.Rracecarr (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Taken in context the statement refers to the scale in reference to the study, as being unsuitable "The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation." I wouldn't say this is the chief result of the study, however if it was, then the study has no place in an article on TM, but is instead a comment more appropriate in a general article on  meditation. You contradict yourself. If the study is too poor to indicate its results in terms of blood pressure, it also is too poor to indicate anything else in terms of any of the specific forms of meditations mentioned. We can't have it both ways. As well although the study could be included in a general article on meditations as an example of the poor research in the area, it proves very little  in terms of a specific form of mediation such as TM especially since there were a limited number of TM studies used.Further, there are considerable other peer-reviewed studies on hypertension on TM which makes the meta study suspect in terms of reliability and verifiability on the topic,(olive (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Olive, with all due respect (which is what one says before exhibiting a complete lack of respect), you are piling BS on top of BS. The study is not too "poor" to indicate results in terms of blood pressure.  It's not ABOUT that.  It's about the quality of other studies.  If all the studies relating to blood pressure suck, how is it supposed to conclude anything about blood pressure?  That doesn't mean the meta study is bad.  It means the result of the meta study is that the blood pressure studies are bad.  "Limited number of TM studies" is a load of crap as well.  If you would actually read the document, you'd see there are more TM studies used than any other single type of meditation, and far more TM studies than studies of other types of mantra meditation.  I'm sick of wasting time here now, and will take another break from this page for while.Rracecarr (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Racecarrr I am noting your explanation on blood pressure and saying not that it is but if it is. Read what I wrote if you want to comment accurately. High blood pressure - maybe try TM :O).(olive (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm starting to rethink the wording that I used in the segment that Rracecarr deleted. I do think we need to address the issue of appropriateness of the assessment and get a bit more of the flavor of the published version of the study, in order to create more context for the reader. I think it's wrong to have a flat statement the way it is now. My suggestion is that we don't quote the AHRQ-released version, that we use proper summary style the Wikipedia recommends, and that we combine the conclusions of both versions of the study, as well as briefly noting the qualifications and in a few words mentioning the double blinding obstacle as an example. And we do need to find out if any TM studies were among the 40 that were rated good on the Jadad scale.. TimidGuy (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said in the beginning I can deal with the inclusion of this material as long as its reworded somewhat. We have to be consistent too as to how we use the study. I do think the study best belongs in a more general article on mediation forms but its possible to leave it here ... so TG I think you're idea is fine, and your suggestions will I think make the inclusion more compliant(olive (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I will make the point again, hopefully somehow more clearly this time. This AHRQ ("Ospina") study included only a very small subset of TM studies in its data collection and subsequent analysis (likely 5% or less, not that even 90+% on TM would make it sufficiently accurate in applying any of its amalgamated conclusions to TM). As a result of combining a wide variety of disparate meditation practices along with with a variety of physical exercises (yoga / tai chi / qigong), the results of this paper are so generic as to be wholly unusable in almost any entry, and are definitely not relevant to, nor in any way descriptive of, the medical studies done on TM. Keeping any conclusions from this overly generic study here is factually incorrect to the point of ridicule.  It needs to be completely removed.  Thanks to others for weighing in on what seems like a black and white scientific issue. What am I missing here? Does anyone here have a background in (or even a facility with) either science or logic? I would love to entertain attempts at valid scientific argument against this clear point.IP65.248.236.212 (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As per my multiple clearly outlined talk posts for deleting the ospina report from this article (that one editor has agreed with and no one has given any compelling logical or scientific reason to argue to keep it in), I will be deleting the ospina study from the main page sometime in the next couple of days. And since wikipedia apparently doesn't like usernames with IP addresses in them, I have changed my username to wahwahpeddle9 (from IP65.248.236.212) and will reflect that history in my new talk and user pages.Wahwahpeddle9 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * HOLD IT, SPORT! (Pardon the shouting.) No, you should not delete.


 * A number of editors have strongly weighed in here in favor of including the paragraph on this study after TimidGuy first deleted it. Your rationale for deleting is based on a factually incorrect premise: (1) The Report was not restricted to a "very small subset" of TM studies; it included 230 TM studies (by far the largest set in the study), of which it found only three were of good quality; (2) the conclusion that the sorry state of the current literature (including every prior favorable study cited in the TM article) makes it impossible to draw any valid conclusions about the medical effects of meditation applies with equal force to those 230 TM studies, and provides appropriate balance to the medical claims advanced by the other studies cited in the article.  If you wanted further relevance, one could  check the tables and footnotes in this report and the UK report, and identify which the studies cited in this article were considered by the reviewers to be "of good quality" or not of "good quality". I'm not proposing that the article should do that, or that it should get into anything beyond the general conclusions as is done in the current version of the paragraph. It would be inappropriate to do so under WP:MEDRS. This report is a notable and relevant reliable secondary source on TM-related medical research, and should be included.  That it might also be included in other meditation articles as well does not justify its exclusion here. Fladrif (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Malnak
Here's what the appellate court decision says regarding the puja: "To acquire his mantra, a meditator must attend a ceremony called a 'puja.' Every student who participated in the SCI/TM course was required to attend a puja as part of the course. A puja was performed by the teacher for each student individually; it was conducted off school premises on a Sunday; and the student was required to bring some fruit, flowers and a white handkerchief. During the puja the student stood or sat in front of a table while the teacher sang a chant and made offerings to a deified 'Guru Dev.' Each puja lasted between one and two hours.2"

The teacher sings the puja, not the student. By the way, the court entered into the record a correction from Steven Druker regarding the puja. I guess we'll need to get that document. TimidGuy (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The student brings the fruit and flowers, the teacher makes the offerings.TimidGuy (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Someplace on my computer I have a court document that lists the undisputed facts in the case. I sure don't remember the students making ceremonial offerings as being one of them. Where was that from? I deleted it for now. The Adams footnote is ambiguous. I agree that it may not have been accurately presented in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Read on. I supplied a link to the full text of the decision in the footnote:


 * "We are not persuaded that the reasoning employed in those cases requires reversal in this case because of the factual differences between a benediction at a non-instructional high school commencement exercise open to the public and the teaching of SCI/TM which includes ceremonial student offerings to deities as part of a regularly scheduled course in the schools' educational programs." [emphasis added]


 * And, of course, a longer discussion of the issue would include the extensive quote from the District Court in footnote 2, but that is clearly too long for this article.


 * ''For a comprehensive description of the puja, see 440 F.Supp. at 1305-08. The district court described the activities of a chanter at the puja ceremony:


 * The chanter . . . makes fifteen offerings to Guru Dev and fourteen obeisances to Guru Dev. The chant then describes Guru Dev as a personification of "kindness" and of "the creative impulse of cosmic life," and the personification of "the essence of creation," . . ..


 * The chanter then makes three more offerings to Guru Dev and three additional obeisances to Guru Dev. The chant then moves to a passage in which a string of divine epithets are applied to Guru Dev. Guru Dev is called "The Unbounded," "the omnipresent in all creation," "bliss of the Absolute," "transcendental joy," "the Self-Sufficient," "the embodiment of pure knowledge which is beyond and above the universe like the sky," "the One," "the Eternal," "the Pure," "the Immovable," "the Witness of all intellects, whose status transcends thought," "the Transcendent along with the three gunas," and "the true preceptor." Manifestly, no one would apply all these epithets to a human being.


 * 440
 * F.Supp. at 1308 (footnote omitted)


 * The district court concluded:


 * (T)he puja is sung at the direction of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a Hindu monk. The words and offerings of the chant invoke the deified teacher, who also was a Hindu monk, of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In the chant, this teacher is linked to names known as Hindu deities. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi places such great emphasis on the singing of this chant prior to the imparting of a mantra to each individual student that no mantras are given except at pujas and no one is allowed to teach the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation unless he or she performed the puja to the personal satisfaction of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or one of his aides. . . . Needless to say, neither Hinduism nor belief in "the Lord" constitute a dead religion. Both of these beliefs are held by hundreds of millions of people.''


 * The Adams footnote wasn't ambigouus, it was simply false. Adams is characterizing the argument made by appellants. He did not conclude that the puja fell outside the establishment clause  prohibition.  Fladrif (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you use the phrase "uncontested fact"? That makes it sound like an undisputed fact in the case. It wasn't. It's from a footnote and is not listed among the undisputed facts in the case. Interesting that the document contradicts itself. The fact is, and we can probably locate this fact in the secondary literature, that it's the teacher who makes the offering. The student just observes. The main text of the opinion has it correct. TimidGuy (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't make up the language. I used it because that is the precise language used in the decision by the Court of Appeals:


 * "We agree with the district court's finding that the SCI/TM course was religious in nature. Careful examination of the textbook, the expert testimony elicited, and the uncontested facts concerning the puja convince us that religious activity was involved and that there was no reversible error in the district court's determination." {Emphasis added]


 * The "footnote" to the COA opinion is quoting part of the main text of the District Court opinion, which the COA praised as "exhautive and well reasoned". This is not mere marginalia. Fladrif (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that fact about offerings should be characterized as uncontested, because the appellate court themselves said something different in their opinion. By the way, it's not inappropriate to delete the attribution to Markovsky. Please restore that. TimidGuy (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What you think is pretty much irrelevant. It is what the court found. You don't get to argue with the court's findings.WP:NOR And before you edit this again, I suggest you read the opinion first. Your edits this afternoon have been uniformly wrong, and suggest that you haven't, at least not recently.Fladrif (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you admit that the document contradicts itself? TimidGuy (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC) If so, then which fact is uncontested? Why choose the one you prefer, and which contradicts every other source? TimidGuy (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. There is no contradiction whatsoever in the Court's decision.Fladrif (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The original case and appeal found that TM/SCI were religious in nature under the first Ammendment and establishment clause for the most part because of entanglemnet with Government agencies. Judge Adams goes on to note:

"Under these circumstances, and recalling Justice Frankfurter's admonition that an individual expression of opinion is useful when the way a result is reached may be important to results hereafter to be reached,1 I am impelled to state my views separately.14"


 * Because of the original case the, appeal, the subsequent comment by Adams and the further comments in several law reviews the case is much more complex than simply stating this is what the court may have said. Including the first part of the case is relatively simple but this should not be included without noting the further comments by the judge and the law reviews on the topic. I'd like to look at this further as I've just arrived and am not sure what has gone on so far here.(olive (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Sheesh .... that last edit summary got away on me before I could correct it .... should read "add format"....(olive (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC))


 * No, it really is that simple. The court's holding is really quite straightforward.Fladrif (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The court decision is simple. There is much auxiliary information which will have to to be included for the topic to be dealt with in a neutral manner.(olive (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Don't piss on my shoes and try to tell me it's raining. There is nothing neutral about this article. It is an advertisement for TM.  There is one, and only one, US Court of Appeals decision on the issue. There is no contrary decision by a court of competent jurisdiction.  The article already contains plenty of disclaimers on the religion issue. it needs no more. 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladrif (talk • contribs)


 * Your tone and words are offensive. Please be civil. On the contrary I happen to know this case quite well and am attempting to clean up non compliant edits.


 * The first, piece-together quotes constitutes a form of WP:OR
 * The second quote is out of context. As well Wikipedia frowns on excessive quotes . The quote is excessive because it is elaborating on a point in a short segment that would be better used for the rest of the judge's comments, that is, that the decision was also determinative of government entanglement.Note that this is a primary source and its use if used at all should be limited to only necessary information to outline the case. A long out of context quote is unnecessary.
 * By auxiliary material, I mean the judges opinion which is not part of the determinative aspect of the case, and secondary sources. I have to rush off now but will continue.(olive (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Fladrif, why do you contend there's no contradiction? In one place it says the student makes the offering. In another place it correctly says the teacher makes the offering. If we include both points, which is absurd, we should juxtapose them so that the reader can clearly see the contradiction. On the other hand, once we identify secondary sources (which Wikipedia prefers over primary sources such as the appellate decision), then we need not include the incorrect version. Let's continue this in Olive's thread below. TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking both of you together:
 * I find the actions of both of you offensive. As I noted the other day, the bad faith that the two of you have exhibited in this article is just staggering. I cannot conceive how the two of you are permitted to edit this article in light of your history here and you WP:COIYou are making edits to this section which are flatly false, acting like a tag team, and then having the temerity to threaten me that I'd better not exceed the three-revert rule.
 * I see from your most recent edits that you've apparently come around to face the facts as to what the court's holdings were. That at least is an improvement from the reversions and misstatements that you've been making in direct contradiction to the plain language of the decision.
 * The quotes are neither out of context, nor excessive - they are the central findings that is determinative of the court's decision that (i) TM is a religion and (ii)that state sponsorship is involved.
 * There's no contradiction whatsoever. The court says that (i) the student is required to attend the puja; (ii) the student is required to bring the listed items; and (iii) the teacher then uses the items in the ceremony which he or she conducts. There is no contradiction in finding that this constitutes a "student offering". Not to be flip about it, but if I'm told I have to bring a goat to the temple, and to attend a ceremony in which the priest slaughters it on an altar while reciting prayers in a language I don't understand, where is there any "contradiction" in concluding that its "my" offering? Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's your interpretation. We'll see what the secondary sources say. And according to the guidelines, we should prefer secondary sources -- just for this reason. TimidGuy (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's your interpretation that there's a contradiction in the court's holding.  It is inappropriate to strike the quotes simply because you think there is a contradiction. I daresay that the court did not think there was any contradiction. It is incumbent on you to produce an independent, unbiased verifiable secondary source to support your position.Fladrif (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We also have the district court findings to consider. From what I understand, they described the puja accurately. Apparently the appellate court originally wrote that the student performed the ceremony and made the offerings, but then granted a motion from the defendants to correct the text to say that the teacher performs it. This document should be part of the court record and can be obtained. Despite the appellate court's granting the motion, it's obvious that there are still inaccuracies. Since the puja is an important element in the case, hopefully the secondary sources will clear this up. TimidGuy (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a potential solution to your obvious discomfort. I do not read the sentence as suggesting in any way that the student conducted the ceremony.T he point of the second finding was not who conducted the ceremony, which is what you seem to be hung up on.   The District Court observed that the Defendants' own experts disagreed as to whether the puja was conducted on behalf of the student or on behalf of the teacher, but assumed for purposes of the motion for summary disposition that it was conducted on the teacher's behalf. The Court of Appeals decision suggests, but clearly does not rest on, the conclusion that the ceremony was conducted on the students' behalf. The point of the second finding is that a ceremony that it found to be religious was being conducted as part of the regular public school curriculum.  See if my edit makes you feel any better. 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladrif (talk • contribs)


 * I have secondary sources so will be dealing with your points TG.
 * The issues for me here are:
 * We have three pieces of information dealing with Puja when in fact there is extensive information contained in Judge Adams'comments on the case which are revealing and should be included.
 * We also have secondary sources. Secondary sources are preferred so they should be included.
 * Thus, three pieces of puja information is redundant and should be pared down to comply with WP:Weight. Right now most of the weight in this part of the TM article is focused on the puja.
 * As well the subsection on Malnak is starting to carry a fair amount of weight in the article as a whole.. Since court cases against the TM organisazation only number three -four? in the entire history of the organization this size subsection is not appropriately weighted in regards to the TM organization as a whole and so is getting close to violating undue weight in the article as well.
 * We probably need to choose one piece of information on puja... probably the one given by Judge Adams in his summary of the case.
 * I would remove the second long quote which is just an expanded description. This kind of detail isn't necessary in a subsection of this length and isn't needed in the article. If a reader wants to find out what the puja is perhaps we can add it in a "see also".
 * The third statement on puja as worded in the article is actually WP: OR. The statement is given in the court case as a rebuttal to the appellants comments concerning graduation ceremonies. We know that this is also the the kind of statement used in the summary by Judge Adams, it is however not the statement Adams made but has another context. Making the connection between the summary statement and this statement is classic WP:OR. Whether the statement is true is not even an issue at this point.(olive (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Awesome! Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry TG I hit an edit conflict so my post may be in the wrong place.
 * Fladr. Thanks for this change. I think its still OR but the accuracy of the statement itself may be improved.(olive (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Sigh. How does one respond to comments like this? There's not enough information. There's too much information. Quoting is wrong. We need more quotes. No, we need different quotes. A summary of a court decision is original research.  Going back into the record of a court decision isn't original research. We need to explain the puja.  No, we need to take everything about the puja out, and let people look it up for themselves.  I suggest you actually read the WP policies you so glibly cite, as well as WP:COI, then take a very long, hard look in the mirror. In the meantime, I suggest that you stop editing the article.Fladrif (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. Your statement above is a complete miscahracterizations of what I've attempted to discuss here, and of what I've said which I don't really appreciate. I am making suggestions and rather than attack me, perhaps you could address the points I'm making. I'm quite familiar with the policies, and because I am dealing here with a contentious article I prefer to use them stringently rather than adapt them in some way. I am correctly noting possible concerns with WP:Weight. Why for example are you insistent on having three references to the puja in a subsection on a topic that is a very small part of the TM organization. The information is also redundant. I am asking for a choice ... choose one. I also correctly note Wikipedia frowns on excessive quoting... if we don't need the quote why is it there. I have never asked for more quotes to be added. If you want the information in the quote why not add it to a "see also" or rephrase it.

"The court also found state action violative of the Establishment Clause because the puja involved "offerings to deities as part of a regularly scheduled course in the schools' educational programs".

This statement is cobbled together from two different sections of the document. The quoted part comes from a reply to the appellates argument. The rest from other parts of the document. This statement above isn't what Adams said, although we know what he meant. If this was research paper of some kind we could make this staement. Its not and in this environment the statement is unencycopedic because it is OR.

To be encyclopedic the statement would have to read something like,"appellants note that even if the puja is religious its effect is insignificant whereas Judge Adams notes that this reasoning does not require reversal because of differences between a benediction at a commencement exercise "and the teaching of...." (olive (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * No, I have not micharacterized what you've tried to discuss here. Your intellectual dishonesty is beyond the pale. You have no legitimate objections to this portion of the article as written, and your arguments and "concerns" are entirely specious. It's telling that you admit that truth isn't an issue with you. You simply don't want there to be an accurate description of the holding of the court anywhere in this article.  The same could be said for the vast majority of your edits to other portions of the article.  As for your specific objections which you want me to address: Use of a court decision as a primary source of what it held is perfectly acceptable, and violates no Wikipedia policy. It is, in fact, the best source for what the holding was. You have allueded to, but have yet to cite, any secondary source whatsoever which would indicate that there is any inaccuracy in this section of the article.  If you want an independent, secondary source on the question of whether TM is a "religion" within the meaning of the First Amendment, try "Note, Transcendental Meditation and The Meaning of Religion Under the Establishment Clause", 62 Minn.L.Rev. 887 (1978), wherein it is concluded, after an extensive review of the literature on TM and TM/SCI, and even prior to the Court of Appeals decision in Malnak, that no TM class in public schools could pass constitutional muster. Describing the decison's holdings is not original research, and your arguments to the contrary are simply nonsense. Quoting the decision in manner done here is hardly excessive, violates no policy or guideline, including WP:Synthesis, which you seem to be alluding to without correctly citing or understanding. There is no undue weight in the description and quotes from the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the puja ceremony, given the centrality of those findings to the Court's conclusions.  Your own suggestions for "fixes" are wholly inappropriate, and in fact do violate, in ways both blatant and subtle, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:COI among a host of others. Your arguments are totally without merit. Stop editing this article. Fladrif (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have indeed mischaracterized me, and what I am doing, and I would request you stop attacking me and try to hear what I am saying. Until recently although I had copy edited the Malnak section I had very little knoweledge of this court case. About a month ago I started to research it, and found that there is a lot of imformation and contradiction as the secondary sources indicate. Your addition of the puja material slants towards informtion that is one side of the debate and according to TM people I have spoken too the puja as it is used in modern times is used in a seqular fashion. I felt you had an agenda in putting in what is in my understanding of weight three pieces of information on puja where one would do. I note the policies correctly whether you agree or not, but I do adhere strictly. I note also that I removed information from my user page for reasons pertaining to off wiki harassment.

If you were to look carefully at both my edits over time and TG's you would see that what we are above all neutral editors.We have removed countless edits from pro TM people, and have left in negative-to-TM additions even when the source is poor in order to create balance. This article is the result of many hours of work from editors holding both pro and negative TM stanses.To think it comes from two editors is a huge misunderstanding of how such an article is created.

I have secondary sources and am putting together material that says what is being said in the article right now but from the more compliant secondary sources along with the other mandatory, neutral-creating information. I am attempting to create something that will satisfy both you and the Wikipedia policies, and is as truthful as can be given the inaccuracies in the sources. It will take me a little time to do. Once we look at the subsection I suspect it will be too long as pertains to WP:Weight so at that point, someone may want to pare it down.(olive (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Markovsky
I am adding attribution of the quote "stealth religion" to Barry Markovsky as is appropriate. The statement was not a general comment but specific to one person.(olive (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC))


 * In fact I've always been uncomfortable with this section. Tacking the two together - the public schools and Markovsky's comment is in fact a non sequitur, so it should be changed. The whole section should be rewritten, actually.(olive (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I believe the entire sentence from Markovsky is out of context. It is not appropriate to have one individuals opinion sited in the section or in the article, whether the person is a professional, author, scientist or whatever. I'm sure someone could find quotes from teachers, principals, school pyschologists etc that say TM in schools is the greatest or from a priest that says TM is not a religion. Should we also list all of these other quotes and personal conclusions? I think not. So why do we have this one? Therefore, I propose that this Markovsy sentence is out of context and unduly weighted and should be removed. I also think the section could be rewritten, its a bit disjointed right now and doesn't really flow. Maybe a new version could be written and commented on here? --Kbob (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well actually, Markovsky is legitimate since we are quoting from a newspaper article as a source in which he comments. He is also a sociologist so could be considered a professional in a field related to this section.  We did have comments by  priests and  rabbis in that section that came out of references to books and newspapers, but they were removed because of issues with length. The section may need to be revised once we deal with the Malnak section, but I personally would like to deal with that first before we do anything else or complicate the procedure with a rewrite. (My thoughts on it at least.)(olive (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Suggestion
I'd like to suggest that rather than continuing to edit war which is only creating a strangely,jumbled connection of phrases, that the Malnak v Yogi be completely rewritten. The court document itself contains contradictions some of which whether they are in the actual court document or not can be shown with a little research to be inaccurate. This means they shouldn't be included necessarily but probably violate WP:Verifiability. If there is such contradictory information included here than perhaps to be accurate both sides of the contradiction need to be shown. As well, if we are discussing the case and there are obvious contradictions then those contradictions themselves are noteworthy aspects of the case. As well we have journals which are secondary sources that need to be included and are more compliant than the primary source which is the court document. I would suggest two versions. I could write one and Fladrif could write the other. We could post them here and discuss and edit them here, then when all are satisfied put it back into the article. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Olive, I second this motion and think it is a good idea. Getting to specific language would help to focus this converstation and help to move it towards some kind of conclusion.--Kbob (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I second the motion with the addition that the section remains as is in the article until a final edit is agreed - assuming that final edit is different. The7thdr (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with this too. I'm working on parts so will just extend that. I'll post it here and then we can work on it. With the addendum: That we add pieces as they are agreed on. Otherwise we could have an entire rewrite that is fine except for a small piece, and never be able to add anything.(olive (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Quality of TM research and Ospina-Bond/Jadad scale
Since this issue has been discussed in recent days I did a little investigating. The Ospina/Bond report found that 22 of the 400 clinical studies in their review were of Good quality or better on the Jadad scale. Of those, three are on Transcendental Meditation (reference numbers 220, 221, and 282). In addition, the study by Paul-Labrador published in 2006, after the 2005 cutoff date of Ospina/Bond, was rated high quality on the Jadad scale by the University of Kentucky meta-analysis published in 2008. Further, that meta-analysis identified three additional TM studies that were rated of acceptable quality on the Jadad scale. Also, the revised version of Ospina/Bond published last December in JACM said that there were 40, not 22, studies that rated Good or better on Jadad. There's no way of knowing whether those 18 studies that had their scores adjusted upward included TM studies, but that may very well be the case. So there are at least 7 studies on TM that range from acceptable to high quality on the Jadad scale.

The Ospina/Bond report only included randomized controlled trials, because this is thought to be one of the more rigorous research methodologies. Please understand that, with the exception of the pharmaceutical industry, the majority of clinical studies in general aren't randomized controlled trials, because such studies are very difficult and expensive. A typical randomized controlled trial on TM with 100 subjects costs $2 million and takes four years to from inception to publication. In addition, probably only a small percentage of randomized controlled trials that aren't pharmaceutical rate high on Jadad. The Ospina/Bond report gives the impression that the Jadad scale is the norm for clinical research. It's not, except in the pharmaceutical industry, which can easily afford to drop $50 million on a trial involving over 1,000 subjects.

This information is offered in support of my suggestion in a thread above that the Ospina/Bond paragraph could be revised. I would write it something like this:

In 2007 the National Institutes of Health released a report that assessed research on meditation using the high standard of the pharmaceutical industry, that is, the Jadad scale. The report found that 40 of the 400 clinical studies assessed rated good quality or better on the Jadad scale and that there was a statistically significant increase in the quality of research over time. The report found that at least three studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique out of the dozens that were assessed rated good quality or better on the Jadad scale. The report stated that it found a statistically significant reduction in blood pressure associated with practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like too much original research to me. And why say it "...found that at least three studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique out of the dozens that were assessed rated good quality or better on the Jadad scale" instead of the more accurate - as you point out yourself: "...found that dozens of studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique that were assessed rated poor quality or worse on the Jadad scale". Please, if MUM is going to try this one at least get your resident published researcher to put something up on his website first so that you can quote it - which will no doubt happen shortly. I know you are going to say assume good faith - but the pure and unadulterated intellectual dishonesty and corporate spin when discussing this article is truly appalling and goes against the spirt of WIKI. The7thdr (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would guess the issue is that although I haven't seen what TG is taking about, if the source says there are three studies than that is what we have to put in ....Original research would be the instance if the source says there are three studies and then we do the math and come up with the number of not so good studies...I'll try and check that. Note that TG is making suggestions its not in the article, and can be edited easily here. (olive (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC))


 * And while we are on the subject of honesty, I think we need to add who the funder - and who paid the SALARY of one of the researchers - of the slightly more positive 2008 study was i.e. HOWARD SETTLE founder of Settle Foundation for an Invincible America, and who recently said:

"would like to take this opportunity to speak to all of the Sidhas in America and throughout the world about the extraordinary gift that Maharishi has given us in the form of the Invincible Assemblies.

"Maharishi has given us the opportunity to create an invincible world-a world without enemies-a world of peace, prosperity, joy, happiness, and profound bliss.

"The formula to achieve this incredible goal for mankind is so very simple, and it is completely within our grasp. Maharishi has given us the technology to achieve the impossible through a procedure so easy and blissful that it defies imagination-and yet it is true, and it has been tested and proven.

"The technology, of course, is an Invincible Assembly in every nation-a Super Radiance group of Yogic Flyers in every country.:The7thdr (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is 7th. I guess you're saying that Howard Settle supports Maharish Mahesh Yogi's peace initiatives. First what proof do you have that he paid the salary of one of the researchers .... not sure what you're talking about but I'm not up on that ... and second if the work was peer reviewed in a respected journal, the study is Wikipedia compliant. Of course private institutions, funded by one or more individuals carry on research all of the time. You'll remember as well that all universities rely on endowments to carry on the business of the university that often includes researcher and those endowments come very much from individuals. Honesty doesn't enter into it that I can see, and actually please deal with the edits and not the editors (olive (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Hi Olive, with reference to "First what proof do you have that he paid the salary of one of the researchers" please read the deceleration of conflict interests section of the original paper - handley found on one of your own corporate websites if you don't have access to ATHENS:)   The7thdr (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks 7th. This is a declaration of no conflict of interest, and states Anderson has no connection to any TM groups.Right? Settle had no input at all, so that whatever was found in the Meta analysis would have been published whether positive or negative to TM. (olive (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, and this will need to be included in the article - if no one else dose I will do so shortly. I am trying to keep out of this but it is proving difficult to be honest Olive. TM is a "product" and care needs to be taken when discussing "products in WIKI. While we are on the subject I am more than dismayed by the recent edit by TG to the Ospin/Bond section. At present it states:


 * Regarding the Transcendental Meditation technique, the report concluded that it "significantly reduced blood pressure."(p. v in the abstract) Its effect on blood pressure was found to be statistically equivalent to that of health education."


 * I have never in my life seen such selective editing to place a "positive spin" on a commercial product outside of that products advertising literature. The study actually says:


 * "  TM® had no advantages over HE to improve measures of SBP,

DBP, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients..." Perhaps it would be wise to edit the article accordingly? At least than it would reflect the truth? I am assuming that multiple users at MUM use the LO/TG Wiki accounts. looking through the history of this article the most recent incarnation of TG is slightly more zealous than previous incarnations.It might be worth noting this :) The7thdr (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whew ! what a lot of assumptions you make. 7th, TM is a mediation technique. Whether you like the technique or what is connected to it is actually immaterial, it must be considered a meditation technique. Sheesh.... I am one person 7th... not schizophrenic as far as I know...I've met TG and he looks pretty normal too, and is one person...rotfl... That is hilarious

(olive (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC))


 * :)I don't dislike the meditation technique Olive - its certainly much older than its registered trademark - many thousands of years older as you well know. Its the blatant self promotion and intellectual dishonesty of this article that troubles me - something that has developed to a state where i now need to become involved. As to your second comment, TM is not simply a mediation technique.  Is TM a registered trademark Olive? Is it part of a corporate, profit making, company? The7thdr (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 7th you've just got to do better with AGF...still laughing.Good one.(olive (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
 * I try Olive :) The7thdr (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to put a few things in context. Transcendental Meditation is a service, not a product. Also it is the name ‘Transcendental Meditation’ that is trademarked not the process of TM. A proprietary process would require a patent which, for TM, does not exist at this time. The TM org is in fact a corporation but it is a not for profit, educational organization and is recognized by the IRS as a non-profit. TM has been the subject of hundreds of research studies and the topic of thousands of news articles, radio and TV spots.  It therefore certainly deserves to be described in Wikipedia as it meets all the Wiki requirements of notability.  As editors our job is to create and maintain a description that is neutral and provides information with an appropriate weighting.  We are here as a community to create something greater than ourselves so any time we can leave the personal stuff at home it will help the process. Peace!  :-)   --Kbob (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested versions of Malnak v Yogi
I am including one version of a rewrite. Much of the first part is what is in place now. I attempted to compact the puja material and added what seemed to be the clearest and most consistent summary of the case from one of the secondary sources. I am in no way endorsing this version at this point, but thought we could take a look at it and see what everyone thought. Of course anyone else who wants to add a version should.

Since the puja from what I understand is used in a secular manner, and since the student doesn't understand it, its merely for the teacher, including a translatio0n of part of it here seems misleading... so I 'm not excited about using any translation. However, the court document does say this so if everyone agrees, we could include it.(olive (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Version 1
"In 1979, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the United States Court for the District of New Jersey that a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation (SCI/TM), was religious activity within the meaning of the Establishment Clause, and that the teaching of SCI/TM in the New Jersey public high schools was prohibited by the First Amendment. The court ruled that although SCI/TM cannot be defined as a Theistic religion, it does deal with issues of ultimate concern, truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions, a broadened view of religion as defined by the court. From careful examination of the textbook, the expert testimony elicited, and the uncontested facts concerning the 'puja', (a ceremony performed for each student individually, in which the teacher sang a Sanskrit chant and 'made offerings to a deified Guru Dev' Malnak 4), as well as application of the Nyquist or Lemon test, the religious nature of TM/SCI was decided. The Nuquist or Lemon test helps determine if government involvement is unconstitutional under the First Amendment."

"The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in affirming the ruling of the district court left several questions unresolved that included: a judgment that dealt with TM/SCI together as one unit, and  left unanswered whether TM taught without the puja and SCI  would constitute an establishment of religion, and that the use of a textual analysis of the chant was ambiguous in that such a analysis could also be used to invalidate for example America the Beautiful or the Pledge of Allegiance.  (Marjorie Gilman Baker, Seton Hall Law Review,1979, p.614-629)"


 * All but the last paragraph seems relevant. The7thdr (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources commented on the case and its outcomes. The initial case was somewhat seminal in that its judgments were based on past definitions of religion that were Theistic yet as with Judge Adams the definition of religion was broadened. The broadening left some areas unaddressed in terms of the case. Going to the secondary sources and taking this as a summary gives a sense of what those unaddressed areas were. The first point concerning a single unifying religion is absolutely not relevant to TM, and I debated about using it  but it was part of the group of questions unresolved. I was thinking of the context for the other two points  I'm happy to remove it . The other points refer directly to TM so I would like them to stay, but am open to discussion.(olive (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm unclear what the last sentence of the first paragraph means. ("The religious nature was also largely determined by apparent involvement of government.") Roseapple (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If there had been no government involement in the teaching of TM/SCI in the New Jersey Scools there would have been no case

The case turned on two general areas. One that the text, puja, and testimony seemed according to the court definition to be of a religious nature, and second the so called "Lemon" test or Nyquist test which was used to determine government involvement. "To pass muster, the action in question must: (1) reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion...and that the government aid given to teach the course and the use of public school facilities constituted excessive governmental entanglement with religion. (Malnak 10).

I should probably clarify that.(olive (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Although several law review articles have observed that the Court of Appeals' opinion does not directly address whether the teaching of TM alone, without SCI or the puja ceremony, would pass constitutional muster, it is factually incorrect to assert that the teaching or practice of TM alone was not a part of the judgment affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The District Court permanently enjoined (i) the teaching of SCI/TM, the concepts of the field of pure creative intelligence, creative intelligence or bliss-consciousness (ii) use of the SCI textbook or its equivalent or (iii) the practice of TM or the puja ceremony in any public school in the State of New Jersey. Thus the injunction affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which is still in effect, bars the practice of TM (with or without SCI or the puja ceremony) in the New Jersey schools. The District Court Opinion is reproduced in full at Malnak v. Yogi 440 F.Supp. 1284 (DNJ 1977), and the Order at Malnak v. Yogi (Order and Judgment, Dec 12, 1977) Fladrif (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am in no way saying that separating them is factually correct I am citing a journal and the comments made there, and I'd have to recheck but I think Adams makes somewhat the same comment although not sure and going out of town so no time to check that. Anyway, a comment from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. When I get back I'll find the quote and add it here so we can look at it.(olive (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC))
 * I think the wording I use makes it clear that this was one of the questions left unresolved ... but if not it could be reworded as long as it sticks to what the source said(olive (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Rereading your post now that I'm not rushing I see you may have the source so I won't put it here since I have to type it and that will take time. If you don't have this source (Seton Hall Law Review) let me know and I'll put it here. And thanks for the other links ... I do have them, though.(olive (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I've made some more changes in order to help clarify, so anyone who thought the last version was OK should re look and rejudge. I hope its somewhat clearer. I would take out the "fruit, flower, handkerchief" part since it seems like a detail not needed... but not attached.(olive (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Olive Oil, I made one small addition to your suggested copy. Generally I think its pretty good except one point: It's my understanding that the word 'puja' is a generic term for some kind of thanksgiving ceremony. However in this instance, you are giving it a clear definition --a ceremony performed for each student individually, in which the teacher sang a Sanskrit chant and made offerings to a deified Guru Dev--. I am assuming that this definition of the TM puja is cited in the court case. Shouldn't we put that sentence in quotes or in some way indicate its source?  --Kbob (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. I did just add quotations for the part that is quoted exactly. Everything in the first paragarph is from the court document so the whole first paragraph will be sourced to the Malnak case. Since the word puja is used in a specific way in and from the document, I think it would be appropriate to source it. If and when we add this section to the article we can add refs then.(olive (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

New addition SRM
This information is historical in nature so I've moved it into the history/origin section. Its reference to religion is oblique but not specific to the organization as it defines itself today.

I would request that additions be added with discussion here and agreement as has been the tradition in the past here because this is a contentious article.(olive (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm removing "others" and also MMY since I suspect the actual incorporation was not MMY but some of the TM teachers if the time. At any rate we could put back in MMY if he did this himself, and if not we should clarify who the others are since "others" itself is a bit on the weasely side. I think there may be other information here to place this in context so I'll look at that later.(olive (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I have to strongly disagree with these edits. They are entirely improper, and are based on an approach that reliably-sourced information may be removed simply because it doesn't square with one editor's personal (and mistaken)understandings to the contrary.


 * The name of the corporation is "Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation". That was properly sourced in my edit. "Your sources" are wrong. The accuracy of my edit is confirmed by a check of the primary source, the California Secretary of State's database. Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation
 * The fact that it was incoporated by Yogi and others is also properly sourced. It is what the District Court found, with citations to the record. What you "suspect" is no basis for removing the information. There is nothing weasely in accurately presenting the information.
 * This is not oblique to the TM as a religion/religious practice question. It bears directly upon it.  The District Court stopped just short of calling the defendants in Malnak liars, but was quite clear that their representations and personal understandings as to the non-religious nature of TM was unpersuasive, and that the incorporation papers of SRMF were an incontrovertable fact as to the religious nature of TM.Fladrif (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I had another source which said Spiritual Regeneration Movement so I made the change. All the literature I have ever seen also calls it Spiritual Regeneration Movement including some law journals. If you feel your source is more accurate no problem, its not an big issue. "Others" is weasel wording, and that is what I was referring to I went to remove it, but then didn't have the source to know who the "others" were to make the statement more explicit. I doubted Maharishi himself did this himself since at the time he would have only been in the country a short while and was not an American citizen so I  thought leaving it in would be inaccurate. I did not consider any of these big controversial edits and also felt that if you had further information you would just put it in place.(olive (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC))


 * "stopped just short of calling the defendants in Malnak liars," is a very personal opinion. Nothing in the court case says that, especially in Adams' case. Of course that is my reading of the situation which is why neither my view nor yours has any credence here.


 * If the source says TM is religious than we can say that. If the source says the corporation is religious which is what your quote says that's all we can say . We can't use that to "reflect" on the article in anyway ... that's OR, and creates a jump in logic and possible POV. If this belongs anywhere it belongs in the origin section as a historical point. That's would be how I see it. Including this in the court case section would be to select this one of  the many  points that came up as discussion points on the case. Since it doesn't directly relate to the technique I felt it wasn't really well placed in that section. But these are points for discussion and not definitive as far as I'm concerned. (olive (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Misleading and Misplaced
The information on the Spiritual Regeneration Movement may be on several levels somewhat misleading and misplaced. The comment and quote is about the corporation not the technique. We've tried to keep the article clearly about the technique in the interests of clarity and brevity. This decision was made by multiple editors.

The source I have, "The Minnesota Law Review", describes SRM as a spiritual movement, the corporation as a religious one but whose purpose is to teach the technique to those who want a spiritual life. So there is considerable ambiguity there in terms of the organization itself.Is it spiritual or is it religious.

The technique though is never described as religious.

Spirituality and religion are clearly delineated in some of the literature cited in the TM article. It is the court case under the First Amendment, Establishment and Free Exercises clauses that define the technique with SCI as religious in nature, and we know that definition was expanded and not based on a Theistic definition. Defining the TM techniques as religious in any other context I would think is misleading. I think this requires some discussion as to how to place this information if at all. I won't remove it pending discussion, but on closer examination of the source I'm not sure it should stay in this article.(olive (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC))


 * The technique certainly is described as religious by numerous sources, including by Yogi until he decided to try to recast TM as a science instead of a religion beginning in the mid-1960's. Even TM's current literature describes is as the practical application of SCI, which the courts have found to be a religion. The article cited from the National Center for Science Education's journal, compares SCI with Creationism as attempts to disquise religious beliefs and practices as science in order to introduce them to the public schools. There are numerous points in Malnak, both at the District Court and Court of Appeals decisions, the characterize the practice of TM alone as a religious practice. For example:
 * "Once a belief-system has been credited as a "religion" through an examination of its "ultimate" nature, its teachings on other matters must also be accepted as religious" (Malnak, Concurring Opinion fn 40)
 * "There is some indication that SCI/TM has attempted a transformation from a religion to a secular science in order to gain access to the public schools. See Note, Transcendental Meditation and the Meaning of Religion Under the Establishment Clause, 62 Minn.L.Rev. 887, 912-13 (1978). Even if this is true, the issue of its religious nature remains a legal question, and the judgment of the Court today represents a conclusion, in effect, that the attempted transformation is not complete." (Malnak, Concurring Opinion, fn 45)
 * "The TM course trains students in a method or process of meditation. For some, it is a religion; but for thousands of people throughout the country it is a mental exercise, often engaged in by enthusiastic adherents of such formal religions as Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. Clearly, TM should be deemed a religion for purposes of the free exercise clause: if the government sought to forbid it as an activity, the free exercise clause would stand in the way." (quoting Larry Tribe's treatise on Constitutional Law)(Malnak, Concurring Opinion, fn 46)
 * "For a comprehensive survey of the literature for and against TM, and the distinctions between TM and SCI/TM See Note, Transcendental Meditation and The Meaning of Religion Under the Establishment Clause, 62 Minn.L.Rev. 887 (1978). The Minnesota commentator expresses considerable doubt that any TM course could pass constitutional muster. Id. 938-48" Malnak, Concurring Opinion, fn 54)


 * The suggestion being made here, that because TM's proponents disclaim to be a religion, TM should be described in this article solely as a technique, with no reference to (i) the nature of the organizations teaching it or (ii) the theoretical underpinnings is wrongheaded, and contrary to WP:NPOV It is an inappropriate approach for an encyclopedia article, and I strongly disagree. I would also remind certain editors of WP:COI. Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears the sentence in question has been placed twice both in the origin section and in the Relationship to religion and spirituality section. I think it should be placed once and in my opinion should probably go in the origin section since we are dealing with the history of the organisation that teaches TM.--Uncreated (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact that is not the suggestion being made here. Let me clarify. The split off of multiple topics connected to the TM organization was made in the interest of brevity and clarity. This was supported by comments from mediator who came in felt the article was too long. The decision was made to clearly delineate the TM technique from other programs since it can stand alone. This made it easier to make decisions, so that if there was  information  about the technique alone, then it went into this article, if it wasn't just about the technique it went somewhere else. The split had nothing to do with TM and religion. There is a section about the response of religious leaders to the TM technique. This was at  at one point was very much longer than it is now, and  was reduced for some reason so that comments by clergy practicing TM and feeling it was not in conflict with their religions or was religious was reduced to a few lines.


 * You comments above are exactly right. TM/SCI in context of the Malnak v Yogi case and in consideration of the Establishment and Free exercise clauses as this pertains to five New Jersey high school is religious in nature. This is one judgment, of one court case and one instance we are citing. We can't extrapolate from that, that in other contexts TM/SCI is religious. That would be OR. And the TM technique alone was never said to be religious in and of itself in the court case. My inclination to clearly   separate the technique from anything else  is not because I think one way or the other about it... and believe me you don't know what I think about it, but to adhere to the principle put in place many months ago to keep TM technique information in this article and other information somewhere else.  I am  not arguing whether there are other contexts in which the technique may be considered religious or not religious. I am dealing with a very specific inclusion/situation/reference in this discussion and in this article. You might note in the archives that a very antagonistic editor to TM requested maybe demanded that some of the theoretical underpinning material be removed, and it was.


 * As an aside the TM technique exists independently of SCI. Millions of people in the world have learned the technique and most do not know about or care about SCI. Again this isn't something we add to the article its just a note.


 * As a Catholic I could edit articles on Catholicism. Disconnecting every editor from areas they are knowledgeable in would mean no articles would be edited by experts in that field. Therefore COI must and does refer to edits not the editor.


 * It appears the sentence in question has been placed twice both in the origin section and in the Relationship to religion and spirituality section. I think it should be placed once and in my opinion should probably go in the origin section since we are dealing with the history of the organisation that teaches TM.--Uncreated (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Note:
 * Uncreated. I moved your comment so that I could answer it in sequence but could also leave my comment to Fladrif in logical sequence. The lines left in the court case section is my fault. When I moved the material I didn't delete it in the original section.I will do so now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.(olive (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC))


 * QUOTING( so the thread doesn't get further confused): TM/SCI in context of the Malnak v Yogi case and in consideration of the Establishment and Free exercise clauses as this pertains to five New Jersey high school is religious in nature. This is one judgment, of one court case and one instance we are citing. We can't extrapolate from that, that in other contexts TM/SCI is religious. That would be OR. And the TM technique alone was never said to be religious in and of itself in the court case.
 * I'm not extrapolating, and this isn't original research. You said above that no one claims that TM alone is religion. That simply isn't true. I listed examples, some of them taken from the decision, and others from outside the decision, all of which would qualify as Reliable Sources.  As for the broader approach you suggest: If I may analogize, recent articles have referenced studies showing the same kinds of health benefits from Gregorian Chant as are claimed for TM - lower heart rate, lower blood pressure, reduce levels of stress hormones, etc...   Someone might well decide to learn Gregorian Chant simply for the health benefits, and or to start a lucrative business teaching it to others, touting those same health benefits. Let's suppose the Catholic Church decided to reincorporated as an educational nonprofit to teach Gregorian Chant (only allowing the students to learn chant after attending Mass in Latin, telling them it was just a nonreligious ceremony and the words of the chants were meaningless). The Wikipedia article on Gregorian Chant would properly note the religious origins of the chant teaching organization, and the religious nature of the practice itself, notwithstanding the protestations of the GC advocates that they aren't promoting it as religion, and that a lot of people happily chant without thinking of it as a religious practice.  Nor would it be out of bounds to cite properly sourced examples of legal, social and religious commentators who consider GC to be a religious activity, regardless of whether or not the "Scientific GC" organization genuinely thinks of itself as entirely secular.  What would be out of bounds is what you are suggesting - that the article be restricted insofar as possible to the organizations "official line" on that topic.


 * One more thing. WP:COI applies to the editor, not to the edit. Editors with a COI are proscribed in what editing they may do. The COI problem here is not that a Catholic can't edit an article on Catholicism, a Hindu an article on Hinduism, a TM practitioner an article on TM etc... The COI problem here is that you and TG, paid employees of MUM, are editing this article, where you have a direct financial interest in the subject matter, explicitly advancing a corporate viewpoint of your employer. That's a significant problem. Fladrif (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If in fact Olive and TG do work for MUM...from your reasoning Fladrif wouldn't that preclude them from editing the article on MUM and not the article on TM?--Uncreated (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They have stated on their Talk and/or User pages that they do, and I take them at their word. From my reasoning, the resulting COI would apply to all the TM-related articles, not just to the MUM article. Take this up at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.  Fladrif (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fladrif. You have taken up the COI issue on the COI Notice board and I suggest you and we leave it there. This page is for discussion of the article. I'll attempt to address the other issues you raise here later.(olive (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Re: WP:COIN: Neither Littleolive oil nor TimidGuy have replied to that thread to give their views of the matter. Their side should be heard before a decision is made, but one may be made even if they choose not to participate.    Will Beback    talk    02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Maharishi?
Throughout this and all of the other TM-related articles, MMY is referred to as "Maharishi" as if it were his name. "Maharishi" is an honorific, not a name or a title of office. Per Manual_of_Style_(biographies), I propose that he be identified as "Yogi" in these articles for short, not Maharishi, just as Gandhi is not identified as "Mahatma", and popes and the Dalai Lama are not identified as "His Holiness" in the articles about them. I'm sure there are many other examples. Fladrif (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only part of his commonly-used name that is a family name, as opposed to an honorific he gave himself, is "Mahesh." Some critics (that would be me) sometimes use that in lieu of his commonly-used name. As for referring to him as anything other than "Maharishi" here, which is how he was known in popular culture, I think there's really no practical alternative that would bring with it any clarity as to who's being described. There are lots of "Yogis" out there, and certainly "Mahesh" would only be meaningful in context, but if you say "Maharishi" most people familiar with pop culture of that era would instantly know who you're talking about. It's either this guy, the branded products he originated, or the clothing brand. Mike Doughney (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're correct that "Mahesh" would be the preferred form per the Wiki Manual of Style, rather than "Yogi", which I now understand on further reflection to also be an honorific. As for "Maharishi" v "Mahesh" I don't think that popular culture references should trump the Manual of Style in an encyclopedia article. Fladrif (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yogi was used by the courts as his last name...why would we not use it? Do we have a source as to what his legal name is? Could it be actually that his legal name is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?--Uncreated (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The casename and the Federal Courts' convention of referring to him as "Yogi" is why my initial instinct was that "Yogi" was the correct way to go. I am conviced that it is improper to use "Maharishi" as a short form under the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but I am susceptible to being convinced either way as to whether "Mahesh" or "Yogi" is the name that should be used instead. Fladrif (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think we should simply deal with what most references say. Using anything else might be confusing. In discussing the court case it might make sense to use Yogi because that is as Fladrif says references the case name.(olive (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I am also OK with using Yogi, but only in the section/context of the court case. In all other areas it is clear that Maharishi is the proper term, because that is the name by which he is recognized and known throughout the world. It is also the term that is used to reference him in thousands of news articles and TV shows over a 50 year period. There are many other examples of this protocol being used currently on Wiki.....  Looking for information on Roger Nelson and Robert Allen Zimmerman? Well you won't find anything in Wiki under those names. However, you will find their 'real' names in their respective article titles and used consistently throughout their article's copy.  That's right! We are talking about Prince and Bob Dylan!  :-)  The purpose of Wiki is to provide accurate information to the public in a format that is easy and accessible. The term Maharishi accomplishes this for our readers. So why not just leave it as is?  :-)  --Kbob (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorporation
I've found the incorporation document so have been able to get rid of the more general "others' and replace it with a more specific reference. I have also included the "Primary" spiritual purpose as a more complete understanding of the document. I'm not attached to any of it so can be removed if any one objects. I tend to think its all too much information here and would be better placed in an article on a history of the TM organization or in the MMY article but that's another discussion and not attached either way.(olive (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

FYI: images on commons
--JD {æ} 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:MaharishiMaheshYogi-04.jpg
 * File:Picswiss UR-28-18.jpg
 * File:MERU, Vlodrop, Holland (thumbnail).jpg

MUM Lawsuit
I'm wondering why the MUM lawsuit is here on the TM page and not on the MUM page. Has there been discussion on this point already? If so, would someone mind giving me a breif overview? Thanks in advance. --Kbob (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Kbob...I asked the question some months ago but there was no response. Does any editor here have a logic as to why it should be in the TM article and not the MUM article.--Uncreated (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because, to quote directly:


 * "Their separate suits, filed on February 24, 2006, allege that the twice-daily practice of Transcendental Meditation, which the university requires of all students, can be dangerous for people with psychiatric problems."


 * But I see no problem with putting it in the MUM article as well now you mention. I think we should extend the role played by the MUM facility though in that article. i will get working on it later if you like. The7thdr (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with moving it. We can discuss how it should be written over there.(olive (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, good quote 7th. Only I still have doubts as to its relevance on the TM page because the lawsuit was against MUM and not the organization that teaches TM and the main thrust of the suit was that MUM was negligent in protecting their son from a mentally ill student. So I feel it belongs on the MUM page and not the TM page. --Kbob (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree and it should not be moved - reminds me, must add the thing about how the mantra are assigned here in a bit - The lawsuit was in two parts, one, regarding MUMs lack of care as an educational establishment - never denied. Two, and the second that TM maybe dangerous for those with mental illness. The second part of the case rests on whether this is true or not. Again, it was never denied and there is research in the article that already discusses this issue. It is thus highly relevant. Please do not move. but again, I am happy for it to go in the MUM article also, but it would need more information on MUMs inability to care for its students - as described in the lawsuit The7thdr (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK we have agreed that we disagree. I will further outline my position in just bit. In the meantime I honor your request to leave it in. In general I think it will be easier for everyone if we discuss changes here and then post suggested copy and after it is agreed upon, enter it in the article. This includes any new content regarding the mantra. Can we agree on this also? Thanks. --Kbob (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for everyone else Kbob, but yes, that sounds like a very good idea :) Now, I'm off for a while; meditating to do - really :) The7thdr (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks 7th, have a good meditation. --Kbob (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * :) Thank you Kbob. Namaste The7thdr (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One of many discussions:Religious
I will remove religious from the section on procedure. In this section and in this context using the adjective religious is POV.


 * The ref is a project page not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia since its purpose it seems is to ask questions for student use...
 * Even so the ref/page doesn't mention the puja as religious so we can't extrapolate for Wikipedia purposes that the puja is religious because TM/SCI has been deemed religious. That would be WP:OR,and WP:Synthesis actually
 * That TM/SCI was judged religious is only within context of one case, to quote the page referenced "whether something is a "religion" for Establishment Clause purposes " and doesn't mean we now say in general TM/SCI is religious and by extension so is the puja. To make those jumps is more OR.(olive (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks Olive, I wondered about that word; why it was there. Good analysis. --Kbob (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Olive, it'd be better if you didn't make that edit without discussion first. The question of whether TM is religious, and whether the movement is a new religious movement, is certainly debatable and reliable sources can be found. In a quick search I found this:
 * That the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation and the teaching thereof, the concepts of the field of pure creative intelligence, creative intelligence and bliss consciousness, the textbook entitled Science of Creative Intelligence for Secondary Education--First Year Course--Dawn of the First Year of the Age of Enlightenment, and the puja ceremony, are all religious in nature within the context of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the teaching thereof in the New Jersey public schools is therefore unconstitutional.
 * Also discussed here: A court of law is a reasonably reliable source, and this court said that puja is religious in nature. Is there a different source that provides a contrasting view? It'd be better to provide all the significant viewpoints on this matter.    Will Beback    talk    22:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly... this does not say the puja itself is religious. It says the TM/SCI program is religious and it says this only in context of the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause and a court case whose judgment only applied to five schools in the state of New Jersey. In other schools other states TM is allowed in the schools and does not have this prohibition. This is a very specific case and we can't apply it generally unless we have a specific source for it. In that case we might add it but I would be against adding it in the teaching section which is a simple explanation of the procedure. The issue is OR ... We can't extrapolate that the puja itself is religious because a court case comes in with a judgment saying TM/SCI is religious. Further the court case never says TM itself is religious, and the puja is only a part of the TM technique .... The jumps in logic are too great here, and very clear and I assumed that once these were pointed out 7th would understand.


 * 7th made several edits that I consider to be problematic in terms of content and sources and weight. I am willing to discuss them all without reverting, although I mistrust his motives as I have aright to given what he has said to me. But I am not willing to forgo policy and then have the other editors here attack me as they have. Policy is what allows the editing to continue here so that the place doesn't turn into a free for all for anyone with an agenda. In my estimation this particular edit was a one word edit with a clear OR problem. I removed it, and would prefer it stay removed unless it complies with policy, but I seldom edit war and I won't now.(olive (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC))


 * On Wikipedia we don't decide which POVs are correct and which aren't - instead we report the dispute and give all sides. As Yogi Berra said, "When you come to the fork in the road, take it." In this instance, it'd be appropropriate to say something like, "the puja ceremony has been described as 'religious' by a New Jersey court, but TM officals dispute that characterization". Do we have a source for that viewpoint?   Will Beback    talk    23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to shock User:Littleolive oil and at least partially agree with her. At that particular point in the article, whether the ceremony is or isn't "religious" is out of place, and I'm inclined to think that the better practice is to avoid the characterization at that point. That the court found it to be a religious practice, and the commentary of other reliable sources that the ceremony is religious, together with the opposing claim of the TM trademark holders that it isn't, belongs in the later section on the relationship of TM to religion. That said, I can't agree with her analysis that characterizing the decision as a finding that the puja ceremony was religious is an extrapolation or original research. Nor can I agree with her approach in continuing to edit this article in the manner she insists on editing, which seems directly contrary to the recent directives to her WP:COIN. Is User:Will Beback or some other Administrator going to have to continually moderate these articles to enforce the decisions there? Fladrif (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The NJ court isn't the only reliable source that describes puja as a religious ceremony: "...it retains certain cultic features such as the puja (Hindu religious ceremony),..." I exect that there are more as well. What source do we have that says puja isn't religious?   Will Beback    talk    23:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also point out that the NJ case was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court decision is binding within its jurisdiction, and has been used as a precedent in at least twelve cases, some in other districts. So it is inappropriate to characterize it as a narrow decision that applies only to five schools in NJ. Until another court decides differently this is the "law of the land".   Will Beback    talk    23:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand this was a narrow decision. The appeal was for the New Jersey schools. So no its not the law of the land as I understand unless the land happens to be in New Jersey. If other schools apply the case to their schools that should be noted, as well noting that TM has been taught and is used in other schools in the country with no concerns. So what is happening is that there are two sides to this story and both need to be presented . The issue is, a source is needed and second does that section need to be neutral, and, how does a short section like that stay neutral. Should this controversy added to the controversy section or should it be splayed all over the article.(olive (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Again, I understnad that that that is your understanding, but the case has been used as a precedent in many other courts so it is widely held. Unless you have a source that says it only applies to five NJ schools itn's OR on your part to insist that that is the extent of it. Furthermore, the circuit court decision isn't the only source that characterizes it as a religious ceremony. On the other side of the equation, what is the source that disputes it is a religious ceremony?   Will Beback    talk    00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't work on this anymore. I have to teach tonight, but let me see what I can find for sources so we can create some balance. Thanks.(olive (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Fadrif.. if my editing practices where as you say they are I would have been blocked and banned a long time ago. I've never even been warned. The source I removed was a a student project site and it did not mention puja as religious. It must, to be a compliant source or it is synthisis and OR. It has to... we can't just assume something like that. Whatever we think we know is the truth... Find a source that says puja is religious in nature, then the discussion is different. Saying its Hinduism so its religious is also a tricky OR point. We can say its Hinduism and show the source . We can say its religious and show a source that says its religious, but whether we can say its Hinduism and then say its religious is a tricky point ... and no I'm not saying this to try and slant things. I've spent a lot of time working on policy pages and this kind of finely tuned reading comes up again and again ... the best thing is to find a source that say outright its religious.(olive (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC))


 * To clarify... I'm not saying we go with this subtle reading of OR... its just a discussion point, but a source that clearly states and supports what is being offered for inclusion would probably be more compliant and best.(olive (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC))


 * You haven't been warned? Surely you can't be serious. WillBeback has warned you at WP:COIN and again here.
 * Find a source that the puja is religious? Multiple reliable sources have been repeatedly cited in the article and on the talk pages. (Here, for example). The Circuit Court in Malnak found that the puja was a prayer and and an offering to a deity, and that the religious nature of the puja was so obvious as to warrant no further discussion:
 * The puja chant is an invocation of a deified human being who has been dead for almost a quarter of a century. An icon of this deified human being rests on the back of a table on which is placed a tray and offerings. During the singing of the chant, which identifies the items on the table and in the room as offerings to this deity, some of these offerings are lifted from the table by the chanter and placed onto the tray. It cannot be doubted that the invocation of a deity or divine being is a prayer. Engel v. Vitale, supra, at 424. The religious nature of prayer has been recognized by many courts, e.g., Engel v. Vitale, supra;22 DeSpain v. Dekalb County Community School District, supra, and the proposition needs no further demonstration here.
 * I am at a loss to determine what more would be necessary to satisfy your demands. Your insistenace that no reliable source has concluded that TM is a religion or that the TM puja ceremony is a religious ceremony appears to be totally divorced from reality.
 * Malnak is not a narrow decision. The court barred the teaching of TM (with or without SCI or the puja ceremony) It has been cited and followed repeatedly, including by other District and Circuit Courts and by the US Supreme Court, for example in the decisions barring the teaching of Scientific Creationism in public schools. The argument that the reasoning of the Court of Appeals did not address whether teaching the TM techique without a puja ceremony and without instruction in SCI is at best an academic one, because TM is NEVER taught without a puja ceremony or without instruction in SCI. The "Creation Evolution Journal", published by the National Center for Science Education, has explicitly compared TM and Scientific Creationism as two examples of avowed religions making a deliberate decision to attempt to recast themselves and their religious beliefs as "science" in order to obtain governmental support and access to the public schools. Price, Robert M., "Scientific Creationism and the Science of Creative Intelligence", Creation Evolution Journal Vol 3 No 1 (Winter 1982)pp 18-23Fladrif (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, I am in agreement with Olive and Kbob. The wording was wrong. We have established already a legal source which defines it as a religious ceremony - so we obviously already have a resource. But, in the spirit of WIKI perhaps we should use at least another academic source that describes it better as:


 * "The teacher used them in a ceremony which was presented as expressing gratitude to the the "tradition of knowledge" from which TM sprang, but which is, in essence, a religious initiation ceremony" Bainbridge, William S., 1997. The Sociology of Religious Movements. P188


 * Yes, I think you are right, religious initiation ceremony sounds much better than religious ceremony. Well spotted Olive The7thdr (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that last edit by 7thdr...like Fladrif said whether TM is religious or not...that is not the place to characterize it...better to be left in the religion vs spirituality section.

In the interest of balance i am looking for academics who do not consider TM or the Puja to be religious. Certainly in the court notes it mentions there were two academics who did not think the Puja was Religious.

"Defendants also rely on affidavits of two professors of religion. The affidavits are virtually identical and will be treated together. Neither professor practices Transcendental Meditation and presumably has never witnessed a puja; both professors state that they have read the English translation of the puja chant which appears above. Each professor concludes that in his opinion the Puja is not a religious ceremony."

Also to contrast the findings of the court I understand that Laurence Tribe as a constitutional lawyer does not believe TM to be religious...I have found a pdf of a book "Law and Religion in the United States" which maybe will provide source to contrast with...however i have to read through it so it might take me some time.--Uncreated (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Larry Tribe argues that TM would properly be regarded as a religion for purposes of the Free Exercise Clause, but that anything that is "arguably non-religious" should not be regarded as a religious for purposes of the Establishment Clause. That is a different thing than concluding that TM is not religious. Fladrif (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly.This would be OR. Conversely, we can't say that because the court decision is that TM/SCI is of a religious nature that this  judgment extends outside of the conditions noted by the court, that also would OR. In fact in Wallace v Jaffree the Quiet Time Program" renders moot the Malnak case because students can and do practice meditation during this period as well as pray dependent on their inclination. Carter Phillips possibly the most experienced appellate attorney  before the Supreme Court today also describes the puja as non religious. These are all points to keep in mind seems to me when we get to the reception section of the article.(olive (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC))
 * In Wallace, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether a one-minute "moment of silence" (during which a child could pray, meditate, or anything else or nothing at all - so long as it was silent) was a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Appellants withdrew their objection to that part of the Alabama statute, and the decision was therefore confined to the mandatory prayer prescribed by other sections of the statute. It hardly moots Malnak.  As is often observed, there is lots of prayer in public schools - usually just before an exam. Wallace prohibited the official state-sponsored prayer; the teaching of a religious practice in public schools directly violated the Establishment Clause. Fladrif (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wallace v Jaffree

Actually for all practical purposes the Wallace v Jaffree case does render the Malnak case moot. In practice there are schools receiving gov't assistance who have implemented TM into their quiet time programs. Carter Phillips say this ... and I'll link to the letter. (I have a copy of the original identical to this one except for letterhead) (Although I do agree with Fladrif on one point and that is that there is a lot of praying going before exams.)

Even if it were to be assumed that the TM program is a religious practice, its use in the context of a "Quiet Time" program is constitutional. No Court has ever ruled that a school policy, which provides for a period of quiet for its students to do what they deem fit, is unlawful or

---

April 9, 2007

Page 4

unconstitutional. Indeed, it is quite clear that students could engage in religious or non-religious activities during a neutrally implemented period of voluntary quiet, without raising an issue under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Wallace v. Jaffree, confirmed the constitutional right to a voluntary period of meditation in the classroom with a clearly secular purpose in the pre-existing State legislation when it struck down the proposed new legislation, which impermissibly sought to promote religious prayer: "The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the school day. The [pre-existing] statute already protected that right, containing nothing that prevented any student from engaging in voluntary prayer during a silent minute of meditation. (olive (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Hi Olive, thanks for that, but can we keep this within that discussion? This multiple section thing only helps to lose already discussed topics elsewhere - it also leads to much "archiving" The7thdr (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I did move this because the thread was becoming very long and there was a specific reference to the Wallace case which I thought we could split off. I thought this might be easier ....If not it can be added to the last thread on "Religious"... no worries.(olive (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Thank you, appreciated :) The7thdr (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't moot Malnak. First of all, a legal opinion letter from one of TM's attorneys arguing that TM instruction should be permitted in public schools is not a reliable source; it's a piece of paid advocacy. Second, Phillip's reasoning is fatally flawed.  Wallace cannot be read as permitting instruction in TM in public schools as a part of the "TM Program". Wallace may be read as permitting a school to designate a "quiet time", during which a student may voluntarily engage in clearly religious activity such as praying. But, it sustained the prohibition against teaching the religious activity (in that case a state-sponsored prayer). If, as Malnak concluded, instruction in TM involved religious activity, Wallace would not permit that instruction either.  Phillip's letter argues that Malnak doesn't address TM alone - focusing on the Court's findings with respect to SCI and ignoring those on the puja ceremony, without which one cannot be instructed in TM. But if one assumes that TM is a religious activity (an assumption that Phillips concedes is necessary if his argument that TM is wholly secular fails) the teaching of TM would be barred under Wallace, just as the teaching of the State-sponsored Alabama prayer was barred.  Wallace does not reverse, distinguish or limit Malnak in any meanigful way.Fladrif (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Carter Phillips is not as far as I know connected to TM nor is it paid advocacy. His letter is a legitimate and professional opinion  by a lawyer who is highly regarded in the appellate court and  that I placed here to add perspective. I linked you to an online site for ease since my copy of the letter is a pdf file. His letter itself is not usable in this article because it is a primary source. Then fact that the letter is used on that site does not imply in anyway a connection to TM. I will discuss Wallace v Jaffree later.(olive (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC))


 * No. He wrote the letter as an attorney for the TM Organization in support of the "TM Program". You claim to know all about these cases and legal issues, but you didn't know that Sidley Austin is counsel to MUM? Or, ironically that Sidley lists its representaiton of MUM as part of its "Religious Institutions" practice? (Ouch!) He did not write it as a disinterested observer. He was paid to write it by TM. It is definitely paid advocacy.Fladrif (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fladrfi. Is there any chance at all that you can post without deliberately attempting to insult. I claim to have knowledge of these court cases which I do, but will never claim of anything that I have all of the knowledge... Do you want me to start listing off what I think you don't know. This law firm is not the legal council for MUM which is very different than if they have acted for MUM...and no I didn't check to see if they had at some point acted for MUM. Are you really going to insist that a law firm with this kind of standing, with this stature, is acting in a dishonest way somehow. Would you like to say that to them and see what they have to say. Surely you know better than this. And why in any case must you make an issue of this. I am attempting to present material that supports one side of an argument for the sake of perspective, but I noted clearly that I don't think its compliant. This is debate and mature discussion in an attempt to arrive at a neutral article . What are you attempting to do. Is your attitude in any way neutral. Your aggressive combative attitude is beyond my comprehension.(olive (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Sorry you take it that way. I didn't say he was being dishonest - I said that he was being an advocate on behalf of his client. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with him being paid to do that, but the letter simply has to be viewed in that context. You positively asserted "Carter Phillips is not as far as I know connected to TM nor is it paid advocacy."  I suspected, when I first read the letter, that he had to have been paid by TM to write it, because he says that he was asked to write it, and sent it to multiple schools at which the TM Program was being proposed.  Cash-strapped school districts simply don't hire firms like Sidley or attorneys like Phillips to give them that kind of advice.  So, I  checked, rather than posting something based on my mere suspicion and reasoning, no matter how well-founded it might be. And, I found that it was widely reported in the mainstream press that Phillips provided his opinion as an attorney for the TM Movement; and Sidley's own web site lists TM-related organizations as among its clients.  So I know from reliable sources that he is connected to TM as one of its attorneys, and his legal opinion in support of it is paid advocacy. On what basis to you claim to know the opposite
 * I have only one agenda here. I have no stake, and frankly no interest, in the subject-matter of this article, pro or con.  But, having stumbled upon a wreck of an article dominated by factions with all kinds of agendas, I hope to bring half-an-ounce of rationality to it and to the discussion, so it looks more like an encyclopedia article, and less like an advertisement for, or a diatriabe against, the subject matter. Sorry if I've stepped on some toes along the way. Fladrif (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fladrif. We may seem to differ because of semantics. MUM like any university in the US has internal legal council. Carter Phillips is paid period, for what he does. I doubt he made up a position on TM but rather probably scrutinized the court cases and gave a professional opinion. He was paid for the scrutiny as he is paid for anything, but probably not to skew an opinion. I thought you suggested that he would have skewed his opinion because he was paid which seesm highly unlikely given his and his firm's profile. That the article is a wreck is an opinion. Surely you realize that many editors have been here who are neutral and have made comments, helped correct things and thought the article was ok. I can't imagine that a good researcher which you obviously are has not gone into the archives and seen that this article was hammered out by numerous skeptics along with TG and I, and a few others, and that the article is not the result of two editors' work but many. You assume my agenda but believe me you don't know what my agenda is partly because on Wikipedia I have one agenda and that is to be neutral. Should I also not assume you have an agenda when the entries you make are attempts to show that TM is religious. This is what I know about TM. Some people think it has religious aspects, some don't and there are sources for both. We have to show that and we have to do it in a way that reflects the overall sense of the mainstream sources. That's it. Its that simple. Perhaps we can put our perceived agendas behind us and continue on.(olive (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Hi Uncreated - my usual quick reply, but you know me :). Olive said: "Find a source that says puja is religious in nature, then the discussion is different." She may have been right, so I did. Hope this helps. Namaste The7thdr (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay so maybe I will refert to Fladrif's edit then.--Uncreated (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope this makes sense - my intentions may not be as bad as some of you seem to think. Once read please delete as it may break the topic here somewhat :)


 * The Buddha noticed Sigala, a house holder, clasping his hands and turning in the four directions as well as the sky above and the earth below. The Buddha knew this was a ritual to ward of demons and asked Sigala:


 * "Why do you perform this strange ceremony?"


 * "Do you think it strange I should protect my home against bad luck and evil" I know you Buddha, you believe incantations are of no use, but i know that by performing this rite I am honoring my father; keeping his instructions sacred"


 * "You do well, Sigla, to honer your father and keep his instructions. I do not see anything wrong with you following your fathers instructions or doing his rituals but I don't think you understand the meaning off them. Let me explain, "To Guard your house with mysterious ceremonies is not enough and you must guard it to with good deeds. With good deeds you should turn to your parents in the east, your teachers in the south, your wife and children in the west and your friends in the north. Above you, give thanks to life, and below all who serve you. This is the real protection your father gave you and when you perform this ritual it will remind you of it"


 * Then Sigla looked to the Buddha and said:


 * "I never knew what I was doing but now I know"Italic text Sigalaka Sutta


 * Now, that meditation awaits. The7thdr (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Um...cool 7thdr, I miss understood your previous entry...however I am unsure why we have added that sentence in since I seemed to understand that Fladfrif, Myself both thought the addition of that material in the procedure section was not necessary. Perhaps we could come to some consensus about its inclusion? As I understand it at this point Fladrif, Myself and olive think it should come in the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section and 7thdr thinks it should be mentioned in the procedure section. Does anyone else have thoughts?--Uncreated (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur. With all due respect 7th, I'm not sure that there was any real consensus about that entry before you entered it. Did you have the impression it was agreed upon? Also I'm not sure it belongs in the section on Teaching Procedure. I have several reasons for thinking this way. 1)The opening sections of an article are for general information not detailed specifics especially those that are not widely known or widely accepted and are disputed/controversial. 2) To give them such prominence is in effect creating a bias towards one side of the controversy  3)The same information is also included in the Relationship to Religion section and therefore redundant and giving it even more undue emphasis.  What do you think? Can we find some common ground on this? PS thanks for the Buddha parable. I think everyone here has good intentions. --Kbob (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as contentious:


 * Olive stated if there were sources that said it was religious then it would make sense- there are. 3 editors see it as religious and have quoted sources to confirm it is - which it is. TMs founder mentions TM and "god" many times in his literature - this makes it religious. The ceremony is obviously religious - which a puja is (you would know this if your origins were anywhere in India). The "ceremony clearly is religious - this is what a puja is. Stating otherwise is clearly not only untrue but silly. For some reason some members of TM dislike people knowing this. I am sorry that this is the case but it changes not the facts - and the evidence which can be supported by reliable sources - not one bit. The7thdr (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Addition: Must go, but to be honest feel it needs to be said that I am finding this strange that we are even "debating" whether a puja is a religious ceremony. With all due respect, in India this discussion would be seen as not only nonsense but insulting to a long religious tradition. Imagine this, a new form of "western" meditation is formed in India based on Gnostic Christian foundations. As part of "learning" this meditation, it is necessary for a new member to take part in a ceremony called "holy communion, which involved a priest, a prayer, taking a sip of wine and a wafer, etc. Obviously a religious ceremony to anyone in the west. To call it otherwise would not only be untrue but would be to clearly deny - incorrectly it's Christian origin and the religious nature of the ceremony. The7thdr (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point 4 editors (Myself, Fladrif, Olive and Kbob) do not think the "Teaching Procedure" section is the place to talk about the Puja/TM being religious. The thought is that it should be raised in the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section. 7thdr will you go along with this?--Uncreated (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I have explained why :) It is well sourced, it is a religious ceremony. I agree that discussion as to whether TM is "stealth" Hinduism, Guru (ism?) or any other "isim" should be left in that section. But this is not what is being discussed here. What is being clarified is that the "initiation" ceremony to level one of "Maharishi Maheshism" or what ever name you which to give it, is a religious ceremony. This it is, without question. The7thdr (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what I said was that if the source was good then another discussion would ensue. That discussion is whether the adjective should be there at all or should be somewhere else. Thing is, if we put religious with a source in this section we also to be neutral need to put in a source that says its not religious, because both positions exist. Then the focus of the section starts to shift from being about procedure to dealing with controversy on the puja. In my mind we aren't discussing whether the puja is religious but whether the sources say it it is, what the organization says about it because the organization's position should be noted, and whether there are sources which say it isn't religious which there are. This isn't a personal discussion on what any of us think, but should be about encyclopedic entries. I want to mention again  that by Wikipedia standards mention of god in the literature does not mean we can jump and say its religious. The literature has to say its religious otherwise we are playing around again with synthesis and or OR. There are delineations in some literature about the differences between religious and spirituality, and this is why we have to be accurate here and just cite what the source says. And we also cannot not make the jump from god in literature to then puja is religious. These are synthesis/OR and not allowed . But what we can do is find specific references, then decide where if anywhere they go . These aren't my personal opinions on theses matters about "religious", "not religious" .... its just encyclopedic policy/guidelines at work.   (olive (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Olive, if you can find a "reliable" none TM source that clear states that a puja is NOT a religious ceremony, I would be happy to discuss it :). I am sorry for not answering you directly of late, but you have stated on a number of occasions regarding the way I have "treated you". It is perhaps a clash of "personalities that I cannot see and would not like to "upset" you, or to bring personalities into the discussion. The7thdr (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And Olive, it is not "synthesis" by any editor, it comes from a number of reliable source, all referenced. I repeat, it does not discuss whether TM is an "ism" it points out that the initiation ceremony is a religious one, The7thdr (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Slow Down
Dear Friends, I would like to make a suggestion that we all slow down a bit here. It is great that everyone is so passionate about making this article the best it can be. But different editors have different perspectives. An elephant is an elephant but it looks different depending on whether you are standing in the front or the back. The issue of TM and religion is a large issue that has been discussed at length in the past. It deserves the same careful consideration again now. There are also several editors involved and some of us have to work for a living. :-) So if we could take our time and move slowly and deliberatly I think we will have less conflict, make more progress and enjoy ourselves more too! I suggest that if there was any question regarding the conclusion of the COI discussion on the noticeboard re: Olive and Timid that that be handled in a seperate section. We might also consider breaking the topic up into smaller peices for clarity. I would also like to suggest that we have a gentlemen's and gentlwomen's agreement that for the time being, we discuss and then post new copy suggestions here on the discussion page first and get consensus on the wording and placement before putting them in the article. This will help to avoid any editing wars as no one feels good when their edits are reverted. What do you think?  Peace! --Kbob (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me.--Uncreated (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)