Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 24

Range of Studies
I have been reading thru the article again to get a overall sense of the coherence of the material. While there are many areas that need attention, this section called "Range of Studies" grabbed my attention. I am wondering why we need this section? Perhaps the content could be included in the other Research sections. The section currently reads:


 * Studies conducted by the TM Movement's Maharishi University of Management or by present, past or future members of its faculty, have suggested a positive correlation between the Transcendental Meditation technique and possible health-related physiological states, including improvement in lung function for patients with asthma, [78] reduction of high blood pressure,[79] an effect the researchers termed "younger biological age,"[80] decreased insomnia,[81] reduction of high cholesterol,[82] reduced illness and medical expenditures,[83] decreased outpatient visits,[83] decreased cigarette smoking,[84] decreased alcohol use,[84] and decreased anxiety.[85]  --BwB (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A summary may be fine but should be accurate. This would seem to suggest that the only research done was by MUM faculty and that research results showed only positive correlations ... both are inaccurate.(olive (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Have we identified and attributed the studies that included past or present MUM faculty? That would seem like a good first step regardless of other edits.   Will Beback    talk    02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh. Well we've been thorough that so many times. If a study is in a peer reviewed, established journal its good enough for Wikipedia, and if its good enough for Wikipedia its good enough for the TM article. After all we can't change the policies and guidelines just for this article. The summary should probably be rewritten or removed since little about it is accurate.(olive (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I just looked at the list and a number of those studies were by individuals who've never had any affiliation with the university, so I deleted the error that had been inserted. 76.76.232.130 (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved the "Range of Studies" section to the top of the Research section. It makes sense to have this as an opening and then the details to follow. --BwB (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Benson sentence in Effects on Physiology section
I have to admit that this is just silly: highlighting an author of an early study acknowledging the limitations of the study. The study itself probably acknowledges its limitations. This is the norm. It's not a scandal. These first studies are included for historical reasons. WP:MEDRS says that such a section can be included. Let's just rename the section, move out later studies, and let the history section be a history section. It's also historically important because this early research got so much national mediation attention, such as the Time magazine article that is referenced. Outside of the History section, I suggest that we simply exclude any study that didn't have a control group. According to Ospina Bond, there are over 200 studies on TM that do have control groups. That gives us plenty of material to work with. And I'd be fine if we excluded any study based on an ad hoc questionnaires. 76.76.232.130 (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * These are good suggestions. I agree that the early studies are of historic significance, not only because they got "national mediation attention", but because they where among the first studies (if not the first studies) to look at the effects of a mental technique on the physiology.  --BwB (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I question the wisdom of omitting studies without a control group. There are several research designs that are fully acceptable without control groups. Some of these have no possible control groups (for example, looking at longitudinal changes specific to a single individual). It is easy to imagine studies that examine, for example, EEG changes in single subjects with unique characteristics before, during, and after practice of the technique. To exclude this potentially important class of studies would not be scientific and would not be justified. It all depends on the type of question being asked. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual Regeneration Foundation
The text below is not supported by the citation. There is nothing in the source that mentions Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi or a Board of Trustees.
 * The "Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation" was incorporated in California in 1959 with a seven member board of trustees led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi[22] --Kbob (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind I have found another source and have amended the sentence to accurately reflect the new source.--Kbob (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence below as it was not supported by the source. If another source can be found the content can be put back in the article. One portion of the sentence below was contained in the source re: SRF certificate says "religious" corp, so I incorporated this point into the first sentence where it fit better anyway.
 * Its articles of incorporation stated that the Foundation's primary purpose for formation was spiritual, and in Article 11 that "this corporation is a religious one. The educational purpose shall be to give instruction in a simple system of meditation." --Kbob (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is supported by the citation, which is to the decision in Malnak. Your deletions and changes are improper and factually wrong. SRMF was not incorporated in 1961, it was incorporated July 7, 1959. You would do well to check the archives of the Talk page before making changes like this. If you did, you would find that olive and I already went through this exercise once, and the text you changed was something that we came to agreement on as factually accurate. SeeTalk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_18 I'm not going to go through all 100 of your unilateral edits from this morning, though I'm tempted to revert them all. Go back and undo this. And while you're at it, go read what you're actually supposed to do when you come across a dead link instead of deleting the material. Fladrif (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * HI Fladrif, thanks for your comments. I have added the source you cited and edited the sentence to favor the 1959 incorporation date. I have also noted in the sentence that another reliable source that references a court case gives 1961 as the time of incorporation. This second source is one that was already in the article, not one that I brought in myself. Regarding my many edits. I think if you look at them you will find that they are of small edits that create accuracy and alignment with the sources cited. None of them are to significant but if you have issues with any. I am happy to explain and discuss as needed.--Kbob (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Price article did not say that SRMF was incorporated in 1961. Byt, assuming arguendo that it did, explain to me what it adds to the article to say, when we all know for a fact that SRMS was incorporated July 7, 1959, that another source said 1961? This is not something that someone can have a legitimate disagreement about, so it's not like presenting both sides of a controversy. Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was aware also that there were cleanup issues in the article, references to page covers for example. I think its great Kbob is doing this clean up... means I don't have to do it... and if any editor questions the changes then he has offered to discuss and explain... so I think this is fine.(olive (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC))


 * The source that has been in this section of the article for some time states: "It was called the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation. A certificate of incorporation, written in 1961, made no bones about the fact that "this corporation is a religious one" (article eleven)." [] So for accuracy I have noted that there are two reliable sources with conflicting information. Why is there conflicting info? I don't know. Maybe they incorporated in another state in 1961. I have no idea. I am just accurately recording in the article what the sources say.--Kbob (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Picking Info from Sources
We need to be careful about cherry picking material from sources. In the "Principles" section we find the new sentence "The technique is practiced morning and evening for 15-20 minutes each time but is not recommended before bed.[30]" with a reference to a Time article. However, on reading the article one finds many small details of the TM practice mentioned, but only the "not recommended before bed" point is chosen. This may seem like a small point, but it is indicative of cherry picking that other editors have highlighted above. --BwB (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I put that in. If you feel its cherry picked, please feel free to edit accordingly.--Kbob (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Text from Research: Effect on the Phsyiology Section

 * Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects, acknowledging methodological weaknesses and bias, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology was rife with methodological weaknesses, and that those studies with proper controls showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest.   Claims by researchers associated with the Maharishi University of Management that TM has unique effects on body chemistry and blood flow different from other relaxation methods are not shared by the scientific community at large, and TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice. A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research concluded that the interest in meditation as a therapy for health-problems such as hypertension, stress and chronic pain is based on anecdotal evidence and studies of poor quality, and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced". --Kbob (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the above text which is a slight variation of the text I removed a few days ago and posted on this talk page and gave reasons for the removal of each sentence. My reasons for removal in nutshell are it makes statements about medical research using periodicals as a source in violation of WP:MEDRS. Furthermore the text makes sweeping generalizations on decades of peer reviewed published research which occurred decades after the publication of the sourced periodicals (which are invalid sources anyway). I welcome comments from other editors so that we can have resolution and consensus.--Kbob (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There are additional problems in that some of the text is grossly inaccurate. For example, in the first half of the first sentence it says "some researchers" but the article only mentions Benson. So this is an exaggeration. The sentence also refers to "earlier studies" but in fact the article refers to one single earlier study. A second misrepresentation. I think this deleted section needs some serious work before it can be consider for posting in the article.--Kbob (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. I will not fall for the tired scam of the TM Cabal here "we can't put anything in until everybody agrees". This is accurate, reliably sourced material. You don't have veto power over the content of the article and you don't get to delete reliably sourced material just because it doesn't square with the marketing plan of the TM Org. And, what is it with the lack of attention span of all you TM editors that you have to keep making new headers and breaking up the discussion? Stop it already! Fladrif (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion to remove this section on the TM research. Your points seem valid.  Happy to discuss it here further.  And Fladrif, just because it is reliably sourced material does not automatically mean it should appear.  As I have mentioned before, the "Cult Issues" section does not really belong in an article on TM since TM is a technique and therefore cannot be a cult.  I am willing to allow some mention of "cult issues" but not 6 paragraphs.  And my attention span is fine, thanks for asking :) --BwB (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This text was put back into the article while it was under discussion. There were comments made by several editors both pro and con in regard to this text. Woonpton in particular made some astute comments which were not fully responded to or addressed. I would like to continue this discussion here if that is OK with everyone. I am never opposed to reliable sourced material that is accurately represented being put into this article. I suggest we go line by line and examine the removed text. If reliable sources can be found we can clean it up and put it back in. I will start a new thread so we can review and discuss the first sentence and come to a conclusion. In this way I think we can work together and get a fair result that will enhance the article.--Kbob (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that my comments were not fully responded to or addressed, so why did you start a new section instead of keeping the discussion open in the thread above where my comments reside? But I'll summarize them here quickly FYI: WP:MEDRS applies only to the third statement, which refers to comprehensive findings from a meta-analysis; that should indeed be sourced to the study itself rather than to the washington post. But you fix that problem by changing the source, not by deleting the statement.  I said that deleting that meta-analysis is not acceptable, as it is the latest word on research regarding effects of TM. I was a little surprised when I read that WP:MEDRS calls for honoring meta-analyses as the best kind of source; I'd say there are meta-analyses and meta-analyses, and some of them I wouldn't give much credence to.  But this one is absolutely stellar, up-to-date and comprehensive,  and should figure prominently in any discussion of research in this area. For the other two statements, WP:MEDRS does not apply, as the sources are making general statements about the quality of research, not summarizing research findings.


 * That said, I'm not arguing for the paragraph to be kept just as written (although I think if the rest of the section is kept, then this must be kept), but I don't think the idea of going through it line by line is a good idea either.  This whole section, in fact the entire Research part of the article,  is a mess, and should be rebuilt from the ground up, in my opinion.  The research that's cited both pro and con is almost without exception terrible research that shouldn't be used as sources for an encyclopedic treatment of a topic. The research on the topic can be summarized in a few sentences; this "on the one hand this and on the other hand that" style is a terrible way to write an encyclopedia.  As for the paragraph in question, the poor quality of the research done in the area needs to be addressed, but it's not necessary to appeal to the popular press for sources; the recent meta-analysis covers that quality of research very well.  Why not use a better source when one is available?Woonpton (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good comments, however please note that the third sentence discusses research already included in the article in Medical Research section as follows:

Therefore it is undue to mention or refer to this same study a second time in another section. Don't you agree?--Kbob (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In June, 2007 the United States National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine published an independent, peer-reviewed, meta-analysis of the state of meditation research, conducted by researchers at the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. The report reviewed 813 studies, of which 230 were studies of TM or TM-Sidhi..[70] The report concluded that "[t]he therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature," and "[f]irm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.(p. 6) [54]


 * No, I don't agree at all. In the section on medical research that you cite above, the source is used as a citation for the study's conclusions about the (almost entirely nonexistent) medical effects of TM. In the paragraph that's being discussed here, where the topic is the poor quality of research, the study is the best source for a careful analysis of the quality of the research (and it looks at ALL the research that's available on the topic) and should be included in a discussion of the quality of research as well as in a discussion of the effects of TM.  Your use of the term "undue" suggests you may be confused about the WEIGHT clause of WP:NPOV.  WEIGHT doesn't apply to the use of one source to support two different statements in two different sections, both of which are necessary to a full treatment of the topic; that does not constitute "undue weight."  WEIGHT applies to an inordinate amount of space or emphasis given in the article to a fringe or minority viewpoint, such as in this case, the insistence that TM has all these effects that independent researchers don't find. Woonpton (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking this over again, I see your point: the text in both cases is essentially the same, which I hadn't realized before, and while I want to make it very clear that I still don't agree that mentioning the same study twice in the article in two different contexts is a violation of WEIGHT, mentioning the same study twice in exactly the same way, making the same point, is redundant, never mind any gratuitous appeal to policy. In the paragraph being discussed here, where the issue is the quality of research, the study should be used as a citation for a statement about the quality of TM research specifically; the study provides a definitive analysis of the quality of all the research that's been done in this area. This points up the confusion that results from having "Research" all broken up into sections. Why is there a section on "physiology" and a section on "medical effects;" how are they different, and how was I supposed to know that this material was covered in two different sections? As I said before, this entire section (including all of its subsections) of the article should be deleted and rebuilt from scratch as one short section. Woonpton (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would completely agree with you woonpton. This has been raised many times - the research section is ridiculously long, never mind the quality of ALL of the studies. This has been raised time and time again - even by Admins. Alas, it reflects the style of TM marketing and they REFUSE to allow it to be both shortened and critiqued. It just ends up with all of the ladies here threatening banning, and suing and all sorts of other nonsense. It concludes with an edit war  - and much stamping of feet - until anyone remotely neutral goes away in disgust having had enough of it. As hard as it might be to imagine,  considering the comments here by others directed in my direction, I am neutral. My only concern has been due to the blatant intellectually dishonesty in the editing of this article.


 * The upshot of this is that one is forced to cite documents and critiques that one might not normally simply because the editors will only calm down slightly if they see "hundreds" of sources "supporting" or analyzing some critique. It  is in many ways due to a misinterpretation (or miss-representation one might say if one was cruel - which i would not like to be) of policies about referencing and weight;  but they won't listen. But what can one do? I used to think that it was because certain editors where paid by TM but having looked at recent additions I am starting to think that this is not the (only?) case here and that instead some editors world view is so distorted that they really believe that they are right:


 * Take for example the recent edits to the cult the section, at least 3 editors thought the following edit was NPOV and acceptable - indeed two of them spent much time editing it to get it "just right":

''Cult issues

While Transcendental Meditation is a mental technique, not requiring the practicinar (sic) to believe anything (sic), to change their existing beliefs, or become a member of any organization, it has been asserted that the organization teaching the TM technique exhibit charactistics (sic)of a cult. These include: Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, [98]; and, Michael A. Persinger's in his book, TM and Cult Mania, published in 1980.[99].

However, Clarke and Linzey, argue that for the ordinary membership of TM their lives and daily concerns are little - if at all - affected by it's cult nature. Instead they claim, as is the case for Scientology, it is only the core membership, who must give total dedication to the movement [100]

According to David Orme-Johnson, former faculty member at Maharishi University of Management, cult followers are said to allegedly operate on blind faith and adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, while these studies would indicate the ability of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique to make mature, independent, principle-based judgments.[101]; Marc Galanter MD, Professor of Psychiatry at NYU in his book "Cults: Faith and healing Coercion (who prefers the term Charismatic Movement to Cult)[102]''


 * How on earth can one hold a neutral discussion about resources and edits in such an atmosphere? Woe is us. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lotus, Thanks for you critique of my suggestion for a rewrite of the Cult Issues section. I may not have done a very good job with the draft, but my intention was to at least have some discussion around the issue before applying it to the page.  This seems reasonable to me.  There are 2 main issues with such a long section, as I have stated before:  (1) When someone new learns TM they are not joining any organization.  They learn the technique and do it at home if they want to. Yes they can participate in other programs offered by MVED later if they choose.  Therefore the idea that someone learning TM is joining something is incorrect; and (2) This article is about the TM technique.  Since TM is a technique, how can a technique be classed as a cult and have a whole section dedicated to it?  Yes, some cult experts have asserted that the organization that teaches TM (if fact MVED) exhibit cult-like characteristics.  I am not opposed to mentioning this in the article on TM, but I am opposed to dedicating 6 paragraphs to this.  Another article on the TM organization seems the logical place to host such issues.


 * So if you have a suggestion on how we can shorten the CUlt Issue section, keeping the references already cited, be my guest to propose another version. --BwB (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please take this back the "cult" discussion if you wish to continue to discuss it - where all of your points have been answered. I was using it as an example of a certain world view here. But to answer quickly - please rely to the relevant section above. You did not put it up for discussion you simply re-edit it. Two: no need to shorten the cult section - fine as it is. Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem with this sentence is primarily the sources: So regardless of how we interpret WP:MEDRS, this sentence is not accurate and does not seem to cite good, reliable sources. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence sites two Time magazine articles. Neither article contains any criticism about the TM research
 * The third source is an article in the Eugene Register. Eugene is a town of 150,000 people and with 10,000 articles written on TM over a 50 year period, I think we could rely on better sources.
 * The Eugene article was written in 1977 and comments made by the two scientists in the article could not be considered relevant to the hundreds of published, peer reviewed studies that have been performed since then.
 * Lastly the Eugene article includes comments by two scientists. One says that some TM research is being rushed to publication. The other says that although TM produces physiological changes he is not convinced that we might not see the same changes in a person just resting.

By and large, I've got no problem with the various edits made in the article today to this text, with one concern. In |this diff I think that adding a date creates a misleading impression. To say that "As of 1984" the scientific mainstream did not support claim that TM had unique effects on blood flow and chemistry is to imply that a change in position may have taken place in the scientific community since the article was published.. I know it's not asserted positively that things have changed in the meantime, but the wording suggests the possibility. Now, we all know that no-one outside the TM Org thinks these claims are valid, and studies such as the Ospina Bond metanalysis conclude that, whatever benefits TM may have, they aren't unique to TM. That's the scientific mainstream view. And, don't say "go find a more recent source that says TM isn't mainstream". The burden falls on the other side of the proposition. Anybody claiming that, since 1984 TM's assertions of its unique benefits flowing from blood flow and chemistry and SCI and I don't know what all else is now mainstream science, had better come up with a darned good, independent source to back it up. Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Today I moved some text from this section and moved it to the "Adverse Effects" section. The text and sources remain intact. I have also added some text with sources to the "Adverse Effects" section to show that there are studies countering the claims made by Fenwick. --BwB (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Reread the source and reedited this section to give a more accurate wording. --BwB (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of Term "Movement"
If we want to remain neutral, use of the term "movement" to describe the legal entities responsible for offering instruction in the Transcendental Meditation technique is not acceptable. It is a pejorative term with distinct connotations and has no legal status. (No one can petition the TM "movement." We can only petition a legal organization.) I suggest a new expression such as "the legal entities offering instruction in the technique." Does anyone have a better expression than this? Also, we might question the accuracy of the number 60 in this sentence. The whole sentence is a newspaper article quote of one instructor. Did he just pull this from thin air? ChemistryProf (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points Chem, I had the same thought about this phrase in the lede "The Transcendental Meditation technique is one of sixty services and courses offered by the Transcendental Meditation movement". We have the issue of term 'movement' but also I feel that a personal quote from a random TM teacher may not be an authoritative enough source to use as a characterization for the entire organization in the lede of the article. The sentence is reliable sourced so it has a place in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the lede. the purpose of the lead is to introduce and summarize the entire article. I'm not sure this sentence belongs here. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that the use of this term is not in the best interests of the article since it is a general almost cliche ridden term that does not specifically describe anything. Still as I remember the TM organization itself uses this term on occasion in which case we can reference that as a source. I can't find the sources which refer directly to the organization. Maybe someone else can, and maybe one such ref should be included. At any rate, in order to not use this term we would need agreement from a majority of editors, and in the past we haven't had that. Bottom line: It can be sourced to the organization itself and is a form of self definition, apparently, a strong reason to use it here, like it or not.(olive (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I too have heard people in the Transcendental Meditation organizations use the term "movement," but it seems to be used mainly as an easier way of saying "the organizations responsible for teaching the Transcendental Meditation technique." Because this phrase is quite a mouthful, something easier to say is probably good. But "movement" does not feel like the right word for the reasons I gave yesterday. And I agree with Kbob that the reference and the entire sentence may be out of place in the lede. I ran across a more authoritative scientific review article that mentions 40 services or programs offered by these organizations. The context in this case was that of alternative medicine approaches, but the impression is given that this is a comprehensive number. The Transcendental Meditation program is prominently featured in this scientific article, but several of the other programs are described, with citations to other references on their effects. For this reason, it would be not only a more authoritative reference but also a more informative one. I suggest we remove the present sentence in question and replace it with a sentence like the following: "The Transcendental Meditation technique is one of 40 programs or courses offered by the Transcendental Meditation organizations that have been described as natural approaches to disease prevention." The complete reference is publically available at the following link: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16938913 . ChemistryProf (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That would misrepresent your source, which talks of 40 "approaches" to health. It is a different thing than the 60 products and services listed in the other source, which is perfectly reliable. I doubt your source is including purchase of a $3500 handy home version "Vedic Observatory" or the purchase of "yagyas" or "ayurvedic jewels" as among its 40 "approaches" to health care. Or maybe it is.Fladrif (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually ChemProf I was referring to TM organization sources which I've seen but don't have at the moment, that use the term TM movement. Because the term is used by the organization, that is a powerful incentive to use it here. I do agree with Fladrif, the organization would seem to include much more than the health benefits, but I also feel the term weakens the article and opens the door for future problems. Not sure what the answer is. We could go to some kind of consensus, but actually I'm not sure that would be fair at this time. My position right now would be to leave the term in place for now and once the article is in a more stable place to revisit the discussion again, and see how everyone feels about it at that point. Thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC))


 * As I mentioned earlier my issue is not so much with the term 'movement' as the fact that we are allowing a quote from a newspaper with a circulation of 15,000 to summarize and define the article (that's what the lede does) PS I know the circulation because I called the newspaper and asked them :-) HighCountry Press 828-264-2262  If we can find a more reliable source that would be good. But if not then the sentence should likely be removed. Don't you think?--Kbob (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (olive (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

.

Proposed Removal of Paragraph--Off Topic, Unreliable Source
I would like to remove the following paragraph from the article:
 * "The Maharishi stated of the mantras: "Thus, we find that any sound can serve our purpose of training the mind to become sharp. But, we do not select the sound at random....because such ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not select any words at random. For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life." [16][]

Here are my reasons:
 * The source does not mention the article topic of Transcendental Meditation and so the quote above appears to be a general comment. If we connect it to TM, than that is OR as the source document does not mention Transcendental Meditation.
 * The source is self published and in violation of Wiki guidelines for reliable sources

Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[5]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. --Kbob (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence below from the Origin section may also need to be deleted for the same reasons as stated above.
 * The records of this "Spirtual Development Conference" held in Cochin in October 1955 were published as "Beacon Light of the Himalayas" [17]--Kbob (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And this one also:
 * Of "Guru Dev", the Maharishi wrote: "In the English Language, his devotees felt that the expression "His Holiness" did not adequately describe this personified Divine Effulgence; and so the new expression "His Divinity" was used. With such unique adoration of newer and fuller grandeur, transcending the glories of the expression of antiquity, was worshiped the holy name of Guru Deva, the living expression of Upanishadic Reality, the embodiment of the transcendent Divinity. [17]


 * I can only assume that this is your idea of a joke, right? You really expect to be taken seriously that the book isn't about TM and isn't a reliable source? "The Beacon Light of the Himalayas" is the Maharishi's first published book on Transcendental Meditation.  I understand from elsewhere on the web that the TM org has tried to supress this book the last 40 years or so. Don't know if that's true or not, but it is awful odd that it doesn't show up on any of the TM Org bibliographies, since it is such a historically important document.  Fladrif (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see Fladrif's point but at the same time we are bound by the boundaries of an encyclopedia rather than by research paper methodologies. I think the issue here is purely technical. The book is self published and may fall below the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, this requires some serious discussion that could focus on:


 * Whether we will allow into the article a self published book
 * Do we set a precedent by using a self published bbok
 * Is the book written completely by Maharishi .... seems to be some indications there are other writers involved .... does anyone see that.
 * Whether its use by other authors gives us a reason to use it here...
 * Can it be used by citing through another more reliable reference...


 * There are cases when certain allowances can be made in an article... do we want to go that route...
 * There are no answers just questions so far... so lets see what we can come up with.(olive (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm not convinced that this falls within the scope of "self-published" at all. It says it was published and printed by A.N Menon(p167), who it says was the organizer of the 1955 conference (p6). Other than including his intro (p6) and his welcoming speech (pp 43-49), this isn't his text. The secondary sources cited above characterize this as the Maharishi's first published book on TM; it was clearly done on his behalf and so was not "self-published" in that sense at all. And, if it is regarded as "self-published" it would seem to fall within the scope of self published sources that can be use in an article. WP:SELFPUB Clearly, MMY is an expert on TM; you have no problem with his other self-published books. I note that you both were also zealous advocates for including DO-J's self-published web site as a source in the article on cults, nothwithstanding that he has no recogized expertise in that subject whatsoever. The position here is wholly inconsistent with your position in that discussion.Fladrif (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

These are good points and I agree it is deserving of some discussion. On the one hand Fladrif has given some valid references where the document is mentioned and referred to as the Maharishi's book. On the other hand we have some additional things to consider:
 * The document describes itself not as a book but as a "souvenir" of the Great Spiritual Development Conference.
 * A significant portion of the book is photos and text in Hindi or Sanskrit
 * The document consists primarily of letters dedications and speeches by many other individuals
 * Only 18 pages out of 170 pages contain text that is attributed to the Maharishi
 * There is an announcement on the cover for "spiritual practices" attributed to the Maharishi but no mention of Transcendental Meditation
 * The second page says the 'souvenir' is dedicated to the 'Maharshi Bala Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj
 * The Maharishi is not cited anywhere in the 'souvenir' as the author
 * It is not clear who authored or published the document
 * The conference took place in 1955 which was years before the term Transcendental Meditation came into existence
 * The subject of this article, Transcendental Meditation, is never mentioned anywhere in the book including the text attributed to the Maharishi--Kbob (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to reiterate that I am not stating a position on this, but am laying out some discussion points. I don't think this is a clear cut case for anything, nor is like anything else we've dealt with... Lets just look at it dispassionately with policy in mind and try to come to a decision...and... If the content is considered crucial to the article is there another place we can find it.(olive (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Fladrif, you've raised some good points about SELFPUB. That still leaves us with a few issues to consider but let's give other editors a chance to also chime in and hear their points of view and see where it take us.--Kbob (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * More than SELFPUB issues my main concern is that by using this source we may be committing some kind of OR. The 'book' was created in 1954. From the sources I have seen Maharishi didn't begin teaching TM until 1957. Also TM is not mentioned in the 'book' as far as I can see.  So even if we establish that he is the author (which is still in question, I think) how can we say he is talking about TM when its never mentioned?  It sounds like an OR situation to me.--Kbob (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, now you're changing grounds? Nice try, but no dice. ALL of the resources, including all the official TM websites say that MMY assumed the title "Maharish" and started teaching TM in India 1955. 1957 is when he announced in Madras that he was going to take TM world-side. Here's just one "official" source on top of the other reliable sources quoted above. which say that THIS IS THE MAHARISHI's FIRST PUBLISHED BOOK ON TM Your questions here are not worthy of response, as the've been authoritatively answered by reliable, third party sources as well as by the TM org offical websites. To suggest, as you do, that maybe this isn't MMY, and maybe this isnt bout TM is the grossest violation of OR I've seen on this page in quite a while, and I've seen some pretty gross violations of OR used to try to justify taking out stuff the TM Cabal doesn't want in the article.Fladrif (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the linked page above that says this was Maharishi's first published book... am I missing something. One of the issues here is not whether the book is self published or its use is a kind of extrapolation of information which technically I believe it is, but rather, if this is an instance of ignore all rules WP:IAR, and use the book because it is cited by the Organization... (Is it? I don't see that in this link but maybe in the links above -I'll check later when I have time,) Do we as a group feel the book is worth including anyway, and if the inclusion will create other concerns that is, set a precedent for inclusion of non compliant material. Because the source is cited somewhere else doesn't mean its compliant for Wikipedia, but we could include it if there's agreement for it. and ...I guess I'm the dumb one with my l'il ol' 183 IQ.(olive (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry. I wasn't clear above. KBob said that he understands that MMY didn't start teaching TM until 1957. That understanding it not correct. The linked page above, which I take it is an official TM-Org website, says (as do many other sources) that MMY started teaching TM in 1955. It doesn't specifically talk about the book, although it does mention Kerala (where this conference was held) and I am going to guess (though I haven't checked) that the quote on this page is actually from the book. The other sources, which I cited earlier say (as do many other sources) that "The Beacon Light of the Himalayas" is the Maharishi's first published book on TM.   Hence, KBob questioning whether this is really MMY's book and whether its about TM have already been answered by reliable sources, and we do not have to speculate or debate those points. Fladrif (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my guess was exactly correct. The quote on the TM Scotland website
 * "In October 1955, in Kerala, a prominent advocate from Palghat expressed his admiration for Maharishi:
 * "The more I questioned Swamiji (Maharishi), the more I became convinced of his greatness. I was impressed not only by his learning, but also by his kindness, tolerance, equanimity, his helpful attitude to real aspirants, and his readiness to impart knowledge to them."
 * is taken directly from "Beacon Light". It is found at page 56 of the PDF file, page 36 per the internal pagination. Odd that there is no citation or attribution on the TM site for the quote. Fladrif (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that the quote above and the souvenier/book do not mention Transcendental Meditation, which is the topic of this article. That's also a key issue--Kbob (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire copy contained on the title page appears as follows:
 * Beacon Light of the Himalayas,The Dawn of a Happy New Era
 * In the Field of Spritual Practices
 * Mind Control, Peace and Atmananda
 * Through simple and easy methods of Spiritual Sadhana
 * propounded by Maharishi Bala Brahmanchari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj
 * of Uttar Kasi, Himalayas
 * Souvenier of the Great Spiritual Development Conference of Kerala, October, 1955--Kbob (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MMY changed the name of his technique at least twice. Prior to calling it "Transcendental Meditation", he called it "Deep Meditation", and prior to that "Spiritual Sadhana". But, it's the identical technique, whiich he claims to be traditional, and to be handed down from his guru, and which he later renamed. Every source, including every official TM Org source, says that MMY came down out of the mountains after two years, and started teaching TM, which he learned from his guru, in 1955. LA Times Obit notes:


 * Following Guru Dev's death, the Maharishi retreated into the Himalayas for a two-year period of meditation. When he emerged in 1955, he devoted himself to popularizing his master's form of meditation, which was derived from Advaita Vedanta, a branch of Hindu philosophy.
 * He called his version of it the Spiritual Development Movement and later the Spiritual Regeneration Movement.
 * So, notwithstanding that the term "TM" doesn't appear in Beacon Light, both independent and official sources universally agree that MMY is describing the identical technique, and the "Spiritual Development" Movement meeting at Kerala is simply the earlier name of the same "Spiritual Regeneration Movement". Are you trying to claim that the technique he was teaching in 1955 wasn't TM? Cause, even the MUM website says that it was. Don't start claiming that that is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, or I'll be forced to climb through the screen and slap you. Fladrif (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fladrif, at the risk of you ruining my nice, new computer what you are laying out is the research that you did in attempts to prove these techniques are the same, and that by any other name is OR. The major concern for me is that the publication is not reliable or verifiable. As a transcript printed by this kind of press it could have been altered substantially before printing. The words sound like Maharishi'a and I have no doubt they are, but neither my opinion nor my research on whether these words are all his is not my job on an encyclopedia. One reason for insisting on more mainstream publishing houses is that there are some guarantees that what is being published is what the author said. In no way is this publication Wikipedia compliant. That said we could as a group agree to WP:IAR and use the source. There is other information in the publication we could use. For me this is the bottom line on this argument.(olive (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC))


 * If we can't come to some agreement soon I would suggest we take this to WP:RS/N.(olive (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I think that is a good suggestion. Fladrif is bringing forward good points but there is also good points on the flip side as well. Its not a clear cut case. I think some input from a few editors who are well versed in RS guidelines and are not so close to the issue would be valuable. At the present time I don't see us making much progress, so this may be the way to go. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. WP:RS/N would be a good place to discuss whether and how "Beacon Light" can be used on Wikiwith uninvolved editors. To make it easy, you might just cut and paste most of this section of discussion right onto that page. Or at least provide a link to it. Fladrif (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After reading this rather long thread I find I am half convinced by both sides. Therefore, at this point I agree, we should take it to WP:RS/N and see what other editors think.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Olive, the idea for WP:RSN was yours. Are you going to post there in regard to this disputed source?-- K bob chat 00:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Working on it now. Thanks.(olive (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)) This won't be up until tomorrow now. Some computer problems-new computer. Should have it sortd out by tomorrow.(olive (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Potential Unreliable sources
We need page numbers and/or links that go directly to the source page. At present we have only links to the book covers.
 * This mantra is chosen according to the students age and gender at the time of the ceremony. [5][6]--Kbob (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the Bainbridge ref. I can add the second ref tomorrow.(olive (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks Olive, I am going through all the refs to improve accuracy in the article.--Kbob (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a page number for this one too, anyone? Thanks for your help.
 * It was the first and only organization to teach  the TM technique until 1965, when the Student International Meditation Society was incorporated. --Kbob (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Found it, SIMS, on page 293 of Chryssides.-- K bob chat 00:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also need page number for this source otherwise the sentence may be challenged and removed.
 * Dr Peter Fenwick has pointed out that the neurological changes in a TM meditators brain, as reported by TM researchers, are identical to those found during epileptic seizures, comas and death --Kbob (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

100 edits without discussion
Explain, in addition to the question above, why these changes without discussion. These can hardly be described as "cleanup".
 * You are right Fladrif, I made a large number of edits and I'm glad you're bringin up the ones you don't feel comfortable with. I will respond each item below in most cases with direct quotes from the sources. It will take me a little bit but I will do it today. Thanks.--Kbob (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC

SRMF, discussion of Kbob's edit
Its articles of incorporation stated that the Foundation's primary purpose for formation was spiritual, and in Article 11 that "this corporation is a religious one. The educational purpose shall be to give instruction in a simple system of meditation."
 * Dear Fladrif, The source that was linked to this statement was a dead link to a self-published web site www.trancenet.net If you can locate an alternative source I have no objection to this text.Please note that the phrase "this corporation is a religious one" I located in another source and so I included that phrase in the section.--Kbob (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source was not a self-published web site. The source was, and should be cited as, Malnak v Yogi, 440 F.Supp 1284(D.N.J. 1977). The dead link had reproduced the full text of the decision, which you would otherwise have to read in hard copy or pay Lexis or Westlaw to read online. Fladrif (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK can we get another source that references that document? We can certainly list it if you can. By the way, the source that gives 1961 as the incorporation date for also cites Malnak v Yogi, article 11 as their source for that data. So there is a little discrepancy here some how between sources. But if we can cite the original document we might consider differing to that data.--Kbob (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is the source. Malnik v Yogi, 44 FSupp 1284 (DNY 1977) You don't need another one. Go down to a law library and read it if you doubt it. And the primary source on the date is the record from the State of California which you've seen online. And if you don't trust me or your eyes, go ask olive, she's actually looked at the incorporation documents, which I'm not inclined to order and pay for, because I have 100% confidence in the accuracy of the information.  You're being obstinate about this for no apparent reason. Fladrif (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry you are becoming impatient. I am just trying to accurately represent the sources. That's our job as editors. The source we have in hand ie. the Price article, states: "It was called the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation. A certificate of incorporation, written in 1961, made no bones about the fact that "this corporation is a religious one" (article eleven)." That is the verifiable source we have in hand. Anyway, you say Olive has had some prior experience on this so maybe she can comment and help to resolve this.--Kbob (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am becoming impatient. You're not accurately representing the sources. Price doesn't say that SRMF was incorporated in 1961, it doesn't say that the certificate of incorporation that it was looking at was the original certificate (fyi articles of incorporation are amended all the time and from time to time). For you to add a parenthetical calling into question the 1959 incorporation date is like adding a sentence to the Pearl Harbor article: "(one source says that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor)" . The original articles of SRMF were accurately quoted in the article for the past six months, and the reference was and is verifiable, notwithstanding that the hotlink no longer works. You are not supposed to remove material just because a link went dead. Verifiabilty does not mean that it's online for free. Fladrif (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't see this earlier, I am pasting it here. The actual quote from the source (Price) states: "It was called the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation. A certificate of incorporation, written in 1961, made no bones about the fact that "this corporation is a religious one" (article eleven)." [] So for accuracy I have noted that there are two reliable sources with conflicting information. Why is there conflicting info? I don't know. Maybe they incorporated in another state in 1961. I have no idea. I am just accurately recording in the article what the sources say.--Kbob (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I missed it? Did you bother to read what I wrote? Did you bother to look up the reference? This isn't rocket science. What is it that you don't understand here?Fladrif (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Sorry, this topic has gotten split up into two sections and I thought you might have missed that post. No offense intended.-- Kbob 21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

--

TM Enrollment, discussion of recent edits
Enrollment in the Transcendental Meditation course in the United States dropped from a peak of 40,000 per month in 1975, to 3,000 to 10,000 per month two years later partly because the Maharishi invited several thousand TM teachers to his headquarters in Switzerland. None of these sources support the "3000 to 10,000". They say 3000. Leyland says below 10,000. That's not 3000 to 10,000.

OK Fladrif here is what the sources say: So one sources says 4,000 per month and the other says "fewer than 10,000". How would you suggest we represent this range in the sentence?--Kbob (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Time Mag 8/8/77—“TM monthly enrollment slid from its 1975 peak of 40,000 trainees a month to a low of 4,000 this year, partly because the Maharishi invited several thousand of his teachers to TM headquarters in Switzerland to acquaint them with the organization's new wares.”
 * Columbia Missourian 1/8/78--“But enrollment in beginning TM courses, which had grown steadily since the movement began, dropped off dramatically from a monthly peak of more than 40,000 nationally about two years ago to fewer than 10,000 in recent months.”--Kbob (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bainbridge reported the precise figure, right from the TM Org's own statistics, as 2,735 as of November 1977. 3,000 is a nice round number that's close enough for me. The numbers you are using are inaccurate and misleading. Fladrif (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, we have three valid, reliable sources. I don't think it is our place as editors to decide which source is more reliable ie Time Mag vs. Bainbridge for example. So I think we have to give a summary for all three. Also we are not cherry picking numbers for one month but just summarizing the dramatic decline of TM students in general for that year vs. two years before as both the cited articles both state. So I am OK saying they declined from 40,000 per month to the range of 3,000 to 9,999 per month. Is that OK with you?--Kbob (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not OK with me. The sources aren't in conflict. They're consistent, but dealing with different points in time. What the article should reflect is the peak - 40K in 1975 - and the bottom - 3K in Nov 1977. Fladrif (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the Time article says the low was 4,000 when it was published in 1977. The Columbian, published in 1978, says the decline was to 'fewer than 10,000'. Again my point is that we have a variety of sources and we can't cherry pick sources. We can either summarize all three or place a separate sentence in the article for each one. And I remind you these are sources placed in the article by editors other than myself. So I did not create this conflict in sources, I am only trying to sort it out so that the reader of the article gets accurate, balanced information with NPOV. If you like we can wait and see what other editors have to say.--Kbob (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can say say something like "The average number of people learning TM fell from a a peak of approx. 400,000 a month in 1975 to approx. 3,000 in November 1977." and then add the Time, Missourian and Bainbridge references. The main point, even if the numbers vary for source to source, is that the monthly average fell over this period.  Perhaps the exact numbers are of secondary importance. --BwB (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds good, but could we also add something like: enrollment then increased to 'fewer than 10,000' in 1978"? In that way we could include the info from all three sources accurately. What do ya think?--Kbob (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is pushing it. Why not simple say "The average number of people learning TM fell from a a peak of approx. 400,000 a month in 1975 to less than 10,000 in 1978." and then cite the references.  What point are we trying to communicate anyway?  --BwB (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the Missourian article says that enrollment increased after Nov 2007. It is from the very beginning of January 1978, and simply says "recent months". The TM Org kept meticulous records of all this stuff, and Bainbridge has the precise figures. Bigweeboy's language above "The average number of people learning TM fell from a a peak of approx. 40,000 (not 400,000) a month in 1975 to approx. 3,000 in November 1977." is exactly what the article should say, and what the sources support. Fladrif (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But why pick this reference over the others which say something slightly different? --BwB (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the newspaper articles are giving "back of the envelope" type round numbers,without identifying the dates, and Bainbridge has the exact figures. Look at the numbers: 1975 292,515 total new (24,376/mo 12-mo avg ) with a peak of 39,535 in Nov 1975 (meaning  252,190 the balance of the year - 22.998/mo 11 mo avg) 1976 140,273 total (11,689/mo avg) 1977 49,489 total (4141/mo 12-mo avg), with a low of 2,735 in Nov 1977, leaving  46,754 (4250/mo 11 mo avg). These sources aren't contradicting one-another, they are confirmatory of one-another. Fladrif (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But this, to me, seems to be cherry picking the source and cherry picking data within the source. You are saying because Bainbridge's is a more valid source than Time Magazine. Bainbridge provides no footnote or indication as to where he obtained his info and I'm sure Time Magazine does its homework. We can't second guess our sources. Maybe we should just say that there was a significant decline in enrollment from its peak of 40,000 in 1975 to significantly lower numbers in 1977. Then the reader can check the sources themselves if they want more detail. Its not our job to assimilate conflicting source info nor should we cherry pick data from within sources. All of that is POV and Original Research and we don't want to do that. --Kbob (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No it isn't cherrypicking, and Bainbridge says exactly where he got his information. It isn't POV and it isn't OR. The arguments that you are making are so utterly absurd that it is impossible to believe that you, an intelligent person, is acutally serious. Fladrif (talk)


 * Please Kbob and Fladrif, take this discussion down a few notches. There seems to be varying sources about the drop in TM instruction numbers over this period.  Nobody is disputing this. Different sources give different account of the drop.  Why not just give a simple sentence telling that the numbers dropped over the period with approximations and then present the relevant sources for the reader.  And this is only one small point in a long history of TM in the world.  I don't think this is such a big deal that needs to be discussed endlessly.  And I'm sure you both have IQ's over 185 (like me!!).   --BwB (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * BWB, I think you have a balanced view of the situation. Maybe I have gotten too much into the details of it. Why don't you edit the sentence as needed to give it a balanced view.--Kbob (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it a shot BWB.Fladrif (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit made today. --BwB (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

-- Justify replacing this:

Benson and Research, explanation of Kbob's edits to the section
Original version-- Benson acknowledged methodological weaknesses and bias in the study he co-authored with Wallace, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology done in the 1970s had methodological weaknesses, and that early studies using control groups showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest. According to a 1984 article in the New York Times, claims by researchers associated with the Maharishi University of Management that TM has unique effects on body chemistry and blood flow different from other relaxation methods were not shared by the scientific community at large, and TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice. A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research concluded that the interest in meditation as a therapy for health-problems such as hypertension, stress and chronic pain is based on anecdotal evidence and studies of poor quality, and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced".


 * This is a section that I believe Fladrif created and placed in the article. Much of the text was not at all representative of the content of the sources listed. So I kept all the relevant sources and created text that accurately represented what the sources said. For example these sentences:


 * Fladrif wrote: "Benson acknowledged methodological weaknesses and bias in the study he co-authored with Wallace, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology done in the 1970s had methodological weaknesses, and that early studies using control groups showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest."
 * But the source says the opposite: "Now Harvard researchers have confirmed—and gone beyond—earlier studies showing that actual physiological changes sometimes occur during meditation. They concentrated on "transcendental meditation," the yoga-derived techniques taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who won fame by briefly attracting the Beatles. But the implications are not confined to the Maharishi's technique, which is only one of many similar disciplines. Meditation, the researchers suggest, may even be of value in alleviating such difficult problems as alcoholism and drug addiction. Harvard's Dr. Herbert Benson and R. Keith Wallace report in the current issue of the American Journal of Physiology that the metabolic rate of persons engaged in transcendental meditation decreased significantly." [] "Mind over drugs" Time (October 25, 1971)--Kbob (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused here. Who is making these points?  And what is the point?  --BwB (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * KBob, you are totally ignoring the relevant part of the footnoted sources which says EXACTLY what the text you deleted said, and instead you've totally twisted these criticisms of the research to push the pro TM POV and seriously bias the article. Your justifications for these changes are not supported by the source material, and are contradicted by it, and should be reverted. Fladrif (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fladrif, if you could quote from the source, as I have done above, to illustrate your point that will help me to better understand what you are saying. I am always in favor of accurately representing sources and if I have misrepresented a source in some way please show me so I can correct it. Thanks, --Kbob (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * KeithBob, unlike some of the other editors here, about whose native intelligence I have serious questions (Yes, I'm serious, and no, I'm not naming names), you have never struck me as a stupid person. When the insertion of this material was first discussed, the specific quotes were highlighted by me in the discussion, which you can find right here on the talk page and its archives.   These are short articles, and the relevant passages are obvious. If you didn't bother to read the sources in the first place, then there is no legitimate basis to claim that the text you deleted misrepresented those sources, is there.   I have no patience for this deliberate obtuseness on your part, and I'm certainly not going to indulge it.Fladrif (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did read all of the sources and I think my edits are accurate but I am not perfect and the article is always open to improvement. If there are specific quotes included in some prior discussion why not cut and paste them here? This helps the discussion to be more specific so we don't go round and round.--Kbob (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Time Mag Article

 * I really don't have time for this. Here's Benson in the 1971 Time article:

''"He points out that his study is "very biased" because it reported only on people who had learned meditation and continued to practice it; there was no control group of others who tried to end their addiction without the aid of TM. Also, Benson is careful to note, the reports of the 1,862 drug users were subjective—they merely answered Benson and Wallace's questionnaires. Benson feels that better-controlled studies are needed. "What we're looking at is a behavioral type of approach to various disease patterns," he says, "to see whether changing one's behavior by meditation will help. As kooky as this sounds to many people, it has just got to be investigated." Otherwise, Benson says, no one can tell if TM is indeed useful."''


 * OK, maybe we have our sources confused. At the top of this thread I have posted the original version and included the sources and their links. They are footnoted on this page as #66-72. Two of those sources are Time Magazine articles. One from 1971 and another from 1975   Neither of these articles appears to include the quotes you've given above. Can you give a link to your source? Once the source is clear then we can put some text in the article that represents Benson's comments. Sorry for the confusion. Glad we are clearing this up.--Kbob (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough the Oct. 25, 1971 Time Mag article I've been reading says this: "Wallace and Benson, working independently, then conducted physiological tests on 36 subjects who practiced TM regularly. In a separate study, they asked 1,862 drug users who had also tried TM for at least three months to fill out questionnaires. "It was clear," he says, "that most were at one point heavily engaged in drug abuse. But practically all of them—19 out of 20—said that they had given up drugs because they felt that their subjective meditative experience was superior to what they achieved through drugs. And drugs interfered with their ability to meditate." --Kbob (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a 2-page article. You've got to look at the second page. I quoted the last two paragraphs of the article. Its there in black in white, and I have no idea how you can claim to have read these articles and still miss it. As an aside - and I don't have the cite handy - I understand that one of the the fundamental problem with the studies of alcohol and drug use with TM is that the students are required to be clean (for two weeks IIRC)  prior to being taught TM, so there may be an inherent bias in the study group because you've already excluded anyone who couldn't stay sober on their own for an extended period of time without having learned TM.Fladrif (talk)

OK, got it, didn't see the second page. So on page one Bensons says the study showed dramatic reduction of drug use and then on page 2 he says the study is inconclusive and biased. So how about we put something like this in the article: --
 * A 1971 Time magazine article reported that Wallace and Benson asked 1,862 drug users who had tried TM to fill out questionnaires. Of this study Benson said "practically all of them—19 out of 20—said that they had given up drugs". Benson also stated that the study was "very biased" because it reported only people who had learned meditation and continued to practice it; there was no control group and the questionnaire was subjective.--Kbob (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

NY Times Article
David S. Holmes of the University of Kansas, writing in the journal American Psychologist earlier this year, charged that the empirical literature on the physiology of meditation was rife with methodological weaknesses, and that the 20 studies he could find that used proper controls had uniformly showed meditation to be no more effective than rest in reducing somatic arousal'' - the body traits associated with stress. His conclusion, which has stirred the ire of meditation proponents, was that the personal and professional use of meditation as an antidote for high somatic arousal is not justified by the existing research data.


 * Yes, these are the 3rd and 4th paragraphs in the article. TM is not mentioned in the article until the 7th paragraph. Its a big assumption on our part to say that when the word 'meditation' is used in that text that it is referring specifically to TM. As you know there are many kinds of meditation.--Kbob (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely clear that this is talking about TM-related research specifically.Fladrif (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we agree to disagree on this point. Let's get some other editors to give their input to break the deadlock.--Kbob (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

''Over the last several years many scientists have, in fact, retracted the claims made in the early 1970's of meditation's physiological uniqueness. Deane H. Shapiro Jr., director of the Executive Stress Management Center at the University of California at Irvine and co-editor of a new anthology of meditation research, acknowledged that studies to date show no physiological differences between meditation and other self-regulation strategies in use by clinicians, such as progressive muscle relaxation, biofeedback and self-hypnosis, and often, no differences between meditation and 'just sitting.' 

At the same time Dr. Shapiro, in a written reply to Dr. Holmes's article, questions whether those identified as resting in many past studies could have served as proper control groups for comparison. He argues that people resting, especially during an experiment, might often be falling into a meditation-like state.''


 * Same thing here, this appears to be comments about meditation practices in general--Kbob (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, its very clear that this concerns TM research specifically.Fladrif (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we agree to disagree on this point. Let's get some other editors to give their input to break this deadlock.--Kbob (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

... In a position not supported by most scientists outside the T.M. movement, researchers at the Mahareshi International University in Fairfield, Iowa, maintain that T.M. has subtle effects on body chemistry and blood flow different from those induced by other formal relaxation methods, let alone ordinary rest.


 * This sentences says that researchers at MUM disagree with the position of scientists outside the TM movement.--Kbob (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * :OK, got it. Sorry I didn't see the second page. So on page one Benson reports the study showed 19 out of 20 reported less drug use with TM. But on page 2 he says that
 * It says that the claims of MUM-related researchers that TM has unique effects on body chemistry and blood flow are not supported by most scientists outside the TM movement. In other words, this is not the mainstream scientific view. You delete this, when WP:MEDRS requires that we identify and acknowledge in the article what is and is not mainstream. Your deletion is wholly improper.Fladrif (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree with you. This sentence is clearly about TM and is reliably sourced. As long as we include the year, I have no objection to this being in the article. I will add it now. Thanks for working this through with me.--Kbob (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I put the exact sentence in the Range of Studies section. Is that a good spot for it?--Kbob (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

-- The others don't let me just cut and paste, so I'm going to ask you to just read them more carefully.Fladrif (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK just tell me which article and about where in the article and I'll try to find them. PS I did read all three pages of the Times article.--Kbob (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

-

With this (what Kbob wrote)

Stress Management by Dorothy Cotton, explanation of Kbob's edit
Kbob's version now in the article:In her book "Stress Management" author Cotton says: “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” ] Cotton, Dorothy H.G., Stress Managemetn: An Integrated Approach to Therapy Psychology Press, 1990


 * OK a second example of misrepresentation of the source which I corrected in my version:


 * You took the following phrase out of context to create a negative point of view: "TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice".
 * But taken in context the source actually says something quite different: “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” So I changed it to the above version. --Kbob (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not creating a negative point of view. I'm pointing out something that we are required to point out as a matter of Wikipedia policy, that TM is not a part of either the scientific consensus nor the medical mainstream. WP:MEDRS We can argue until we're blue in the face about what research is good and what research is bad and what study X or survey Y purports to show, and how prestigious A publication is versus B publication, but this isn't anything that anyone can seriously contest. It is a very serious problem for you to excise material from the article that accurately states that TM is not mainstream science or medicine.

Fladrif (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

TM is not science. TM is a technique. Wikipedia does not require us to say, "TM is not a part of either the scientific consensus nor the medical mainstream." What Wikipedia requires is creation of an article that by representing viewpoints according to their importance/weight creates an article that is neutral in tone. I can't see that we can take statements out of context. In doing so we are not citing the information we are creating information, and that is OR. I think what Kbob is saying is that we have to cite what the study said, and what it said goes beyond what you cited. If there is a place in the article to say TM is not in the mainstream I'm not against citing that, but we have to cite what is said, and we have to cite it within context otherwise yes its OR... because we are selectively choosing to leave in or take out material. The issue here is about referencing seems to me not about proving TM to be one thing or another. If TM is considered outside mainstream science and there are good sources that are talking about that why not cite that. The best " so called science" started outside the mainstream so its not a negative or positive view. Einstein was not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not sure I'm making sense here and if not I apologize .... This is about how we interpret a reference, and I'm in favour of watching for context.(olive (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Last time I looked, half this article was about medical research which the TM Org touts as proving that TM is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Wait, since this supposedly dates back to the Vedas, I guess its that greatest thing since bread, period. You want to take all the medical research stuff out, pro- con- and indifferent, fine by me. But, as long as any of this stuff is in here, we are absolutlely obligated by WIKI policy to say that TM is not part of the scientific and medical mainstream. Fladrif (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what we are arguing over here? TM is a mental technique that has effects on the human physiology, both while the person is doing the practice, and over time as they do it regularly.  What the scientific research on the technique has sought to do is measure these changes in a number of areas - brain activity, blood pressure, etc.  The quality of these studies has ranged from poor to very good.  They have been published in many journals and periodicals - some peer reviewed, some not.  It is neither here nor there if TM is considered to be outside the mainstream.  What is import is to show how the TM technique has been researched and what results found., and to present these studies and the conclusion drawn in a way that is close and consistent with the research, without Wiki editorial comment.   And I think they made chapatis in Vedic times - maybe not sliced bread, but bread none the less - so we can safely say that TM is the "greatest thing since bread, period".  --BwB (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's collaboration BwB. We are discussing the finer points of reading the ref and the sources, and of context ... all critical if we want to get a true reading of things... and of course there are disagreements about this... but the discussion is perfectly acceptable and expected and necessary.(olive (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Just supporting the point you made above "TM is not science. TM is a technique." And thanks for reminding us that Wiki is a collaboration.  And how important to present the source in context.  --BwB (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have all made good points but my original point which may have gotten lost in the discussion is that Fladrif took a phrase, out of context, and placed it in the article.

That phrase was: TM is.... "outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice". To correct this I placed Cotton's entire sentence in the article: “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” So the phrase that Fladrif wanted in the article (see italics above) but in its proper context. This gives the reader accurate info so that they can decide for themselves.--Kbob (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. This is a good way to resolve the dispute. Simply quote the whole thing. Wikipedia does not necessarily "like "excessive quotes but in this case I think quoting is a good compromise.(olive (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, Olive I am also aware that Wiki does not like excessive quotes. Generally I try to avoid them. However this week because there have been several disputes over how to represent the source accurately I have been liberal with the quotes. I think that over time other neutral editors who have not been involved in the disputes will make minor changes and bring them more in line with Wiki policy. I think this will happen naturally over time. Thanks for your patience in this.--Kbob (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________

Meta-analysis, discussion of edits by Kbob
Prior Version: A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research concluded that the interest in meditation as a therapy for health-problems such as hypertension, stress and chronic pain is based on anecdotal evidence and studies of poor quality, and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced".[64][65]

Kbob's version now in the article: A 2007 meta-analysis of meditation research was performed on five broad categories of meditation practices including mantra meditation, Mindfulness Meditation, Yoga, Tai Chi and Qi Gong. The report said that "meta-analysis based on low quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM, Qi Gong and Zen Bhuddist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure" and that "choosing to practice a particular meditation technique continues to rely solely on individual experiences and personal preferences, until more conclusive scientific evidence is produced". According to a 1984 article in the New York Times, fifteen years of research on multiple kinds of meditation techniques has left the question of meditation's physiological effects more confused than clarified.

To create my version I went directly to the opening remarks of the Ospina/Bond study, entitled "Structured Abstract" which gave a summary of the study as follows:
 * "Results: Five broad categories of meditation practices were identified (Mantra meditation,Mindfulness meditation, Yoga, Tai Chi, and Qi Gong). Characterization of the universal or supplemental components of meditation practices was precluded by the theoretical and terminological heterogeneity among practices. Evidence on the state of research in meditation practices was provided in 813 predominantly poor-quality studies. The three most studied conditions were hypertension, other cardiovascular diseases, and substance abuse. Sixty-five intervention studies examined the therapeutic effect of meditation practices for these conditions. 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." []--Kbob (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the study examines several kinds of meditation and relaxation techniques I took sentences that specifically mention the article topic ie TM.--Kbob (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

--

Duplicate Entry
Why is this included? Twice? According to Time Magazine Transcendental Meditation owes something to all major religious traditions—Christianity, Judaism and Islam, as well as the Eastern faiths— because at one time or another they have included both meditation and the repetition of a mantra-like word. Fladrif (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops! my mistake, I have removed the duplication. Thanks for pointing that out.--Kbob (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---
 * You are right Fladrif, I made a large number of edits and I'm glad you're bringin up the ones you don't feel comfortable with. I will respond underneath each item you have listed above in most cases with direct quotes from the sources. It will take me a little bit but I will do it today. Thanks.--Kbob (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Glueck study
This study that I just deleted from the Adverse Effects section highly recommends the use of Transcendental Meditation in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. There is no mention of adverse effects as an outcome of this study. And certainly there was no mention of suicide attempts. (Do be careful about lifting material from anti-TM websites.) So I've deleted this study for now. Unrelated to the outcomes presented in this study, however, is a nicely nuanced discussion of how TM effects a free interchange of information between the cerebral hemispheres, which allows repressed material to come to conscious awareness. The article stresses the therapeutic value of this while also noting that it can sometimes be uncomfortable. I don't have time to work on this, but it could make a nice addition to the article. And it seems like it should be done in the context of their strong recommendation of TM as a treatment for psychiatric disorders. In any case, the summary of this study that had been put in the Adverse Effects section didn't reflect accurately what it says, and apparently made up the bit about suicide attempts. There are, however, two or three other published reports on this study, so it's possible that suicide attempts were mentioned in one of those. (But given their thorough discussion in this paper, it seems unlikely.) 76.76.232.130 (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's put new topic additions to the Talk page BEFORE the reference section so it does not get missed.  Thanks. --BwB (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked this guy Glueck up on the Internet, his resume is impressive [] not to be confused with his father, Bernard Sr, who was also a researcher:
 * BERNARD C. GLUECK, M.D., is Director of Research of The Institute of Living, Hartford, Connecticut. He is a Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, past-President of the American Psychopathological Association, a Fellow of theAmerican Academy of Psychoanalysis, and has taught at Yale University, University of Minnesota, and Columbia University.His research and clinical interests have included the utilization of computers in psychiatric hospitals, psychotropic chemotherapeutic agents, and personality descriptors.--Kbob (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that any of the "cut and slash" editors here will care, but I worked in Dr. Glueck's lab (as the computer programmer, mostly analyzing brainwave synchronization) in 1973 at the Institute of Living. The experiments were done on resident teenagers, comparing a group using TM with a standard muscle relaxation technique, Alpha wave biofeedback, and a control group. The hospital had a computer system that allowed the nurses to enter clinical notes on their patients wherever the nurses were four times a day. The study was carefully done, run by two Ph.D.s, relied heavily on the MMPI, and concluded that TM was useful in the treatment of a variety of psychiatric disorders.

Frankly, it seemed to me that TM was way more useful than what the other groups did, if only because the TM group loved it and continued it after the study was over. Glueck's son was a TM teacher who sometimes worked with us in the Hartford TM center (a really nice guy, like his father). And no, nobody was harmed by this simple, natural, and relaxing technique, as the five or so people who publish vocal diatribes against TM everywhere probably wish had happened. Those were heady days when we assumed that everyone would adopt TM everywhere, just because we had done high quality research that had a practical recommendation as its conclusion. Boy, were we wrong. Most people are just blasé about anything new. David spector (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Advert tag on Teaching Procedures section
I've removed a short bit of content on cost of TM in the US in an effort to help remedy the concern that the section sounds like an advert. I'm not attached to the edit so if others aren't comfortable with it, please revert. Since Wikipedia isn't American, and since I believe fee structures are different in every country, listing the cost of fees in this country but not others seems a little lopsided.(olive (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes, this is something that I was thinking about myself - that TM is taught all over the world but this article is a little US centric. Perhaps we could rectify this as follows:  (1) In the lede we talk about TM copyright being  licensed to the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation U.S.A.  Is that only for teaching activities in the USA?  What about TM taught in other countries? We need to expand to the world; and, (2) perhaps in the History section we can include some information about the development of TM in other countries.  There may be other ways we can "internationalize" the article.  --BwB (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I always felt the price shouldn't be there and if it was it should have been a list of all prices for students, children etc. The editor David Spector made a case for its inclusion and maybe he would like to comment here about his reasons. Also, I'm cautious about lists in the article and don't see the need of listing the mantras. This point was echoed earlier by WillBeBack. But I guess that is a separate discussion.--Kbob (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [I originally added the price because TM was notable for its dramatic increase in prices from its initial free, through $75 for adults in 1970, through $125 and then $250 or so for adults in late 1970s and early 1980s, through a high of $2000 (or was it $2500?) in the 1990s until rather recently (there are now signs that it is beginning to decrease as the Movement is perhaps beginning to let go of the elitism that says that 'wealthy people deserve this marvelous technique of infinity more than others', to paraphrase Maharishi very late in his life. Now there are many other more or less "meditative" techniques with very high price tags, such as Star's Edge International/The Avatar's Course, so TM no longer stands out quite as much.


 * [I wanted people who came to this article to have a full picture of the technique, including a description of the practice and its results, a description of the instruction process, the course fees, and much, much more. (BTW, I also added the cost of a ride to the article in W on the London Ferris wheel. It's something a tourist might want to know.) Maybe it's because I value money, whether mine or that of anyone else. TM's absurdly high price was one of the principal motivations for Istituto Scientia to construct the Natural Stress Relief Meditation course, our volunteer-based, do-it-yourself, grassroots alternative to TM (no, NSR is not a repackaged version of TM--that wouldn't be legal for several different reasons). I also agree that the list of mantras shouldn't be here. Whether they are correct or not is not the point; an encyclopedia has no business revealing apparent confidential information of relevance only to instructors. It's tacky, to say the least. I'm actually kind of ashamed of W editors for not minding.] David spector (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as international, currently MFL and MVED are noted as UK and USA corps respectively, creating an int'l appeal and can therefore stay, in my opinion.--Kbob (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made several edits to this section and reduced it to less than 3 sentences. I removed copy that was excessive or repetitive and tried to state the info in a neutral and more encyclopedic tone. I hope other editors find my changes satisfactory.--Kbob (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw that but do not think it is enough. Let's see what else can be done.  --BwB (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an important section. I don't want to devote my time to researching TM, but if necessary I will. From the little reading I've done in the past, the circumstances of teaching, including the cost, are significant issues that have been raised again and again in reliable, mainstream sources. I don't see the user who placed the tag participating in this discussion. Short of doing my own research, I'll restore any sourced, neutral material on the topic that seems appropriate.   Will Beback    talk    21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure go ahead and revert the cost section. I guess I don't see its significance, since fees change and are different in almost every country...And when you start talking about money things tend to sound like an advert. It seems a little odd to leave a tag on the section for sounding like an advertisement, but then putting in the very information that marks most ads, money, but no problem, not attached.(olive (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry. My opinion of course, and not speaking for any other editors. They may feel differently about it.(olive (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

I have three points for consideration by the group: I think we need to consider all of these elements in our decision. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked the editor who place the tag (PopUpPirate) to specify what his objections are and he said he didn't know enough about it and that he was just making a general comment. So we have to use our good sense to decide.
 * I think putting in the fee makes it blatantly commercial. Does anyone know of any Wiki articles that list the fee for their product or service? I have never seen it, has anyone else?
 * If we are going to include the fee, we should include all of the fees and not just cherry pick one fee. So we would need to list the fee for adults, students, children, couples, retired folks etc. Also what about the fees for the 60 other services and courses that are mentioned in the article lede?


 * I agree with Kbob's points and these are the concerns I have. We also have to realize that the fees for the US are not the same for the UK and for the Philippines, for example. Focusing on the US fees creates a nationalistic-like section. At the same time I don't want to get into bitter and prolonged discussions on this so will go with the group decision. I'll save the prolonged discussion for something that to me at least has more importance.(olive (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

For everyone's reference and discussion. Here are the fees as listed on the official TM web site: Special Reduced Fees Through September 30th In order to help more people immediately participate in our TM courses, the fees are being reduced by 25% from now through the end of September. Course fees for the United States are now: --Kbob (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Adult course fee: $1500
 * Full-time student: $750
 * Those in financial need, for example, retired people on fixed income, and single parents in need: $750
 * Couple: $1500 + $750 for partner
 * Children under 18 (if learning to meditate with a parent): $375


 * I don't think the fees themselves are important. What's important is the controversy over the fees.   Will Beback    talk    06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not feel we should list the course fees for TM in the US. I already feel the article is too US-centric and since TM is taught all over the world, we do not want to have to do a country-by-country list.  I also agree with the thinking that putting in a price make it more "brochure ware".  --BwB (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * BwB, that is a very good point. Wikipedia, English version included, is an international encyclopedia, and listing prices of the US only is quite inappropriate, removing them is a better option. And this, is in addition to the fact that the price should be removed in any case, due to the advertising tag--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Due to the advertising tag" is not, by itself, a legitimate reason for doing anything. The person who applied the tag hasn't engaged in a discussion about it. And the tag is not a policy. At most the tag is an assertion by one person that he thinks there may be problems. That said, I'll repeat that I dn't think the specific, current price in the U.S. necessary. It can be summarized as "thousands". The main issue is that it is a "significant investment". There is also an issue about how the money is paid to instructors, IIRC.   Will Beback    talk    19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to post the price of TM on the page. As mentioned by another editor, Wiki articles on other products and services do not carry price information, irrespective of whether it is "a "significant investment" or not.  And the price cannot be summarized as thousands because TM is taught all over the world and prices vary according to country.  --BwB (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything can be summarized. "Course fees vary, ranging up to thousands of dollars in the U.S."(According to a source, the U.S. fee was $2500 until reduced due to the financial crisis.)   Will Beback    talk    20:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to summarize where we are at in this thread. The section under discussion is Teaching Procedures. Currently it has an Advertisement tag. Olive removed the sentence about price. I have edited the remaining section down to less than 3 sentences and giving it a more straightforward, encyclopedic tone. BWB says he might like to cut it back further. So I want to be clear that, Will, you stand alone as the sole editor who wants to include something in the section about the price. Since we are a group and we function via consensus I am willing to try and accommodate your desire. You have suggested we have a summary of the fees. OK, but it should be an accurate summary such as "current fees range from $375 to $1500" instead of vague phrases like: "thousands of dollars". Also if you want to summarize fees from the past then the summary should also be accurate and should say spomething like "past fees ranged from $35 to $2,500". We should not cherry pick fees from a specific range of years. What do you suggest we do?--Kbob (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Including all past fees would be absurd unless the time periods and places are included. If you want to include a fee from the 1960s, or whenever, it should be labelled. Something like "Course fees in the U.S. have ranged from $35 in 1970 to $2500 in 2007. Fees in other countries vary." Again, in case I am not making myself clear, what is most important to report are the views about those fees. Finally, let me remind everyone here that consensus does not override NPOV. NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view.    Will Beback    talk    21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm with you on that. We should represent all points of view. Also I agree the range of years should be included with fees. We agree. So now we need a reliable source to document the range of fees and the 'controversy' about them. Do you have something in mind? --Kbob (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in fact Wikipedia does not say we should present all points of view but rather that the majority viewpoint should be given prominence, the minority viewpoint prominence according to its relative weight to the mainstream sources, and tiny fringe minorities probably no mention at all. So we need to assess what the viewpoint is on the issue of fees, I would think, in order to know how to treat its inclusion. Do we have such information?(olive (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, good points about weight, mainstream sources etc. I just want to again say that, in general, the inclusion of the fees is not desirable and tends to give a commercial feel. However, I'm keeping an open mind while we drill down to specific sources.--Kbob (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any good sources at hand, other than what we can find on the Internet. Doesn't anyone have sources that mention this? If I go to the library and start digging into this we're likely to get something like this, and then the section would have to be 3000 words long. ;)   Will Beback    talk    02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope.No sources on this.(olive (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I had a look at the TM.org web site and see that the fees are published there. --BwB (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen several news articles that mention in passing that TM is high priced. Sometimes they even state the price, sometimes not. But in my research for this article I do not recall seeing any significant discussion about controversy over the price of TM. By the way Will, I appreciate your interjecting a little humor in your comment. I think a little tasteful, humor on the page is good now and then. Cheers! --Kbob (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have checked the article and, since all reference to price had been taken out, I have removed the advert tag. There's no longer a need for it. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit to "Teaching Procedure" Section
Changed the word "instruction" to "interview" to give the correct sequence to the 7 steps of learning TM --BwB (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources/Noticeboard
Posted question about Beacon Light of the Himalayas here: (olive (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

This article is now an awful hodgepodge
Unlike most other articles here at W, this one has become quite a hodgepodge of standard description of TM as originates from the TM Movement itself, the inappropriate revealing of knowledge given to TM teachers for their use in teaching, and legal and other citations meant to show that TM is or fosters a cult mentality and/or is harmful. Largely missing is objective criticism of unsubstantiated claims made in the name of TM (such as the Maharishi Effect and the orientation of buildings) and the high price that keeps most interested people from learning TM (this very important aspect of TM in the real world seems to be treated like The Emperor's New Clothes here; I believe I am the only person to see its importance or to try to get it into the article over a period measured in years).

The article now reads like an amateurish concatenation of random material from the Web, lacking in coherence, continuity, and readability. It is embarrassing, and clearly the result of a handful of people with wildly differing points of view having nothing better to do than to "own" the article and spend their time arguing over it.

If I were someone who came across the term "Transcendental Meditation" and wanted to learn about it from my favorite site, W, I would be quite confused after reading this. I could come away with the opinion that TM is some harmful, weird "thing" that is marketed with hundreds of false studies, or I could come away with the opinion that TM is the best thing, fully supported by science and religion alike, depending on many factors including which parts of the article particularly caught my eye.

What I'd really like to see is two articles: a "TM - Pro" article that gives a complete and readable exposition of TM from the point of view of TM teachers and practitioners (collectively, the TM Movement), and a separate article, "TM - Con", that gives a complete and readable exposition of TM from the point of view of those who think TM is dangerous, or is a cult, or is religious.

Focusing on the improvement of both sides, pro and con, the result might be two very good articles, each standing on its own as helpful to readers. By reading both articles, visitors could come away with a much better understanding of TM as having two descriptions, depending on the polarization of the authors.

If someone were reading the articles to determine the policy of their organization toward TM, having a full, unmixed exposition of each side would be far more helpful than one article that keeps spiking in either direction.

If someone were reading the articles to determine if TM was something they might consider learning, it would similarly be helpful to be able to get a complete view of each side.

Similar analysis applies to many other reasons that people are interested in reading about TM in W. The present editors have done a very poor job (I think even they know it), yet are psychologically unable to go away. I'm sure each one thinks that if they go away, the "other side" will make the article far worse. I'm sure this would not be the case. If everyone truly wanted neutrality, they'd allow neutral editors to take over. Instead, we have the same three or five people lurking here for many months at a time, acting all huffy and authoritative and scaring away people who could actually improve the article.

Okay, well, if you all want to see the article improve, please consider my proposal of breaking it into two individually complete articles, pro and con. Then the present editors could stay and make each article really great without interference from the "other side" editors and potential contributors like me would finally feel safe to contribute again. David spector (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be difficult, but per Wikipeida policies this one article has to contain both the "pro" and the "con".   Will Beback    talk    20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the article is a mess. But, as Will points out, Wikipedia requires a single article for the subject.Fladrif (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Phil: thank you for your point. There are some very good suggestions in there although one is far better than the other.


 * Spilting the articles - it simply isn't going to happen in my opinion. It would be highly un-encyclopedic and would be pretty unique in the world of WIKI and to be honest simply doesn't sound very good. All views should be covered in this article/ You are correct that there may appear to be two sets of editors, with seemingly contrasting views. However, you would need to ask why? I, like you, first came to this article out of interest, a number of years ago but simply could not believe how biased it was. It read like an advertising "blurb" with any criticisms quickly beaten down with misuses of WIKI guidelines and policies by two editors in particular. However, i left it - no real interest. However, i revisited it over the years and ended up "joining in on occasion" as the bias grew and grew. I have discussed above that this article is indeed a miss-match. This is because pro editors will not allow what they consider is a negative edit unless is is pumped full of references.


 * All present editors leaving and allowing neutral ones to take over? Wonderful idea - one of the reasons that i left it for so long. however, it has NEVER happened. You are completely correct that neutral editors are indeed scared away, i have seen it many times. But despite a number of instructions by admins they will not. What is to be done? I can assure you I have far better things to do then hang around here all day :)


 * Things such as the Maharishi Effect and the orientation of buildings a wonderful and important addition - however try adding either and see what happens - in a completely neutral manner. You will NEVER counter fantacism. Please? You seem like a sensible editor, please bring some neutral editors here. In fact, I will now step back and observe things from the sidelines and see how this progresses. Namaste Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have to be two articles. How about one article written in two parts with a big horizontal line between the two parts? Furthermore, I don't care whether the first part is the pro or the con part. Just so it gets done so the world can find out about the two descriptions of TM in a well-written way and we can get on with it. It's not sensible to keep arguing about this, that, and the other, and leave the article the way it is. Let's just replace the article with an empty space headed "Opposed to TM" and "In Favor of TM" (in either order) and start filling both sections in with beautiful prose (I'm half jesting here, but I've lost my patience and I hope all the current editors join me in losing patience with continuing as we have). David spector (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point; this is not how we write an encyclopedia. Besides, what about the people, like me, who are neither "Opposed to TM" or "In Favor of TM."  I am on neither side; I am on the side of the encyclopedia.  I am on the side of the reader, who wants accurate and unbiased information about the topic.  It wouldn't be helpful to the reader to read the kind of article, or the two articles, you have in mind; what would serve the reader would be a neutral treatment of the topic.


 * I'm not sure if I'm being counted as a "current editor" who should "lose patience with continuing as we have." I started participating here just day before yesterday, although I've been watching the article with concern for 18 months.   For 18 months the article has been basically an advertisement for TM,  and I didn't think there was any point in my editing here or commenting here because the entrenched interests always run off anyone who tries to make the article more neutral.  To want this article to be more neutral is not to be "opposed to TM" it's just to be for neutrality. When you've got entrenched editors who are opposed to a neutral treatment of the topic, it's the entrenched POV, not neutrality, that's the problem; we don't throw out the need for neutrality just because someone has "lost patience" with the struggle for neutrality.  This is an encyclopedia.  The article cannot be a promotional brochure for TM, that's not what an encyclopedia is for. But the antidote for that is not to divide the material, and the editors, into "Pro" and "Anti" TM camps; that would be to miss the point of what our purpose is here.  Woonpton (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverts back to old original profile* I have had a think about this since my last comment: Your assumption is that any editor that tries to enter an opposite viewpoint to that of TM is somehow also being "disruptive" and “difficult”. This is far from the case although this is how it might seem without deep analysis. Looking at the last 2 days for example, myself and other (what you might describe as anti POV editors) have – following discussion allowed two “pro TM edits to be allowed back into the article despite the fact they may not be “resource compliant or NPOV (See for example Orm Johnson on “cults” where I made the revert!) Also notice that”anti” editors have disagreed over the wording of so called “anti TM” sources meaning that they became more neutral in tone (see physiology section.). However, this has not been the case with other “pro” editors”. What this means is that another editors – even neutral ones – come across as seeming otherwise


 * Where different points of view exists this must be cited in the article – this is the nature of an encyclopaedia and has been since the first one complied in the Enlightenment. You are also correct that other factors of the Tm organisation do indeed need discussion; however, to me the most important is the research. This is because, reading this article, one would assume that there is a general consensus in the scientific community that TM meditation – or indeed any meditation –has large and demonstrate health benefits including, increasing your life expectancy, curing cancer, and prevent coronary disease! However this is clearly not the case. I understand that as webmaster to NSR (and thank you for the honesty of at least adding this to your profile) this maybe difficult to believe as your much cheaper form of mediation relies on the research of TM to promote it – but the research that supports such findings is blatant nonsense and no such agreement exits within the scientific community. This needs to be highlighted I am afraid. However the TM organisation will try anything to deny this..

The7thdr (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some small but important corrections @The7thdr: NSR does not depend on TM's research, although we do mention it (we estimate that only about 140 or so of the "600 studies" are real studies and good science, but that is more than enough to be significant and compelling). We have two published papers in peer-reviewed journals presenting our careful, self-conducted research on NSR Meditation. In fact, it was his own early research that originally inspired Fabrizio Coppola to offer NSR to the public. My own objective long-term STAI study of NSR is up to 44 completed subjects. While it is true I am NSR/USA's Webmaster, it is more relevant that I am its president. Finally, I am always honest; it is the only position consistent with my volunteer work to give the world an inexpensive and practical alternative to TM. David spector (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks 7th. I agree mostly with your and Woon's comments.  If there are research studies in the article that are weak, then let's get rid of them.  But there are are also very good studies on TM showing health benefits in the area of heart disease, blood pressure, etc. so these should be included.  I also want a balanced, well written, well referenced, neutral, informative article on the TM technique.  Yes, there has been polarization of late, but I think the general consent is to improve the article.  I think one of the difficulties is that of experience vs. non-experience.  It is something I have mentioned before.  If 2 authors are writing an article on a banana - one has tasted a banana, the other has not.  Both would write 2 completely different articles, even though striving for neutrality.  Some of the "banana syndrome" is evident in this article.  So let's keep at it with best intentions and see where it leads.  And for the record, I also do not see the sense of having a pro and anti article.  One is enough!!!  --BwB (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion
Would anyone like to give an opinion on this section of the talk page? The conversation is not progressing and might benefit from the input of others. Thanks! --Kbob (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to get involved in the discussion on this talk page but sheesh I can't keep up. We are jumping form one topic to another and back again, pretty quickly. Any chance we can slow down and let other editors catch up.(olive (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Know what you mean. We seem very good at starting new discussions, but not so good at seeing them thru, achieving consensus and editing the article accordingly.   --BwB (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I apologize. I have had some extra time the past few days and Fladrif and I have been moving quickly. I take the blame for that. Thanks for the feedback. I will sloooooooow down now. :-) --Kbob (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This section has some very refreshing introspection. Please don't stop! If we all look at ourselves and our behavior honestly, completely, and openly, there is a chance of working together to improve the article instead of reveling in the usual secret Schadenfreude of unending argument over tiny, unimportant, almost manufactured controversies. I think we should all take Kbob's lead and apologize to each other. Maybe over a nice beverage. David spector (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about "Origin" section
I came over here from the discussions at WP:COIN and hesitate to get directly involved in editing this controversial article. But I did want to question the following text found in the "origin" section:


 * Of "Guru Dev", the Maharishi wrote: "In the English Language, his devotees felt that the expression "His Holiness" did not adequately describe this personified Divine Effulgence; and so the new expression "His Divinity" was used. With such unique adoration of newer and fuller grandeur, transcending the glories of the expression of antiquity, was worshiped the holy name of Guru Deva, the living expression of Upanishadic Reality, the embodiment of the transcendent Divinity.

What does the adulation of the Guru contribute to the understanding of Trancendental Meditation? Especially the way it's worded. I would recommend just removing those sentences as not being useful to the article. --  At am a chat 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a danger that the article becomes a collecting place for anything even remotely connected to the TM organization, and in the past and over time group decisions were made to limit the article to the meditation technique, and to split off notable subtopics/subsections into their own articles. Presently this same discussion has come up again, and there may be places in the article where material can be collected that is only peripherally connected to the technique itself. Some such additions may create a particular tone or sensibility to the article that may also be out of place as a subtle POV. Its great to have outside input so thanks for any comments and input, Atama. You may be able to help us all to see our POV points.(olive (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I may sound like a broken record, but the problems the Olive describes are why there should be an article devoted to the overall movement. Among other things, it would allow this article to focus on the meditation technique.   Will Beback    talk    04:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Atama, welcome to the page and thanks for your comment. This quote that you mention also has source issues and is currently being discussed in the section far above this one called: Proposal to Remove Paragraph, Off Topic, Unreliable Source. Mabye you would like to read that section and make a comment there. --Kbob (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Link to discussion mentioned in Kbob's post

The quote at the top of the thread that Atama has commented on is taken from the Beacon Light, which is under discussion here. -- Kbob 02:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. The sentences being discussed here are sourced to page 267 of the book "Spiritualities: Websters Quotations". However, there is no such information on the specified page as seen here. What should we do?--Kbob (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked everywhere for an adequate source for this quote, including Google books. I found absolutely nothing. Can anyone else find a proper soruce for this? If not, I think will need to remove it. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ???Its right there in "Beacon Light" It's hotlinked in the reference. Look at p 12 of the PDF file. Fladrif (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you look here? "OUR GUIDING LIGHT" By His Holiness Maharshi Bala Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj, Extract from introduction pages of Beacon Light of the Himalayas - October 1955.   Will Beback    talk    21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the source of the quote being discussed above has been moved to the RS noticeboard. 

Early Organizations
I made a typo correction changing the words "at" to "and". Is the AFSCI still in existence? If not, we need to change the tense of the verbs in this section (or maybe it should be done anyway since we are talking about the past). --BwB (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And the reference is to a Time article from 1975, so the tense should be changed? Are folks OK with me editing this section a little without changing content and references? --BwB (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Its fine with me,, thanks for cleaning it up.--Kbob (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits made to reflect that AFSCI's activities were in the past (change tense of verbs mainly). No sources changed. --BwB (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

TV Station
In 1975 the television station KSCI began broadcasting in Los Angeles on Channel 18. It featured prerecorded presentations by the Maharishi and variety shows featuring such famous meditators such as Stevie Wonder, Peggy Lee and the Beach Boys. Station KSCI's goal was to report only good news.[59]

I placed the above info in the History section two days ago. I found it in a 1975 Time Mag article on TM and thought it was interesting history. However, now I am thinking maybe its extraneous to the article and having second thoughts. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting but not very important to include. --70.16.236.144 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This was me when I forgot to log in earlier. --BwB (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is particularly notable, but if we did include it, I suppose that, for "Balance" we would need to include as well that the City and County of San Francisco earlier turned down MIU (now MUM) in its bid for an educational TV license in that area:


 * ''Agents for Maharishi U had inundated the supervisors with testimonial letters in a bid to obtain an "educational" TV license. So the brilliant and beauteous Ms. Feinstein [i.e. Diane Feinstein, now US Senator], quoting from a New Delhi dateline, pointed out that in 1968 the Great Seer announced to a press conference in India that TM can alleviate both drought and famine.
 * Six months later, noted Ms. Feinstein, the Maharishi announced to another press conference that immortality itself can be obtained through TM. But when skeptical Indian reporters asked him if he himself had attained said immortality, the great giggling guru simply smiled.
 * After Ms. Feinstein noted the Maharishi's purchase of a $33,000 Rolls Royce - as well as his statement '"I get money from where it is in plenty, the United States!" - the San Francisco supervisors decisively voted down the TV Bid.


 * If this isn't about the meditation technique it'd fit better in the movement article.   Will Beback    talk    19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Having thought about this more I tend to agree with Will - not that we should start a new "movement article", but it is not really about the TM technique. Let's remove it?  --BwB (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If not a movement article, then where would this information be placed best? In the Maharishi article?   Will Beback    talk    20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I copied the deleted text over to KSCI, expanded it from other sources, and added a "see also" to this article.   Will Beback    talk    20:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with BwB. Let's remove it. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel the same way, so I guess we have consensus, I am removing it now. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

using TM technique rather than meditation
This may be a fussy detail but there is discussion here right now about whether some studies refer to the TM technique or other forms of meditations. I think we always need to be very clear what we are talking about even if somewhat redundant to prevent misunderstanding and more long dragged out discussion. My opinion of course.(olive (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Moved this above References so it does not get missed. --BwB (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes good point. But please be aware that recently text has been added to the article about studies or news articles that examine or discuss TM in the context of other meditations. So in come cases I have specifically used the word 'meditation' to mean meditation techniques in general, one of which is TM. So please don't go around randomly changing the word 'meditation' into Trans Med technique. At some point we may want to consider either removing all the general meditation text or putting it in one section so as not to confuse the reader. But that is a whole other discussion. Which I'm not gonna bring up cuz I'm on the sloooooow track now. :-o   --Kbob (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with both olive and Kbob here. We always need to be clear about the type of meditation being discussed. The procedures and effects are quite different, according to published accounts. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While this topic is active I'd also like to request that we go back to using "TM" instead of always splleing it out as "Transcendental Meditation". "TM" is an commonly used and practical abbreviation for a long, multi-syllabic name. We could still use "Transcendental Meditation" in places, but someone seems to have done a search and replace to get rid of all "TM" usages.    Will Beback    talk    20:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's been enough discussion and controversy on Transcendental Meditation Technique as opposed to Transcendental Meditation that I will support using "technique" all of the time ... and I see no reason to go though and abbreviate. If someone adds TM technique I'd probably leave it though, for now. We need consistency I think on this article to void confusion


 * Both terms, Transcendental Meditation and TM are trademarked so as long as we inform the reader at the beginning of the article that the terms are interchangeable it would seem alright.-- Kbob 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the copyright issue is that the two terms, Transcendental Meditation and TM, are properly used as modifiers of technique or program. So either can be used as long as either technique or program follows it. ChemistryProf (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how copyrights or trademarks come into this discussion. What's relevant is that "TM" is a common and easily understood usage.   Will Beback    talk    10:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The name of the article is Transcendental Meditation so I would say that is the preferred usage and the ideal would be that we use that term consistently throughout the article. However if an editor makes an edit and doesn't spell the words out I won't complain. However, an editor might change it later to the longer version to upgrade the article for consistency.-- K bob chat 13:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just more typing for you, Kbob!! --BwB (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean more typing errors :-( -- — Kbob • Talk  • 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most sources that discuss Transcendental Meditation seem to use the abbreviation. There is no need to insist on one or the other for consistency. It is common to use abbreviated names in Wikipedia articles. See for example, Divine Light Mission, which is often referred to as the "DLM".   Will Beback    talk    19:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is insisting on anything. There is no policy on this point. Any editor is free to use Transcendental Meditation or TM when they edit. Its up to them. And anything any editor edits is subject to editing by any other editor at any time. That's Wikipedia  :-)  -- — Kbob •  Talk  • 21:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Modifications to the 2nd Sentence of the Lede
I appreciate everyone’s input (see talk topic 40, Use of Term “Movement”), but I am still bothered by the choice of reference cited, by the use of the word “movement,” and now by the sentence as a whole. Actually, the main reason for my concern goes beyond the sentence itself. If the lede is the place to define the title term of the article and to give an enticing preview of what is to follow, then the first sentence accomplishes the basic definition, but the rest of the lede does nothing to inform us of what is to come, not to mention making it enticing. This is reason enough to consider replacing the current second sentence with one or more others that better fulfill this aim, while maintaining neutrality, balance, and accuracy.

The article now has six main topical subheadings. The Research section is by far the largest, and a word or two about the research would certainly be appropriate in the lede. Then the question becomes, “Do we need to include some reference to each of the other main areas?” These are: Teaching Procedure, Principles, History, and Reception/Lawsuits. I could go either way, that is, either including something about each of the main areas or only mentioning the nature and amount of research as a notable fact about the technique. What do others think? ChemistryProf (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think these are good points. I don't mind the term TM movement being used in the article as it can be found in some publications such as the new religious movement books for example. However I might suggest that its a more appropriate term for the Spiritual/Religion section rather than the lede. That said I like the idea of expanding the lede to give a brief summary of the article. --Kbob (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also for expansion within reason. But let's not take weeks discussing it.  Someone write it, post it in Discussion page and then we can have a quick review and post it on the page.  --BwB (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, BwB, I'll work on a sentence and post it. ChemistryProf (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How is this for a sentence to replace the current second sentence of the lede?


 * “Among the many meditation techniques available, as of 1996 this one had the largest number of scientific studies evaluating its effects.(reference: Murphy M, Donovan S, Taylor E. The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation: A review of Contemporary Research with a Comprehensive Bibliography 1931-1996. Sausalito, California: Institute of Noetic Sciences; 1997).” ChemistryProf (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that a large body of research is a significant characteristic of the article and the technique and deserves to be mentioned in the lede. However since the citation is 13 years old I think your sentence may be too strong and self serving. I think we could just say its "one of the most widely researched types of meditation" something like that. What do you think?-- K bob chat 13:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the reference is a bit old. On the other hand, compared to 11 of the first 13 references, it’s brand new. (By the way, what happened to reference 1? When I click on it, I get an interview with Kurt Vonnegut? Do other people get the same thing?) As for “self-serving,” what is the drift here? In 1996, it was a fact, a notable fact. Things may have changed since then, but we do not know that. If there is evidence that things have changed, let’s examine the evidence. And specifically what “self” is meant? If self means the article, yes, it serves the article. It’s a notable fact that gives an enticing glimpse of what is to come. The sentence may need rephrasing, but I’m not convinced we should throw the information out. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What about “Among meditation techniques, it has been the most heavily researched scientifically.(ref)”? This sounds better to me. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes Chem, good points. I'll check the Vonnegutt citation. I am just cautioning that we don't want to sound like an advertisement or misrepresent the source.  I may have not expressed myself clearly. So we could say: "In 1996 TM was reported to be the most widely researched meditation technique". Are you OK with something like that?-- K bob chat 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems like a reasonable suggestion. --BwB (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I like your version better, Kbob. Do we have enough editor approvals to go ahead and insert it? The original suggestion was to substitute this one for the current second sentence. By the way, on my computer I still get the Kurt Vonnegut interview for reference 1 and now an article on DNA for reference 2. Reference 2 will now be changed, if we have a quorum, but how did these refs get messed up? Do we have a saboteur at work? ChemistryProf (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I f we use a date such as 1996 the text more clearly and accurately references the source. However, the material also at that point becomes historical and may not be appropriate in a lede. Is there a statement that is either more general or more updated.(olive (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC))


 * As a scientist accustomed to searching for books like the reference cited for this sentence, I think we are making too big a deal about the date. Comprehensive bibliographies do not come out every day, especially on a topic as specialized at this one. I have not found one on this topic more recent than this one. The first research paper on the Transcendental Meditation technique came out in 1970. From then until 1996 (26 years) is a long time, and if the statement is true for that period, chances are it is still true today. I think we should drop the date and just say something like “Transcendental Meditation is reported to be the most widely researched technique of meditation.(ref)” Although these are my words, the book makes a similar statement, so I am not interpreting it, just paraphrasing one of its conclusions. No WP:OR here. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this sentence from Chem is fine, if others agree, let's put it in.
 * Transcendental Meditation is reported to be the most widely researched technique of meditation.(ref)-- K bob chat 21:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the source, and apologize for seeming to be difficult. If this is referenced by the source without extrapolation, I'm fine with it. We have a contentious article here, and if its not right, now or later we'll have to deal with it. I'm concerned about the "chances are" comment. If a majority of editors are OK with this, I'll go along with it. I suggest though we not rush into this, and give the other editors active on this article time to  respond . (olive (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Patience is a virtue. :-) -- K bob chat 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference was cited above several days earlier in this discussion. Here it is again (reference: Murphy M, Donovan S, Taylor E. The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation: A review of Contemporary Research with a Comprehensive Bibliography 1931-1996. Sausalito, California: Institute of Noetic Sciences; 1997). One of the several editors that have been discussing this approved the general idea and asked that we not take weeks to come up with a sentence. I agree that these discussions seem to go on and on without much action being taken. Should we set a time limit? Or a number on how many editors need to approve? ChemistryProf (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We could also consider this quote from Herbert Benson's book: "Transcendental Meditation, one of the most widely practiced forms of meditation". for the lede or some other place in the article as needed. -- K bob chat 16:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this could be used. Can we do better? --BwB (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is another quote we could take a few words from:
 * “Transcendental Meditation (TM), a method exported from India’s Himalayas by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1957, is the most thoroughly researched form of meditation. To date, more than five hundred studies have been done, including $20 million worth of major ongoing investigations on blood pressure funded by the NIH.” -- — Kbob • Talk  • 19:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks better to me for a lede since the date is 2008.(olive (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Well, this latest suggestion SOUNDS good, but the scientist in me steps in and says "Where are these authors getting their numbers?" Other sources I have read give quite different numbers. I'm extremely doubtful that $20 million in research on the TM technique and hypertension was going on at any one time. On the other hand, the reference I cited was a comprehensive bibliography, meaning the articles they counted were collected from a very wide range of sources and covered all kinds of meditation. In terms of reliability, it is head and shoulders above the later reference. But if I am outvoted here, we could probably cite this source (which, by the way, is said to be copyrighted in 2008 in one place and 2007 in another). ChemistryProf (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede should be an introduction and summary with good references. Details then follow in the body of the article. With that in mind I would suggest we consider adding just this much: Then we can discuss NIH, 600 studies etc in the body of the article as needed.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * “Transcendental Meditation (TM) is the most thoroughly researched form of meditation.


 * This seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. --BwB (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The following revision of the lede is an improvement over the current one because the second sentence is still focused on the main topic of the article, the Transcendental Meditation technique (not really the case with the current second sentence), and it gives a hint of what a large portion of the article is about, namely the research, without getting into details. The reference I prefer is the comprehensive bibliography of all meditation research between 1931 and 1996. The other two references suggested do not reveal the source of their conclusion that this is the most researched technique of meditation. Perhaps in both cases they had seen the bibliography, but neither one cited it. So I say let’s go with the original reference that spells out exactly how the authors got the information to support that conclusion. So, here is how the new lede would read. “The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM technique, is a form of mantra meditation introduced worldwide in 1957 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917-2008).[1] It is reported to be the most widely researched technique of meditation.(ref) The terms "Transcendental Meditation" and "TM" are servicemarks owned by Maharishi Foundation Ltd., a UK non-profit organization[3] and licensed to the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation U.S.A., also a non-profit organization. [4] ” ChemistryProf (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Chem... I think your sentence is good. I would cite all three references, and in doing so cover all bases in terms of the accuracy per Wikipedia of the sentence. Wikipedia has no limit on references.(olive (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

I also like the sentence Chem has suggested and have added it to the article along with the two reliable sources cited earlier in this thread that support the statement that TM is reported to be the most widely practiced and researched form of meditation. Editors are, of course, free to fine tune the new addition as needed and/or continue to discuss this sentence here if necessary.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)